We are heading for a global ecological disaster... how will growth fix this? This guy is so mislead and believes in false economy... not all aspects of globalization are great. African nations have many times been hit by removing trade barriers...
This looks as an outdated video : it is not addressing the concept of growth in a finite world. Growth cannot go on for ever, as the physical resources are running out. (See peak oil, etc). Read Tim Jackson's Prosperity without growth.
I addition, the US is far from a role model at all: the education system, healthcare, life expectancy statistics do not show very good results. Even Cuba has a higher life expectancy. And when it comes to education you are better off choosing Netherlands.
This is very true and I'm sad to see so many showing hate to the market economy. It means that our schools around the world over doesn't teach our children/students anything about economy if they don't apply for an engineering or economic university/college education.
Search for "How an economy works" if you really want to know what makes the free market souch an powerfull tool for the people.
The fallacy of perpetual market growth is based upon capitalizing the ever more expending slavery of the third world and branding any kind of human interpersonal interaction as a potential monetry trasnaction.
Today wee have peoepl giving advices for money, others selling us bottled water and still others promoting one world government, one world army, one world court and one world taxation system under one world currency.
It is sad to see TED transforming to be the voice of the New World Order.
the markets built to control you its a rigged game we have to think higher than slave labor, taxes, bailouts, and rigged trading markets think higher than the matrix you are in people
I have to say this guy is a global capitalist first class.Very sad that people listen to this crap!Those statistics say nothing.How many people of Africa,India & China present those statistics? 1 percent? What about the corruption & pollution?
Liberal capitalism attracts fascism, gives you the illusion of democracy, It doesn't work at all. Promotes financial globalization, corporation monopoly, high level of corruption, greed, individualism, poverty...etc.
Don't be addicted to stupidity, just THINK CLEARLY AND WISELY
You may say whatever you like. Yet your litanies are not relevant to the video nor to TED, and thus was of no interest.
What would you think if someone was posting about "The New world order", "Jesus Our Savior", "2012" or "The Judgment Day" in the comment section of a TED's video about anything BUT the New world order, Jesus 2012 etc. ?
Why are you using the term "I". It's like you're speaking as an individual, and claiming your individual right to free speech.. I thought Individualism was bad?
The worst assaults on humankind are veiled in self-righteous utterances such as the spew emitting from this salesman's pie-hole.
Problem-reaction-solution...
'ooh look at our shiny solution: globalization! never mind that more and more wealth and resources are funneled from your hands to ours, and that we control all of you with terror, disease and poverty. just never you mind that we are profiting from providing the 'solutions' to those horrible things we, ourselves engineered.'
honestly, i think that any optimism we could have at this point would be that these people will all be capped so that technology could be placed in real service to humanity - by independent scientists. imagine free energy (it exists)... imagine no disease (it could happen)...imagine everyone on the planet free and prosperous with enough to eat... imagine systems of law that were instruments of real justice and not instruments of profiteering criminals... that'll be a great time to live in.
totally! I hear that my brotha...and so the 4th wall of the wild boar trap commences descending...fortunately I saw the first one coming down and am on the outside eating my own damned corn...lol
African People's Solidarity Committee: White people in the U.S., Belgium, Israel and Britain are wealthy from the multi-billion dollar diamond industry. In Africa where most of the worlds best diamonds come from, people labor under hideous conditions, in near starvation because Africas wealth goes to white people in Europe and North America. In Sierra Leone and West Africa, diamond workers make about 30 cents a day. There is no electricity, no water purification and very little food.
Africa he says most "resistant" to growth? What, he kiddin? People were resistant to growth? He blaming the people living in poverty for lack of growth? ahhh
Why so quick to dismiss Alex's talk? Is not TED about being an open forum for the exchange of ideas? Isn't a contrarian view worthwhile? Many comments here suggest that unpopular views should be silenced and marginalized. It seems to me that neither communisim, nor socialism, nor mercantilism/corporatism, nor consumerism have worked all that well. Wouldn't it be worth looking at freedom and actual free trade to see if they offer clues as to why the other systems have failed so spectacularly?
I found this talk's insights banal as well as fanciful. Some topics either left out or mentioned in passing: The unprecedented environmental destruction we have wreaked in the last 150 years, which continues on; Earth's astounding overpopulation; and, most strikingly, the fact that new ideas have both positive and negative effects. I'd like to see Mr. Tabarrok plug those numbers into his pipe dream of a presentation and watch the bubble burst. P.S. Oil is not "something of a finite resource."
Malthus was thoroughly debunked. Therefore you are thoroughly debunked. The only places in the world with "environmental destruction" and "overpopulation" are places with common property and high trade barriers. Read some Julian Simon. It'll do you some good.
Oh, good. I'm glad I can sit back and watch as "Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards." I'm going to look into the reasoning behind Simon's statement: "We now have in our hands—really, in our libraries—the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years." (Simon along The State of Humanity: Steadily Improving 1995. I'll have what he's having.
Mockery is not critical thinking. He was proved right in his arguments (like yours) against Ehrlich. It is you who have drunk the doomsayer's kool-aid. If you look at the data, the US is cleaner and has more forestland than any time in history. We have peaked in our Environmental Kuznets Curve (in about 1980). China and India will follow if they get wealthy enough. But you're welcome to your dogma. (Not sure about seven billion years -- sounds like it may have been taken out of context).
"the US is cleaner"... more forestland in history"
Whose data are you referring to? The 'forest land' is being sold off to the UN (and re-classified as 'limited use') by the thousands of acres to leverage debt. Not to protect it. Globalization is ruin. Of people, of ecosystems. As long as technology is guided by profiteers, and not by the betterment of humanity it will be ruin.
This guy is a total crack pot! Globalization is the new name for stinking British free trade. Look at India's and China's economies after enduring the destruction brought on by so- called 'free trade'. The only thing free, was the rampant looting and under development of any region The British East India Company set foot. It was foolish policies like Globalization and unregulated trade that has put the world into the present crisis; to continue in this manner means our own destruction.
I mean nothing personal against the good people of the UK. My displeasure stems from the rapacious policies of the still existing financial oligarchy that is the Anglo/ Dutch/ Saudi Empire (est. 1763).
Drug companies are not interested in cures, for that would end their income streams. They develope treatments, which is where the money is, long term. Globalisation is mostly a way for capital to extend monoplies. For the third world to be as wealthy as the US would require the resources of 120 Earth like planets.
Human creativity / inventions is NOT ultimately motivated by money!
There is an old saying: NECESSITY IS
THE MOTHER OF INVENTIONS!
If this wasn't true, the wheel wouldnt have been invented!!
For example, I am in favor of large drug companies making a REASONABLE PROFIT. But when they make excessive money at the expense of someone dying, because they can't afford to buy the medicine -- well, then it becomes a moral issue.
CORPORATE discovery / inventions IS PURELY motivated by money & profit / greed - which is IMMORAL.
SHARING inventions for the BENEFIT of ALL mankind & still make a
REASONABLE NOT EXCESSIVE PROFIT should be the aim of all good corporations.However, majority of big global corporations will find a cure for a global disease, but often won't sell that cure to a poor country at an affordable price - so the very poor countries cant afford enough for all their people, or cant buy it at all!
Why are there so many comments about "greedy" corporations? Look at all the great innovations and break-through from COMMUNISTIC nations. Right - nothing!
Rewards are what drives innovations. If we just have a socialistic approach people would just be bored and drunk and not looking to create the next big thing
I'm going to stop short of calling you a complete idiot. People will invent and innovate no matter the circumstances. If you actually think that Communisim and incentives such as money are the only factors that inhibit or drive inovation(respectivley), then you are plainly wrong.
Chindro2828 might stop short of calling you a complete idiot, But I wont...YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!
You said: innovations and break-through from COMMUNISTIC nations. Right - nothing!
Heres a fact for you to stick up your arse..With more than 7,000 scientists dedicated to researching new drugs, Cuba has one of the most sophisticated biotech industries in the developing world. Last year (2008) the country earned $350 million from exporting 180 different medicines!
Sanctimonious people like you have no idea how the real world works. Do you understand the cost and risk involved in research and development be it a drug or product? Unless there is a potential reward people will not be risking billions of dollars in R&D. Face it - you do not either. Would you be willing to spend have your paycheck or more to spend on R&D and NOT expect a reward if the R&D was successful? Give me a break.
raslghul, having 'no idea about who the world works'.. as analysis and thought advances over the years people will question more and more the current forces of monetization and what counts as value -what is the point in not modernizing the definition of money and profit to encompass happiness, liberty and equality, or human rights? money is re-defined every time it is spent on something new. it only takes imagination and analysis to see 'how the world works' and how it can improve.
I understand that TED is talking about the globalisation & sharing of scientific R&D (whether its for medical or technological advancement)...But he forgets that those leaders of global corporations will always want to selfishly monopolise any R&D advancements for their own greedy profits.
Thomas Jefferson was a truly wise man, and a wise man cannot be influenced or tempted by the greedy - but wise men are rare...
However, the foolish & ignorant are many - thats why the greedy win!
Cannot we work towards a post-scarcity world instead?
...SURE we can work towards a post-scarcity world, BUT 1st we the people / masses will have to change the thinking of the global corporate leaders and political leaders...ONLY THEN will your plea have any hope of becoming a reality for us all!
Question is: HOW DO WE MAKE THE CORPORATIONS & POLITICIANS LESS FEARFUL OF SHARING WHAT ESSENTIALLY BELONGS TO US ALL EQUALLY!
i suppose we-the-people could call for the weakening of intellectual property laws.
also, we could encourage/support technological efforts or products that empower the individual or society as a whole, and discourage scarcity.
Self-assembler projects such as RepRap and Fab@Home seem interesting. It's essentially an automated factory that can build (among other things) other factories, thereby making factories and the products they produce incredibly prolific.
For products like medicine or intellectual property, with low marginal production cost, there's esentially 2 ways of encouraging proliferation without damaging incentives to production:
1) De-globalise economies and impose tarifs. This would allow for example to charge rich countries more for medicine, and charge poor countries almost nothing.
2) Shift towards a R&D economy with more government spending (grants, tax deductions etc) whilst lowering the extent of intellectual property laws.
yes, spread the light. . . however, to me that reads about taking the workd out of living and sharing all the ideas we have been gifted with, with every one without exception. The opening statement of wow, we'll be able to sell more cancer drugs, like sorry, it time to clean up our act, clear the air and eat healthy food, that will be the cure for cancer. not drugs.
Mainly expressing welfare in terms of (growth in) GDP is, in these days of increasing knowledge behind financial, energy, resource crisis seems at least somewhat myopic and obsolete. Growth in equality, opportunities for more people, sustainable energy - but decrease in externalities seem better indicators.
well i dont wanna be arrogant but this idea has been ALWAYS obvious to me..... If every country is prosperous the WHOLE world will benefit... In our time greediness is our enemy.
AMERICANS: DON'T FEAR CHINA'S rapid growth! it will benefit the WHOLE world, including you
not a very good talk. his argument is not compelling. ONE IDEA. ONE WORLD. ONE MARKET. he should have explained his reasoning a little better. I don't know, clearly, what he means by that. he kept talk about more than one idea being shared, so where does the one idea come from, and what is the one market?
All he is doing here is looking for evidence for globalisation being positive. This is similar to the religious looking for proof of god; which they find, but not looking to try to disprove god. It is a one sided argument.
He advocates using the same capitalist system which caused global warming to "feed the world with ideas" from incentives. What he really means is; we need more freedom, freedom = free energy, free energy = inventions, benefits etc.
This fucking retard contradicts himself at every turn. First he states that communism was part of a cataclysmic turn of events in the first half of the 20th century, and then he lauds China, A FUCKING COMMUNIST, SLAVE LABOR nation for its unprecedented 'growth' in the last two decades. ALL WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD DIE.
not trying to be polarizing here, but it has to be said; I hope many who watch this realize that this is the essence of "liberal" thinking, not the propaganda shit that so many like to spread...
When American television talks about "Liberals", they generally mean SOCIAL Liberals.
Meaning a society with more social freedoms.
It is very important people understand this.
The Republican party is a marriage between Social Conservatism and Economic Libertarianism.
When you talk about Liberals - you must be specific as to what you mean. Because technically the Republican Party is full of Liberals (of a certain type).
Being liberal is wanting freedom, however everyone approaches it in different ways; Nazism, socialism, capitalism. But all these ideas have disadvantages; even democracy. I mean, whoever thought that the public would know whats best? What we have is 4 year dictatorships from a choice between two similarly corrupt parties, Obama is just packaging to preserve the status quo of the rich.
It appears to me as though anarchism is the purest form of freedom, its only by wanting to increase your freedom; by taking it from others, that these systems are created.
I agree with you in principle, but I would hasten to add that most Republican 'politicians' are every bit as big brother/big government as Obama. Bush grew the size of the government. So while it is true that in theory, Republicans tend to favor economic freedom and social restriction, in practice they do not favor any freedom at all. Democrats in theory favor social freedom and economic restriction, yet they are often the first in line to censor politically incorrect speed, as a for instance.
Libertarianism favors both social freedom and economic freedom. That does NOT mean that libertarians have much love for the current supposed 'free market', which frankly has very little to do with a real free market. What the pundits and politicians refer to as the free market is in fact far closer to fascism. And those who have never bothered to actually study economics, simply assume that what they say is the truth.
People naturally detest this fascism but having believed the propaganda where the fascism is relabeled as free market, believe that they hate the free market. A true free market would be a VERY different thing than anything any of you have known. It would NOT be the dog eat dog, every man for himself anarchy, that other propagandists like to shill. Don't just believe me, do your reading, learn for yourself, see through people's propaganda. Freedom works. Don't believe the big brother apologists.
according to the comments here, keynesian economic thinking is alive and well way outside of government and corporations. People's nationalistic/patriotic idiocy turns them to advocate fair-trade, they believe that the state can actually solve problems and that being able to trade without a third party siphoning resources is somehow evil.
everyone needs to read rothbard+hayek so that they can stop enforcing their views of what is right onto others.STOP using violence on eachother, it wont solve anything... in fact, it will make things worse.
Like a typical NeoCon - this guy refuses to acknowledge the problems of free-trade (not fair-trade) globalisation, such as the devaluation of labour and thus decrease in worker's wages, rights, and powers.
If i wanted to listen to delusional self-congratulatory NeoCons i'd just tune into Fox news.
Still - i have learned to appreciate their optimism. And he wins points for momentarily mentioning futurist Raymond Kurzweil at 10:45
what is the value of this talk? - all he does is prop up convention "wisdom" - this is not what TED should be about - there is so much to talk about re: capitalism, economics, growth - really strange to see new world order bigged up on this site - get richard florida if you want to talk about growth and creativity
your ignorant people hate capitalism? what do u want communism? survival of the fittest is the circle of life your just pissed off your not faster than the curb ball catch up
globalization.....what are the pros and cons!? think of it......you'll see that it wasn't about destroying walls. its about MONEY! pro=free culture and ideas spread. con=money and capitalism
Trade and Globalization!?!?! WTF is this guy talking about... who invited this guy true why the fuck is his talking about wealth and making money? what a prick
Some form of an energy accounting system HAS to be established if we want to live sustainably. That takes ecological economics and thermoeconomics in its system. I HATE this STUPID U.N. PROGRESSIVE bullshit you guys pull as answers.You guys are fucking MORONS You obviously didn't learn the first fucking time of making a monetary system and you want to make ANOTHER? You guys are no Different than Conservative, end the fed MORONS. At least they understand the concept of constant debt=destruction.
"One idea, One World, One Market"....One government, one currency, one choice - obey or perish.
With over 7 billion people alive today and a population continuing to explode we should all be looking forward to China and India becoming as wealthy as the U.S.. Since the U.S. currently consumes about 48% of the world's resources at over 300 million people, let's do the math when China (over 1 billion) and India get there.
Not true, population growth is declining around the world. Its only growing in the POORIST arias in the world.
Developing new technologies is the way to get sustainable, not by, A) keeping people impoverished, or B) Massively reducing the world population (which you seem to be insinuating)
Its not wealth that's unsationable, but poverty. THE path towards a peaceful sustainable future is technology and trade.
People like you, and there are an awful lot of you, think "technology" will save us from ourselves. We, as a species collectively, do not posses the maturity to do the responsible thing. We can have all the fancy tech in the wildest imaginings, but without the compassion, cooperation, and common sense needed to proceed safely, we are fucked. If the shit hits the fan you can always dig for grubs to eat with your I-Pod:)
The future you envision is not sustainable, period.
To further clarify: There is nothing wrong with being poor. If we can ensure the basics: clean water, decent health care, and good food for the poorest nations through tech innovation, that's all that's needed. The problem will be that emerging economies will have a citizenry who will always want more, like the western appetite. If every Chinese and Indian citizen wants to drive and buy disposable shit, how can that be sustained? There is dignity in being poor, but gluttony is never dignified.
Go tell a poor person that they're dignified in their inability to feed all their children. Go tell them that letting them live in a home with running water and electricity is just starting them on the path to gluttony.
Educating people is bad for the world because it's gluttonous? Reading what you write I get the feeling you've never seen poverty up close, and if you have I can't help but wonder at your lack of compassion.
"Reading what you write..." - You obviously didn't read what I wrote closely at all. Try re-reading it, and probably, with a response from you like this, re-read it again. I've lived all over the world and among many poor. They are the happiest people on this planet from not having a wanting desire for 'things'. I have more compassion in my little pinkie, than a whole lotta people walking around today posses in their whole.
I wish for you that you could see my point of this unsustainable future.
Okay. I concede this is not a simple issue. I also believe you're doing your best to promote what you think is best.
I disagree with the philosophical view that it is ever reasonable for people who have access to wealth and technology to deny it to others for their own good. It comes down to the question of autonomy vs. paternalism. Should they be allowed to decide for themselves?
With current technology universal wealth is unsustainable. Hopefully this will change; it's spread is inevitable.
I NEVER suggested that emerging economies should be denied their growth. By who's authority could that even be implemented? These countries will grow in wealth and that's that. My one hope is that they will be more mature than the west and implement their own restriction. In Vietnam the auto import tax is 100%, so there's not many cars about. But emissions from power plants are the greater issue as the demand increases exponentially. Tech will only ease the unsustainable future we will suffer.
Jasonlajoie, how you can expect people to voluntarily restrict themselves - in ways that YOU YOURSELF have clearly chosen not to: You are using a computer!
Shouldn't you be in a grass hut somewhere - enjoying your GLORIOUS death from Malaria?
What kindof life do you recommend?
note: although i am disagreeing with you, i am not a free market fundamentalist, i'm more a futurist. Technology has trumpted incomming disaster plenty of times before (example: Green Revolution), why not again?
Why do people insist on replying to my comments with grand assertions of what I believe? Using a computer has little to do with an unsustainable future, quite the opposite. It's a miracle in terms of information and connectedness. A true triumph of tech.
A grass hut is not a bad idea though, if only I lived in an accommodating climate for one, oh wait, I probably soon will be without even having to move. In a previous comment I offered ensuring health care for all, clean water, electricity, ect.
To clarify: I don't "expect people to voluntarily restrict themselves". I stated that it was my "hope", but I know human nature all too well and there will be little restriction until it's too late. Please read comments a bit more carefully before sending off an erroneous reply.
p.s. I don't see how any "Green Revolution" has trumped any incoming disasters, let alone plenty of times. You are yet another one of the many who believes technology will save us from ourselves. I wish you were right.
You want a world with universal health care, clean water for all, electricity, free education, and you want that world in a position to be able to manufacture computers and for them to be affordable for all. Such a world is NOT a poor world, quite the contrary, it takes a rather robust economy to support those things. And if all energy came from clean renewables, and cars were 100% recyclable electrics, why shouldn't they have cars too?
A world of poverty will see continued population growth resulting in more environmental encroachment, a world of war and disease that ultimately will destroy us all. Whereas a wealthy world would have a slowly shrinking population and can afford to pay the costs of a sustainable future.
I'm really getting tired of people replying to me with grand assertions. I don't want universal health care, just affordable medicines and supplies, (when having to clarify for some other person I stated "health care for all") I never mentioned free education or education at all, and I never mentioned computers being affordable for all. How can you read someone's comments and get it all so wrong? Please don't reply to me anymore if you're incapable of understanding clearly that which you read.
You're a moron to think that.....The price system is designed to grow or else....We are NOT living sustainable and the system this moron ted is describing is bullshit. THE path towards a sustainable future IS technology....NOT TRADE....The money system is inadequate and depends on growth of debt and resources....Keynes, Friedman and other RESPECTED economist acknowledged WE are FUCKED if we don't figure something different to a MONEY SYSTEM
First, I don't know how you could possibly interpret anything Milton Friedman ever said as supporting your protectionist views.
Second, If we all close our selves off to the rest of the world and don't trade, everything will get worse for everyone. The people who suffer the worst from lack of access to markets are the poor in the third world.
Access to markets has NEVER IN HISTORY made a nation poorer, and every example of a nation getting out of poverty displays grater access to trade.
Perhaps when every country becomes 'wealthy' the need for free market will cease, and the same apple will be the same price in all shops around the world.
Free markets only work when information is also free (ie: never).
But Capitalism creates industries dedicated to keeping consumers AWAY from the information they need. Industries such as Marketing and Public Relations. Which ultimately concentrates power in the hands of the few elite, and the system never works fairly.
The ideology of Free-Market-Fundamentalism was destroyed by Joseph Stiglitz with his 2001 Nobel Prize winning work highlighting "Information Asymmetry" in free markets.
I've seen many comments here which criticize this man's use of capitalism as an explanation for the improvement in the quality of life of people all around the world. Would you have a computer without international trade? Where would China and India be right now without it? The largest advances in access to clean drinking watter and medicine around the world have been driven by markets, not by charities or even by governments. Their are bad things about capitalism but please acknowledge the good
the only thing that grows without ceasing is cancer. The earth is a closed system with regard to resources and real estate- keep growing and things will run out, a simple mathematical certainty.
yes but capitalism allows for the continual advancement in technology and the development of new resources in order to bypass limitations---we'll have to adapt...go out to space perhaps for more resources, but yes there should be some better planning so we don't end up falling off a cliff once the resources are gone--but i think the world is beginning to listen w/ respect to the limited supply of fossil fuels and the development of a cleaner renewable energy economy
Growth doesn't mean population growth. In fact the fastest population growth today is associated with the least developed regions of the world. economic advancement, which requires trade, and improving peoples quality of life is not antithetical to sustainability.
I agree with this ted talk-- there are some good reasons to be optimistic about the world's economic future. Globalization has allowed for the fastest and biggest movement of people out of poverty then ever before. People tend to talk about third world debt, western reliance post colonization, and how the third world has been victimized by the IMF & World Bank etc, but this narrow viewpoint fails to acknowledge the good that globalization has created.
I'm not saying that the developed world haven't done injustice to less developed countries, they have- and these things should be investigated so they don't happen again. But globalization and capitalism have done more good than bad. But perhaps a more efficient and just way would be somewhere between socialism and capitalism (closer to capitalism side)- like European countries. Universal health-care, nutrition and free education for all should be the right of every human being.
It botheres me a little that the song was the usual, "growth, growth, growth. Growth
is THE best thing nomatter .."
Population growth and the environmental/ressource stress resulting from that got touched with what, 3 words? I know it's not too popular a subject, but since Attenborough's signing up to the choir of "this is going to kill us" it ought to get more attention at a talk like this. Growth, growth, growth ... gees! Not all growth is a blessing you know, Mr. Tabarrok.
Yes. Globalization is one of the contributing factors of global warming and the widening gap between rich countries and poor countries. He is just giving a nice simplified version of how the world works, but in reality, your $40 DVD player has a higher cost than you think. Imported goods take away from potential goods manufactured and sold within individual countries. Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart, the High cost of low prices".
all in all globalization is the most fair thing the world can do. Yes it puts a burden on less developed countries to find the financial means to make it in a capitalistic society for populations that rely predominantly on farming and subsistence, but preventing the opening up of markets and foreign investments will make them ever more reliant on developed nations in the future. With improvements in farming technology, making a life out of farming alone will not be enough. Look at US development
Yes. Globalization is one of the contributing factors of global warming and the widening gap between rich countries and poor countries. He is just giving a nice simplified version of how the world works, but in reality, your $40 DVD player has a higher cost than you think. Imported goods take away from potential goods manufactured and sold within individual countries. Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart, the High cost of low prices". Localization needs to be brought back to recover the economy.
Ideas are allowed to flourish in a free society and free market capitalism is the engine. Freedom and incentives to think and do fosters progress. Unfortunately with the encouragement of American corporations to leave the U.S., the abandonment of the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land, both freedom and the engine have left this country.
Thomas Jefferson learned the hard way. We must first preserve the only bastion of freedom in a world dominated by suppressive governments.
More one world government propaganda. He also forgot to mention that the drug companies have politicians in their pockets so that natural cures without side effects are made illegal. This was sick.
He missed a major fact in his representation of GDP growth: he account for inflation. If GDP growth is 4% and inflation is 3.5%, then your GDP only really grew 0.5%. The DOLLAR VALUE went up 4% because there was 0.5% growth and dollars that are worth less so it takes an additional 3.5% more of them.
There's two different versions of GDP when they calculate macroeconomic health of a nation.
Nominal GDP is almost never used, as it has the same problem that you're pointing out. That type of GDP calculation is used typically more on the microeconomic scale (for individuals and corporations).
Real GDP is the measurement that you typically see. It's the one that compensates for inflation, so clearly it's the one that people would use, as it is a more valuable measurement.
"Africa has been resistant to growth" - this tiny sentence alone contains three assumptions that bother me: 1 - Assuming that "Africa" is an undifferentiated geographical entity, 2 - Assuming that all "Africans" have all been actively resisting the climb out of poverty and 3 - Assuming that growth is even a sustainable concept to begin with. He has some good ideas, but he needs to watch his language.
To aworkinregress: The speaker specifically said, and his graphics were labelled, "Sub-Saharan Africa", when referring to the poor growth of the last 50 years. This is a clear and definable region.
Your three concerns about "Africa" are vague and have their own assumptions (all Africans resisting the climb?).
Don't be so sensitive, worry less about some people being offended, and seriously look at the exceptionally poor social, political, and economic performance of sub-saharan Africa.
I don't know where to start with this man. He is wrong on so many things that he simply need to go beck to school but a new school of today relevance and today's problems. So much wrong assumptions simply unbelievable. GDP... wrong measure and all the rest. Go back to reality mate.
yeah elementary but i like where he's going, fear leads to hate, which leads to conflict. We can increase our growth by making use of all the minds and resources all over the world. The world may be too small for many nations but it is certainly not too small if we share.
This is a very myopic view of events. He fails to mention that along with the rise of communist nations the US was enforcing its modern empire, leaving scores of nations in debt slavery.
I feel he fails to consider the fact that we have limited resources in this world of ours. We can create all the imaginary fiat that we want but we can't create unlimited raw materials or food out of thin air.
Check out Robert Ballard's TED talk. Our oceans cover 75%+ of our planet, and the resources it covers are virtually untapped.
Our resources are not infinite, but they are a lot more plentiful than we tend to think. The problem is we don't have the technology yet to extract them in an economical fashion. We need a real focus on oceanic exploration and development - which can hopefully tide us over until the colonization of space becomes a reality.
funny...one world government, one monetary stytem, whatever. He is talking to the TV crowd used to listeniing to stuff that doesn't make any sense. lol
GDP based on inflated fiat currencies...so what. Nothing to do with real economic growth.
hop scotch...what is this guy's ppoint...to comfort the sheeple?
In the USA a diagnosis of cancer is like a death nell and you are "given" x number of months to live. It seems that many (MDs, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, etc) profit from this diagnossis but generally not the person who has the cancer.
In Germany cancer is a big deal but it is curable. I am thinking of, for example, the Leonardis Klinik in Bavaria. but that place is not unique in Germany as far as the attitude and the treatment of cancers.
And Germany is nnot unique in the world. There are also medical practices in Japan that I know of that have a significant sucess rate at curing cancer.
I can see from my comments here just the other day that I was quite hostile towrd twhat the speaker was sayhing and in my excitement I made lots of typos and out of the blue jabs.
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days nw uv startd readn this dnt stp this is so scary snd ths ovr 2 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 nd ur crush's name will appea
I thought he did a good job. It was easier to understand because of the time he took to speak and explain his ideas instead of spitting out quick quips.
I don't think he meant it as a one world market like a command economy, but more of a free trade market, with no tariffs, or embargos. One world market, as everyone being able to freely trade with each other, with no governmental interference at any point in the transaction.
The problem with one world thinking is it limits ideas and creativity as we move closer to a mono culture..
I feel a certain segregation must exist as well as periodic osmosis or sharing of ideas. Taking problems, working in separate groups, then comparing solutions and then evolving them again and so on... So that many groups can share and compete with many ideas.
There might be some truth that we might become a "mono culture" in the future, but I doubt that it will limit ideas and I doubt that we will fully assimilate to one homogenous culture. There are no trade barriers between the U.S's 50 states, yet the cultures of each region remain diverse with their own values and traditions. There is also great diversity of ideas in our university system, and as long as we resist restricting free speech and the spread of ideas, that will continue.
30 years ago this country was a 'mono culture' with regional 'flavors'.
You can't really define regional differences as culture, as other cultures have regional flavors within them.
The contrast of Culture i describe in all aspects of life is what makes it so important in discovering and inspiring differing solutions or inspirations toward commonly shared or global problems.
Your consciousness is immersed in your culture without similarity to another mind a world and culture away.
The drug companies haven't come up with a cure for anything since polio in the 30's.....Even with 1000's of times as many doctors working together than back then they cant cure anything!! Its more profitable to just treat it over and over and over....
..logic says we should all just share the tech, but that doesn't work out as great as it sounds
htedrom 3 weeks ago
problem is when they light their candle off yours, then snuff your candle. this facile j
htedrom 3 weeks ago
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is he referring to when he says Kurzweilian terms??
arobwyo 3 weeks ago
At first, I get encouraged by all the exciting TED talks. But then I look at the comments...
aydarsh 5 months ago
88 people don't understand economics.
vNorilor 9 months ago
We are heading for a global ecological disaster... how will growth fix this? This guy is so mislead and believes in false economy... not all aspects of globalization are great. African nations have many times been hit by removing trade barriers...
infinitehumanstupid 1 year ago
This looks as an outdated video : it is not addressing the concept of growth in a finite world. Growth cannot go on for ever, as the physical resources are running out. (See peak oil, etc). Read Tim Jackson's Prosperity without growth.
I addition, the US is far from a role model at all: the education system, healthcare, life expectancy statistics do not show very good results. Even Cuba has a higher life expectancy. And when it comes to education you are better off choosing Netherlands.
MultiMarou 1 year ago
@MultiMarou Peak oil hysteria is ridiculous. People within that cranky movement have made incorrect predictions over and over again.
vNorilor 9 months ago
This is very true and I'm sad to see so many showing hate to the market economy. It means that our schools around the world over doesn't teach our children/students anything about economy if they don't apply for an engineering or economic university/college education.
Search for "How an economy works" if you really want to know what makes the free market souch an powerfull tool for the people.
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
Social cooperation ftw! Fuck nationalism and socialism.
atrickpay11 2 years ago 15
The fallacy of perpetual market growth is based upon capitalizing the ever more expending slavery of the third world and branding any kind of human interpersonal interaction as a potential monetry trasnaction.
Today wee have peoepl giving advices for money, others selling us bottled water and still others promoting one world government, one world army, one world court and one world taxation system under one world currency.
It is sad to see TED transforming to be the voice of the New World Order.
superdiza 2 years ago
the markets built to control you its a rigged game we have to think higher than slave labor, taxes, bailouts, and rigged trading markets think higher than the matrix you are in people
casinohijack 2 years ago
I have to say this guy is a global capitalist first class.Very sad that people listen to this crap!Those statistics say nothing.How many people of Africa,India & China present those statistics? 1 percent? What about the corruption & pollution?
Skanksteady 2 years ago
@Skanksteady He's my professor..
Jitters10 1 year ago
@Skanksteady lmao you sound like a creationist
mana2432 1 year ago
Liberal capitalism attracts fascism, gives you the illusion of democracy, It doesn't work at all. Promotes financial globalization, corporation monopoly, high level of corruption, greed, individualism, poverty...etc.
Don't be addicted to stupidity, just THINK CLEARLY AND WISELY
resourcebasedeconomY 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stop preaching, your stuff is of no interest.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
I say whatever i want, when i want and where i want, It's called freedom of speech. You should know that!!
Your comment has no interest.
resourcebasedeconomY 2 years ago
You may say whatever you like. Yet your litanies are not relevant to the video nor to TED, and thus was of no interest.
What would you think if someone was posting about "The New world order", "Jesus Our Savior", "2012" or "The Judgment Day" in the comment section of a TED's video about anything BUT the New world order, Jesus 2012 etc. ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@resourcebasedeconomY
"I say whatever i want,"
Why are you using the term "I". It's like you're speaking as an individual, and claiming your individual right to free speech.. I thought Individualism was bad?
TheCapitalistdog 8 months ago 6
@resourcebasedeconomY
funny how you throw in individualism like it's a bad thing.
But alas, you are a zeitgeister and probably don't grasp basic economics.
TheCapitalistdog 8 months ago 2
Totally.
The worst assaults on humankind are veiled in self-righteous utterances such as the spew emitting from this salesman's pie-hole.
Problem-reaction-solution...
'ooh look at our shiny solution: globalization! never mind that more and more wealth and resources are funneled from your hands to ours, and that we control all of you with terror, disease and poverty. just never you mind that we are profiting from providing the 'solutions' to those horrible things we, ourselves engineered.'
immayhem 2 years ago
honestly, i think that any optimism we could have at this point would be that these people will all be capped so that technology could be placed in real service to humanity - by independent scientists. imagine free energy (it exists)... imagine no disease (it could happen)...imagine everyone on the planet free and prosperous with enough to eat... imagine systems of law that were instruments of real justice and not instruments of profiteering criminals... that'll be a great time to live in.
immayhem 2 years ago
totally! I hear that my brotha...and so the 4th wall of the wild boar trap commences descending...fortunately I saw the first one coming down and am on the outside eating my own damned corn...lol
3rdwitness 2 years ago
African People's Solidarity Committee: White people in the U.S., Belgium, Israel and Britain are wealthy from the multi-billion dollar diamond industry. In Africa where most of the worlds best diamonds come from, people labor under hideous conditions, in near starvation because Africas wealth goes to white people in Europe and North America. In Sierra Leone and West Africa, diamond workers make about 30 cents a day. There is no electricity, no water purification and very little food.
WolfArden44 2 years ago
you forgot oil.
and copper.
and coltan.
and... you name it.
and let's not limit it to white people in those places. russia and china's gettin' theirs too...
immayhem 2 years ago
Africa he says most "resistant" to growth? What, he kiddin? People were resistant to growth? He blaming the people living in poverty for lack of growth? ahhh
WolfArden44 2 years ago
Financial globalization!!
Hey people, wake up, this is brainwash.
resourcebasedeconomY 2 years ago 3
Why so quick to dismiss Alex's talk? Is not TED about being an open forum for the exchange of ideas? Isn't a contrarian view worthwhile? Many comments here suggest that unpopular views should be silenced and marginalized. It seems to me that neither communisim, nor socialism, nor mercantilism/corporatism, nor consumerism have worked all that well. Wouldn't it be worth looking at freedom and actual free trade to see if they offer clues as to why the other systems have failed so spectacularly?
sprjoshman 2 years ago 2
Cool
daniel0827lcs 2 years ago
I found this talk's insights banal as well as fanciful. Some topics either left out or mentioned in passing: The unprecedented environmental destruction we have wreaked in the last 150 years, which continues on; Earth's astounding overpopulation; and, most strikingly, the fact that new ideas have both positive and negative effects. I'd like to see Mr. Tabarrok plug those numbers into his pipe dream of a presentation and watch the bubble burst. P.S. Oil is not "something of a finite resource."
albertoillustration 2 years ago
Malthus was thoroughly debunked. Therefore you are thoroughly debunked. The only places in the world with "environmental destruction" and "overpopulation" are places with common property and high trade barriers. Read some Julian Simon. It'll do you some good.
sidspop 2 years ago
That comment was directed to alberto and gREEN.
sidspop 2 years ago
Oh, good. I'm glad I can sit back and watch as "Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards." I'm going to look into the reasoning behind Simon's statement: "We now have in our hands—really, in our libraries—the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years." (Simon along The State of Humanity: Steadily Improving 1995. I'll have what he's having.
albertoillustration 2 years ago
Mockery is not critical thinking. He was proved right in his arguments (like yours) against Ehrlich. It is you who have drunk the doomsayer's kool-aid. If you look at the data, the US is cleaner and has more forestland than any time in history. We have peaked in our Environmental Kuznets Curve (in about 1980). China and India will follow if they get wealthy enough. But you're welcome to your dogma. (Not sure about seven billion years -- sounds like it may have been taken out of context).
sidspop 2 years ago
"the US is cleaner"... more forestland in history"
Whose data are you referring to? The 'forest land' is being sold off to the UN (and re-classified as 'limited use') by the thousands of acres to leverage debt. Not to protect it. Globalization is ruin. Of people, of ecosystems. As long as technology is guided by profiteers, and not by the betterment of humanity it will be ruin.
immayhem 2 years ago
This guy is a total crack pot! Globalization is the new name for stinking British free trade. Look at India's and China's economies after enduring the destruction brought on by so- called 'free trade'. The only thing free, was the rampant looting and under development of any region The British East India Company set foot. It was foolish policies like Globalization and unregulated trade that has put the world into the present crisis; to continue in this manner means our own destruction.
gREENbUILT21 2 years ago
I mean nothing personal against the good people of the UK. My displeasure stems from the rapacious policies of the still existing financial oligarchy that is the Anglo/ Dutch/ Saudi Empire (est. 1763).
gREENbUILT21 2 years ago
Drug companies are not interested in cures, for that would end their income streams. They develope treatments, which is where the money is, long term. Globalisation is mostly a way for capital to extend monoplies. For the third world to be as wealthy as the US would require the resources of 120 Earth like planets.
gamesbok 2 years ago 3
Human creativity / inventions is NOT ultimately motivated by money!
There is an old saying: NECESSITY IS
THE MOTHER OF INVENTIONS!
If this wasn't true, the wheel wouldnt have been invented!!
For example, I am in favor of large drug companies making a REASONABLE PROFIT. But when they make excessive money at the expense of someone dying, because they can't afford to buy the medicine -- well, then it becomes a moral issue.
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
CORPORATE discovery / inventions IS PURELY motivated by money & profit / greed - which is IMMORAL.
SHARING inventions for the BENEFIT of ALL mankind & still make a
REASONABLE NOT EXCESSIVE PROFIT should be the aim of all good corporations.However, majority of big global corporations will find a cure for a global disease, but often won't sell that cure to a poor country at an affordable price - so the very poor countries cant afford enough for all their people, or cant buy it at all!
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
Why are there so many comments about "greedy" corporations? Look at all the great innovations and break-through from COMMUNISTIC nations. Right - nothing!
Rewards are what drives innovations. If we just have a socialistic approach people would just be bored and drunk and not looking to create the next big thing
rasalghul5555 2 years ago 2
I'm going to stop short of calling you a complete idiot. People will invent and innovate no matter the circumstances. If you actually think that Communisim and incentives such as money are the only factors that inhibit or drive inovation(respectivley), then you are plainly wrong.
Chindro2828 2 years ago
rasalghul5555,
Chindro2828 might stop short of calling you a complete idiot, But I wont...YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!
You said: innovations and break-through from COMMUNISTIC nations. Right - nothing!
Heres a fact for you to stick up your arse..With more than 7,000 scientists dedicated to researching new drugs, Cuba has one of the most sophisticated biotech industries in the developing world. Last year (2008) the country earned $350 million from exporting 180 different medicines!
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
Here's an idea: Instead of having money be our incentive, let's make PEOPLE the incentive.
typhoidorchid 2 years ago
typhoidorchid,
Sanctimonious people like you have no idea how the real world works. Do you understand the cost and risk involved in research and development be it a drug or product? Unless there is a potential reward people will not be risking billions of dollars in R&D. Face it - you do not either. Would you be willing to spend have your paycheck or more to spend on R&D and NOT expect a reward if the R&D was successful? Give me a break.
rasalghul5555 2 years ago
raslghul, having 'no idea about who the world works'.. as analysis and thought advances over the years people will question more and more the current forces of monetization and what counts as value -what is the point in not modernizing the definition of money and profit to encompass happiness, liberty and equality, or human rights? money is re-defined every time it is spent on something new. it only takes imagination and analysis to see 'how the world works' and how it can improve.
tyrannicoystercult 2 years ago
Err correction; I ment Alex Tabarrck (not TED).
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
I understand that TED is talking about the globalisation & sharing of scientific R&D (whether its for medical or technological advancement)...But he forgets that those leaders of global corporations will always want to selfishly monopolise any R&D advancements for their own greedy profits.
Thomas Jefferson was a truly wise man, and a wise man cannot be influenced or tempted by the greedy - but wise men are rare...
However, the foolish & ignorant are many - thats why the greedy win!
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
yes these corporations leverage intellectual-property against the medical well-being of people.
Surely there is a better way, that encourages proliferation of information (and medicines) instead of scarcity.
Capitalism (in particular: monopoly) relies on scarcity. Cannot we work towards a post-scarcity world instead?
roidroid 2 years ago
Roidroid,
Cannot we work towards a post-scarcity world instead?
...SURE we can work towards a post-scarcity world, BUT 1st we the people / masses will have to change the thinking of the global corporate leaders and political leaders...ONLY THEN will your plea have any hope of becoming a reality for us all!
Question is: HOW DO WE MAKE THE CORPORATIONS & POLITICIANS LESS FEARFUL OF SHARING WHAT ESSENTIALLY BELONGS TO US ALL EQUALLY!
Any Ideas?...Anyone??
12235117657598502586 2 years ago
i suppose we-the-people could call for the weakening of intellectual property laws.
also, we could encourage/support technological efforts or products that empower the individual or society as a whole, and discourage scarcity.
Self-assembler projects such as RepRap and Fab@Home seem interesting. It's essentially an automated factory that can build (among other things) other factories, thereby making factories and the products they produce incredibly prolific.
As free as the air we breathe.
roidroid 2 years ago 2
For products like medicine or intellectual property, with low marginal production cost, there's esentially 2 ways of encouraging proliferation without damaging incentives to production:
1) De-globalise economies and impose tarifs. This would allow for example to charge rich countries more for medicine, and charge poor countries almost nothing.
2) Shift towards a R&D economy with more government spending (grants, tax deductions etc) whilst lowering the extent of intellectual property laws.
Paulginz 2 years ago
yes, spread the light. . . however, to me that reads about taking the workd out of living and sharing all the ideas we have been gifted with, with every one without exception. The opening statement of wow, we'll be able to sell more cancer drugs, like sorry, it time to clean up our act, clear the air and eat healthy food, that will be the cure for cancer. not drugs.
HamOnCan 2 years ago
yeah coz NATURAL carcinogens don't exist amitie?
lol
roidroid 2 years ago
Mainly expressing welfare in terms of (growth in) GDP is, in these days of increasing knowledge behind financial, energy, resource crisis seems at least somewhat myopic and obsolete. Growth in equality, opportunities for more people, sustainable energy - but decrease in externalities seem better indicators.
rutgermsc 2 years ago
great talk
m3bbas 2 years ago
rick simpson's hemp oil (not hempseed oil). cure yourself, grow your own medicine!
Rick Simpson should be at TED!
funnyguise 2 years ago
Very Nice
almowak2 2 years ago
well i dont wanna be arrogant but this idea has been ALWAYS obvious to me..... If every country is prosperous the WHOLE world will benefit... In our time greediness is our enemy.
AMERICANS: DON'T FEAR CHINA'S rapid growth! it will benefit the WHOLE world, including you
africanchina1 2 years ago 5
not a very good talk. his argument is not compelling. ONE IDEA. ONE WORLD. ONE MARKET. he should have explained his reasoning a little better. I don't know, clearly, what he means by that. he kept talk about more than one idea being shared, so where does the one idea come from, and what is the one market?
dragonstorm83 2 years ago
READ THIS
All he is doing here is looking for evidence for globalisation being positive. This is similar to the religious looking for proof of god; which they find, but not looking to try to disprove god. It is a one sided argument.
He advocates using the same capitalist system which caused global warming to "feed the world with ideas" from incentives. What he really means is; we need more freedom, freedom = free energy, free energy = inventions, benefits etc.
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago
global warming (as a crisis) is a scam.
funnyguise 2 years ago
I'm afraid the only thing likely to be fallacious is your credentials with which you make that statement.
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago
one idea, one world, one market, ONE FUHRER
mrkvamaster 2 years ago
This fucking retard contradicts himself at every turn. First he states that communism was part of a cataclysmic turn of events in the first half of the 20th century, and then he lauds China, A FUCKING COMMUNIST, SLAVE LABOR nation for its unprecedented 'growth' in the last two decades. ALL WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD DIE.
buzzin1975 2 years ago
don't taze me bro
roidroid 2 years ago
Your evidence doesnt support your conclusion. lol
Afterall you seem to hate communist China. lol
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago
not trying to be polarizing here, but it has to be said; I hope many who watch this realize that this is the essence of "liberal" thinking, not the propaganda shit that so many like to spread...
punkposer 2 years ago
"ECONOMIC liberal" i think you mean.
meaning free-market capitalism.
When American television talks about "Liberals", they generally mean SOCIAL Liberals.
Meaning a society with more social freedoms.
It is very important people understand this.
The Republican party is a marriage between Social Conservatism and Economic Libertarianism.
When you talk about Liberals - you must be specific as to what you mean. Because technically the Republican Party is full of Liberals (of a certain type).
roidroid 2 years ago 2
Being liberal is wanting freedom, however everyone approaches it in different ways; Nazism, socialism, capitalism. But all these ideas have disadvantages; even democracy. I mean, whoever thought that the public would know whats best? What we have is 4 year dictatorships from a choice between two similarly corrupt parties, Obama is just packaging to preserve the status quo of the rich.
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago
It appears to me as though anarchism is the purest form of freedom, its only by wanting to increase your freedom; by taking it from others, that these systems are created.
Elephantintheroom01 2 years ago
Comment removed
Panpiper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with you in principle, but I would hasten to add that most Republican 'politicians' are every bit as big brother/big government as Obama. Bush grew the size of the government. So while it is true that in theory, Republicans tend to favor economic freedom and social restriction, in practice they do not favor any freedom at all. Democrats in theory favor social freedom and economic restriction, yet they are often the first in line to censor politically incorrect speed, as a for instance.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Libertarianism favors both social freedom and economic freedom. That does NOT mean that libertarians have much love for the current supposed 'free market', which frankly has very little to do with a real free market. What the pundits and politicians refer to as the free market is in fact far closer to fascism. And those who have never bothered to actually study economics, simply assume that what they say is the truth.
Panpiper 2 years ago
People naturally detest this fascism but having believed the propaganda where the fascism is relabeled as free market, believe that they hate the free market. A true free market would be a VERY different thing than anything any of you have known. It would NOT be the dog eat dog, every man for himself anarchy, that other propagandists like to shill. Don't just believe me, do your reading, learn for yourself, see through people's propaganda. Freedom works. Don't believe the big brother apologists.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Why's this rated 4 stars? Should be 5.
ehsanul 2 years ago 2
because it's propaganda
buzzin1975 2 years ago
according to the comments here, keynesian economic thinking is alive and well way outside of government and corporations. People's nationalistic/patriotic idiocy turns them to advocate fair-trade, they believe that the state can actually solve problems and that being able to trade without a third party siphoning resources is somehow evil.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago 2
everyone needs to read rothbard+hayek so that they can stop enforcing their views of what is right onto others.STOP using violence on eachother, it wont solve anything... in fact, it will make things worse.
taxation = theft
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago 2
Like a typical NeoCon - this guy refuses to acknowledge the problems of free-trade (not fair-trade) globalisation, such as the devaluation of labour and thus decrease in worker's wages, rights, and powers.
If i wanted to listen to delusional self-congratulatory NeoCons i'd just tune into Fox news.
Still - i have learned to appreciate their optimism. And he wins points for momentarily mentioning futurist Raymond Kurzweil at 10:45
roidroid 2 years ago
what is the value of this talk? - all he does is prop up convention "wisdom" - this is not what TED should be about - there is so much to talk about re: capitalism, economics, growth - really strange to see new world order bigged up on this site - get richard florida if you want to talk about growth and creativity
nonidentity 2 years ago
your ignorant people hate capitalism? what do u want communism? survival of the fittest is the circle of life your just pissed off your not faster than the curb ball catch up
masha3el 2 years ago
How is money and capitalism a bad thing?
jasonsett 2 years ago
globalization.....what are the pros and cons!? think of it......you'll see that it wasn't about destroying walls. its about MONEY! pro=free culture and ideas spread. con=money and capitalism
DauthiPsycho 2 years ago
sorry very but i'm very disappointed that this guy had the chance to talk in TED.
intestinomedicino 2 years ago
Trade and Globalization!?!?! WTF is this guy talking about... who invited this guy true why the fuck is his talking about wealth and making money? what a prick
northnv 2 years ago
This guy is nothing more than a corporate lobbyist.
He is the director of research for the Oakland, California based think tank the Independent Institute.
The Independent Institute has major corporate and conservative "think tank" funding. Its goals center around globalization.
ozmonster5 2 years ago
This is the first and only uninspiring talk I have seen on TED.
His foolish consistency makes me wonder how he ever met TED's intellectual threshold.
Is TED lowering its standards?
ozmonster5 2 years ago
Comment removed
ozmonster5 2 years ago
Naive speech, like a 9th grade talks.
lilyya2002 2 years ago
Some form of an energy accounting system HAS to be established if we want to live sustainably. That takes ecological economics and thermoeconomics in its system. I HATE this STUPID U.N. PROGRESSIVE bullshit you guys pull as answers.You guys are fucking MORONS You obviously didn't learn the first fucking time of making a monetary system and you want to make ANOTHER? You guys are no Different than Conservative, end the fed MORONS. At least they understand the concept of constant debt=destruction.
GiveItOrLoseIt 2 years ago
"One idea, One World, One Market"....One government, one currency, one choice - obey or perish.
With over 7 billion people alive today and a population continuing to explode we should all be looking forward to China and India becoming as wealthy as the U.S.. Since the U.S. currently consumes about 48% of the world's resources at over 300 million people, let's do the math when China (over 1 billion) and India get there.
Un-Fucking-Sustainable.
One Idea, One World, One Market, One dead Planet.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
"population continuing to explode"
Not true, population growth is declining around the world. Its only growing in the POORIST arias in the world.
Developing new technologies is the way to get sustainable, not by, A) keeping people impoverished, or B) Massively reducing the world population (which you seem to be insinuating)
Its not wealth that's unsationable, but poverty. THE path towards a peaceful sustainable future is technology and trade.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago 3
People like you, and there are an awful lot of you, think "technology" will save us from ourselves. We, as a species collectively, do not posses the maturity to do the responsible thing. We can have all the fancy tech in the wildest imaginings, but without the compassion, cooperation, and common sense needed to proceed safely, we are fucked. If the shit hits the fan you can always dig for grubs to eat with your I-Pod:)
The future you envision is not sustainable, period.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
To further clarify: There is nothing wrong with being poor. If we can ensure the basics: clean water, decent health care, and good food for the poorest nations through tech innovation, that's all that's needed. The problem will be that emerging economies will have a citizenry who will always want more, like the western appetite. If every Chinese and Indian citizen wants to drive and buy disposable shit, how can that be sustained? There is dignity in being poor, but gluttony is never dignified.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
APPLAUSE....I couldn't have said it any better...Well....maybe a little bit.
GiveItOrLoseIt 2 years ago
Your view is disgustingly condescending.
Go tell a poor person that they're dignified in their inability to feed all their children. Go tell them that letting them live in a home with running water and electricity is just starting them on the path to gluttony.
Educating people is bad for the world because it's gluttonous? Reading what you write I get the feeling you've never seen poverty up close, and if you have I can't help but wonder at your lack of compassion.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
"Reading what you write..." - You obviously didn't read what I wrote closely at all. Try re-reading it, and probably, with a response from you like this, re-read it again. I've lived all over the world and among many poor. They are the happiest people on this planet from not having a wanting desire for 'things'. I have more compassion in my little pinkie, than a whole lotta people walking around today posses in their whole.
I wish for you that you could see my point of this unsustainable future.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
Okay. I concede this is not a simple issue. I also believe you're doing your best to promote what you think is best.
I disagree with the philosophical view that it is ever reasonable for people who have access to wealth and technology to deny it to others for their own good. It comes down to the question of autonomy vs. paternalism. Should they be allowed to decide for themselves?
With current technology universal wealth is unsustainable. Hopefully this will change; it's spread is inevitable.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I NEVER suggested that emerging economies should be denied their growth. By who's authority could that even be implemented? These countries will grow in wealth and that's that. My one hope is that they will be more mature than the west and implement their own restriction. In Vietnam the auto import tax is 100%, so there's not many cars about. But emissions from power plants are the greater issue as the demand increases exponentially. Tech will only ease the unsustainable future we will suffer.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
Jasonlajoie, how you can expect people to voluntarily restrict themselves - in ways that YOU YOURSELF have clearly chosen not to: You are using a computer!
Shouldn't you be in a grass hut somewhere - enjoying your GLORIOUS death from Malaria?
What kindof life do you recommend?
note: although i am disagreeing with you, i am not a free market fundamentalist, i'm more a futurist. Technology has trumpted incomming disaster plenty of times before (example: Green Revolution), why not again?
roidroid 2 years ago
Why do people insist on replying to my comments with grand assertions of what I believe? Using a computer has little to do with an unsustainable future, quite the opposite. It's a miracle in terms of information and connectedness. A true triumph of tech.
A grass hut is not a bad idea though, if only I lived in an accommodating climate for one, oh wait, I probably soon will be without even having to move. In a previous comment I offered ensuring health care for all, clean water, electricity, ect.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
To clarify: I don't "expect people to voluntarily restrict themselves". I stated that it was my "hope", but I know human nature all too well and there will be little restriction until it's too late. Please read comments a bit more carefully before sending off an erroneous reply.
p.s. I don't see how any "Green Revolution" has trumped any incoming disasters, let alone plenty of times. You are yet another one of the many who believes technology will save us from ourselves. I wish you were right.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
You want a world with universal health care, clean water for all, electricity, free education, and you want that world in a position to be able to manufacture computers and for them to be affordable for all. Such a world is NOT a poor world, quite the contrary, it takes a rather robust economy to support those things. And if all energy came from clean renewables, and cars were 100% recyclable electrics, why shouldn't they have cars too?
Panpiper 2 years ago
A world of poverty will see continued population growth resulting in more environmental encroachment, a world of war and disease that ultimately will destroy us all. Whereas a wealthy world would have a slowly shrinking population and can afford to pay the costs of a sustainable future.
Panpiper 2 years ago
I'm really getting tired of people replying to me with grand assertions. I don't want universal health care, just affordable medicines and supplies, (when having to clarify for some other person I stated "health care for all") I never mentioned free education or education at all, and I never mentioned computers being affordable for all. How can you read someone's comments and get it all so wrong? Please don't reply to me anymore if you're incapable of understanding clearly that which you read.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
You're a moron to think that.....The price system is designed to grow or else....We are NOT living sustainable and the system this moron ted is describing is bullshit. THE path towards a sustainable future IS technology....NOT TRADE....The money system is inadequate and depends on growth of debt and resources....Keynes, Friedman and other RESPECTED economist acknowledged WE are FUCKED if we don't figure something different to a MONEY SYSTEM
GiveItOrLoseIt 2 years ago
First, I don't know how you could possibly interpret anything Milton Friedman ever said as supporting your protectionist views.
Second, If we all close our selves off to the rest of the world and don't trade, everything will get worse for everyone. The people who suffer the worst from lack of access to markets are the poor in the third world.
Access to markets has NEVER IN HISTORY made a nation poorer, and every example of a nation getting out of poverty displays grater access to trade.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago 4
Can I add you as a friend?
LOVE YOUR COMMENTS
GiveItOrLoseIt 2 years ago
Money money money money money.
Capitalism.
'I'll sell the stuff poorer countries sell to me for 1$ at 5$.'
Seems fair.
If trade tarrifs are lowered to 0% the 'free market' will still happen.
I recognise that is not the only idea of capitalism, but it is the most important consequence.
National Planning VS Free market. (ala HoI2)
National planning; Less corruption + Lower Research speeds
Free market: More corruption + faster research (more competitive)
LeMegasandwich 2 years ago
Perhaps when every country becomes 'wealthy' the need for free market will cease, and the same apple will be the same price in all shops around the world.
LeMegasandwich 2 years ago
Free markets only work when information is also free (ie: never).
But Capitalism creates industries dedicated to keeping consumers AWAY from the information they need. Industries such as Marketing and Public Relations. Which ultimately concentrates power in the hands of the few elite, and the system never works fairly.
The ideology of Free-Market-Fundamentalism was destroyed by Joseph Stiglitz with his 2001 Nobel Prize winning work highlighting "Information Asymmetry" in free markets.
roidroid 2 years ago
I've seen many comments here which criticize this man's use of capitalism as an explanation for the improvement in the quality of life of people all around the world. Would you have a computer without international trade? Where would China and India be right now without it? The largest advances in access to clean drinking watter and medicine around the world have been driven by markets, not by charities or even by governments. Their are bad things about capitalism but please acknowledge the good
Keylimedelight 2 years ago 5
the only thing that grows without ceasing is cancer. The earth is a closed system with regard to resources and real estate- keep growing and things will run out, a simple mathematical certainty.
sunrisewalker 2 years ago
yes but capitalism allows for the continual advancement in technology and the development of new resources in order to bypass limitations---we'll have to adapt...go out to space perhaps for more resources, but yes there should be some better planning so we don't end up falling off a cliff once the resources are gone--but i think the world is beginning to listen w/ respect to the limited supply of fossil fuels and the development of a cleaner renewable energy economy
speakupforjustice 2 years ago 2
Growth doesn't mean population growth. In fact the fastest population growth today is associated with the least developed regions of the world. economic advancement, which requires trade, and improving peoples quality of life is not antithetical to sustainability.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
You sell your burgers and your Ipods and that`s what got this planet to the place we are at now. Edge.
More people will have cancer...
More stupid action movies....
Your idea is wrong- data person. Leave thinking to thinking people.
The real tragedy is that there is too many Capitalists. Too much talk about GDP not enough about happiness. Growth is unsustainable.
Is this a joke? Is he a comedian? Who let this guy to talk on TED? Who was clapping on audience?
mrmaciejm 2 years ago
Well said
LeMegasandwich 2 years ago
This is as credible as a used-car salesman's pitch.
flyhead2 2 years ago 3
i totally agree.
total bs
one idea. one world. one market? diversity is the key to a prosperous world.
this guy is dumb. one 'bad' idea
bmed19 2 years ago
I agree with this ted talk-- there are some good reasons to be optimistic about the world's economic future. Globalization has allowed for the fastest and biggest movement of people out of poverty then ever before. People tend to talk about third world debt, western reliance post colonization, and how the third world has been victimized by the IMF & World Bank etc, but this narrow viewpoint fails to acknowledge the good that globalization has created.
speakupforjustice 2 years ago 3
I'm not saying that the developed world haven't done injustice to less developed countries, they have- and these things should be investigated so they don't happen again. But globalization and capitalism have done more good than bad. But perhaps a more efficient and just way would be somewhere between socialism and capitalism (closer to capitalism side)- like European countries. Universal health-care, nutrition and free education for all should be the right of every human being.
speakupforjustice 2 years ago
didn't he contradict himself? saying that the rise of Communism was a bad thing and yet praising China for raising people out of poverty...? huh?
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
Completely agree. I never gave a TED's video less than 5 stars, this one is an exception. It's simply not TED-worthy.
skullsvcrossbones 2 years ago
this guy was truly a little off.
mrgargantuan 2 years ago
I'm thinking. 2 diseases. 1 rare. 1 common. 2 drugs Both same cost. Primary incentive is profit?
Lol. I think it should be "avoiding the guilt attained when you have saved only 1000 lives when you could have easily saved a million".
boundarydweller 2 years ago
It botheres me a little that the song was the usual, "growth, growth, growth. Growth
is THE best thing nomatter .."
Population growth and the environmental/ressource stress resulting from that got touched with what, 3 words? I know it's not too popular a subject, but since Attenborough's signing up to the choir of "this is going to kill us" it ought to get more attention at a talk like this. Growth, growth, growth ... gees! Not all growth is a blessing you know, Mr. Tabarrok.
piotrezzz 2 years ago
Needs to work on his Eeyore joke.
Joerexia 2 years ago
How did this guy get on TED? Globalization? Really?
archangelhunter 2 years ago
You got'a problem with what he said?
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
Yes. Globalization is one of the contributing factors of global warming and the widening gap between rich countries and poor countries. He is just giving a nice simplified version of how the world works, but in reality, your $40 DVD player has a higher cost than you think. Imported goods take away from potential goods manufactured and sold within individual countries. Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart, the High cost of low prices".
archangelhunter 2 years ago
all in all globalization is the most fair thing the world can do. Yes it puts a burden on less developed countries to find the financial means to make it in a capitalistic society for populations that rely predominantly on farming and subsistence, but preventing the opening up of markets and foreign investments will make them ever more reliant on developed nations in the future. With improvements in farming technology, making a life out of farming alone will not be enough. Look at US development
speakupforjustice 2 years ago 2
Yes. Globalization is one of the contributing factors of global warming and the widening gap between rich countries and poor countries. He is just giving a nice simplified version of how the world works, but in reality, your $40 DVD player has a higher cost than you think. Imported goods take away from potential goods manufactured and sold within individual countries. Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart, the High cost of low prices". Localization needs to be brought back to recover the economy.
archangelhunter 2 years ago
Ideas are allowed to flourish in a free society and free market capitalism is the engine. Freedom and incentives to think and do fosters progress. Unfortunately with the encouragement of American corporations to leave the U.S., the abandonment of the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land, both freedom and the engine have left this country.
Thomas Jefferson learned the hard way. We must first preserve the only bastion of freedom in a world dominated by suppressive governments.
InTheSticks1881 2 years ago 3
More one world government propaganda. He also forgot to mention that the drug companies have politicians in their pockets so that natural cures without side effects are made illegal. This was sick.
ytgetter8758 2 years ago
This is a dangerous moron
eurogoldexchange 2 years ago
He missed a major fact in his representation of GDP growth: he account for inflation. If GDP growth is 4% and inflation is 3.5%, then your GDP only really grew 0.5%. The DOLLAR VALUE went up 4% because there was 0.5% growth and dollars that are worth less so it takes an additional 3.5% more of them.
david0aloha 2 years ago
There's two different versions of GDP when they calculate macroeconomic health of a nation.
Nominal GDP is almost never used, as it has the same problem that you're pointing out. That type of GDP calculation is used typically more on the microeconomic scale (for individuals and corporations).
Real GDP is the measurement that you typically see. It's the one that compensates for inflation, so clearly it's the one that people would use, as it is a more valuable measurement.
Andrewticus04 2 years ago
"Africa has been resistant to growth" - this tiny sentence alone contains three assumptions that bother me: 1 - Assuming that "Africa" is an undifferentiated geographical entity, 2 - Assuming that all "Africans" have all been actively resisting the climb out of poverty and 3 - Assuming that growth is even a sustainable concept to begin with. He has some good ideas, but he needs to watch his language.
aworkinregress 2 years ago
To aworkinregress: The speaker specifically said, and his graphics were labelled, "Sub-Saharan Africa", when referring to the poor growth of the last 50 years. This is a clear and definable region.
Your three concerns about "Africa" are vague and have their own assumptions (all Africans resisting the climb?).
Don't be so sensitive, worry less about some people being offended, and seriously look at the exceptionally poor social, political, and economic performance of sub-saharan Africa.
jfuite 2 years ago
idea....legalize marijuana
BallinTrollin 2 years ago 2
I don't know where to start with this man. He is wrong on so many things that he simply need to go beck to school but a new school of today relevance and today's problems. So much wrong assumptions simply unbelievable. GDP... wrong measure and all the rest. Go back to reality mate.
Doug
Doug26zv 2 years ago
he failed to address the REAL problem
countries that are failing are because of corrupt polictics
China might be rich now, but only the rich are getting richer, the wealth gap is still huge, police and politicians are corrupt.
America is slowly but surely walking away from the principles their founding fathers set up which made them such a great nation in such a short time.
You want ideas to spread around? advocate free speech. You want free speech? advocate for liberty.
624035008 2 years ago
yeah elementary but i like where he's going, fear leads to hate, which leads to conflict. We can increase our growth by making use of all the minds and resources all over the world. The world may be too small for many nations but it is certainly not too small if we share.
tarohoa 2 years ago 2
fear might lead to hate.
fear often leads to inaction.
Fear can also lead to courage.
Personally, I do not fear or hate the unknown. I am more apt to be fascinated or curious than hateful.
FLATCY 2 years ago
This is a very myopic view of events. He fails to mention that along with the rise of communist nations the US was enforcing its modern empire, leaving scores of nations in debt slavery.
flyhead2 2 years ago
i think for every great idea, he there was a downside
calumwl 2 years ago
elementary... but very inspirational.
FOUADMKHAN 2 years ago
I feel he fails to consider the fact that we have limited resources in this world of ours. We can create all the imaginary fiat that we want but we can't create unlimited raw materials or food out of thin air.
fantasticHorus 2 years ago
Check out Robert Ballard's TED talk. Our oceans cover 75%+ of our planet, and the resources it covers are virtually untapped.
Our resources are not infinite, but they are a lot more plentiful than we tend to think. The problem is we don't have the technology yet to extract them in an economical fashion. We need a real focus on oceanic exploration and development - which can hopefully tide us over until the colonization of space becomes a reality.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
Yet.
humanist7117 2 years ago
funny...one world government, one monetary stytem, whatever. He is talking to the TV crowd used to listeniing to stuff that doesn't make any sense. lol
GDP based on inflated fiat currencies...so what. Nothing to do with real economic growth.
hop scotch...what is this guy's ppoint...to comfort the sheeple?
FLATCY 2 years ago
Nuts. Ship is going down and he's talking like the industrial military US is the leader that everything revolves around or should revolve around.
This is baloney. Sorry.
You got cancer/ Go to Germany and get cured then adjust your lifestyle. The US is not about solving any problem but about making money perod.
FLATCY 2 years ago
'germany and get cured'? what does this mean?
tetranoob 2 years ago
In the USA a diagnosis of cancer is like a death nell and you are "given" x number of months to live. It seems that many (MDs, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, etc) profit from this diagnossis but generally not the person who has the cancer.
In Germany cancer is a big deal but it is curable. I am thinking of, for example, the Leonardis Klinik in Bavaria. but that place is not unique in Germany as far as the attitude and the treatment of cancers.
FLATCY 2 years ago
And Germany is nnot unique in the world. There are also medical practices in Japan that I know of that have a significant sucess rate at curing cancer.
I can see from my comments here just the other day that I was quite hostile towrd twhat the speaker was sayhing and in my excitement I made lots of typos and out of the blue jabs.
FLATCY 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days nw uv startd readn this dnt stp this is so scary snd ths ovr 2 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 nd ur crush's name will appea
Froggymama123 2 years ago
Nice topic and data, but very "blah" speaker...
suramerica 2 years ago
I thought he did a good job. It was easier to understand because of the time he took to speak and explain his ideas instead of spitting out quick quips.
goten1201 2 years ago
And who would manage this one world market?
clearmenser 2 years ago
I don't think he meant it as a one world market like a command economy, but more of a free trade market, with no tariffs, or embargos. One world market, as everyone being able to freely trade with each other, with no governmental interference at any point in the transaction.
goten1201 2 years ago 2
Hopefully the consumer.
MiranUT 2 years ago 3
The problem with one world thinking is it limits ideas and creativity as we move closer to a mono culture..
I feel a certain segregation must exist as well as periodic osmosis or sharing of ideas. Taking problems, working in separate groups, then comparing solutions and then evolving them again and so on... So that many groups can share and compete with many ideas.
optimistic talk, but misguided IMO
Atoyota 2 years ago
There might be some truth that we might become a "mono culture" in the future, but I doubt that it will limit ideas and I doubt that we will fully assimilate to one homogenous culture. There are no trade barriers between the U.S's 50 states, yet the cultures of each region remain diverse with their own values and traditions. There is also great diversity of ideas in our university system, and as long as we resist restricting free speech and the spread of ideas, that will continue.
SafariKatamari 2 years ago
30 years ago this country was a 'mono culture' with regional 'flavors'.
You can't really define regional differences as culture, as other cultures have regional flavors within them.
The contrast of Culture i describe in all aspects of life is what makes it so important in discovering and inspiring differing solutions or inspirations toward commonly shared or global problems.
Your consciousness is immersed in your culture without similarity to another mind a world and culture away.
Atoyota 2 years ago
"30 years ago this country was a 'mono culture' with regional 'flavors'"
still like that
vrshowdown 2 years ago
yes it is but the world had it's own cultures more defined then than today, there was more contrast.
Now everything is diluting, and in a way... becoming dumbed down as a result.
Atoyota 2 years ago
too bad we down to 3 flavours: white, azn, and brown
bmed19 2 years ago
Want to spread the light? Abolish those mechanisms which hinder free innovation and creativity. (aka patents)
Developers like myself are unable to produce quality free software/programs for the world because of the risk of being sued.
Sepero1 2 years ago
The drug companies haven't come up with a cure for anything since polio in the 30's.....Even with 1000's of times as many doctors working together than back then they cant cure anything!! Its more profitable to just treat it over and over and over....