It's not just accident that some people are in the right place at the right time. Most people who are born rich grow up to be rich because most of the wealth in the US is inherited. Also, people get rich and stay rich because of what society provides them: a regulated market that can be depended upon for investing, a well functioning infrastructure, a public education system that provides high quality workers, etc. Many rich people benefit more from society than they in return benefit society.
It's true that timing to start a business that will make you money is of importans. Mostly because govt. is making it difficult to deal with all the regulations and the costs those add.
Btw your example with the guy talking to a microphone earning 20 miljon. You asked if ppl rather have 200 teachers or have this guy earn 20M. Well, as it seems ppl are paying to have this guy talking, otherwise they would have given theire money to a school or to some teachers i guess.
I don't want to buy any lie, but it is just given freely from convincing people just to get me confused whether or not I should believe the one lie just to catch up with another one and another one.
They're good and very creative with lies. I don't know how to be smart enough just to know right away 'oh, that woman over there just lie about her cosmetic product.'
Gotta need a smart chip for my outdated brain to update with all the lies...
@joshsines Did you notice that the words "Rush" or "Limbaugh" never appeared once in this video? Likewise, did you notice how the example covered all forms of entertainment, not just radio. You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on that particular entertainer - you may want to seek counseling to address that.
@Newsish Anyone that watches this video know that you are referring to "Limbaugh".
And, also tone down the arrogance in your remarks to other viewers. And, lastly you make it sound it this video that no one has a chance to make it big. I believe that anyone can make it big regardless of the other players in the game.
@joshsines You're sadly trying to dodge the question in order to maintain your ignorance. In your example the radio station makes $100M/year. So would you rather have a radio station make $100M/year or would you rather have 1000 additional teachers? Does the radio station make that much becuase it is expanding the production possibility curve of America (look it up) o becuase of inefficiencies in the economy? Because I guarantee you 1000 teachers will expand the PPC.
Your argument makes no sense... 20 million dollars equals 200 teachers? What relevance does that have? Do we need 200 more teachers? I'm not seeing many news stories about class rooms full of kids with no teachers. Or do we need a better school system (hint: not public) to attract better teachers who could do a more efficient job?
And you're right, most people would be happy to talk on the radio for $100k a year but not many people possess the talent for someone to hire them for that.
@DanNinjaMan Low taxs's education policy. In CA, it wasn't a problem before Prop 13 - and I'd bet similar events happened in other states. That's not to say that we don't need other reforms - we do - but the simple fact is we need more money for teachers. Districts in CA get paid about $7K/student/year - which averages to about $35K/teacher/year only if you have classes of 30+ kids.
your a talking head on a screen. Now i'm sure you don't make 20 mill a year and you sound a little bitter about that. I just want to know are you saying that are not benifiting society by being a talking head? Why is it that many left wing arguments seem to contradict the arguer? If you realy believe that a talking head doesn't help, why waste your time making these videos? Do you even know what the power of free speech is? I don't get it man. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SUCK ON THAT, BITCH.
@Newsish So... do you think what you are doing is a waste of time? I hope you response isn't a weak insult like last time. You sounded intellegent at first, but the insults make you sound like a simpleton. Oh yeah please be my friend as debate brings us forward and I want yoiu to know I like you. Long live the arena of ideas!!
@Newsish How come you don't seriously respond to hecklers and break down their arguments instead of just talking shit? You seem to think you know what you're talking about but you can't debate on the spot. How many weeks of writing do you do to make 7 minutes of intellegent conversation?
@MrGREEN419 Uhhh...I did, he just didn't understand. Not to mention his comment in the first place we a misunderstanding of the video that 10 seconds of honest though would have prevented. What's the point of "debating" someone who didn't bother to listen in the first place?...Other than for him to feel self-important and smart?
Wow, what a great video. I agree 100%. You summed things up well at the end, and I have to continuously tell people this... Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're intelligent, talented, or significantly contributing to society. Sometimes you're just paid a lot to be a tool.
Just because you don't agree someone should be paid $20 million for hosting a radio show doesn't mean we should cap wages.The person is paid that because they prolly bring in $200 million in advertising revenue.And most vaccines now are developed by pharmaceutical companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R & D.All I'll say is if you look at economic freedom and wealth there is a correlation between the two. You should have named this political rant cuz its not about market failure
Hong Kong also governs by''positive non intervention'',also a FACT.One word of advice when you respond back to comments dont be a jackass,you are also too cocky for your own good.
@fenderboy88 Except for all of the demonstrable government regulation and intervention and taxes, Hong Kong has a policy of non-intervention.
P.S. By definition, you do not understand what a "fact" is when you put forth a vague and indefinable and immeasurable assertion as a "fact." That would more accurately be called a "characterization."
P.P.S. Your characterization demonstrably is inaccurate. See previous comment about taxes and hospitals. Then spend 5 minutes googling Hong Kong.
@Newsish Your political philisophy can be summed up by that famous FDR quote''we know that relentless pursuit of self interest is bad morals,we now know its also bad economics''.
Ever read the book ''Defending Government,why big government works by Max Neiman?
I did not pull that quote ''out of my ass'',Milton friedman did say it but what would you know about Friedman[i bet that you dont even read books written by the other side]
You are correct though in pointing out that Hong Kongs government controls property,but that doest mean that Hong Kong is a ''government haven.
FACT.Hong Kong has no minimum wage,no labor laws or regulations and no restrictions to trade or capital flows etc
Look at Public school teachers for example,its fairly hard to fire a public school teacher for bad performance because of those bureacratic regulations encouraged by teachers unions.
Under a free market a teacher not performing would immediately get fired,in my opinion it is unions that are letting down schools,whats wrong with parents choosing thier schools for thier kids?
I just believe that markets should be given a full chance to operate on thier own.Government as an insitution that takes and taxes for example has no incentive to be efficient.
While Markets arent perfect they do have a ''profit and loss motivation meaning they have to be efficient or people wont buy thier product,its that simple,how can government be possibly be efficient when for example only a few government employees can get fired.
So your a capitalist but think that ''capitalism requires government'',thats where the general public is at.
Unfortunetly Keynesian economics is back and it might be here to stay for a while,im horrified that Obamas economic advisor Lawrence Summers wants obama to pass a ''mini stimulus'' worth 200 billion.
America needs a greater level of economic freedom,like in Hong Kong,as Milton Friedman said''if you want to see capitalism in action,go to Hong Kong''
@fenderboy88 Generally when you "put quotes around words that some one else said" it means that they "actually said those words" and that you didn't "pull them out of your ass." If you had bothered to even read Hong Kong's Wikipedia article, you'd know that 50 out of 62 hospitals are government-run and the government owns every inch of land in the country. But I'm sure you're not going to let little things like facts hinder your fantasies.
@Newsish I take it that you have no respect for Milton friedman,by the way im not a conservative,nor am i a ''progressive,i was but for the last few months i have being looking into much different views and i have changed a lot of my views since then.I am still Liberal in some areas like supporting gay mariage and being pro choice but when it comes to the economy im generally fiscally conservative.
@fenderboy88 Lol. I get this a lot. User posts wildly inaccurate comment (Hong Kong). I point out that 10 seconds of Googling demonstrates as much. User changes subject. Now talks about vague a-factual things, uses meaningless buzzwords (progressive). I point out new topics are vague, a-factual, and that commenter ignored that his original comment was completely wrong. Commenter pretends he never wrote original comment. Commenter pretends vague a-factual statements are meaningful.
people who say that free markets are efficient are like religious people who belive that a big space creature created the universe and controls their lives.
My sentiments (and thoughts exactly). Imagine the inefficencies we go through in an underdeveloped country such as Mexico (calling it a developing country is wishful thinking) when we "proudly" gave birth to Carlos Slim, the richest man on earth, and at the same time more than half the population lives in poverty or extreme poverty...
@nimbemon Well obviously if Mr. Slim is one billion times richer than the average Mexican it is obviously becuase he is one billion times smarter. Thus the rules of the market dictate he must have an IQ of one hundred billion.
Give me a definition of efficiency that an economist could accept.
If the market is not efficient then what is the alternative? What is the trade off?
You used the example of the FDA below as an example. What do you think of the argument, such as that recently made by John Stossel, available here on youtube, arguing that the FDA does more harm than good?
You seem to ignore the fact that we have tort liability in this country for diseased meat on top of the facts they'll go out of business.
@Americaisgreat123 That's a common fallacy. The question is: Do we need an FDA? It is irrelevant and illogical to say, "the FDA has this one bad policy, therefore we should abolish the FDA." I know this may sound insane, but if the FDA does have a bad policy, it may actually be possible to *change* that one policy without abolishing the FDA. Does the market need an FDA? Fuck yes, 10 seconds of research into pre-FDA medicine will assure you of that.
Just saying something does not make it so. First off you ignore what I said by pretending I said abolish it because it isn't perfect. Did you even watch the John Stossel series or are you too much of an intellectual coward to have your vision challenged. I doubt you could even make my argument for getting rid of the FDA, but I could quite easily make your simpleton argument.
Don't try to mis-represent my stance because you don't know how to address it.
And of course, obviously the FDA does some good things. Richard Epstein points out in his book "How Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation" that part of the FDA's job is to prevent ineffective (placebo like) drugs from coming onto the market. If you are sick or in mortal danger, you better not be wasting your time on a drug that is not effective.
Whether they do it most effectively or whether they can prevent you from trying something if you're dying is another debate.
@Americaisgreat123 Hey genius, you can't post "did you watch this random video" and not even give me the fucking title and expect me to go find and watch it. Have you watched than one video about that one thing by that one guy? No? Why haven't you done that yet? Coward! You don't have the intellectual honesty to watch a vague random thing I randomly wrote about in a comment.
@Newsish - I sent you that video 2 months ago and you never responded. Did you watch it? What did you think? You also never gave me a definition of efficiency or answered my question on giving examples of the trade of to an alternative to the market.
@Americaisgreat123 yes we need the FDA so that the food and drugs we take are safe. it exists becaue if it didn't there would be no standard of safety , and that's not a good thing. and john stossel is an idiot who wishes he was geraldo rivera.
Some very good points, and a fresh view. My 2 cents about some other efficiency limiters in the market:
- non-rational decission making in a market based on the assumpition of rational actors
- deciding under the boundary condition of limited knowledge
Especially the later one leads on average also to wasteful decisions. One could of course argue, that the free market minimises the percentage of wasteful decisions, but I have not stumbled over any study showing that.
Agreed. The "limited knowledge" particularly is so obvious it's comical to see people dismiss the need for organizations like the USDA to regulate the meat industry or the FDA or regulate drugs because THERE IS NO WAY A FREE MARKET CONSUMER CAN NOW BEFOREHAND if the meat is tainted or if the drug has terrible side effects. And the extra cost of paying for these bodies is VASTLY less expensive than the scores of deaths and injuries caused by poor practices prior to regulation.
Your examples in this video are flawed because they are government induced monopolies. Like the tv and radio arguments you make. There is limited distribution channels because government prevents competitors from entering the market. Media is not a free market, and never has been because government interferes. Same is true for Microsoft, which is also a government induced monopoly. Horrible examples of trying to bash free market systems by using examples that are not free markets.
Jesus fucking Christ, can you not read the other dozen comments where this was explained in detail and/or not simply - on your own - fully think that through before opening your mouth?
Yeah they were trying to split up Microsoft but not because of the free market. Microsoft had become a predatory corporation buying up competitors. Microsoft was protected by copyright which also restricts free market systems allowing them to charge what ever they wanted for their product even if it was not actually worth the asking price. They would then strangle competitors or buy them out of the market so it could corner the market on pc operating systems.
So copyright is not a component of free market to you? That's odd :D
Sounds like economic anarchy to me.
China hasn't honoured copyright in a couple of years, but as soon as they became more powerfull the WTO forced them to do it. Nobody, not even the chinese could stand a boycott against china for a long period of time :D
However, if everyone dishonoured copyright, where would the fuel for the motor of innovation be?
these are my thoughts exactly. whats worse is when these moron conservatives make tons of money by selling lies and bullshit. just think of the damage that FOX news and pat robertson has caused the world and the money they made in the process
we need to have some sort of "value added" tax so that this type of crap isn't profitable anymore. just imagine the posibilities if scientists made much more money than they do now.
What you proposed--that the income of a news-announcer should be expropriated and used for mass education--is absurd. Firstly, government subsidized education is infamously bad. (I say this as one who attended public schools for his entire education.) Secondly, prices(which include wages) are, in an untrammeled market, determined by supply and demand. They are not arbitrary. Also, I don't understand how "happenstance," as you put it, is somehow tantamount to inefficient. This video is absurd.
public schools suck in america but they aren't so bad abroad. i think its a brilliant idea to redistribute their money for mass education, as long as their teaching the right things. after all education is the key to beating crime and poverty and the free and honest exchange of information is the reason we have had the progress that we have
besides the public school system is so outdated that its doomed to failure. we need elected officials with the balls to make hard decisions, not lawyers
sure why not. the state is really the only entity that doesn't have an interest in subjugating certain knowledge. of course the state should be guided by scientists and experts
just imagine if voters actually had the knowledge they needed to make informed decisions. the result would be fewer politicians
hell if anything a reformed and effective public education is the most important aspect of the state since a society of well informed people are much less likely to make bad decisions
So you propose that we entrust our children's education to the State, which, I'll remind you, is the monopoly of the use of physical force. And you further believe that the State is unbiased? What planet do you live on?
If the State is in charge of education, it will only allow schools to teach whatever it authorizes. It is hardly impartial.
yes i will entrust our education to a democratically elected government based on the rule of law. it happens all over the civilized world and things have only gotten better, state schools are one of the reasons why
i never said the US is unbiased just that i trust elected officials with the welfare of the people more than corporations
like i said the state should take guidence from a consensus of experts like they do now, and what does the state gain from authorizing bad information? nothing
The State will not approve any information which it deems inimical to its interests. Also, you are forgetting that compulsory education is morally wrong; education should be voluntary.
You may not perceive any evil in what you are advocating, but it is certainly there. You are advocatiing the intrusion of government in the lives of private citizen. You sound like you're reading from Plato's Republic.
i'm not talking about a totalitarian governement, i'm talking about the same government we have now but with a revised education system that actually works for this century. besides i have no problem with private schools (unless their religious)
ensuring the education of the society is vital to reducing crime, poverty and religion. an educated society is much stronger than an uneducated one and its in everybody bests interest to ensure that everyone gets a decent education at the very least
BTW, you talking exactly about a school system I attended and I got a VERY good education. Was there some bias? Sure, but I also got taught the very tools I needed for discovering and dismantling it. Education is not just about feeding facts to kids, it's teaching them to think, learn, etc. In essence, looking at the awesome governmental education systems in many countries I lived in I do not see any of the problems XxxNuMbxxX0301 talks about. Oh, and btw, free education rocks. ;-)
Inefficient compared to what? The free market is far more efficient compared to government simply due to competition.
Please note our current market is not a free market. It's heavily regulated & controlled by the government.
Is a free market perfect? Of course not. But, like your critics have pointed out, neither you nor any politician can decide what's best for 300 million individuals. Because each individual has their own unique values. They achieve happiness in their own unique ways.
What the solution is (if any) a different question entirely. And I'll contend it requires a bit more sophistication that "government take over everything" or "government do nothing."
If millions of people are willing to spend their money on a good or service (like radio entertainment) who are you to claim this patronage is "inefficient"? Your entire posistion is based on the assumption that your values are more valid than others. Do you consider everyone who disagrees with you "indocrinated" or is this more than simple ad hominum?
No market ever in history has/is/will ever be efficient. Name one that has. You can't. It's a fucking stupid thing to suggest. Obviously you don't understand the concept, but "market" is a keyword you've been indoctrinated to repeat your radio show bullshit on. But it's not a debate about your little pet policies of the week, it's a fucking fact about every fucking market ever in fucking history. Do us all a fucking favor and march off a cliff like a good little lemming.
Sure people will do anything to make money, and guess who stops them, the government. When poor inner city black women try to braid hair for a living its not the "free market' that marches in to shut them down, its the government. When doctors attempt to offer cheap medical coverage to poor people the government shuts them down. If your logic was sound 100% of money going to education would make sense because according to you this can only grow the economy.
This is kind of an insane rambling monologue. You probably don't understand this, but I assure you anyone shutting down "black women try to braid hair for a living" has literally nothing to do with the general topic of market inefficiency. You're just repeating a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that has been indoctrinated into you, becuase you don't understand what I'm talking about.
No its an example where poor people try to make a better living and the government stops them, not "market inefficencies". Also the government claims ownership of radio and TV bandwidths and controle their operation through licensure. This being the case, claims that such a government controled industry constitute a "market inefficency" are ignorant. Its akin to saying Bush giving Haliberton a no bid contract in Iraq is a market ineffeciency.
In economic sciences only what can be expressed in money is of interest to the disciplin. Like in medicine only what concerns the body and health is of interest.
Therefor the definition of efficiency in economic sciences boils down to something like: everything that makes some persons rich is efficient.
But this is not what the term efficiency means in common language.
Thats the confusion: economic efficiency and social efficiency are different terms and not automatically a good thing per se.
Thats a huge straw man. I certainly do not agree with every economic theory out there, but I've yet to hear one what claims to only be interested in what can be expressed in money. Nor does a study of economics lead to this conclusion. Having rejected economics, what is your basis for assesing the utility of social efficency? Do you have any means of quantifing what is "good" for society, other than your opinion?
Take a look at the different definitions of economy. They all exclude social interactions that do not involve the exchange of goods and services that are not expressed in forms of currency.
For instance no economic theory has anything meaningfull to say about peace, friendship or security as a valuable good.
Thats where political science, sociology, history and philosophy come into the game.
Economic efficiency says nothing about fairness or happiness or the greater good of society.
Continued: The proposition that something may be economically efficient is meaningless without the explanation for whom it is eficient - meaning profitable and benefitial in terms of a greater aquisition and accumulation of tradable goods and services. Tradable by the rules and traditions of a defined society. Slaves for instance are not tradeable anymore, thanks to government interference.
Government interference causes massive market inefficiencies for slave trade, fortunatly.
As for Glass-Steagall, because of heavy US regulations London, not New York, is the financial capital of the world. And because of looming English regulations many firms have already increased the size of Geneva branches. They're now moving to Geneva. Again, your intentions are correct but you're advocating a counterproductive method.
Firstly, radio and schooling are extremely regulated. It's hilarious that you're complaining about them
Through most of this video youre not describing market inefficiencies. People like football. Favre brings happiness to millions of people. He's compensated for that happiness and the extreme limited quarterback positions available -- the same is true for Rush & S.Miller
Keep trying to herd mankind. I'm sure communism will work next time. Forget about China, USSR, Vietnam, E.Berlin, etc, etc.
There's another fact too, the middle Class crowd spend more than their income for just about anything they don't even need - so they are constantly in debt, and this is how it mushrooms into a huge deficit among other issues .... as you mentioned here...
I am pretty sure that the people who sign the checks for the people sitting behind the microphone think it's worth what they are paying, why else would they do it? To add the phrase "in there right mind" sort of lets you wiggle out of this, because you can say that they are not in their right mind. But then you have to give a justification for that, and it cannot be based on them wanting to sign the check, since that is circular reasoning.
All of your examples are those of markets that are heavily regulated by the government. There is no free market in radio or television. There is a state controlled cartelization that distorts the market and creates these conditions that allow for these people to garner wealth that is disproportionate to their impact on society.
Look at those markets that are the most free of gov regulation and you will find products that continuously become more affordable while also improving in quality.
Efficient for what? Everybody has their own values. The free market does not strive to be "efficient" it simply allows people to pursue their values. effciency is not a prime value, it is secondary at best.
You're taking your economic advice from a guy who doesn't know who Jonas Salk is. I think that's about all we need to know about your thought process.
Spawtalk could have been a retarded monkey and still make this video look stupid. It comes under the category of so ignorant as to not be worth responding to.
The fact that he bothered and did so in a relatively comprehensive manner is a credit to him.
I'm just fucking with this guy becuase he is too stupid to have a serious conversation with.
But it's no coincidence that the guy who calls another person who couldn't even repeat the name Jonas Salk "comprehensive" thinks markets are magic and perfect. It's much easier to maintain that delusion when you don't know anything else.
So let's not pretend either is. When your appendix is about to explode we don't say something as stupid as, "Oh well, that's evolution," and let you die. Likewise, when banks are making insanely risky investments or when people are poisoning air/water or when the market fails to invest in critical infrastructure (like roads) or when people are making outrageous amounts of money for trivial contributions let's not say, "Oh well, that's the market" and let our economy die.
What would do you say when an entire civilization collapses due to your misguided economics?
Does the USSR not count?
Was the firm example laid out by pre- and post-Moaist China a fluke?
Is our broken socialist education system due to evil fat-cat bankers? Or perhaps too many teachers are educated at private universities -- private colleges are, of course, by large far worse than public colleges.
Saying that reasonable banking regulation like Glass-Steagal or public education or reasonable taxes - which, BTW, were all in place in America DURING THE COLD WAR - is akin to turning the US into the USSR is too stupid to even respond to.
Your just as brainwashed as the idiots in the USSR, only you use the opposite buzzwords.
Here's a crazy fucking thought: how about we have reasonable regulation with social investments in certain sectors (roads, schools) an make rational decisions?
I never compared the US to the USSR. The USSR simply shows how destructive market control is. The fact is that every time markets have been freed from government control -- control that you are advocating for -- hoi polloi has been better off and the economy grows faster
Why do you think putting some bureaucrat, who only got the job through political connections, in charge is going to make anyone better off?
We all want more efficiency. Free markets gives the most, not total, efficiency
No, free markets are NOT the most efficient. Well regulated markets are. See above comment about Glass-Steagal, schools, roads. Compare quality of life, GDP growth, technological progress, and/or any other metric between America circa 1800 and America circa 1950. The well regulated, socially-invested America of 1950 wins at everything by a mile. America without schools, roads, drug regulations, or bank regulations (although we're low on that now) would be a shithole, don't forget that.
Are you comparing 1800's w/the 1950s? That's just intellectually dishonest. Don't you think some extraordinary factors contributed? Telecom, engines (tractors, automobiles, shipping), flight, electricity, etc were all being fully realized in the 1950s. Obviously there was more growth. I agree with some regs but we're way past the appropriate level in most sectors.
I agree that America with a crippled school system will be a shithole. Don't forget that's publicly owned and terribly managed.
That's the definition of measuring technological *progress*. Technology does increase exponentially, but I'd contend that the exponent increased after WWII, when we did have a strong education system and bank regs, etc.
A major problem we face today is instead of saying, "our schools are failing, let's fix them," they say, "our schools are failing, let's dismantle them." Same for regulation.
Like they say, "Representatives who say that government doesn't work spend their terms making it so."
It's pretty clear that you don't understand individual subjective preference structures. Just because you value something does not mean that others should too.
Certainly there are inefficiencies that distort prices (many involving government intervention of some kind), but implanting your own subjective valuation on the price mechanism doesn't make markets inefficient.
This is somewhat of a good point, much more relevant than then some of your peers'. However in a market where NO ONE or ALMOST NO ONE thinks the price of a critical object/service is reasonable then it's absurd to hide behind subjectivity. On an island where I own the only water source, I can charge you any price I want and you have to pay (or die) but this is in no way efficient or desirable. Would you gladly pay my exorbitant price and say, "oh well, it's subjective"?
As it happens that situation can be efficient. The standard definition of economic or pareto efficiency is when you can not increase consumption for some without making others worse off. As long the productive potential of the economy is all being used it is efficient. The distribution of goods around the islanders does not matter.
All prices are subjectively determined by the consumer, that's just the way it works. You can't charge any price you want. If no one could afford to pay your price you would either have to lower it or go out.
You're blurring the word 'efficient' in an economic context. Efficient means the price of a product reflecting its actual value, based on all information available without a distortion.
Furthermore, as NecroNick explained, the situation you describe can indeed be Pareto Optimal.
You missed his point. If Newsish had the only water source in the world, and you needed it to survive, then you'd have to pay whatever he wanted or die. You don't have a choice. That isn't efficient.
No, I didn't miss his point. You don't pay whatever he wants. If he doesn't lower his price, you might die, but dead customers isn't exactly good for business.
And that is not what efficient means in an economic context.
The problem with our example of Jonas Salk us that he gave it away voluntarily. If the government said that anyone who discovered a cure for AIDS had to give it away for free then far fewer people would try to find a cure for AIDS.
@TheSupremeSkeptic No market in the history of markets has ever been free. This is obvious. But even if one did exist, it would still be inefficient. Inefficiencies come from physical limitations and human irrationalities - which still would exist in a perfectly free market.
If all markets are "inefficient" then this whole video is pointless. Unless you can point out a way to make it more "efficient".
"No market in the history of markets has ever been free."
That's kind of a silly thing to say. A market can be very small too. I can buy pot. I pay for my pot. My dealers gets money. There was no force used in that transaction so it could be seen as a free market.
You claim even if it was it would still be inefficient.
You claim that inefficiencies come from physical limitations and human irrationalities even if it was free.
What did I fail to understand?
I asked a valid question.
Besides I can't remember anything in your video about "physical limitations and human" inefficiencies. All I remember is some guy (on the radio) who does not give much to society gets a lot more than someone who busts their ass.
Your first three sentences are true and form a complete and final thought. Everything else you've written about is irrelevant and/or you didn't listen.
Is this how you argue??? Just claim that my that 'sentences are true and form a complete and final thought' and just claim that someone does not understand without explaining?
If you're really blaming these "inefficiencies' on "physical limitations and humans irrationality" then why call this video "Market Inefficiencies"? Why not call it "physical limitations and human irrationality" inefficiencies?
After all "physical limitations and human" are not to blamed on voluntary transactions.
Here's a second question.
Trade or traffic(market) are inefficient at doing what, exactly?
You're trying to separate physicality and humanity from "markets" but markets ARE ONLY physicality and humanity. Markets only exist becuase of people trying to move things. The two are inseparable. You can't say people are irrational without saying markets are too and an irrational market is an inefficient one.
Markets are inefficient at everything. You name it, they're inefficient at it. They're even inefficient at inefficiency. The degree of inefficiency varies by place and time and market.
Don't you realize that only own something to the extent you can defend it. So the farm that does sell food benefits greatly. What defends large amounts of land? The state, bitch.
Your bank gives out low interest rates and as a result there are more and more poor investments. What gave the banks that money? The state, bitch.
People are can't buy products just because the suppler does not have a license. As a result cartels form. What enforces licensing laws? The state, bitch.
Once again you're criticizing the irrationally then you blame the market.
If you don't think that irrational choices are punished in the free market then go out and buy 5,000 PS3s and wonder why you don't have any money for food.
You're trying to weasel out of an answer. A market where people seal land from you is NOT A FREE MARKET. Pretend your bank deposit is a chicken that you caught.
Are you willing to die in the above scenarios with only the solace that (after you die) "Irrational choices are punished in a market"?
If you pay for the "seal" of that land with YOUR OWN WEALTH then it is a free market.
I don't have to die in order for my bank to do well. They are the ones that have to do well or they will die. Besides without bailouts banks that make irrational choices will run into the ground in probably less then a year. What makes you think that it's a whole lifetime?
"I own all the farm land. I don't want to sell you food becuase you're ugly." The framer needs money for a healthcare but can't afford it because he didn't sell anything.
"Your bank invested all your deposits in a shitty company. You lost all your money." The bank dies, unlike the federal reverse that just keeps benefiting from all the money its printing.
"Oh, that unlabeled cough syrup contains cyanide." They get sued, get a bad rep, and lose customers. End of story.
''My mine leaked some arsenic into the drinking water" That's damage to property and will be taken care of by private police.
"Yes, after you died, the market would punish them. Problem solved." I don't think that it will take that long. Besides only the best suppliers will survive when there are no barriers to entry.
I too would like to know the answer to that question.
OT: Doesn't this guy realize that the state enforces copyright laws which is how some of these people (i.e. actors) to get so rich in the first place.
It's nice to see someone challenging the underlying assumptions of capitalism that makes it virtually impossible to argue alternatives because the underlying assumptions frame the debate. Keep striking at that sand foundation and hopefully more people will quit drinking the Kool-Aide.
I love how everything is either rainbows-and-sunshine-shitting capitalism, or soviet-gulag marxism.
I have to wonder how many people who fling that term around like monkey shit even know what Marxism really is, and if they realize that there are alternatives to both Marxism and Capitalism that seek a sort of golden mean between the two.
Ha ha ha ha. You're in the firing line in this one Newsish.
Fuck me, but some people really have it in for you, don't they?
This seems to be the most divisive issue for you Americans, after the Creationist/Atheist debate on here.
I pick your side, I can't go for that 'Free Market solves everything' bollox, but then again, I'm obviously a commie socialist liberal atheist euro weenie weakling pacifist 'waiting for handout' free medical care receiving ignoramus.
typical marxist garbage. This is just some liberal kid who probably attends college, and has had his parents pay for everything in his life, and then he learns some college marxist BS about how everything needs to be handed ot me on a platter
These guys need to leave you alone they dont understand that it is your own opinion
P.S. i agree with you newsish 100%
epicfritos1991 11 months ago
It's not just accident that some people are in the right place at the right time. Most people who are born rich grow up to be rich because most of the wealth in the US is inherited. Also, people get rich and stay rich because of what society provides them: a regulated market that can be depended upon for investing, a well functioning infrastructure, a public education system that provides high quality workers, etc. Many rich people benefit more from society than they in return benefit society.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
It's true that timing to start a business that will make you money is of importans. Mostly because govt. is making it difficult to deal with all the regulations and the costs those add.
Btw your example with the guy talking to a microphone earning 20 miljon. You asked if ppl rather have 200 teachers or have this guy earn 20M. Well, as it seems ppl are paying to have this guy talking, otherwise they would have given theire money to a school or to some teachers i guess.
Warzoooooo 1 year ago
I don't want to buy any lie, but it is just given freely from convincing people just to get me confused whether or not I should believe the one lie just to catch up with another one and another one.
They're good and very creative with lies. I don't know how to be smart enough just to know right away 'oh, that woman over there just lie about her cosmetic product.'
Gotta need a smart chip for my outdated brain to update with all the lies...
meta2472 1 year ago
I love how Rush Limbaugh's success drives liberals like you crazy
joshsines 1 year ago
@joshsines Did you notice that the words "Rush" or "Limbaugh" never appeared once in this video? Likewise, did you notice how the example covered all forms of entertainment, not just radio. You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on that particular entertainer - you may want to seek counseling to address that.
Newsish 1 year ago 5
@Newsish Anyone that watches this video know that you are referring to "Limbaugh".
And, also tone down the arrogance in your remarks to other viewers. And, lastly you make it sound it this video that no one has a chance to make it big. I believe that anyone can make it big regardless of the other players in the game.
don8199 1 year ago
you understand the amount of money Rush is paid is simply a % of the revenue he generates through advertisement and what not for the network?
joshsines 1 year ago
@joshsines You're sadly trying to dodge the question in order to maintain your ignorance. In your example the radio station makes $100M/year. So would you rather have a radio station make $100M/year or would you rather have 1000 additional teachers? Does the radio station make that much becuase it is expanding the production possibility curve of America (look it up) o becuase of inefficiencies in the economy? Because I guarantee you 1000 teachers will expand the PPC.
Newsish 1 year ago 3
Your argument makes no sense... 20 million dollars equals 200 teachers? What relevance does that have? Do we need 200 more teachers? I'm not seeing many news stories about class rooms full of kids with no teachers. Or do we need a better school system (hint: not public) to attract better teachers who could do a more efficient job?
And you're right, most people would be happy to talk on the radio for $100k a year but not many people possess the talent for someone to hire them for that.
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
@DanNinjaMan You seem somewhat oblivious. Overcrowded classrooms is probably the #1 problem in education in nearly every state.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish True, but who's education policy allowed that to happen?
DanNinjaMan 1 year ago
@DanNinjaMan Low taxs's education policy. In CA, it wasn't a problem before Prop 13 - and I'd bet similar events happened in other states. That's not to say that we don't need other reforms - we do - but the simple fact is we need more money for teachers. Districts in CA get paid about $7K/student/year - which averages to about $35K/teacher/year only if you have classes of 30+ kids.
Newsish 1 year ago
Very well articulated, and full of the oh-so-uncommon common sense lacking in the world.
sirterl 1 year ago
Very well spoken, Newsish. This modern fairy tale that the free market naturally distributes wealth according to merit is insane.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
your a talking head on a screen. Now i'm sure you don't make 20 mill a year and you sound a little bitter about that. I just want to know are you saying that are not benifiting society by being a talking head? Why is it that many left wing arguments seem to contradict the arguer? If you realy believe that a talking head doesn't help, why waste your time making these videos? Do you even know what the power of free speech is? I don't get it man. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SUCK ON THAT, BITCH.
cleatusjr 1 year ago
Benefit > $0 < $20M;
Speech != Money;
You = Retard.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish So... do you think what you are doing is a waste of time? I hope you response isn't a weak insult like last time. You sounded intellegent at first, but the insults make you sound like a simpleton. Oh yeah please be my friend as debate brings us forward and I want yoiu to know I like you. Long live the arena of ideas!!
cleatusjr 1 year ago
cleatusjr's understanding of math symbols < 0; time learning math < time on YouTube;
depressing :-(
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish Obviously you aren't going to answer and avoid debate. You are a fool.
cleatusjr 1 year ago
@Newsish How come you don't seriously respond to hecklers and break down their arguments instead of just talking shit? You seem to think you know what you're talking about but you can't debate on the spot. How many weeks of writing do you do to make 7 minutes of intellegent conversation?
MrGREEN419 1 year ago
@MrGREEN419 Uhhh...I did, he just didn't understand. Not to mention his comment in the first place we a misunderstanding of the video that 10 seconds of honest though would have prevented. What's the point of "debating" someone who didn't bother to listen in the first place?...Other than for him to feel self-important and smart?
Newsish 1 year ago
Wow, what a great video. I agree 100%. You summed things up well at the end, and I have to continuously tell people this... Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're intelligent, talented, or significantly contributing to society. Sometimes you're just paid a lot to be a tool.
DblOSmith 1 year ago
That settles it.
SUBSCRIBED!
dstebbin 1 year ago
never mind. i see comments now. it was my slow-ass computer!
sorry, dude.
disregard my other comments and on the other video too, which i forget which it was. lolz
RaccismSux 1 year ago
Why can't I see your comments, dude? I just subbed you, but I love to hear what people around the world are saying.
RaccismSux 1 year ago
Just because you don't agree someone should be paid $20 million for hosting a radio show doesn't mean we should cap wages.The person is paid that because they prolly bring in $200 million in advertising revenue.And most vaccines now are developed by pharmaceutical companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on R & D.All I'll say is if you look at economic freedom and wealth there is a correlation between the two. You should have named this political rant cuz its not about market failure
raintree710 1 year ago
@raintree710 Woosh.
Newsish 1 year ago
Hong Kong also governs by''positive non intervention'',also a FACT.One word of advice when you respond back to comments dont be a jackass,you are also too cocky for your own good.
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 Except for all of the demonstrable government regulation and intervention and taxes, Hong Kong has a policy of non-intervention.
P.S. By definition, you do not understand what a "fact" is when you put forth a vague and indefinable and immeasurable assertion as a "fact." That would more accurately be called a "characterization."
P.P.S. Your characterization demonstrably is inaccurate. See previous comment about taxes and hospitals. Then spend 5 minutes googling Hong Kong.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish Your political philisophy can be summed up by that famous FDR quote''we know that relentless pursuit of self interest is bad morals,we now know its also bad economics''.
Ever read the book ''Defending Government,why big government works by Max Neiman?
fenderboy88 1 year ago
I did not pull that quote ''out of my ass'',Milton friedman did say it but what would you know about Friedman[i bet that you dont even read books written by the other side]
You are correct though in pointing out that Hong Kongs government controls property,but that doest mean that Hong Kong is a ''government haven.
FACT.Hong Kong has no minimum wage,no labor laws or regulations and no restrictions to trade or capital flows etc
fenderboy88 1 year ago
Look at Public school teachers for example,its fairly hard to fire a public school teacher for bad performance because of those bureacratic regulations encouraged by teachers unions.
Under a free market a teacher not performing would immediately get fired,in my opinion it is unions that are letting down schools,whats wrong with parents choosing thier schools for thier kids?
fenderboy88 1 year ago
I just believe that markets should be given a full chance to operate on thier own.Government as an insitution that takes and taxes for example has no incentive to be efficient.
While Markets arent perfect they do have a ''profit and loss motivation meaning they have to be efficient or people wont buy thier product,its that simple,how can government be possibly be efficient when for example only a few government employees can get fired.
fenderboy88 1 year ago
Newsish i hope your not also against sweatshops and free trade.
fenderboy88 1 year ago
So your a capitalist but think that ''capitalism requires government'',thats where the general public is at.
Unfortunetly Keynesian economics is back and it might be here to stay for a while,im horrified that Obamas economic advisor Lawrence Summers wants obama to pass a ''mini stimulus'' worth 200 billion.
America needs a greater level of economic freedom,like in Hong Kong,as Milton Friedman said''if you want to see capitalism in action,go to Hong Kong''
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 Generally when you "put quotes around words that some one else said" it means that they "actually said those words" and that you didn't "pull them out of your ass." If you had bothered to even read Hong Kong's Wikipedia article, you'd know that 50 out of 62 hospitals are government-run and the government owns every inch of land in the country. But I'm sure you're not going to let little things like facts hinder your fantasies.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish I take it that you have no respect for Milton friedman,by the way im not a conservative,nor am i a ''progressive,i was but for the last few months i have being looking into much different views and i have changed a lot of my views since then.I am still Liberal in some areas like supporting gay mariage and being pro choice but when it comes to the economy im generally fiscally conservative.
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 Lol. I get this a lot. User posts wildly inaccurate comment (Hong Kong). I point out that 10 seconds of Googling demonstrates as much. User changes subject. Now talks about vague a-factual things, uses meaningless buzzwords (progressive). I point out new topics are vague, a-factual, and that commenter ignored that his original comment was completely wrong. Commenter pretends he never wrote original comment. Commenter pretends vague a-factual statements are meaningful.
...Go!
Newsish 1 year ago
people who say that free markets are efficient are like religious people who belive that a big space creature created the universe and controls their lives.
mwells219 1 year ago
Dude, make some new videos already.
SamtotheSkillz 1 year ago
I agree with you 100% If I had been born with a big dick I could be making lots of money as a porn star.
Shadowlit001 1 year ago
love malcom gladwell... good video!
missscarlet2004 1 year ago
My sentiments (and thoughts exactly). Imagine the inefficencies we go through in an underdeveloped country such as Mexico (calling it a developing country is wishful thinking) when we "proudly" gave birth to Carlos Slim, the richest man on earth, and at the same time more than half the population lives in poverty or extreme poverty...
Greeting from Mexico City, n.
nimbemon 1 year ago
@nimbemon Well obviously if Mr. Slim is one billion times richer than the average Mexican it is obviously becuase he is one billion times smarter. Thus the rules of the market dictate he must have an IQ of one hundred billion.
Newsish 1 year ago
quite true... lol!!!!!!!!!
nimbemon 1 year ago
Give me a definition of efficiency that an economist could accept.
If the market is not efficient then what is the alternative? What is the trade off?
You used the example of the FDA below as an example. What do you think of the argument, such as that recently made by John Stossel, available here on youtube, arguing that the FDA does more harm than good?
You seem to ignore the fact that we have tort liability in this country for diseased meat on top of the facts they'll go out of business.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago 2
@Americaisgreat123 That's a common fallacy. The question is: Do we need an FDA? It is irrelevant and illogical to say, "the FDA has this one bad policy, therefore we should abolish the FDA." I know this may sound insane, but if the FDA does have a bad policy, it may actually be possible to *change* that one policy without abolishing the FDA. Does the market need an FDA? Fuck yes, 10 seconds of research into pre-FDA medicine will assure you of that.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish - You ignored my main question!
Just saying something does not make it so. First off you ignore what I said by pretending I said abolish it because it isn't perfect. Did you even watch the John Stossel series or are you too much of an intellectual coward to have your vision challenged. I doubt you could even make my argument for getting rid of the FDA, but I could quite easily make your simpleton argument.
Don't try to mis-represent my stance because you don't know how to address it.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
And of course, obviously the FDA does some good things. Richard Epstein points out in his book "How Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation" that part of the FDA's job is to prevent ineffective (placebo like) drugs from coming onto the market. If you are sick or in mortal danger, you better not be wasting your time on a drug that is not effective.
Whether they do it most effectively or whether they can prevent you from trying something if you're dying is another debate.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123 Hey genius, you can't post "did you watch this random video" and not even give me the fucking title and expect me to go find and watch it. Have you watched than one video about that one thing by that one guy? No? Why haven't you done that yet? Coward! You don't have the intellectual honesty to watch a vague random thing I randomly wrote about in a comment.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish - Hey smartass, I'll send the link to your email.
Can you give me a definition of efficiency that an economist could accept.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Newsish - I sent you that video 2 months ago and you never responded. Did you watch it? What did you think? You also never gave me a definition of efficiency or answered my question on giving examples of the trade of to an alternative to the market.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123 yes we need the FDA so that the food and drugs we take are safe. it exists becaue if it didn't there would be no standard of safety , and that's not a good thing. and john stossel is an idiot who wishes he was geraldo rivera.
mwells219 1 year ago
You think I'm kidding?
You have no idea how much I wish you were done school.
If you had the bucks (if I had the bucks to donate, I guess that would help too) to do this full-time...awesome.
Every single day, there is some bit of news where I find myself saying, "I wonder what Newsish would say about this?"
I am not flattering you; simply trying to encourage you.
Your mind, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.
Opiman000 1 year ago
@Opiman000, Well then, use that hot Swedish body to turn some tricks and send Daddy some money ;-)
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish
OHhhhhh, my stomach hurts, too much of that laughter thing...
Good news! I think I lined up a job for next week...could be good bucks...stay tuned, Daddio, things are looking up financially!
Opiman000 1 year ago
Oh Really, Newsish?????
No One EVER in the history of the earth???
YOU LIE! or are at least incorrect.
I'll say it...
"Newsish deserves at least 20 Million dollars a year for talking into a microphone!!!"
So there.
Opiman000 1 year ago
Touche.
Newsish 1 year ago
Some very good points, and a fresh view. My 2 cents about some other efficiency limiters in the market:
- non-rational decission making in a market based on the assumpition of rational actors
- deciding under the boundary condition of limited knowledge
Especially the later one leads on average also to wasteful decisions. One could of course argue, that the free market minimises the percentage of wasteful decisions, but I have not stumbled over any study showing that.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
Agreed. The "limited knowledge" particularly is so obvious it's comical to see people dismiss the need for organizations like the USDA to regulate the meat industry or the FDA or regulate drugs because THERE IS NO WAY A FREE MARKET CONSUMER CAN NOW BEFOREHAND if the meat is tainted or if the drug has terrible side effects. And the extra cost of paying for these bodies is VASTLY less expensive than the scores of deaths and injuries caused by poor practices prior to regulation.
Newsish 1 year ago
AmazingSatirist - The next step after Copyright is Creative Commons and the like. Peep Lawrence Lessig.
adizmal 2 years ago
Right place right time, good point there is also a good song by Dr John, it is the story of my life, right place wrong time.
HarvandHarv 2 years ago
Your examples in this video are flawed because they are government induced monopolies. Like the tv and radio arguments you make. There is limited distribution channels because government prevents competitors from entering the market. Media is not a free market, and never has been because government interferes. Same is true for Microsoft, which is also a government induced monopoly. Horrible examples of trying to bash free market systems by using examples that are not free markets.
Relativisticism 2 years ago
Jesus fucking Christ, can you not read the other dozen comments where this was explained in detail and/or not simply - on your own - fully think that through before opening your mouth?
Newsish 2 years ago
Wasn't the Clinton administration working against a microsoft monopoly that they had held because of free market policies in the computer branche?
TheAmazingSatirist 2 years ago
Yeah they were trying to split up Microsoft but not because of the free market. Microsoft had become a predatory corporation buying up competitors. Microsoft was protected by copyright which also restricts free market systems allowing them to charge what ever they wanted for their product even if it was not actually worth the asking price. They would then strangle competitors or buy them out of the market so it could corner the market on pc operating systems.
Relativisticism 2 years ago
So copyright is not a component of free market to you? That's odd :D
Sounds like economic anarchy to me.
China hasn't honoured copyright in a couple of years, but as soon as they became more powerfull the WTO forced them to do it. Nobody, not even the chinese could stand a boycott against china for a long period of time :D
However, if everyone dishonoured copyright, where would the fuel for the motor of innovation be?
TheAmazingSatirist 2 years ago
these are my thoughts exactly. whats worse is when these moron conservatives make tons of money by selling lies and bullshit. just think of the damage that FOX news and pat robertson has caused the world and the money they made in the process
we need to have some sort of "value added" tax so that this type of crap isn't profitable anymore. just imagine the posibilities if scientists made much more money than they do now.
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
What you proposed--that the income of a news-announcer should be expropriated and used for mass education--is absurd. Firstly, government subsidized education is infamously bad. (I say this as one who attended public schools for his entire education.) Secondly, prices(which include wages) are, in an untrammeled market, determined by supply and demand. They are not arbitrary. Also, I don't understand how "happenstance," as you put it, is somehow tantamount to inefficient. This video is absurd.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
"I readz bookz on economix"
Newsish 2 years ago
public schools suck in america but they aren't so bad abroad. i think its a brilliant idea to redistribute their money for mass education, as long as their teaching the right things. after all education is the key to beating crime and poverty and the free and honest exchange of information is the reason we have had the progress that we have
besides the public school system is so outdated that its doomed to failure. we need elected officials with the balls to make hard decisions, not lawyers
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
And who is to determine what should be taught in school--the State?
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
sure why not. the state is really the only entity that doesn't have an interest in subjugating certain knowledge. of course the state should be guided by scientists and experts
just imagine if voters actually had the knowledge they needed to make informed decisions. the result would be fewer politicians
hell if anything a reformed and effective public education is the most important aspect of the state since a society of well informed people are much less likely to make bad decisions
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
So you propose that we entrust our children's education to the State, which, I'll remind you, is the monopoly of the use of physical force. And you further believe that the State is unbiased? What planet do you live on?
If the State is in charge of education, it will only allow schools to teach whatever it authorizes. It is hardly impartial.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
yes i will entrust our education to a democratically elected government based on the rule of law. it happens all over the civilized world and things have only gotten better, state schools are one of the reasons why
i never said the US is unbiased just that i trust elected officials with the welfare of the people more than corporations
like i said the state should take guidence from a consensus of experts like they do now, and what does the state gain from authorizing bad information? nothing
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
The State will not approve any information which it deems inimical to its interests. Also, you are forgetting that compulsory education is morally wrong; education should be voluntary.
You may not perceive any evil in what you are advocating, but it is certainly there. You are advocatiing the intrusion of government in the lives of private citizen. You sound like you're reading from Plato's Republic.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
i'm not talking about a totalitarian governement, i'm talking about the same government we have now but with a revised education system that actually works for this century. besides i have no problem with private schools (unless their religious)
ensuring the education of the society is vital to reducing crime, poverty and religion. an educated society is much stronger than an uneducated one and its in everybody bests interest to ensure that everyone gets a decent education at the very least
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
BTW, you talking exactly about a school system I attended and I got a VERY good education. Was there some bias? Sure, but I also got taught the very tools I needed for discovering and dismantling it. Education is not just about feeding facts to kids, it's teaching them to think, learn, etc. In essence, looking at the awesome governmental education systems in many countries I lived in I do not see any of the problems XxxNuMbxxX0301 talks about. Oh, and btw, free education rocks. ;-)
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
aunicornist 2 years ago
Comment removed
aunicornist 2 years ago
Free market is the true will of the people, and I love karma.
tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN 2 years ago
Yeah meaningless people getting meaningless awards for they meaningless achivements. Movie stars, singers, and similar iconic figures.
On the other hand if a singer or a basketball player generates tons of money who should get it?
Media, today is mostly elevating meaningless stupidity, reality shows and so on. the dumber the better the most earning potentials. sad but true.
frank
ElusiveCube 2 years ago
yay for people with an actual understanding of economics!
harblardo 2 years ago
Inefficient compared to what? The free market is far more efficient compared to government simply due to competition.
Please note our current market is not a free market. It's heavily regulated & controlled by the government.
Is a free market perfect? Of course not. But, like your critics have pointed out, neither you nor any politician can decide what's best for 300 million individuals. Because each individual has their own unique values. They achieve happiness in their own unique ways.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
What the solution is (if any) a different question entirely. And I'll contend it requires a bit more sophistication that "government take over everything" or "government do nothing."
Newsish 2 years ago
If millions of people are willing to spend their money on a good or service (like radio entertainment) who are you to claim this patronage is "inefficient"? Your entire posistion is based on the assumption that your values are more valid than others. Do you consider everyone who disagrees with you "indocrinated" or is this more than simple ad hominum?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
No market ever in history has/is/will ever be efficient. Name one that has. You can't. It's a fucking stupid thing to suggest. Obviously you don't understand the concept, but "market" is a keyword you've been indoctrinated to repeat your radio show bullshit on. But it's not a debate about your little pet policies of the week, it's a fucking fact about every fucking market ever in fucking history. Do us all a fucking favor and march off a cliff like a good little lemming.
Newsish 2 years ago
Sure people will do anything to make money, and guess who stops them, the government. When poor inner city black women try to braid hair for a living its not the "free market' that marches in to shut them down, its the government. When doctors attempt to offer cheap medical coverage to poor people the government shuts them down. If your logic was sound 100% of money going to education would make sense because according to you this can only grow the economy.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
This is kind of an insane rambling monologue. You probably don't understand this, but I assure you anyone shutting down "black women try to braid hair for a living" has literally nothing to do with the general topic of market inefficiency. You're just repeating a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that has been indoctrinated into you, becuase you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Newsish 2 years ago
No its an example where poor people try to make a better living and the government stops them, not "market inefficencies". Also the government claims ownership of radio and TV bandwidths and controle their operation through licensure. This being the case, claims that such a government controled industry constitute a "market inefficency" are ignorant. Its akin to saying Bush giving Haliberton a no bid contract in Iraq is a market ineffeciency.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Free Market where....... i wanna see one
Makeshiftdemon 2 years ago
In economic sciences only what can be expressed in money is of interest to the disciplin. Like in medicine only what concerns the body and health is of interest.
Therefor the definition of efficiency in economic sciences boils down to something like: everything that makes some persons rich is efficient.
But this is not what the term efficiency means in common language.
Thats the confusion: economic efficiency and social efficiency are different terms and not automatically a good thing per se.
13otany13ay 2 years ago
This guy is smart.
Newsish 2 years ago
Thats a huge straw man. I certainly do not agree with every economic theory out there, but I've yet to hear one what claims to only be interested in what can be expressed in money. Nor does a study of economics lead to this conclusion. Having rejected economics, what is your basis for assesing the utility of social efficency? Do you have any means of quantifing what is "good" for society, other than your opinion?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Take a look at the different definitions of economy. They all exclude social interactions that do not involve the exchange of goods and services that are not expressed in forms of currency.
For instance no economic theory has anything meaningfull to say about peace, friendship or security as a valuable good.
Thats where political science, sociology, history and philosophy come into the game.
Economic efficiency says nothing about fairness or happiness or the greater good of society.
13otany13ay 2 years ago
Continued: The proposition that something may be economically efficient is meaningless without the explanation for whom it is eficient - meaning profitable and benefitial in terms of a greater aquisition and accumulation of tradable goods and services. Tradable by the rules and traditions of a defined society. Slaves for instance are not tradeable anymore, thanks to government interference.
Government interference causes massive market inefficiencies for slave trade, fortunatly.
13otany13ay 2 years ago
luck=money :(
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
work times smarts = money
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
As for Glass-Steagall, because of heavy US regulations London, not New York, is the financial capital of the world. And because of looming English regulations many firms have already increased the size of Geneva branches. They're now moving to Geneva. Again, your intentions are correct but you're advocating a counterproductive method.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
Firstly, radio and schooling are extremely regulated. It's hilarious that you're complaining about them
Through most of this video youre not describing market inefficiencies. People like football. Favre brings happiness to millions of people. He's compensated for that happiness and the extreme limited quarterback positions available -- the same is true for Rush & S.Miller
Keep trying to herd mankind. I'm sure communism will work next time. Forget about China, USSR, Vietnam, E.Berlin, etc, etc.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
There's another fact too, the middle Class crowd spend more than their income for just about anything they don't even need - so they are constantly in debt, and this is how it mushrooms into a huge deficit among other issues .... as you mentioned here...
KITM0USE 2 years ago
I am pretty sure that the people who sign the checks for the people sitting behind the microphone think it's worth what they are paying, why else would they do it? To add the phrase "in there right mind" sort of lets you wiggle out of this, because you can say that they are not in their right mind. But then you have to give a justification for that, and it cannot be based on them wanting to sign the check, since that is circular reasoning.
FearsEdge 2 years ago
All of your examples are those of markets that are heavily regulated by the government. There is no free market in radio or television. There is a state controlled cartelization that distorts the market and creates these conditions that allow for these people to garner wealth that is disproportionate to their impact on society.
Look at those markets that are the most free of gov regulation and you will find products that continuously become more affordable while also improving in quality.
strokjl 2 years ago
Efficient for what? Everybody has their own values. The free market does not strive to be "efficient" it simply allows people to pursue their values. effciency is not a prime value, it is secondary at best.
ORIGINALUSRNM 2 years ago
The amount of ignorance in this video is staggering. Listen to spawtalks video response you might get educated.
Malthus0 2 years ago 3
You're taking your economic advice from a guy who doesn't know who Jonas Salk is. I think that's about all we need to know about your thought process.
Newsish 2 years ago
Spawtalk could have been a retarded monkey and still make this video look stupid. It comes under the category of so ignorant as to not be worth responding to.
The fact that he bothered and did so in a relatively comprehensive manner is a credit to him.
Malthus0 2 years ago 4
Do you know who Jonas Salk is?
Newsish 2 years ago
Do you know what the fallacy of appeal to authority is?
Person A does not know Person B.
I say that person B is right therefore person A is wrong :P
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 4
I'm just fucking with this guy becuase he is too stupid to have a serious conversation with.
But it's no coincidence that the guy who calls another person who couldn't even repeat the name Jonas Salk "comprehensive" thinks markets are magic and perfect. It's much easier to maintain that delusion when you don't know anything else.
Newsish 2 years ago
No one thinks that markets are perfect. Just like no one thinks that evolution is perfect.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 4
So let's not pretend either is. When your appendix is about to explode we don't say something as stupid as, "Oh well, that's evolution," and let you die. Likewise, when banks are making insanely risky investments or when people are poisoning air/water or when the market fails to invest in critical infrastructure (like roads) or when people are making outrageous amounts of money for trivial contributions let's not say, "Oh well, that's the market" and let our economy die.
Newsish 2 years ago
What you want them to survive despite the fact that they are not appealing to consumer demand???
If that's what you want then you're insane!
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 3
What would do you say when an entire civilization collapses due to your misguided economics?
Does the USSR not count?
Was the firm example laid out by pre- and post-Moaist China a fluke?
Is our broken socialist education system due to evil fat-cat bankers? Or perhaps too many teachers are educated at private universities -- private colleges are, of course, by large far worse than public colleges.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
Saying that reasonable banking regulation like Glass-Steagal or public education or reasonable taxes - which, BTW, were all in place in America DURING THE COLD WAR - is akin to turning the US into the USSR is too stupid to even respond to.
Your just as brainwashed as the idiots in the USSR, only you use the opposite buzzwords.
Here's a crazy fucking thought: how about we have reasonable regulation with social investments in certain sectors (roads, schools) an make rational decisions?
Newsish 2 years ago
@Nwish
I never compared the US to the USSR. The USSR simply shows how destructive market control is. The fact is that every time markets have been freed from government control -- control that you are advocating for -- hoi polloi has been better off and the economy grows faster
Why do you think putting some bureaucrat, who only got the job through political connections, in charge is going to make anyone better off?
We all want more efficiency. Free markets gives the most, not total, efficiency
BigPurple121 2 years ago
No, free markets are NOT the most efficient. Well regulated markets are. See above comment about Glass-Steagal, schools, roads. Compare quality of life, GDP growth, technological progress, and/or any other metric between America circa 1800 and America circa 1950. The well regulated, socially-invested America of 1950 wins at everything by a mile. America without schools, roads, drug regulations, or bank regulations (although we're low on that now) would be a shithole, don't forget that.
Newsish 2 years ago
Are you comparing 1800's w/the 1950s? That's just intellectually dishonest. Don't you think some extraordinary factors contributed? Telecom, engines (tractors, automobiles, shipping), flight, electricity, etc were all being fully realized in the 1950s. Obviously there was more growth. I agree with some regs but we're way past the appropriate level in most sectors.
I agree that America with a crippled school system will be a shithole. Don't forget that's publicly owned and terribly managed.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
That's the definition of measuring technological *progress*. Technology does increase exponentially, but I'd contend that the exponent increased after WWII, when we did have a strong education system and bank regs, etc.
A major problem we face today is instead of saying, "our schools are failing, let's fix them," they say, "our schools are failing, let's dismantle them." Same for regulation.
Like they say, "Representatives who say that government doesn't work spend their terms making it so."
Newsish 2 years ago
"could have been" ?
Newsish 2 years ago
ok let`s pick nike!
-mr.nike has written his diploma on cheap labor and capitalistic mass-marketsells.
-his itemns are made with cheap labor overseas, cambodia, vietnam, china , philipines, wherever....
-the work is already outsourced , the thingy costs 10 times more than overall costs.
-usa sportstar gets millions
-ads(brainwashing) cost extra , distract you and eat up your time
-and if you still don`t get it , see for yourself , roaming the net how ppl at any time mention apple products...yay
Realizalize 2 years ago
It's pretty clear that you don't understand individual subjective preference structures. Just because you value something does not mean that others should too.
Certainly there are inefficiencies that distort prices (many involving government intervention of some kind), but implanting your own subjective valuation on the price mechanism doesn't make markets inefficient.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 2
This is somewhat of a good point, much more relevant than then some of your peers'. However in a market where NO ONE or ALMOST NO ONE thinks the price of a critical object/service is reasonable then it's absurd to hide behind subjectivity. On an island where I own the only water source, I can charge you any price I want and you have to pay (or die) but this is in no way efficient or desirable. Would you gladly pay my exorbitant price and say, "oh well, it's subjective"?
Newsish 2 years ago
As it happens that situation can be efficient. The standard definition of economic or pareto efficiency is when you can not increase consumption for some without making others worse off. As long the productive potential of the economy is all being used it is efficient. The distribution of goods around the islanders does not matter.
NecroNick1 2 years ago
All prices are subjectively determined by the consumer, that's just the way it works. You can't charge any price you want. If no one could afford to pay your price you would either have to lower it or go out.
You're blurring the word 'efficient' in an economic context. Efficient means the price of a product reflecting its actual value, based on all information available without a distortion.
Furthermore, as NecroNick explained, the situation you describe can indeed be Pareto Optimal.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 2
You missed his point. If Newsish had the only water source in the world, and you needed it to survive, then you'd have to pay whatever he wanted or die. You don't have a choice. That isn't efficient.
Raizhen010 2 years ago
No, I didn't miss his point. You don't pay whatever he wants. If he doesn't lower his price, you might die, but dead customers isn't exactly good for business.
And that is not what efficient means in an economic context.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
The problem with our example of Jonas Salk us that he gave it away voluntarily. If the government said that anyone who discovered a cure for AIDS had to give it away for free then far fewer people would try to find a cure for AIDS.
Scoforever 2 years ago 2
We don't have a free market
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 3
@TheSupremeSkeptic No market in the history of markets has ever been free. This is obvious. But even if one did exist, it would still be inefficient. Inefficiencies come from physical limitations and human irrationalities - which still would exist in a perfectly free market.
Newsish 2 years ago
If all markets are "inefficient" then this whole video is pointless. Unless you can point out a way to make it more "efficient".
"No market in the history of markets has ever been free."
That's kind of a silly thing to say. A market can be very small too. I can buy pot. I pay for my pot. My dealers gets money. There was no force used in that transaction so it could be seen as a free market.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 2
Why call this video "Market Inefficiencies"? Why not call it "physical limitations and human" inefficiencies?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
You totally fail to understand the point. Reread.
Newsish 2 years ago
You claim no market has ever been free.
You claim even if it was it would still be inefficient.
You claim that inefficiencies come from physical limitations and human irrationalities even if it was free.
What did I fail to understand?
I asked a valid question.
Besides I can't remember anything in your video about "physical limitations and human" inefficiencies. All I remember is some guy (on the radio) who does not give much to society gets a lot more than someone who busts their ass.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
Your first three sentences are true and form a complete and final thought. Everything else you've written about is irrelevant and/or you didn't listen.
Newsish 2 years ago
So what, I have to agree with in order to understand??
Try answering my question.
By the way we have had markets that were very close to being free.
tinyurl(dot)com/yz5mx8g
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
Is this how you argue??? Just claim that my that 'sentences are true and form a complete and final thought' and just claim that someone does not understand without explaining?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
What's your question? You seem to understand the single point of the video, but you're trying to conflate it with a bunch of other crap.
Newsish 2 years ago
If you're really blaming these "inefficiencies' on "physical limitations and humans irrationality" then why call this video "Market Inefficiencies"? Why not call it "physical limitations and human irrationality" inefficiencies?
After all "physical limitations and human" are not to blamed on voluntary transactions.
Here's a second question.
Trade or traffic(market) are inefficient at doing what, exactly?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
You're trying to separate physicality and humanity from "markets" but markets ARE ONLY physicality and humanity. Markets only exist becuase of people trying to move things. The two are inseparable. You can't say people are irrational without saying markets are too and an irrational market is an inefficient one.
Markets are inefficient at everything. You name it, they're inefficient at it. They're even inefficient at inefficiency. The degree of inefficiency varies by place and time and market.
Newsish 2 years ago
"You can't say people are irrational without saying markets are too and an irrational market is an inefficient one."
But you're not criticizing irrationality. You're criticizing the market. Irrational choices are punished in a market. Therefore are avoided.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
'Markets are inefficient at everything. You name it, they're inefficient at it. They're even inefficient at inefficiency."
0_O
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
Besides even if it was true and the market was somehow "inefficient" then what is efficient at appealing to consumer demand?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
"Irrational choices are punished" ...
"I own all the farm land. I don't want to sell you food becuase you're ugly. Free market, bitch."
"Your bank invested all your deposits in a shitty company. You lost all your money. Free market, bitch."
"Oh, that unlabeled cough syrup contains cyanide. Free market, bitch."
"My mine leaked some arsenic into the drinking water. Free market, bitch."
Yes, after you died, the market would punish them. Problem solved.
Newsish 2 years ago
Don't you realize that only own something to the extent you can defend it. So the farm that does sell food benefits greatly. What defends large amounts of land? The state, bitch.
Your bank gives out low interest rates and as a result there are more and more poor investments. What gave the banks that money? The state, bitch.
People are can't buy products just because the suppler does not have a license. As a result cartels form. What enforces licensing laws? The state, bitch.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
How retarded is this people are dumb so they need other people tell them what they can and cannot buy or sell.
Besides even if it was true and the market was somehow "inefficient" then what is efficient at appealing to consumer demand?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
Once again you're criticizing the irrationally then you blame the market.
If you don't think that irrational choices are punished in the free market then go out and buy 5,000 PS3s and wonder why you don't have any money for food.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago 2
You're trying to weasel out of an answer. A market where people seal land from you is NOT A FREE MARKET. Pretend your bank deposit is a chicken that you caught.
Are you willing to die in the above scenarios with only the solace that (after you die) "Irrational choices are punished in a market"?
Newsish 2 years ago
If you pay for the "seal" of that land with YOUR OWN WEALTH then it is a free market.
I don't have to die in order for my bank to do well. They are the ones that have to do well or they will die. Besides without bailouts banks that make irrational choices will run into the ground in probably less then a year. What makes you think that it's a whole lifetime?
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
"I own all the farm land. I don't want to sell you food becuase you're ugly." The framer needs money for a healthcare but can't afford it because he didn't sell anything.
"Your bank invested all your deposits in a shitty company. You lost all your money." The bank dies, unlike the federal reverse that just keeps benefiting from all the money its printing.
"Oh, that unlabeled cough syrup contains cyanide." They get sued, get a bad rep, and lose customers. End of story.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
''My mine leaked some arsenic into the drinking water" That's damage to property and will be taken care of by private police.
"Yes, after you died, the market would punish them. Problem solved." I don't think that it will take that long. Besides only the best suppliers will survive when there are no barriers to entry.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
Isn't "markets are inefficient" a fragment? Markets are inefficient at doing what, exactly?
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago 2
I too would like to know the answer to that question.
OT: Doesn't this guy realize that the state enforces copyright laws which is how some of these people (i.e. actors) to get so rich in the first place.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
I think IP is consistant with a free market - it's merely extending private property rights to non-physical goods.
Newsish 2 years ago
oh I love the flag
Brascofarian 2 years ago
I wonder what gonna get usa on the right track with as many faux patients as there are creationobots..
To come up with something semi-brainy half thought through moment of even though, can get one burned like a witch, these times.
So I pretend the punksinger in me doesn`t know about it.
Realizalize 2 years ago
Hey, Newsish,
It's nice to see someone challenging the underlying assumptions of capitalism that makes it virtually impossible to argue alternatives because the underlying assumptions frame the debate. Keep striking at that sand foundation and hopefully more people will quit drinking the Kool-Aide.
JimMonsanto 2 years ago
The Kool aide of understand economics?
spawk1993 2 years ago
I love how everything is either rainbows-and-sunshine-shitting capitalism, or soviet-gulag marxism.
I have to wonder how many people who fling that term around like monkey shit even know what Marxism really is, and if they realize that there are alternatives to both Marxism and Capitalism that seek a sort of golden mean between the two.
JimMonsanto 2 years ago
Pick a side, we're at war.
Newsish 2 years ago
Ha ha ha ha. You're in the firing line in this one Newsish.
Fuck me, but some people really have it in for you, don't they?
This seems to be the most divisive issue for you Americans, after the Creationist/Atheist debate on here.
I pick your side, I can't go for that 'Free Market solves everything' bollox, but then again, I'm obviously a commie socialist liberal atheist euro weenie weakling pacifist 'waiting for handout' free medical care receiving ignoramus.
FreindlyRanger 2 years ago
Yeah, really. It's like chill the fuck out, the Cold War is over. We one.
Newsish 2 years ago
typical marxist garbage. This is just some liberal kid who probably attends college, and has had his parents pay for everything in his life, and then he learns some college marxist BS about how everything needs to be handed ot me on a platter
chorizo1337 2 years ago