Complaining that "a free market" is not a free market because of political influence is like complaining "the right to family life" is not accurate because we dont let paedo's have sec with their children. And what is this tripe about Chinese Capitalism being better than American(?!) thats the worst capitalism around: Steal their land and sell it without reconpence! Now I know why most anti-capitalists come from Cambridge - its the biased professors you have there
@abbottone - the point about a free market was that the proponents of free market capitalism are that a "free market" implies one can have an economic 'market' that functions in an entirely independent way of politics... that it functions in a scientifically observable manner - sort of in a vacuum. His argument is that there is no "free market" - there is always some form of regulation and government involvement whether it be child labour or immigration limits...
@abbotone - also it might be wise to listen to what he says and understand it instead of having a knee jerk reaction to it. He states, that over the last 30 years when free market capitalism has been the most accepted economic model that economic growth has slowed worldwide, with China and India being two examples of different forms of capitalism that have proven more effective at securing economic growth. He didn't say "better" - but in terms of economic growth it's been more effective.
@FifthColumnWHU i have to disagree with your 30yr run...the past 30 yrs the market has seen more regulation than ever before...i would wager that to be the reason growth has slowed..and as far as your comment on native americans..that makes me think your in the same boat with the racist black people who prolong the victimization of there ancestors...what happened that long ago was normal for the world and wasnt localized to america...you cant blame that one the current generation
@bewaver a little bit of coherency plz...not real sure of the point your trying to get across...are you attempting to be sarcastic...and if so by what means
The reason free trade is pushed by the IMF/World Bank is collusion, it is that the free trade ideology is very profitable for the trillionairs. The destruction of the nation state and transfer of public resources into private hands is a trillion dollar business worldwide.
@juicyappleish Who told you that? It's the opposite, the rich have the luxury to put their money on the bank, unused. It's consumers who create jobs. The more consumers the better, and the larger part of their income they spend on consumption the better. In other words, the poor create jobs, not the rich.
'Economics: Old Greek word for the art of keeping a home weatherproof and supplied with what the householders need.For three centuries this word was used by British rulers and their advisors to mean political housekeeping-the art of keeping their bankers,brokers and rich supporters well supplied with money and power ,often by impoverishing other householders.They used the Greek word instead of the English word because it mystified folk who had not been taught at wealthy schools.
back b4 the rothchildsy introduced usury,trade was more even, all things were more predictable, money was based on gold, usury itself introduced inflation. Capitalism and society can only exist if they compliment eachother in a mutual sort of social respect. therefore, the USA is finished. There is -0- respect for workers,union or not, -0- loyalty to the U.S.,thanks GE, and gov't can not tame anything the bilderberg empire doesnt wish to be tame. end of story.
Infrastructure first. Then capitalism. Capitalism should be performed on all levels and all products in such a manner as to compliment society's needs. A charter used to mean, hey, we need a bridge over on this side of town,if we had one,we could avail ourselves to transporation of commerce as so on...but now, due to excessive greed,CEO's making rates of pay 500/1 to their employees, capitalism is failing. It is failing the infrastructure of society.Particularly in america.
@juicyappleish Yes, we're all agreed, Stalinism doesn't work. But if you want examples of Capitalism's failures and Socialism working then take a look at Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.You can also take a look at the Scandinavian states.
@dvertov Of course, the Chilean problems had nothing to do with capitalism while the anti-inflatuonary policies that later helped them did. Socialism in Argentina or Brazil can hardly be said to have "worked" and the Scandinavian miracle is pure fiction (Sweden for example gained succes through capitalism, stagnated in relative terms along with the rest of the Scandinavian states for years and is improving now that they have curtailed their welfare state and government).
@FletchforFreedom So those three decades under Pinochet and the free-market disaster where an apparition? Brazil is the fastest growing economy in the Americas. And who said anything about miracles?
@dvertov Pinochet's oppressive regime had nothing to do with the free market (or Milton Frideman for those dumb enough to believe Naomi Klein). Brazil is the fastest growing economy in the Americas in no small part because of its greater adoption of capitalism and monetary restraint, its relatively low starting point (living standards below the top 100) and the prevalence of socialist economies in the Americas. And the Scandinavian countries have not done well in relative economic terms.
@FletchforFreedom And yet Pinochet's economic team were all trained by Freidman. And by that logic one could argue that the Soviet system failed because of oppressive regimes. Brazil has also implement Socialist policies.
@dvertov And yet the assertion that Pinochet's economic team was all trained by Friedman remains no less entirely inaccurate. The Soviet system certainly was oppressive as well but fialed demonstrably on both those grounds and economic ones as well. Yes, Brzail has implemented some socialist policies, hence their relatively poor starting point, Imagine how tremendously much better off they'd be were that not the case.
@juicyappleish I'm not really sure where to start, except to say that maybe you should take a Poly Sci 101 course, or at least use Wikipedia to look up the myriad ideas about and forms of Socialism -- from Democratic (such as the Scandinavian Model) to Marxist to Utopian to even Libertarian Socialism.
And who said anything about billionaires being 'evil'? Their just doing what's in their best interest, it's just the nature of the beast.
@dvertov Polisci? I study ecnomics. Socialist dont' know a thing about economics. All they say is "gimme this" gimme that" feed me this. give me everything.
@juicyappleish I don't know where you're studying but they should at least be teaching you to present empirical data in defense of your position instead of vapid platitudes.
@dvertov Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor wider. Nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate, whether they be feudal societies where status determines position, or modern, centrally-planned economies where access to government determines position.
CAPITALISM WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH, DUE IN PART TO ECONOMIES OF SCALE THEORY. THIS WOULD OCCUR EVEN IF YOU COMPLETELY REMOVED EVERY U.S. CORPORATION AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
*
A COMBINATION OF CAPITALISM (being able to have your own business, etc) AND SOCIALISM (universal healthcare, affordable higher education for all, etc) IS THE BEST OPTION
@Someideasandstuff Read his book Free to Choose I forgot what page. Just read it and after youre finished, you'll be a Capitalist a supporter of the Free-market Capitalist Enterprise.
@juicyappleish the "free market" is now a utopian fantasy of Schiff supporters. There isn't one country on the planet that pratices unregulated capitalism, including Hong Kong, LOL
@juicyappleish Certainly; however, growth is NOT limitless. We have reached our limit and it is time to find a better way - one that is suited to a 21st century world, not an 18th / 19th century world prime for growth.
@qbalfrog In the middle ages, people thought that there is nothing beyond the atlantic. Yet we found american and asia. In the futures people will colonize the moon and mars. And techonology will harness resources outsde the planet.
@Someideasandstuff A term for systems that combine capitalism and socialism is State-Capitalism. It is not the best option. Why? Look at the countries who have been the best at it. The military-industrial complex that is the socially crumbling democratic fantasy of the USA and, now, the totalitarian wonderland of China. When you consider the merits of an economic system you must carefully evaluate its political implications. Get onto Chomsky.
@Someideasandstuff Maybe you can just call it mixed capitalism but I think that allows for too much vagueness. E.g. To give you just one, in Australia, the government is instituting a Carbon Tax. Mere regulation? I don't think so. They're guiding the polluting industries to their demise and the renewable energy industries to a paradise of subsidization. This is state capitalism. There are some variations but they're are crucially limited. Please, swallow this propaganda: watch?v=3gUgfyVt3mE
@Jason011987 just look up MIXED ECONOMY. You can read about it on the internet. State capitalism has to do with the state owning a fair amount of the means of production.
@Someideasandstuff You wouldn't have issued that advise had you the basic sense to follow it. Or maybe you just can't read very well, fucked if I know. Sorry to bother you.
@juicyappleish I quess you haven't seen the lastest CBO report on income distrubution... google it
From 1979-2007 (Reagan through Bush) the top 1 percent's incomes grew 275% while the 81st through 99th percentiles grew 65% and the 21st through 80th percentiles grew 40% and the bottom 20 percent grew 18%.
I highly doubt you study economics. Could you explain Austrian, Post-Keynesian or Marxist economics to me? What causes business cycles according to these theories?
@juicyappleish pure socialism? Soviet union was state capitalism.Socialism or similar system cant succeed in only one country etc so dont know what your point is or what pure socialism was or is.
Moreover, Marx said that history progresses in stages and that the commencement of one stage can only occur with try fulfillment of the last, you can't put icing on the cake without first baking the as it were. Thus a proponent of socialism must support capitalism, as I do
@tatsumakisempyukaku hahaha wtf..you have probably read one paragraph from Marx and that was the one that was saying that youcan't move to socialism without the passage from capitalism..if you had read the reast of the text you would have realized that capitalism is already a system of the past and now it is the time to move on..capitalism has grown and now it is rotten..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok as predicted da vid was against capitalism. Funny thing though is that Milton Friedman destroyed these positions decades ago. The facts aren't in da Chinese guy's side. The problem is this corporatocracy we are in. Not capitalism
Ok, I'm about to listen to this clip. I have some presumptions about it, that 1 it'll show capitalism in a negative light. And if so, then the usual complaints like businesses getting all the breaks, greed, selfishness, the dire conditions of the poor etc. will be illustrated. But let me see.
@p1370r All socialism is based on the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
The function, the true purpose, of Laffer inspired supply side, trickle down, voodoo, Reaganomics has always been to run up so much debt that cutting programs that help anyone but the wealthiest Americans could be justified to those who would be harmed the most by the actual application of the theory to the real world.
@qwertypoiu4321 he is NOT an idiot nor is he a Marxist.... he is an economics professor here in the U.S..... he is a capitalist through and through, he just understands economics and how it works.....the idiot is the guy you see in the mirror.
@kheim1954 All socialism is based on the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
@qwertypoiu4321 I'm not an economist and just finished briefly readiong wikipedia on the terms you use in your reply.... all I'm saying is that Chang is not a Marxist. I base that on the fact that he openly claims to be a Capitalist.... but with some government control....... seems logical to me, not being an expert.
@kheim1954 He is claiming LTV exploitation theory. But ET is wholly based on the unicorn LTV. He is promoting unicorn LTV socialist nonsense, whether he is going to be honest about it or not.
@qwertypoiu4321 He does not say anything at all in the video which even hints at the labor theory of value. In fact, if you were to check his website, you would see that he EXPLICITLY rejects it.
@kheim1954 Actually, Chang is widely recognized as an idiot in the profession (railing against the well established benefits of free trade, for example) and freely admits that he applies (discredited) Marxist principles in his economic "research". There is an incredibly good reason that no one in the profession takes him seriously - he hasn't a clue about economics.
not taking into consideration that perhaps what we refer to as the "old paradigm" is indeed a paradigm of chaos. the question really isn't about how this system is better than that system, the question should be: how do we move from a paradigm of chaos to a paradigm of coalescence? how do we get people to stop killing other people?
It seems very interesting that the world, and America specifically, has such a hard time understanding the value in these ideas. Understandably the capitalist elites are doing everthing in their power to maintain the status quo, but why is it so hard to convince/convert all of the republican-conservatives, who accept the falsities as the unabashed, undeniable truth? Chang, and many like him, have been bringing TRUTH to the surface for quite some time, yet here we are and nothing is changing.
It seems very interesting that the world, and America specifically, has such a hard time understanding the value in these ideas. Understandably the capitalist elites are doing everthing in their power to maintain the status quo, but why is it so hard to convince/convert all of the republican-conservatives, who accept the falsities as the unabashed, undeniable truth? Chang, and many like him, have been bringing TRUTH to the surface for quite some time, yet here we are and nothing is changing.
I would like to see him kick the asses of those morons at the MIses institute too HereticNix. There has never been (and there never will be) a nation practicing pure capitalism (or pure communism).The closer a nation follows pure capitalism the more it will look like the dystopia of 1984. Governments are always about who is on the inside and who is on the outside. So is capitalism. This is human nature. It will not change if you abolish minimum wage laws. Skeptics don't kowtow like libertarians.
If you are ecologist you probably know better than I that in the last century more species disappeared than in the last millennium. I think this is directly linked to our standards of living (we achieved this atrocity with not even 1/4 of the world population living our current lifestyle) what will it be when all the world will have reach it? We will die that's what will happen; If you follow logic of course.The only thing that I know is that I know nothing , that's true logic.
I don't see why you had to tell me about your job , being a "scientific" doesn't make you right, I'm talking of human nature and I don't see any other valuable data to study human nature than literature of the past which is available to everyone who have time, a library card and an internet connection. I had enough encounter with philosopher ,psychologist and psychiatrist to know what kind of farce is the scientific knowledge on the mind which is the base of all our perception and beliefs.
much of the published research isn't available to everyone. Also its important because I have spent alot of time reading this literature relating to animal behaviour and competition. It's like saying anyone can play the guitar - it's probably true, if everyone practises, but everyone doesn't. I agree that scientific thinking is not the only way to view the world. It's simply a tool. However it is a very good tool.
Between the bus drivers, Ram and Sven, Sven gets paid 50 times more. The point Chang made is that Sven is probably not 50 times better a bus driver. My question: How much is the comparable food and rent for both per month?
@keipher42 Your question is wrong again because Ram probably spend a larger share of it's income on food than Sven does. The right question , I think, is why should we compare Sven and Ram? Why should we erase their history , social path , environment etc. and resume them to what they do for living? If Sven's father and his father's father had to live like dog and fight to get Sven's standard of living than I don't see why Ram can even be compared to Sven.
@keipher42 The fact that an example like that can even be given shows how deep the degradation of our society is. Gore Vidal had a really nice sentence for it: We live in the United States of Amnesia. The damage is done and there is nothing to do against the walk of time, we can not reverse the life of entire generations who have been raised to work , be entertained and fulfill their basic needs, like animals. It take just a few decades to destroy centuries of hard work.
people here should read a book called 'ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON'
(read its reviews on Amazon)
it is especially ironic that Chang is trying to debunk myths, but is actually just continuing old ones.
Economics is very susceptible to propaganda. special interest groups will always hire the best minds to argue for their case so free-trade is always on the back foot despite many people claiming the opposite.
read books against you're position. what doesn't change it , only makes it stronger.
23 things they don't tell you about individual ownership of means of production and accumulation of capital as one sees fit. Here we go again! I'll pinch my nose and give it a try anyways.
Awesome talk...bringing truth to power...he doesn't hate capitalism...but like Churchill thinks its a better alternative to that other crap...he quotes Gramsci... and is a pessimist of the mind, but an optimist of the will...
Love Ha Joon Chang. He questions the evidence and the myth of free market capitalism. Read Bad Samaritans and really loved it...
Calpitalism comes in all forms; the IMF and World Bank (and Ronald Reagan) do not have the last word in capitalism. Swedish capitalism is not laissez-faire free market capitalism, but the country is one of the richest, most equitable countries in the world.
@Anarchistim You misunderstood, English obviously isn't his first language. It's obvious he meant that he didn't want 20, 25 or and even number, that left 23.
Our technical capabilities have propelled us into a new paradigm where capitalism, actually all old world 'isms' of economics or social control, are rendered moot and pointless in today's 21st century capable world. A world of technical abundance no longer needs a medium of exchange to function. Example after example can be provided...if one cares to listen.
@TZMSocialEvolution I agree for the technical capabilities but did human nature evolved to the point where we can live in a world without lie and deception I highly doubt it. In fact I think we're becoming more savage through centuries.The ratio of civilian killed during wars before the 20th century was 1 for 10 soldier now it's 10 civilian for 1 soldier is this really evolution?We used to kill men now we kill ecosystems, you can start a new religion but you will never change human nature.
@royalplaylist102 The entire first section of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward debunks the Human Nature Myth so many people claim to have knowledge of. Has humanity become more violent? Yes. And our socioeconomic system and the stratification it creates is the main cause, cuz it screws up the environmental conditions we're reared in.
@CytherLynx No, proper research and scientific study is, which changes and adapts to new and better information.
So? The problem is when "human nature" is used as a blanket cop out to avoid addressing the root cause of bad human behavior. Plus, I'd like to think we're a bit more advanced in our mental capabilities than other animals, since we're highly adaptable creatures that can mold and shape our environment.
The scientific method for social concern. That pretty much sums it all up. :)
@CytherLynx Sure...the Amish can still do their thing. No one is forced over. However, once proved to be a better way of life (hypothetical) then it would be daft of people to live worse just to be stubborn. Still, their choice.
@CytherLynx Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction in itself. You see, anarchism is a system where one persons power of another doesn't exist and what is money, if not power made manifest?
Anarcho-Capitalism is simply the position that opposes central planning.
Money is a medium of exchange that allows for economic interactions greater than barter. It is fungible, durable, and dividable. Many things have been used as money, but fiat currency (our medium of exchange) is what allows for most of the evils of America's system of corporatism that are wrongfully blamed on capitalism.
@BruteTraining No, central-planning is a fringe element of todays economics. Management of the market does not constitute central planning and should be back in a few years. The market, by itself, tends to produce economically and socially unacceptable outcomes. The evils existed way before fiat currency and they won't go away. Fiat currency as such is no more evil than potatoes are, for an example. It does give us superior capability to manage the market. After that, it's all politics.
@freedomthrough wrong.. anarcho-capitalism is actually the domination of the economy of the free markets...anarchy means literally no authority-no control..anarcho-capitalism is an uncontrolled capitalism..doeas that reminds you something?..that is exactly the liberals ideology the complete domination of the market and the profits over society..therefore this capictalism is not controlled by nothing so that is precicelly a form of anarchy
@freedomthrough Money is a medium of exchange, not a value of power.
You are accepting the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game. Me having X amount of money doesn't mean that that money has been taken away from someone else, or that my advantage is only caused by another's disadvantage.
@Dirge987 Money has many more functions than just being a medium of exchange and a store of value. Money is a social institution, just as taxes are. A nuanced analysis is required to define money. Having more money definitely means you have more power, there's no question about it. Humans also experience class subconsciously, which has alot to do how well you live materially. It's not a zero-sum game, but that doesn't mean the amount of money you command isn't intrinsically connected to power.
@freedomthrough "Money is a social institution, just as taxes are."
One of these things is not like the other. Money is an emergent inter-subjective consensus of value for a specific item which is used as an intermediary within voluntary exchanges; taxes are coercivley taken funds by a regional monopoly on force.
@Dirge987 Money, like i've said, has many more functions than just simplifying exchange. In a modern monetary system (post-Bretton-Woods), taxes are necessary for the currency to retain it's value for one. Money is an institution designed to simplify social obligations in larger societies. That is how money came to and that is what money is today. Money and taxes go hand in hand in many ways.
@freedomthrough Taxes are a non-sequitur. And they do not go hand in hand. There has been money without taxes, and there have been taxes without money. They are two completely independent things. One is emergent from people's inter-subjective consensus, and the other is a centrally planned act of force against innocent people.
PS, and on your reply, could you please define what you mean by "power".
@Dirge987 Actually, there is no science on the matter that says money has "emerged from people's inter-subjective consensus", and alot that says money emerged from the law. Money replaced cutting off hands or cutting out tongues, etc. From there on it developed. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit your ideology. Also, there might have been "money things" without there being money, but the function of fulfilling social obligations through taxes is key to the definition of a modern currency.
@freedomthrough See this is where your ignorance shows through. All economies began as a barter system, and through ease of purchase, one commodity became the currency for the area through people's inter-subjective consensus. Usually it has been metals, gold or silver, but sometimes it was shells, beads, or coffee beans, but all of it is considered "money". Which you haven't defined either.
Money replaced barter, but not all money was chosen by a "king", because some cultures didn't have them.
@freedomthrough Second, calling someone's "views" an ideology is incredibly intellectually dishonest when you engage in a mutual *discussion*, only to label their my points as an ideology when said discussion doesn't go your way. If they're false, rebut them. But then again, I haven't told you my views now have I?
Third, and I'm getting very tired of repeating myself, since I've had to say it multiple times, which you've ignored; DEFINE POWER. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Otherwise this is pointless.
@freedomthrough So, finally, your whole main point about Ancap being a contradiction in terms relies on the definition of power you've made up, so I say, define it.
If Power = Influence - then everything has power. I have power over you because I've changed your behavior, and you have power over me. In this sense you are right, but then everything has power, a meaningless distinction.
If Power = Control - then you are wrong, as money itself cannot control individuals unless they agree to trade
@Dirge987 You said the word - Influence. As long as people aren't gods and completely self-sufficient, you can never have anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism relies on no one being able to influence many others, but individuals being self-sufficient and independent. This is impossible to achieve. I mean, i totally love the idea, it just isn't doable. It's utopian.
@freedomthrough Anarchism doesn't mean no influence, it means no archons - no rulers. I'd get my definitions straight before trying to critique something. And utopian means trying to change human nature, anarcho-capitalism does not. I'd definitely read up on the subject more, but you obviously know very little.
@freedomthrough Murray M. Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Emma Goldman, Lysander Spooner, Doug Casey, David Freidman - unless you know at least one of these names beyond a cursory understanding, then you don't know what individualist/capitalist anarchism is or the philosophy behind it.
It's not that you're dumb, but you are simply ignorant of the terms you argue against, and what intelligence you do have has put you in a false sense of understanding in something beyond your expertise.
@bdawgy0 Nope, but she is one of my favorite anarchist philosophers, hence her name on the list. Lysander Spooner isn't an ancap either, but again, he's one of my personal favorites.
@freedomthrough Power, as you've use it is completely meaningless.
"Power" in the sense of political power is not connected with the basic premise of an intermediary of exchange.
Money has power in mutual exchanges, however money only has value if people are willing to trade voluntarily, making the classic definition of "power" completely ridiculous. Who has more power in a voluntary exchange? Neither. Having more money therefore does not allow one to forcefully influence others.
@Dirge987 It is. The amount of purchasing power you command is connected to your status in society, which is a power factor. Your "voice" is "louder" when you command more purchasing power. You also make friendships in the upper echelon if you become one of them, something that is connected to the amount of purchasing power you command. It goes both ways. A person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes through use of their purchasing power.
@freedomthrough " person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes"
And that is the root of the issue. The ONLY power that has the ability to coercively control the lives of others is the institution with the monopoly on force, aka the state. The only real power is political power. Money is not political power in any sense, and having a lot of money does not grant you any ability to manipulate the lives of others because it is based on voluntarily exchange..
@Dirge987 When can exchange be defined as voluntary? Free will is questioned, we cannot know it exists. What we know is that people often are forced into transactions they do not desire, because they choose between that and dying. What we also know is that the prospect of attaining large sums of money influences people's decisionmaking. Money is definitely one factor that is used to influence public opinion, so is status.
@freedomthrough Free will is also a non-sequitur, whether we have it or not is irrelevant. Voluntary transactions are agreed upon by all involved, whether they agree to it by decision or are commanded by chemicals doesn't matter.
"Choose between that and dying". I hear this line a lot, and all I can say is that you are forced to acquire food, shelter, and water, or you die. That is the nature of the universe, but it doesn't justify you forcing someone else to provide it for you.
@freedomthrough Obtaining large sums of money is appealing for some people, but that is their decision. Nobody has forced them to make it, and they would take that route regardless if it meant Benjamin's, sea shells, gold, or animal furs. The "money" is therefore irrelevant. Wanting things is a part of human survival, but money allows people to acquire those things with the handshake and not the sword. Money is therefore a restriction on physical power, but again, you haven't defined power.
@freedomthrough In short, money is not power, at least in any usable definition of power. Money does not allow you to command anyone who doesn't want to be commanded. Only government does such a thing. Money does not take away from other people by one person having it. Money's power is the power of voluntary exchange. Full. Stop.
@Dirge987 Money does allow you to influence the outcome of political and societal movements. That is power, whether you like it or not. Also, having something someone needs to live in a market economy can clearly let you command that person, as that person might not have a choice. It might be a matter of survival. Money is much more than a medium of exchange and a holistic approach to analysis is require to understand the magnitude of it. "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."
@freedomthrough You cannot use holistic thinking as an excuse for not analyzing it, because if you don't understand how the tree functions, you will never understand the forest.
As such you have only restated your premises and have not addressed my points. Instead you've made a fallacious special pleading argument.
@Dirge987 And if you don't understand how trees function together and the systems inbetween, you will never understand the forest. Holistic isn't the same as collectivistic, even if some people tend to think so. Holism is the trinity of individual, collective and the systems in between.
@freedomthrough Who said anything about collectivism and what does it have to do at all with holistic (big picture) thinking? I'm starting to think this is pseudo-scholarly nonsense, and in any case it's a non-sequitur.
@freedomthrough As I said, you never defined power. To the extent that money can influence things and people, it is so general as it is meaningless. To the extent that power is defined as manipulating the lives of others, it ceases to apply to money, which is only useful in VOLUNTARY exchanges.
The influence of money can only come if people are willing to be bought with it. It cannot be said that there is power between two people who both wish to have a transaction for their individual good.
@freedomthrough As I said, you never defined power. To the extent that money can influence things and people, it is so general as it is meaningless. To the extent that power is defined as manipulating the lives of others, it ceases to apply to money, which is only useful in VOLUNTARY exchanges.
The influence of money can only come if people are willing to be bought with it. It cannot be said that there is power between two people who both wish to have a transaction for their individual good.
@freedomthrough To address your points, influencing the political is obvious manipulation of state power. I don't dispute that, the state is at fault. But how do you influence societal movements? If I launch sell propaganda, how effective will that be to a public that is unreceptive to my ideas? Money in that case does not have the intrinsic power over people who won't be swayed.
The "power" of money can only influence people who desire it. At that point it is hardly considered power at all.
@Dirge987 So you admit money can be used to manipulate state power? Money commands respect and having money usually places you in the upper echelons of society, which gives you a say in matters that are of no concern to you and so on. The problem with your argument is that people are easily swayed, especially people in desperate positions. See Brazilian voting, for an example. It's easy to buy a vote for a few dollars, because so many live in poverty. They need those dollars to survive.
@freedomthrough "So you admit money can be used to manipulate state power?"
But that is not a problem of money than it is a problem if the state. Money is useless by itself without value or an economy, but the state as a basic function is a coercive power.
Being in the upper echelons does not give you any power unless there is a state. What power does a millionaire have except to buy things from people who want to sell?
And you still have not defined what you mean by power.
@TZMSocialEvolution so are you saying man has no nature? because evolutionary psych is saying the opposite, with some pretty goo evidence. see Ridley, Pinker, Dawkins et al.
We have to stand together to create a new system, of equality and quality for all. Check out my page for links
SpamAnn 2 weeks ago
Thanks! Here are some other videos you may like.
Mathfails 2 weeks ago
Complaining that "a free market" is not a free market because of political influence is like complaining "the right to family life" is not accurate because we dont let paedo's have sec with their children. And what is this tripe about Chinese Capitalism being better than American(?!) thats the worst capitalism around: Steal their land and sell it without reconpence! Now I know why most anti-capitalists come from Cambridge - its the biased professors you have there
abbottone 1 month ago
@abbottone - the point about a free market was that the proponents of free market capitalism are that a "free market" implies one can have an economic 'market' that functions in an entirely independent way of politics... that it functions in a scientifically observable manner - sort of in a vacuum. His argument is that there is no "free market" - there is always some form of regulation and government involvement whether it be child labour or immigration limits...
FifthColumnWHU 1 month ago
@abbotone - also it might be wise to listen to what he says and understand it instead of having a knee jerk reaction to it. He states, that over the last 30 years when free market capitalism has been the most accepted economic model that economic growth has slowed worldwide, with China and India being two examples of different forms of capitalism that have proven more effective at securing economic growth. He didn't say "better" - but in terms of economic growth it's been more effective.
FifthColumnWHU 1 month ago
@abbotone - "steal their land and sell it without recompense"... remember the Native Americans?
FifthColumnWHU 1 month ago
@FifthColumnWHU i have to disagree with your 30yr run...the past 30 yrs the market has seen more regulation than ever before...i would wager that to be the reason growth has slowed..and as far as your comment on native americans..that makes me think your in the same boat with the racist black people who prolong the victimization of there ancestors...what happened that long ago was normal for the world and wasnt localized to america...you cant blame that one the current generation
bklee83 1 month ago
@bklee83 Right we should let it go, exactly like we should let go the concentration camps during WW2.
bewaver 2 weeks ago
@bewaver a little bit of coherency plz...not real sure of the point your trying to get across...are you attempting to be sarcastic...and if so by what means
bklee83 2 weeks ago
@juicyappleish .... the rationale would dictate that the poor SUSTAIN jobs.. not create them.
outfoxme32 2 months ago
Check out more videos a Ydraw
Ydraw2011 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason free trade is pushed by the IMF/World Bank is collusion, it is that the free trade ideology is very profitable for the trillionairs. The destruction of the nation state and transfer of public resources into private hands is a trillion dollar business worldwide.
tigerone1970 2 months ago
Comment removed
tigerone1970 2 months ago
korean guy with a french accent
ChingstahJJ 3 months ago
@ChingstahJJ mix of korean and british really, but his korean accent is very prominent
BabyEater9000 3 months ago
groupthink wiki
wblakesx 3 months ago
Rich people create jobs
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@juicyappleish Who told you that? It's the opposite, the rich have the luxury to put their money on the bank, unused. It's consumers who create jobs. The more consumers the better, and the larger part of their income they spend on consumption the better. In other words, the poor create jobs, not the rich.
penkie1 2 months ago
@juicyappleish not exactly, the drive for more money creates jobs. those Saudis dont create jobs with there money for instance.
neostarcraft 2 months ago in playlist Top 10 most viewed RSA Events videos
the book cover is really pretty
Pwnstar57 3 months ago
I really do enjoy Really Socialist Animations.
totheman 4 months ago
How are spiders treated any differently under arachno-socialism than arachno-capitalism?
Donatellangelo 4 months ago
This book is brilliant, just finished reading it. It could easily have been called '23 things I like about capitalism'.
justnotcricket 4 months ago
'Economics: Old Greek word for the art of keeping a home weatherproof and supplied with what the householders need.For three centuries this word was used by British rulers and their advisors to mean political housekeeping-the art of keeping their bankers,brokers and rich supporters well supplied with money and power ,often by impoverishing other householders.They used the Greek word instead of the English word because it mystified folk who had not been taught at wealthy schools.
logiemink 4 months ago
back b4 the rothchildsy introduced usury,trade was more even, all things were more predictable, money was based on gold, usury itself introduced inflation. Capitalism and society can only exist if they compliment eachother in a mutual sort of social respect. therefore, the USA is finished. There is -0- respect for workers,union or not, -0- loyalty to the U.S.,thanks GE, and gov't can not tame anything the bilderberg empire doesnt wish to be tame. end of story.
danboy524 4 months ago
Infrastructure first. Then capitalism. Capitalism should be performed on all levels and all products in such a manner as to compliment society's needs. A charter used to mean, hey, we need a bridge over on this side of town,if we had one,we could avail ourselves to transporation of commerce as so on...but now, due to excessive greed,CEO's making rates of pay 500/1 to their employees, capitalism is failing. It is failing the infrastructure of society.Particularly in america.
danboy524 4 months ago
this is the kind of economic analysis [ANALYSIS not description] we need in tertiary education. Brilliant
WAAAAAAAAAAAY 4 months ago
Socialism has failed so many times Russia Soviet, China mao and others how many time should it fail so that this idiot will realize it's garbage?
juicyappleish 4 months ago
@juicyappleish Yes, we're all agreed, Stalinism doesn't work. But if you want examples of Capitalism's failures and Socialism working then take a look at Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.You can also take a look at the Scandinavian states.
dvertov 4 months ago
@dvertov Of course, the Chilean problems had nothing to do with capitalism while the anti-inflatuonary policies that later helped them did. Socialism in Argentina or Brazil can hardly be said to have "worked" and the Scandinavian miracle is pure fiction (Sweden for example gained succes through capitalism, stagnated in relative terms along with the rest of the Scandinavian states for years and is improving now that they have curtailed their welfare state and government).
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So those three decades under Pinochet and the free-market disaster where an apparition? Brazil is the fastest growing economy in the Americas. And who said anything about miracles?
dvertov 4 months ago
@dvertov Pinochet's oppressive regime had nothing to do with the free market (or Milton Frideman for those dumb enough to believe Naomi Klein). Brazil is the fastest growing economy in the Americas in no small part because of its greater adoption of capitalism and monetary restraint, its relatively low starting point (living standards below the top 100) and the prevalence of socialist economies in the Americas. And the Scandinavian countries have not done well in relative economic terms.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom And yet Pinochet's economic team were all trained by Freidman. And by that logic one could argue that the Soviet system failed because of oppressive regimes. Brazil has also implement Socialist policies.
dvertov 4 months ago
@dvertov And yet the assertion that Pinochet's economic team was all trained by Friedman remains no less entirely inaccurate. The Soviet system certainly was oppressive as well but fialed demonstrably on both those grounds and economic ones as well. Yes, Brzail has implemented some socialist policies, hence their relatively poor starting point, Imagine how tremendously much better off they'd be were that not the case.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@dvertov The Scandinavian states have Capitalism as their dominant economic system. There are 'evil' billionaires in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
Why do you socialists always point Scandinavia as examples? They are not "pure" socialism. They're Capitalism with a welfare state.
Compare "pure" socialism with "pure" capitalism.
Pure Socialism: Cuba, Mao China, Soviet Russia.
Pure Capitalism: Hongkong, Japan after the Meiji Restoration, USA in the 19th to early 20th century.
juicyappleish 4 months ago
@juicyappleish I'm not really sure where to start, except to say that maybe you should take a Poly Sci 101 course, or at least use Wikipedia to look up the myriad ideas about and forms of Socialism -- from Democratic (such as the Scandinavian Model) to Marxist to Utopian to even Libertarian Socialism.
And who said anything about billionaires being 'evil'? Their just doing what's in their best interest, it's just the nature of the beast.
dvertov 4 months ago
@dvertov Polisci? I study ecnomics. Socialist dont' know a thing about economics. All they say is "gimme this" gimme that" feed me this. give me everything.
juicyappleish 4 months ago
@juicyappleish I don't know where you're studying but they should at least be teaching you to present empirical data in defense of your position instead of vapid platitudes.
dvertov 4 months ago
@dvertov Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor wider. Nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate, whether they be feudal societies where status determines position, or modern, centrally-planned economies where access to government determines position.
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@juicyappleish mmmmmmffffffffffffxxxxxxx
*
CAPITALISM WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH, DUE IN PART TO ECONOMIES OF SCALE THEORY. THIS WOULD OCCUR EVEN IF YOU COMPLETELY REMOVED EVERY U.S. CORPORATION AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
*
A COMBINATION OF CAPITALISM (being able to have your own business, etc) AND SOCIALISM (universal healthcare, affordable higher education for all, etc) IS THE BEST OPTION
*
THE TEA PARTY AND RON PAUL ARE NOT THE SOLUTION
*
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
@Someideasandsuff The USA was pure Capitalism in the 18th and 19th century and the fastest growth we had were in those eras.
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@juicyappleish you need to provide a source when you make a statement like that
.
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
@Someideasandstuff I have a source: a person no less than a Nobel Prize Winner IN ECONOMICS Doctor Milton Friedman.
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@juicyappleish that's not how it works. You need to provide the book and page number of where you got the information
.
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
@Someideasandstuff Read his book Free to Choose I forgot what page. Just read it and after youre finished, you'll be a Capitalist a supporter of the Free-market Capitalist Enterprise.
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@juicyappleish the "free market" is now a utopian fantasy of Schiff supporters. There isn't one country on the planet that pratices unregulated capitalism, including Hong Kong, LOL
.
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago 2
@Someideasandstuff
" including Hong Kong, LOL "
Hong Kong protects it's farmers, and because it is a tiny city state, it has to import 80% of it's food from communist China.
tigerone1970 2 months ago
@juicyappleish Certainly; however, growth is NOT limitless. We have reached our limit and it is time to find a better way - one that is suited to a 21st century world, not an 18th / 19th century world prime for growth.
qbalfrog 3 months ago
@qbalfrog In the middle ages, people thought that there is nothing beyond the atlantic. Yet we found american and asia. In the futures people will colonize the moon and mars. And techonology will harness resources outsde the planet.
juicyappleish 3 months ago
@Someideasandstuff A term for systems that combine capitalism and socialism is State-Capitalism. It is not the best option. Why? Look at the countries who have been the best at it. The military-industrial complex that is the socially crumbling democratic fantasy of the USA and, now, the totalitarian wonderland of China. When you consider the merits of an economic system you must carefully evaluate its political implications. Get onto Chomsky.
Jason011987 3 months ago
@Jason011987 it's called a MIXED ECONOMY, and there are many variations of it. You have it in Australia as well
.
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
@Someideasandstuff Maybe you can just call it mixed capitalism but I think that allows for too much vagueness. E.g. To give you just one, in Australia, the government is instituting a Carbon Tax. Mere regulation? I don't think so. They're guiding the polluting industries to their demise and the renewable energy industries to a paradise of subsidization. This is state capitalism. There are some variations but they're are crucially limited. Please, swallow this propaganda: watch?v=3gUgfyVt3mE
Jason011987 3 months ago
@Jason011987 just look up MIXED ECONOMY. You can read about it on the internet. State capitalism has to do with the state owning a fair amount of the means of production.
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
@Someideasandstuff You wouldn't have issued that advise had you the basic sense to follow it. Or maybe you just can't read very well, fucked if I know. Sorry to bother you.
Jason011987 3 months ago
Comment removed
dvertov 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juicyappleish I quess you haven't seen the lastest CBO report on income distrubution... google it
From 1979-2007 (Reagan through Bush) the top 1 percent's incomes grew 275% while the 81st through 99th percentiles grew 65% and the 21st through 80th percentiles grew 40% and the bottom 20 percent grew 18%.
dvertov 3 months ago
Comment removed
dvertov 4 months ago
@juicyappleish
I highly doubt you study economics. Could you explain Austrian, Post-Keynesian or Marxist economics to me? What causes business cycles according to these theories?
GodOfTheInternets 4 months ago
@juicyappleish pure socialism? Soviet union was state capitalism.Socialism or similar system cant succeed in only one country etc so dont know what your point is or what pure socialism was or is.
logiemink 4 months ago
Ta tha da ta ta huhn?!
Setherian 4 months ago
Comment removed
Setherian 4 months ago
Kreig Kommt Zum Leipzig : Autismus Genocide (Quecksilber Kindervergiftung - Flickr: Autism Genocide).
War comes to Leipzig - Mercury Poisioning Against Western Children 1970's.
UUURRRGGGHHH - Kinderschander!!
MMRLoonie7 5 months ago
The talk is a bit medicore, but the question and answer section is the juicy bit. They have a good questioner to get him talking.
PrometheanRunGood 6 months ago 2
Moreover, Marx said that history progresses in stages and that the commencement of one stage can only occur with try fulfillment of the last, you can't put icing on the cake without first baking the as it were. Thus a proponent of socialism must support capitalism, as I do
tatsumakisempyukaku 7 months ago
Comment removed
sunzoo1 5 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku hahaha wtf..you have probably read one paragraph from Marx and that was the one that was saying that youcan't move to socialism without the passage from capitalism..if you had read the reast of the text you would have realized that capitalism is already a system of the past and now it is the time to move on..capitalism has grown and now it is rotten..
Chemgreece 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok as predicted da vid was against capitalism. Funny thing though is that Milton Friedman destroyed these positions decades ago. The facts aren't in da Chinese guy's side. The problem is this corporatocracy we are in. Not capitalism
tatsumakisempyukaku 7 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku ...he's Korean....he doesn't identify capitalism as the sole problem...you didn't read the book or listen to the man....
122972james 6 months ago
@122972james Even if he does watch it all the way through, it's likely he'll mentally filter it and sit there scoffing the whole time.
PrometheanRunGood 6 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku "the problem is this corporatocracy"
*follows free market ideology*
*keeps creating oligarchical corporatocracies*
"WHAT'S GOING WRONG HERE????"
filestreet 6 months ago
Ok, I'm about to listen to this clip. I have some presumptions about it, that 1 it'll show capitalism in a negative light. And if so, then the usual complaints like businesses getting all the breaks, greed, selfishness, the dire conditions of the poor etc. will be illustrated. But let me see.
tatsumakisempyukaku 7 months ago
@p1370r All socialism is based on the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
Brilliant talk! But the dude questioning Chang on the otherhand is such a douchebag!
mightysywrule 7 months ago
The function, the true purpose, of Laffer inspired supply side, trickle down, voodoo, Reaganomics has always been to run up so much debt that cutting programs that help anyone but the wealthiest Americans could be justified to those who would be harmed the most by the actual application of the theory to the real world.
jbowen43 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stupid korean
63muhammad 7 months ago
Bravo
KanchoKomancho 8 months ago
Ahh, another complete idiot, Marxist fool.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 he is NOT an idiot nor is he a Marxist.... he is an economics professor here in the U.S..... he is a capitalist through and through, he just understands economics and how it works.....the idiot is the guy you see in the mirror.
kheim1954 7 months ago 21
@kheim1954 All socialism is based on the unicorn labor theory of value. The fact demand and scarcity give value refutes the whole foundation of LTV socialist nonsense.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 I'm not an economist and just finished briefly readiong wikipedia on the terms you use in your reply.... all I'm saying is that Chang is not a Marxist. I base that on the fact that he openly claims to be a Capitalist.... but with some government control....... seems logical to me, not being an expert.
kheim1954 7 months ago
@kheim1954 He is claiming LTV exploitation theory. But ET is wholly based on the unicorn LTV. He is promoting unicorn LTV socialist nonsense, whether he is going to be honest about it or not.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 He does not say anything at all in the video which even hints at the labor theory of value. In fact, if you were to check his website, you would see that he EXPLICITLY rejects it.
Scientisticsoviet 5 months ago
@kheim1954 In Britain actually.
Scientisticsoviet 5 months ago
@kheim1954 Actually, Chang is widely recognized as an idiot in the profession (railing against the well established benefits of free trade, for example) and freely admits that he applies (discredited) Marxist principles in his economic "research". There is an incredibly good reason that no one in the profession takes him seriously - he hasn't a clue about economics.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
not taking into consideration that perhaps what we refer to as the "old paradigm" is indeed a paradigm of chaos. the question really isn't about how this system is better than that system, the question should be: how do we move from a paradigm of chaos to a paradigm of coalescence? how do we get people to stop killing other people?
ThaigerDon 9 months ago
Nobody likes the bearer of bad news, no matter how true that news is.
MisterEvil1 9 months ago
uk is still instigating racism and dividing peoples supporting tamil tigers.
They are too weak to cmpete in a level playing field.
MegaContented 9 months ago
It seems very interesting that the world, and America specifically, has such a hard time understanding the value in these ideas. Understandably the capitalist elites are doing everthing in their power to maintain the status quo, but why is it so hard to convince/convert all of the republican-conservatives, who accept the falsities as the unabashed, undeniable truth? Chang, and many like him, have been bringing TRUTH to the surface for quite some time, yet here we are and nothing is changing.
Savanticus 9 months ago 2
It seems very interesting that the world, and America specifically, has such a hard time understanding the value in these ideas. Understandably the capitalist elites are doing everthing in their power to maintain the status quo, but why is it so hard to convince/convert all of the republican-conservatives, who accept the falsities as the unabashed, undeniable truth? Chang, and many like him, have been bringing TRUTH to the surface for quite some time, yet here we are and nothing is changing.
Savanticus 9 months ago
I would like to see him kick the asses of those morons at the MIses institute too HereticNix. There has never been (and there never will be) a nation practicing pure capitalism (or pure communism).The closer a nation follows pure capitalism the more it will look like the dystopia of 1984. Governments are always about who is on the inside and who is on the outside. So is capitalism. This is human nature. It will not change if you abolish minimum wage laws. Skeptics don't kowtow like libertarians.
perdondaris 9 months ago 2
I want to see this guy debate any one of the scholars at the Mises Institute.
HereticNix 10 months ago
through reading this guy alone I got a first in my last economics essay, and I'm a psi student. he is my first last and only academic idol. thankyou
underoathuea 10 months ago
Women went to prison asking for what?
femaleasian1 10 months ago
@femaleasian1
Suffragettes, woman protesting to get voting rights for woman, were on several occasions imprisoned for creating a public disturbance.
vudu8ball 10 months ago
I love this mans mind, what a refreshing idea, lets talk about the real world and do something about it. go away "invisible hand" Unidroit
ngonea 10 months ago
25 is not an even number
robezhs 10 months ago
Brilliant conversation between "royaplaylist " & "underdonkey" bravo
MurdochGoldbum 11 months ago
If you are ecologist you probably know better than I that in the last century more species disappeared than in the last millennium. I think this is directly linked to our standards of living (we achieved this atrocity with not even 1/4 of the world population living our current lifestyle) what will it be when all the world will have reach it? We will die that's what will happen; If you follow logic of course.The only thing that I know is that I know nothing , that's true logic.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
I don't see why you had to tell me about your job , being a "scientific" doesn't make you right, I'm talking of human nature and I don't see any other valuable data to study human nature than literature of the past which is available to everyone who have time, a library card and an internet connection. I had enough encounter with philosopher ,psychologist and psychiatrist to know what kind of farce is the scientific knowledge on the mind which is the base of all our perception and beliefs.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
@royalplaylist102
much of the published research isn't available to everyone. Also its important because I have spent alot of time reading this literature relating to animal behaviour and competition. It's like saying anyone can play the guitar - it's probably true, if everyone practises, but everyone doesn't. I agree that scientific thinking is not the only way to view the world. It's simply a tool. However it is a very good tool.
underdonkey5 11 months ago
Between the bus drivers, Ram and Sven, Sven gets paid 50 times more. The point Chang made is that Sven is probably not 50 times better a bus driver. My question: How much is the comparable food and rent for both per month?
keipher42 1 year ago
@keipher42 Your question is wrong again because Ram probably spend a larger share of it's income on food than Sven does. The right question , I think, is why should we compare Sven and Ram? Why should we erase their history , social path , environment etc. and resume them to what they do for living? If Sven's father and his father's father had to live like dog and fight to get Sven's standard of living than I don't see why Ram can even be compared to Sven.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
@keipher42 The fact that an example like that can even be given shows how deep the degradation of our society is. Gore Vidal had a really nice sentence for it: We live in the United States of Amnesia. The damage is done and there is nothing to do against the walk of time, we can not reverse the life of entire generations who have been raised to work , be entertained and fulfill their basic needs, like animals. It take just a few decades to destroy centuries of hard work.
royalplaylist102 11 months ago
people here should read a book called 'ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON'
(read its reviews on Amazon)
it is especially ironic that Chang is trying to debunk myths, but is actually just continuing old ones.
Economics is very susceptible to propaganda. special interest groups will always hire the best minds to argue for their case so free-trade is always on the back foot despite many people claiming the opposite.
read books against you're position. what doesn't change it , only makes it stronger.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
You are amasing.
MeeMonty 1 year ago
23 things they don't tell you about individual ownership of means of production and accumulation of capital as one sees fit. Here we go again! I'll pinch my nose and give it a try anyways.
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
Awesome talk...bringing truth to power...he doesn't hate capitalism...but like Churchill thinks its a better alternative to that other crap...he quotes Gramsci... and is a pessimist of the mind, but an optimist of the will...
Maoribrotha 1 year ago
@Maoribrotha No, he's nothing like Churchill. He's a social democrat. Whereas Churchill was an imperialist cunt.
goddedme 1 year ago
Keep feeding us red pills Mr. Chang!!!!
rlidrazzah 1 year ago
@rlidrazzah Don´t you mean he gave us the pill that showed us the rabbit hole
Auraruth8 1 year ago
"Active economic citizenship" -- now there's a cause worth promoting! Thank you, Ha-Joon.
futsal1958 1 year ago
Love Ha Joon Chang. He questions the evidence and the myth of free market capitalism. Read Bad Samaritans and really loved it...
Calpitalism comes in all forms; the IMF and World Bank (and Ronald Reagan) do not have the last word in capitalism. Swedish capitalism is not laissez-faire free market capitalism, but the country is one of the richest, most equitable countries in the world.
Crimsonbonnet 1 year ago
Love Ha Joon Chang. He questions the evidence and the myth of free market capitalism. Read Bad Samaritans and really loved it...
Crimsonbonnet 1 year ago
Trains are better then planes, solar is better then coal, lithium ion is better then oil, our free market hates all of these.
yuri35435 1 year ago
Comment removed
Iamsongforthee 1 year ago
how good of an economist can he be if he thought the number 25 was an even number?
Anarchistim 1 year ago
@Anarchistim You misunderstood, English obviously isn't his first language. It's obvious he meant that he didn't want 20, 25 or and even number, that left 23.
RCLibra 1 year ago
I loved the point concerning child labor as an infringement on the free market. Spot on example.
selvmordspilot 1 year ago
this model is a monetarist system, nothing else. we go by corporatism as the unavoidable extension of capitalism, fascism is next
NAIVADA 1 year ago
Our technical capabilities have propelled us into a new paradigm where capitalism, actually all old world 'isms' of economics or social control, are rendered moot and pointless in today's 21st century capable world. A world of technical abundance no longer needs a medium of exchange to function. Example after example can be provided...if one cares to listen.
-- The Venus Project
TZMSocialEvolution 1 year ago 35
@TZMSocialEvolution I agree for the technical capabilities but did human nature evolved to the point where we can live in a world without lie and deception I highly doubt it. In fact I think we're becoming more savage through centuries.The ratio of civilian killed during wars before the 20th century was 1 for 10 soldier now it's 10 civilian for 1 soldier is this really evolution?We used to kill men now we kill ecosystems, you can start a new religion but you will never change human nature.
royalplaylist102 1 year ago
@royalplaylist102 The entire first section of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward debunks the Human Nature Myth so many people claim to have knowledge of. Has humanity become more violent? Yes. And our socioeconomic system and the stratification it creates is the main cause, cuz it screws up the environmental conditions we're reared in.
TZMSocialEvolution 1 year ago
@TZMSocialEvolution debunks the human nature myth? so is zeitgeist is for 'tabula rasa'?
what about the quite solid findings in evolutionary psychology that animals do have a strong innate nature?
also, what methodological and-or epistemological stance does TVP take?
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx No, proper research and scientific study is, which changes and adapts to new and better information.
So? The problem is when "human nature" is used as a blanket cop out to avoid addressing the root cause of bad human behavior. Plus, I'd like to think we're a bit more advanced in our mental capabilities than other animals, since we're highly adaptable creatures that can mold and shape our environment.
The scientific method for social concern. That pretty much sums it all up. :)
TZMSocialEvolution 1 year ago
@TZMSocialEvolution so, do people have the choice not to be involved in this venus project? (hypothetical speaking, if it ever eventuated)
what about, if they wanted to own property? or continue living as they were?
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Sure...the Amish can still do their thing. No one is forced over. However, once proved to be a better way of life (hypothetical) then it would be daft of people to live worse just to be stubborn. Still, their choice.
TZMSocialEvolution 1 year ago
@TZMSocialEvolution well, that's good. as an anarchy-capitalist, you'd be completely free to do as you like, and we as we like. then no problems.
an adherence to the non-aggression principle is the key.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Anarcho-Capitalism is a contradiction in itself. You see, anarchism is a system where one persons power of another doesn't exist and what is money, if not power made manifest?
freedomthrough 1 year ago 16
@freedomthrough but money is just property. so you do not believe in property rights?
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@freedomthrough
Anarcho-Capitalism is simply the position that opposes central planning.
Money is a medium of exchange that allows for economic interactions greater than barter. It is fungible, durable, and dividable. Many things have been used as money, but fiat currency (our medium of exchange) is what allows for most of the evils of America's system of corporatism that are wrongfully blamed on capitalism.
BruteTraining 8 months ago
@BruteTraining No, central-planning is a fringe element of todays economics. Management of the market does not constitute central planning and should be back in a few years. The market, by itself, tends to produce economically and socially unacceptable outcomes. The evils existed way before fiat currency and they won't go away. Fiat currency as such is no more evil than potatoes are, for an example. It does give us superior capability to manage the market. After that, it's all politics.
freedomthrough 8 months ago 4
@freedomthrough wrong.. anarcho-capitalism is actually the domination of the economy of the free markets...anarchy means literally no authority-no control..anarcho-capitalism is an uncontrolled capitalism..doeas that reminds you something?..that is exactly the liberals ideology the complete domination of the market and the profits over society..therefore this capictalism is not controlled by nothing so that is precicelly a form of anarchy
Chemgreece 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Money is a medium of exchange, not a value of power.
You are accepting the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game. Me having X amount of money doesn't mean that that money has been taken away from someone else, or that my advantage is only caused by another's disadvantage.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 Money has many more functions than just being a medium of exchange and a store of value. Money is a social institution, just as taxes are. A nuanced analysis is required to define money. Having more money definitely means you have more power, there's no question about it. Humans also experience class subconsciously, which has alot to do how well you live materially. It's not a zero-sum game, but that doesn't mean the amount of money you command isn't intrinsically connected to power.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough "Money is a social institution, just as taxes are."
One of these things is not like the other. Money is an emergent inter-subjective consensus of value for a specific item which is used as an intermediary within voluntary exchanges; taxes are coercivley taken funds by a regional monopoly on force.
They are nowhere near the same thing.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 Money, like i've said, has many more functions than just simplifying exchange. In a modern monetary system (post-Bretton-Woods), taxes are necessary for the currency to retain it's value for one. Money is an institution designed to simplify social obligations in larger societies. That is how money came to and that is what money is today. Money and taxes go hand in hand in many ways.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Taxes are a non-sequitur. And they do not go hand in hand. There has been money without taxes, and there have been taxes without money. They are two completely independent things. One is emergent from people's inter-subjective consensus, and the other is a centrally planned act of force against innocent people.
PS, and on your reply, could you please define what you mean by "power".
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 Actually, there is no science on the matter that says money has "emerged from people's inter-subjective consensus", and alot that says money emerged from the law. Money replaced cutting off hands or cutting out tongues, etc. From there on it developed. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit your ideology. Also, there might have been "money things" without there being money, but the function of fulfilling social obligations through taxes is key to the definition of a modern currency.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough See this is where your ignorance shows through. All economies began as a barter system, and through ease of purchase, one commodity became the currency for the area through people's inter-subjective consensus. Usually it has been metals, gold or silver, but sometimes it was shells, beads, or coffee beans, but all of it is considered "money". Which you haven't defined either.
Money replaced barter, but not all money was chosen by a "king", because some cultures didn't have them.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Second, calling someone's "views" an ideology is incredibly intellectually dishonest when you engage in a mutual *discussion*, only to label their my points as an ideology when said discussion doesn't go your way. If they're false, rebut them. But then again, I haven't told you my views now have I?
Third, and I'm getting very tired of repeating myself, since I've had to say it multiple times, which you've ignored; DEFINE POWER. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Otherwise this is pointless.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough So, finally, your whole main point about Ancap being a contradiction in terms relies on the definition of power you've made up, so I say, define it.
If Power = Influence - then everything has power. I have power over you because I've changed your behavior, and you have power over me. In this sense you are right, but then everything has power, a meaningless distinction.
If Power = Control - then you are wrong, as money itself cannot control individuals unless they agree to trade
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 You said the word - Influence. As long as people aren't gods and completely self-sufficient, you can never have anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism relies on no one being able to influence many others, but individuals being self-sufficient and independent. This is impossible to achieve. I mean, i totally love the idea, it just isn't doable. It's utopian.
freedomthrough 4 months ago
@freedomthrough Anarchism doesn't mean no influence, it means no archons - no rulers. I'd get my definitions straight before trying to critique something. And utopian means trying to change human nature, anarcho-capitalism does not. I'd definitely read up on the subject more, but you obviously know very little.
Dirge987 4 months ago
@freedomthrough Murray M. Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Emma Goldman, Lysander Spooner, Doug Casey, David Freidman - unless you know at least one of these names beyond a cursory understanding, then you don't know what individualist/capitalist anarchism is or the philosophy behind it.
It's not that you're dumb, but you are simply ignorant of the terms you argue against, and what intelligence you do have has put you in a false sense of understanding in something beyond your expertise.
Dirge987 4 months ago
@Dirge987 Ummm . . . Emma Goldman was an "anarcho-capitalist"? Lolwut?
bdawgy0 4 months ago
@bdawgy0 Nope, but she is one of my favorite anarchist philosophers, hence her name on the list. Lysander Spooner isn't an ancap either, but again, he's one of my personal favorites.
Dirge987 4 months ago
@freedomthrough Power, as you've use it is completely meaningless.
"Power" in the sense of political power is not connected with the basic premise of an intermediary of exchange.
Money has power in mutual exchanges, however money only has value if people are willing to trade voluntarily, making the classic definition of "power" completely ridiculous. Who has more power in a voluntary exchange? Neither. Having more money therefore does not allow one to forcefully influence others.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 It is. The amount of purchasing power you command is connected to your status in society, which is a power factor. Your "voice" is "louder" when you command more purchasing power. You also make friendships in the upper echelon if you become one of them, something that is connected to the amount of purchasing power you command. It goes both ways. A person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes through use of their purchasing power.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough " person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes"
And that is the root of the issue. The ONLY power that has the ability to coercively control the lives of others is the institution with the monopoly on force, aka the state. The only real power is political power. Money is not political power in any sense, and having a lot of money does not grant you any ability to manipulate the lives of others because it is based on voluntarily exchange..
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 When can exchange be defined as voluntary? Free will is questioned, we cannot know it exists. What we know is that people often are forced into transactions they do not desire, because they choose between that and dying. What we also know is that the prospect of attaining large sums of money influences people's decisionmaking. Money is definitely one factor that is used to influence public opinion, so is status.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Free will is also a non-sequitur, whether we have it or not is irrelevant. Voluntary transactions are agreed upon by all involved, whether they agree to it by decision or are commanded by chemicals doesn't matter.
"Choose between that and dying". I hear this line a lot, and all I can say is that you are forced to acquire food, shelter, and water, or you die. That is the nature of the universe, but it doesn't justify you forcing someone else to provide it for you.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Obtaining large sums of money is appealing for some people, but that is their decision. Nobody has forced them to make it, and they would take that route regardless if it meant Benjamin's, sea shells, gold, or animal furs. The "money" is therefore irrelevant. Wanting things is a part of human survival, but money allows people to acquire those things with the handshake and not the sword. Money is therefore a restriction on physical power, but again, you haven't defined power.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough In short, money is not power, at least in any usable definition of power. Money does not allow you to command anyone who doesn't want to be commanded. Only government does such a thing. Money does not take away from other people by one person having it. Money's power is the power of voluntary exchange. Full. Stop.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 Money does allow you to influence the outcome of political and societal movements. That is power, whether you like it or not. Also, having something someone needs to live in a market economy can clearly let you command that person, as that person might not have a choice. It might be a matter of survival. Money is much more than a medium of exchange and a holistic approach to analysis is require to understand the magnitude of it. "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough You cannot use holistic thinking as an excuse for not analyzing it, because if you don't understand how the tree functions, you will never understand the forest.
As such you have only restated your premises and have not addressed my points. Instead you've made a fallacious special pleading argument.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 And if you don't understand how trees function together and the systems inbetween, you will never understand the forest. Holistic isn't the same as collectivistic, even if some people tend to think so. Holism is the trinity of individual, collective and the systems in between.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough Who said anything about collectivism and what does it have to do at all with holistic (big picture) thinking? I'm starting to think this is pseudo-scholarly nonsense, and in any case it's a non-sequitur.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough As I said, you never defined power. To the extent that money can influence things and people, it is so general as it is meaningless. To the extent that power is defined as manipulating the lives of others, it ceases to apply to money, which is only useful in VOLUNTARY exchanges.
The influence of money can only come if people are willing to be bought with it. It cannot be said that there is power between two people who both wish to have a transaction for their individual good.
Dirge987 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freedomthrough As I said, you never defined power. To the extent that money can influence things and people, it is so general as it is meaningless. To the extent that power is defined as manipulating the lives of others, it ceases to apply to money, which is only useful in VOLUNTARY exchanges.
The influence of money can only come if people are willing to be bought with it. It cannot be said that there is power between two people who both wish to have a transaction for their individual good.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@freedomthrough To address your points, influencing the political is obvious manipulation of state power. I don't dispute that, the state is at fault. But how do you influence societal movements? If I launch sell propaganda, how effective will that be to a public that is unreceptive to my ideas? Money in that case does not have the intrinsic power over people who won't be swayed.
The "power" of money can only influence people who desire it. At that point it is hardly considered power at all.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@Dirge987 So you admit money can be used to manipulate state power? Money commands respect and having money usually places you in the upper echelons of society, which gives you a say in matters that are of no concern to you and so on. The problem with your argument is that people are easily swayed, especially people in desperate positions. See Brazilian voting, for an example. It's easy to buy a vote for a few dollars, because so many live in poverty. They need those dollars to survive.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@freedomthrough "So you admit money can be used to manipulate state power?"
But that is not a problem of money than it is a problem if the state. Money is useless by itself without value or an economy, but the state as a basic function is a coercive power.
Being in the upper echelons does not give you any power unless there is a state. What power does a millionaire have except to buy things from people who want to sell?
And you still have not defined what you mean by power.
Dirge987 5 months ago
@TZMSocialEvolution so are you saying man has no nature? because evolutionary psych is saying the opposite, with some pretty goo evidence. see Ridley, Pinker, Dawkins et al.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Nope. Man has nature, but not behavioral nature. Hair color, eye color, "fight or flight&q