Less choice is good for some groups such as Government, Big Business, Marketers and Retail. Limiting choice simplifies the production of goods and services making the sales process easier for the provider, usualy giving the consumer a "good,better, best" option. However as a whole this only serves to limit individual freedom and stiffle economic growth and creativity.
@pittland44 3. I wouldn't say whore; slave seems more appropo. If you are dependent on govt. for living expenses and creature comforts, then you're more willing to do as they say lest they cut you off.
Income redistribution is one of those ideas people get in their heads that sounds good but turns out to be a disaster because it harms people in three ways.
1. Income redistribution kills ambition in people who would otherwise strive to do better. When you have caps on what people can get for something, then you naturally contract the supply, this includes invention and innovation.
2. Income redistribution removes the incentive to improve ones lot, it harms the poor this way.
don't mix up [too] many choices with a confusing and hard to process amount of information; you need both choices and comprehension to make a good choice
Barry Schwartz is an Apple fanboi, I bet. Android has surpassed iOS in popularity. How? CHOICE. You can choose from a variety of hardware, from a variety of flavors of the OS, you can customize the OS, and among a much richer variety of applications / games. (amusingly, a recent study discovered that Android is preferred for serious apps, and iPhones for games.)
Love that dual-screen iPhone, or 3D iPhone, or 7" iPad...
It's as simple as this: if people didn't want them, the choices wouldn't exist. If nobody buys it, it ceases to be produced. Must we overcomplicate things like this?
@solankre - Unless the gov't is involved. Then you get "Green energy" companies nobody wants, light bulbs nobody wants, and Chevy Volts nobody wants...
Good old Berry would not want everyone to wear the Tshirt and shorts would he ?? Everyone working for the gov. in forced Union labor with no private sector jobs is what they ( progressives ) want..
@zivjax@EmpperorIng@Howtheworldworks pretty much in conclusion.. until he starts talking about redistribution of weath he's pretty much making the "less is more" philosophical arguement and I tend to agree with it as a personal lifestyle. I wouldn't make that choice for others but i definitely understand where this line of reasoning is coming from.
I don't always agree with you, hell, that's part of the reason I subscribed to your channel, you make me think about my views and review why I think they are the correct ones.. on this subject I completely agree with you. If your such an indecisive loser that choice is making you paralyzed or depressed then just grab the cheapest and move on with your life.
@zivjax actually i'm quite a rightist. NEVER have i argued that government intervene or do any "redistrubution" like the retard in the video suggests... But i also don't completely reject what he says from a philosophical point of the view up until the end when he starts talking about redistribution.. you can seperate philosophy from economics
I think you can refute Mr. Schwartz's argument pretty easily by simply pointing out that anyone who feels like he has too much choice can always give his money away voluntarily. It's silly to have institutionalized wealth redistribution when not everyone wants less choice, but you're free to limit yourself and help someone else any time.
I disagree based on observation. There seem to be the type of people who have no problems handling many choices, but there are people who do. My personal experiences are mostly as schwartz describes. Many choices usually means there isn't one superior solution, merely many attempts, and the reason for unhappiness with the own choice is because there is in fact no terrific choice when there is a large number of options. There is a perfectly valid philosophical foundation for this.
@ComeLeVent going back to my grocery store... there are also choices which quite frankly shouldn't be... as a libertarian i would never support government making that call. Take for example Low Fat PeanutButter. It costs more than normal peanut butter but is less healthy. People buy it because they are uneducated in the fact that the fat in peanuts is good for you and that low fat peanut butter has hydrogenated oil in it as a substitute. I don't think that it is a valid choice really
@anime1973 Yes. There are examples in many areas of life. Take industry and science where, generally speaking, standardization reduces choice because it is obsolete - there is a one size fits all superior solution for some problems or products, or a theory that does away with many opinions. Where there is option, there is no such solution.
Having options is good in some situations, but bad in others.
Who would ever listen to a guy who showed up to a lecture wearing a pocket-tee and shorts? Obviously he is so confounded by choice that he cannot even dress himself. Let him wallow in his own ignorance and move on.
Idiots like Barry Schwartz are worried about making the wrong choices. I have a solution for all of them: Grow up! Sure, you may make a bad choice, but so what? Are you so stupid that you won't change your mind? You know, seeking the "best" in a product is both subjective, and more often than not, overrated. I deal in wine a lot, so I can tell you that a price or a fancy label doesn't tell me if a wine is good or not. And I don't really care about what a magazine says about them. cont..
@MaxxTheMerciless cont.. Most of my customers don't care either. They like what they like, whether it costs them $10 a bottle or $1,000 a bottle. And I can tell you that if you're buying a wine for more than $100, you're not necessarily buying the best wine. In fact, more often than not you're buying a label. Most people can't tell the distinctions, and even so, you can do just as well with a $40 bottle. I prove this in tasting after tasting.
Oh, for crying out loud! What a crap lecture!! Yes, we'll just turn into the old Soviet Union which was parodied in an old Wendy's commercial-- THIS is the choice that the Communists in charge want you to have: watch?v=5CaMUfxVJVQ
"why should we care if you're less satisfied with a better item" The utility someone derives from a thing--whatever it is--in the United States you have 401Ks for example--is largely subjective. That's the genius of choice. That's a fundamental tenant of a market economy--you have a different utility function for a thing than I do, which means that trade makes us both better off. So, Lee, don't ignore the importance of satisfaction in choices. I agree with most of your stuff but differ here
@HowTheWorldWorks You must be some kind of fanatic. It seems you hear one sentence and instead of thinking about it you go on a rampage.
What the guy says is actually true for the most part. Ask any sales person (or a guy in a grocery store(!) what happens when a customer is presented with 10 options instead of 3. The customer will "think about it". So this information can actually be used FOR capitalism. Its not a matter of going against it.
@mr82769 So what if someone will "think" about his options? What does that matter to you, or to that clerk he was responding to? You know, most stores have what is known as a shelf fee that they charge for vendors to put their products there. If there is a particular item that is selected more often than not, the vendors principally will adjust their distribution accordingly.
@MaxxTheMerciless It matters to the owner of the shop! he doesnt make the sale! Jesus.... And nobody is paying a shelf fee if they dont get any sales anyway.
@mr82769 Yes, but I wasn't talking about the owner - I was talking about that clerk, wasn't I? Plus, every store is different. Many department stores have no shelf fee for certain items. As far as that clerk is concerned, it's not his business how many options someone has.
@MaxxTheMerciless The clerk commented on the 50 choices available. He has first hand experince on a daily basis. You dragged him into this ... WTF?! That is the dumbest comment on Youtube this week. And consider this IS Youtube.
@mr82769 But, he doesn't make those decisions. Does he? He doesn't choose what products get put on the shelves and where, does he? Does he run the store? No, he didn't say that. So why should all those options concern him? Dumbest comment on YouTube, eh? Obviously, you flunked reading comprehension.
@MaxxTheMerciless You ask what it matters to us. What does it matter to Lee Doren? We are discussing the subject of "choice" here. It matters to us all. The comment you came up with is retarded. Very very retarded.
@mr82769 Why? Is that all you have? Personal attacks and animus? What does it matter if someone has a lot of choices of products? If you feel regret or anxiety about making a decision about something, that's a personal issue. Sounds to me like if you have a problem with that, then you need to grow up.
@MaxxTheMerciless Personal issue or not. The problem is real and sales ppl come across this problem most days of the week. You can brush it off like Lee Doren does but the problem still exists.
@mr82769 Who cares? That's a personal problem with you, and your worthless ilk. Not me. You can choose to be worthless. I choose to do something. Then again, I'm pretty wealthy, so I guess I've already made it.
@mr82769 They're idiots, then. I mean, really, if they're feeling regret and anxiety about making decisions, then I say they seriously need psychological help, and stop trying to hamper the market for the rest of us. It's not my problem they don't have balls.
@HowTheWorldWorks grocery stores thrived before this level of variety. I'm not saying variety is bad though... but it's not always great. The variety doesn't increase sales. If you buy bbq pringles it would probably be done at the expense of sour cream or regular. The "extreme" flavors often go weeks between being restocked.
@anime1973 Someone purchasing something at the expense of something else is a preposterous argument.It assumes that someone is only physically capable of buying one particular thing, which is absurd, and doesn't take into account the hundreds of individuals with different tastes. If "extreme" flavors are unpopular that's an argument for your store to not purchase them from the suppliers. Not an argument to compel a "one size fits all" solution for consumer demand for products good and services.
@EmpperorIng the store does all sorts of things that makes it miss it's full profit potential. They spend about a 1000 per cashier per year to get a manager to have to go and put in their passwords to sell any gift cards, returns, voids over $3, and coupons over some amount. I'm also not advocating for a one size fits all. I'm just argueing that variety to infinity isn't always helpful or practical. I'd rather see competition in brands than varieties within the same brand.
@anime1973 Competition between brands is largely reduced due to government regulation putting unnecessary costs on businesses. Costs larger companies can endure, but smaller ones have trouble with. That said, companies, at the end of the day, are trying to make a profit. If that means that they sell their brand in many varieties, it's because consumers demand Pringles come in multiple flavors.
So you think if there was less variety in grocery storers, pleople would go hunting in the woods? While I don't have an issue with variety, I think people shop at grocery stores for convenience, not so much because of variety. Your detection of irony in anime1973's comment is painstakingly contrived.
@HowTheWorldWorks - I work at a massive retailer whose success is due to their making choice affordable to more people. (their name is not S-Mart, but sounds similar...)
@anime1973 THAT IS JUST FASCTIST!!! I MEAN PEOPLE GETTING TO CHOSE WHAT THEY EAT AND BUY INSTEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT DOING IT FOR THEM?! You should sue somebody! On a more serious note, what is wrong with people choosing from 50 different kinds of bread?
@anime1973 I'll echo Lee's comment. The very reason my wife and I still shop at a traditional supermarket over a big box super center is that the supermarket has a wider selection.
@anime1973 Are you kidding. I never have to have the same kind of pringle twice, that is simply awesome. I can literally buy a can a day and not have to get the same kind ever again in a month, that's just cool.
Perfect example of low expectations leading to pleasant surprises and fake happiness: any Tom Cruise movie. You go in with low expectations. You sit through it because you still have popcorn left. You have a few laughs, ohhs and ahhhs. The credits roll and you say "that wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be." Should all movies be like this? HELL NO.
This is not constructive criticism, and if it's not constructive what's the point?... You are great at contradicting people in a video on youtube but I don't think you would do well in a debate. Search for "Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy? "
Schwartz (1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill and (2) cites mainstream research that too much choice in *too many* area of our lives at once is generally not a good thing. Schwartz does NOT advocate Communism at all and openly states that not everybody suffers from unlimited choice (but many people do). You do not know what you are talking about.
Schwartz (1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill and (2) cites mainstream research that too much choice in *too many* area of our lives at once is generally not a good thing. Schwartz does NOT advocate Communism at all and openly states that not everybody suffers from unlimited choice (but many people do). You do not know what you are talking about.
"(1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill"
So? I'd like to be as rich & succesful as Mitt Romney, but ust because I'm not, doesn't mean I want to take his success away from him.
In the past 30 years, the poorest gained far more proportionally then the rich, compared to the poor of 30 years ago, they own far more appliances and can buy more food.
Futher, most of the poor, over time, become middle class or higher.
@AlaskaFinal Sorry, but I think you may be living in a fantasy world. Where is your data to show what you said about the poor gaining more?! And it is a *fact* according to the mainstream studies that countries with greater gaps between rich and poor seem to have more problems. Oh and remember, there are NO victimless millionaires.
@AlaskaFinal Russia? Why are you talking about autocracies?! And 'redistribution of wealth' is a meaningless phrase! Empowering the average person through education, healthcare services and participation in politics is a systemic change about human rights. Was women coming into education and the workplace a 'redistribution of wealth'?!!
You said countries who have higher wage gaps "seem to have more problems"
Do you consider Russia as some sort of an exception? I don't quite see why.
And when you talk about wage gaps, the normal conclusion to solve it for the left, is reaching for what I just said, "redistribution of wealth", which is a flawed policy.
I'm not sure how anything I've said connects to your point about women.
@AlaskaFinal Apparent democracies, I'm talking about. Sure, we can include North Korea or the Congo if you like, but what's the point? The same argument you are using to justify existing power structures and inequality could have been used about women in the past. Allowing women to earn money and even become rich is taking power away from men already there. Allowing them socialized healthcare and education means they will disturb all those men who are trying to keep their power.
1. Individual wages have gone up over the last 20 years, fact.
2. Most poor people over time pull themselves out of poverty, fact.
3. "Redistribution wealth", which is where the Gov't TAKES money from people to give to someone else, is poor policy, and only results in making everyone poorer, as observed in Socialist and former Communist states, fact.
3. There hasnt yet been a truly communist country in the world but do a cost/benefit of this: Take a billion away from someone owning 5 billion dollars and give it to 100 ppl. Will the utility taken from the billionaire be higher than that gained by the 100 ppl?
To me it seems your "facts" are just something you dont like to discuss.
@mr82769 1. Actually, it is a fact, and yes, in real wages and real purchasing power. Why is it that so many "poor" people in the U.S. have HDTVs, and even own their own home?
2. Yes, it happens all the time. Well, less so under Obama.
3. The age-old cry of the commie is that "true" communism hasn't been tried. If such a system requires absolutely adherence to doctrine from everyone in charge and their subjects, then it will always fail because human beings are not robots.
1. From where did you get that so many poor ppl have HDTVs?
2. The social mobility is not very big. Yes, ppl get a higher income as they get older as a general rule but ppl dont pull themselfes out of poverty just as time goes.
3. You can call it an age-old cry all you want. Its true nonetheless. Just as some argue real capitalism never existed because it turnes into corporatism.
2. It's better than none at all, which happens under socialism. Invariably, poor people who don't pull themselves out of poverty do so because of either ignorance or an unwillingness to try, to do what it takes to succeed.
3. But it's a strawman argument, meant to detract from the mistakes done in the name of communism by saying "if only the right people were in charge." Yeah, if only.
2. The fact that it happens doesnt mean it will happen everytime.
3. What false premise? Then instead of billions put "millions". Doesnt change anything. Redistribution will be able to increase utility in a society. Its the extend of redistribution that is to be discussed. No whether or not to.
2. It happens, though, and it's worse to bring about socialism which would only hamper such movement.
3. No, it doesn't. Why? Because it creates no utility. It creates no value. All it does do is serve to inflate prices.
It's a simple concept. If you know that a segment of clients has more disposable income, you can gradually increase your prices. Ever wonder why housing prices increased almost tenfold since the 50s? How did prices inflate so much?
@MaxxTheMerciless A big part of the rise in housing prices is the result of rent controls in a lot of the major cities combined with open space laws outside of metropolitan areas that caused a drop in the available supply of housing and restricted builders from adjusting that supply quickly or efficiently. Thomas Sowell has a whole book on the subject.
@pittland44 That's true, but another aspect involves the fact that more and more households began to have more than one source of income. As more and more women sought careers, the real estate market capitalized on that, knowing that a couple could potentially afford a bigger mortgage. If you know what someone can afford, that can affect market prices as well.
@MaxxTheMerciless A lot of that had to do with demand for larger, nicer homes rising. The next piece of that was in places like Cali and New York where they had rent control and open space and anti sprawl laws you have governments not making the same kinds of restrictions on "luxury" housing. This is actually the biggest source of mcmansions and the source of the decline in "starter" homes. The state where I live, Colorado, they bitch constantly about mcmansions up in the city of boulder but...
@pittland44 There have always been high priced luxury housing, and rent controls and zonings have always been a part of real estate, and I don't ignore their impact. But what is new is the rise of the two-income household, which also must cater more to what women want in a home, which you know will only make things more expensive than they have to be. I call this the Sparkle Effect, the reasons why weddings have gotten so out-of-control expensive.
@MaxxTheMerciless No, there was a time when there were no rent controls. Nor were there zoning boards. The problem, by and large, was not the fact that women were making more money or getting more amenities in their houses as a result, the problem was that the types of housing and the overall costs of doing business were being affected by what a lot of state and local governments were doing and then the feds sought to further alter the system without addressing the original problem.
@pittland44 I'm not even talking about the mortgage crisis. NYC did have rent controls as far back as the 1800s (so did London). Housing prices did, in fact, rise principally because two-income households did present a lucrative opportunity for realtors. You can actually see a sharp rise in the prices of homes, both new and old, which correlates to the rise of the two-income household, during the 70s and 80s.
@MaxxTheMerciless Actually the point where housing prices began to shoot up was 1967 when LBJ began his program of inflation. The next thing that happened was as a result of that inflation was more people began investing in "hedges" against inflation, which included real estate, this further brought up the price as real estate ceased to simply be peoples homes and became seen as assets, this included the phenomena of flipping houses.
@pittland44 That's true too, but again how much less bad might this have been if by and large we didn't have the rise of the two-income household? Indeed, socialists do tend to prey on women's desire for financial security, so it does beg the question just how much things might've been different if they didn't pass Women's Suffrage? That's a very touchy question, one I don't think a lot of people want to explore.
@MaxxTheMerciless Totally agree with you about socialists either preying on, or appealing to certain aspects of women's nature or temperament. Case in point before they came to power the NSDAP (Nazi party) and Hitler were extremely popular among German women, particularly mothers. The other thing that I think effects that was the rise of single person single income homes as a result of the rise of feminism and no fault divorce, which drastically effected the number of people living alone.
@MaxxTheMerciless It also has a huge effect on the number of housing units needed. There was a time when single people did not own houses in this country, only families did. The divorce craze altered that. I remember as a kid plenty of moms having houses while the dads had apartments. Had they been living together that would mean there was more available housing for everyone.
@MaxxTheMerciless Also, rent control in NYC did not start in the 20th century in it's current for until 1943. San Francisco it was 1959 and Baltimore it was 1962. Now there wer e emergency rent laws in the early 20's but they were abolished by 1926. As of 2007 51 cities in the state of New York participate in some kind of rent control. Also, you have open space restrictions like in California, the demand for existing properties is going to go up if they can't build new houses.
@pittland44 The point is that there's been rent control in one form or another long before Roosevelt, especially in Europe. Horace Greeley even complained about that, especially during the Civil War. And, again, I'm not arguing those aspects or ignoring them. Indeed, I'm just postulating another effect of all of this.
@MaxxTheMerciless No, you're postulating another cause, we both agree on the effect (the rise in the price of housing). Now I'm not saying you are wrong, and I think that there are even some pieces to your argument that need to be further analyzed, but I don't think it is the primary source of the spike in prices. Now that doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect (to one degree or another I'm sure it does) but that doesn't mean it is the biggest weight on that scale either. Good discussion though.
@pittland44 It's a little tough to go into all that when you only got 500 characters to work with. I did, actually, read The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. My point is to that guy is that taking money from someone and redistributing it to a lot of people like that won't really make things better, it just helps to inflate prices. If the govt. were to suddenly give everyone in America a million bucks, would prices remain the same or jump a little bit?
@MaxxTheMerciless They are totally going to jump because demand for everything will go up. If everyone can suddenly afford a Cadillac (for example) and the market for them jumps 150% say, then of course the price for new and used Cadillacs is going to jump through the roof.
@pittland44 A case in my last point is brilliantly illustrated in the wine business, which I am sort of a part of. You know, you can actually make quite a bit of money in this business if you know who to cater to. If you cater to millionaires, you can afford to sell your cases which normally might go for $300 if you buy direct from the vineyard to them for $4,000 a case, sometimes higher especially if they're well reviewed, and rare.
@MaxxTheMerciless It's the same thing with the better (or rarer) varieties of whiskey, which I know something about. The more money people have, the more demand there will be for just about everything.
@pittland44 Yeah, I'm familiar with how well scotch-whiskeys sell.
I currently possess a case of 1999 Opus One, which I bought for $1200 back in 2002, and I can sell that for $10,000, and it's not a particularly great year for that label. Heck, I might just keep it for myself.
@pittland44 I have a number of answers. I think it relates to how both men and women relate to one another. Men want to protect women, want to cater to their needs and desires because men are intuitively looking for an angle that'll get us sex. Maybe that's a bit too trite a statement, but given that it's the majority of legislators, judges, and executives that are men, it seems to have merit. There are other reasons....cont...
@pittland44 cont... I think that socialists also target women because they saw what happened during WWII, about how many women just went off to work and they saw a bonanza in terms of additional tax revenues. Business also saw a bonanza in terms of a malleable labor pool.
But with socialists specifically women, especially single women with children, are much more disposed to govt. power if they feel they'll come and help them. Women intuitively seek providers and financial security.
@pittland44 I have another theory, and this one was something that Erin Pizzey once said about men and women in an interview she did. She said, regarding govt. and business, "Men are mavericks, men are a nuisance." She pointed out that if you're trying to consolidate govt. power into a central authority it helps if women are the predominant workers, since they are less likely to cause trouble as a result of govt. policies. I think that has merit too.
@MaxxTheMerciless Absolutely. I think another piece was the fascist drive towards tribalism unfortunately spread after WW2 and got into a lot of people's cultural blood stream and this was the rise of the leftist mantra about issues of race, gender and class.
@MaxxTheMerciless Another good example of what we are talking about is the boom towns of the old west, it was not impossible to see goods sold in the boom towns with 100-150% mark up in the 1870's and 1880's. This happened in Tombstone all the time.
@MaxxTheMerciless they have all kinds of restrictions on what kind of house you can build, where, what they have to have amenity wise, plus the antisprawl laws in boulder cut down on the available supply of land. This further jacks up the price without adding value, so they build mcmansions to justify the price of a house when what you are paying and extra 70 grand for is not a nicer house, or even a bigger lot but just the land the house is built on.
@MaxxTheMerciless The final piece of the puzzle is that once housing prices in some cities began to get out of hand this created a series of migrations (NYC to suburban Conn and NJ, Coastal CA to central CA & AZ and so on) which further started to alter the aggregate demand. Then the feds stepped in and wanted to ensure that everyone could buy a home, but rather than combat open space laws and rent control they started leaning on banks and the like to lend to people who weren't good for it.
@MaxxTheMerciless This caused all the "creative" lending solutions among which were subprime loans, which were originally business loans. So you have a house of cards sitting on a jenga tower built of shifting sand. What the hell did people think would happen. If people studied physics and understood the concepts of elasticity and inertia these thing wouldn't happen as much or be as bad.
@pittland44 Sub-Prime Loans and the legislation that led to that is not what I'm talking about, but it does relate to what I'm saying. Imagine, if you will, what America might be like if politicians didn't cater to the women's vote. Not that I'm advocating, necessarily, for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, but it is important to understand how this changed things.
@MaxxTheMerciless I'm not saying it doesn't, but it is a minor factor compared to other parts of the equation. Case in point, Houses in places like Pittsburgh and Houston in 2007 at the height of the "bubble" were coming in at an average price of $150,000.00 per home, while in San Francisco and Los Angeles the average price of a home was coming in at somewhere around $400,000.00 per home. What was the difference? The inelastic costs the govt imposed on the market.
1. You presented nothing. You said something and then said "fact". I think I want more than that.
2. Stop talking about socialism and if that is the only alternative. You need to create and environment where it is actually possible and not just let the market rule everything. It simply doesnt work. Ppl will not just bring themselves out of poverty.
3. Yesterday you said real wages had gone up. Now prices on houses sky-rocketed since the 50s?
1. Ive asked for these facts for a few days now. Just give me a link or some kind of source. How hard can it be?
2. Again you talk about "the" alternative. There is not just one alternative.
3. Did real wages go up or go down? Id really like for you to make up your mind. At first you said they had gone up and then you said housing prices had gone up. Which is it?
2, Yes, there have been numerous studies to show this. This man here quotes data from two separate periods which you can look over, the 70-80s, and the 80s to 2005.
/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
3. If you choose to take people from the top, and give it to the bottom, when does it stop? Eventually, you just hurt the financially well-off's ability to reinvest in the economy, and growth suffers. Communism doesn't work.
1. I think you misread. I said nominal - not individual.
2. When ppl are poor, they cant afford to go to school. They are often exposed to an environment which doesnt in different ways hinder their way to a better life. This has to be helped. The market wont do it by itself.
3. I dont know if you read the whole thread but I actually said its not a matter whether or not to redistribute wealth. Its a matter of how much. So I agree thats its a matter of "where to stop".
2, Yes, there have been numerous studies to show this. This man here quotes data from two separate periods which you can look over, the 70-80s, and the 80s to 2005.
/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
3. If you choose to take people from the top, and give it to the bottom, when does it stop? Eventually, you just hurt the financially well-off's ability to reinvest in the economy, and growth suffers. Communism doesn't work.
You are right. If we don't want to be gladly living with poor biological fitness in a dictatorship then choices are still good. Of course, there's a thing about not overdiong it if we don't want ot end up in a total friction.. =) You should be able to choose whether you want to choose.
I'm so glad HowTheWorldWorks just ripped through Barry Schwartz ridiculous rhetoric.
His speech reminded me of when I was watching an Oprah episode where people were lamenting about their overweight/obesity issues & ^complaining^ about the fact that there is just soo much food that is readily available to them...
And how many consumers these days are well informed? I would say that, without a doubt, MOST consumers in the US are NOT well informed and therefore the paradox of choice has yet to dissolve.
Barry Schwartz identifies himself in his video. I understand who he is, what he does for a living and where he's coming from. He makes some very interesting points. If you read between the lines he admits that he loves the opportunities that choices provide for us (joke about the internet.) But he also tells us about the other side of the medal.
@HowTheWorldWorks, your premise is ridiculous because you think that somethings, namely things that are so good that whatever harm they cause is inconsequential, should not be talked about.
That is ridiculous.
Berry is actually just doing what TED speakers do.
Shedding light on an oft overlooked aspect of choice... PRECISELY BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED.
This is mainstream TED.
Overlooked/ignored = looked at and discussed at TED.
What happens when your "fewer choices" all suck and there are no other options?
The market regulates how many "choices" are available. If they suck and don't sell and they wouldn’t exist (except in our bizzaro gov. bailout “fair” world). Problem is already solved.
Does that Barry guy talk about your preferences and how they change? Something like your taste and how it differs over time. Having a lot of choices is UBER better than not. It's scary that he is up there speaking like that.
@VelvetHoneyBlossom So what you are saying is that if we have fewer options and those options are crap then we should be happy with them? How is that progress?
As long as people can say this is crap and I can make a better one and they have the ability in a free market to do so then the over all quality will continue to increase.
WHO is going to make the choice of how many products of a certain type can be sold? Central planning is slavery for the individual.
@VelvetHoneyBlossom So what you are saying is that if we have fewer options and those options are crap then we should be happy with them? How is that progress?
As long as people can say this is crap and I can make a better one and they have the ability in a free market to do so then the over all quality will continue to increase.
WHO is going to make the choice of how many products of a certain type can be sold? Central planning is slavery for the individual.
Did you even hear the bit where he says: No question. That some choice is better than NONE but it doesn't follow from that that more is better than some. The last minute of this video shows your true worry and motivation. That you are expressing IRONICALLY you are selling a book to make money off your argument while we get to hear/see Barry express his ideas for FREE.
You can say he is wrong all you want. I know what I experience every day and I know how much happier I am as a result of understanding that: More choices doesn't always = better.
Your critique would be much more impressive and convincing if you didn't have to edit your own response. The fact you edit your critique suggest to me that it is a tricky topic to argue against it and not as 'clear cut' as you suggest. My life became more 'functional' after watching his video and your video just reminded me how I can waste my own time. I am sure many people disagree with me.
So we hate ourselves for picking an imperfect salad dressing? Not really. Realistic people will know no salad dressing, or anything is perfect. And yes, people will try different salad dressings to find the one they like the most. There's no buyers remorse in not having something exactly the way we run it.
At least that's what happens in the current monopolistic patent-based economy, where the most obvious and valuable improvements are only available to a few players on the market - the first to patent them - and the rest of the competition is stuck with making weird, contrived, forced "improvements" that aren't really improvements but only gimmicks meant to manipulate customers into buying something that's not really a better choice.
"The more choice, the more competition [...] whatever we choose will be better"
Wrong again. When you have just a few products, competition will probably make them better as each producer tries to out-sell the others by making the most obvious improvements (low-hanging fruit). But if you have too many, the "improvements" some of them start trying out will be more and more excentric, crazy, stupid and useless. This is wasteful and leads to less and less real improvement in quality.
"So what if you're less happy if the choice is objectively better"?! Watch it now, someone might think this means that an authority with illusions of objectivity might have the right to force choices on people who don't want them because "they just don't know what's good for them". Are you sure you want to be associated with this kind of totalitarian thinking?
Last I checked, free market theories were built on the assumption that value is subjective and that buyer satisfaction is paramount.
Firstly, don't insist so much on how Schwartz's theory is "ridiculous". It makes people suspect the main thrust of your objections will be the appeal to ridicule, an illogical argument.
Now, to your first reply: the "solution" to paralysis is to teach people to invest? Ridiculous! :) His example wasn't just about mutual fund investment decisions, it was about EVERY kind of choice the market offers and obviously not everyone can become an expert at everything in order to make decisions faster.
Barry is so obviously wrong its hilarious. I am 14 and I have a better sense of the world than Barry. example: If I have a lemonade stand and my nieghbor has a lemonade stand, I am going to make the best lemonade I can so people buy my lemonade and I make more money than my nieghbor. If we both have to make the same lemonade, we will both make mediocre money.
Barry is so obviously wrong its hilarious. I am 14 and I have a better sense of the world than Barry. example: If I have a lemonade stand and my nieghbor has a lemonade stand, I am going to make the lemonade I can so people buy my lemonade and I make more money than my nieghbor. If we both have to make the same lemonade, we will both make mediocre money.
I feel like you're not on the same wavelength here. Barry Schwartz is talking about psychology and you're just getting all defensive because you think he's all anti-free market and politically motivated. He has done research and he's telling you about the results. There's nothing more to it.
@HowTheWorldWorks I can't help but get the feeling that you're just being biased here and that the only reason you think this science is fake is because you think it must imply something that conflicts with your political conviction (and ok, yes barry schwartz does imply those scary scary things) But it's like you're debunking absolutely everything he's saying instead of just addressing how we should interpret this real psychological phenomena. You have some good points and so does mr Schwartz.
@Happypast The main issue I have with Schwartz's argument is the lack of evidence to support any of his premises, as far as his presentation is concerned. What he gives us are seemingly logical conclusions which assume the following: that more choice causes paralysis, that more choice causes dissatisfaction.
@Happypast The first assumption disregards the fact that advances in technology allow us to access relevant information more quickly, that humans spend more time choosing products or services which are significant or have a large cost, and that humans manage time so as not to waste hours on what they consider trivial matters. The second assumption disregards utility which would probably have a stronger correlation with satisfaction than opportunity cost.
i would have booed the hell out of this guy
eiffuy 2 hours ago
Barry made a poor choice to wear shorts to that appearance....
jakeyw11 15 hours ago
He thinks too many jeans lead to suicide?
I suppose with the attitude he has, he hasn't thought about how one's attitude affects their general well-being...
stevemcgee99 1 day ago
Barry is a fool. I wasn't aware that TED invited fools to speak.
stevemcgee99 1 day ago
wow what a moron, the useful idiots are taking over. for god sake, whats the problem of these people!!?? wtf
argenta86 1 day ago
Got to admit for such a stupid argument that professor knows how to spin.
KyleClarkUSA 1 day ago
77 losers can´t buy a decent salad dressing...
Dontwantlove 1 day ago
so if choices are bad and wealth gives you more choices then why would you want to make poor people wealthy??? misery loves company
xOutlaw6x 1 day ago
is barry insane?! he got great jeans, but FELT bad? that means he needs a pshychoanalyst
UpalKashey 1 day ago
who is barry? and why is he wearing shorts
UpalKashey 1 day ago
Less choice is good for some groups such as Government, Big Business, Marketers and Retail. Limiting choice simplifies the production of goods and services making the sales process easier for the provider, usualy giving the consumer a "good,better, best" option. However as a whole this only serves to limit individual freedom and stiffle economic growth and creativity.
tim76239 1 day ago
Out of the four candidates running for the republican nomination, which one do you support or find favorable Lee Doren?
ltdshred1 2 days ago
3. Everyone becomes a whore sitting there with their hands out.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 3. I wouldn't say whore; slave seems more appropo. If you are dependent on govt. for living expenses and creature comforts, then you're more willing to do as they say lest they cut you off.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
Income redistribution is one of those ideas people get in their heads that sounds good but turns out to be a disaster because it harms people in three ways.
1. Income redistribution kills ambition in people who would otherwise strive to do better. When you have caps on what people can get for something, then you naturally contract the supply, this includes invention and innovation.
2. Income redistribution removes the incentive to improve ones lot, it harms the poor this way.
cont'd.
pittland44 2 days ago
sometimes the best pleasant surprise is getting what you expected
bowserhsu 2 days ago
don't mix up [too] many choices with a confusing and hard to process amount of information; you need both choices and comprehension to make a good choice
bowserhsu 2 days ago
Barry Schwartz is an Apple fanboi, I bet. Android has surpassed iOS in popularity. How? CHOICE. You can choose from a variety of hardware, from a variety of flavors of the OS, you can customize the OS, and among a much richer variety of applications / games. (amusingly, a recent study discovered that Android is preferred for serious apps, and iPhones for games.)
Love that dual-screen iPhone, or 3D iPhone, or 7" iPad...
Hiraghm 2 days ago
It's as simple as this: if people didn't want them, the choices wouldn't exist. If nobody buys it, it ceases to be produced. Must we overcomplicate things like this?
solankre 2 days ago
@solankre - Unless the gov't is involved. Then you get "Green energy" companies nobody wants, light bulbs nobody wants, and Chevy Volts nobody wants...
Hiraghm 2 days ago
@Hiraghm Agree, and in that case there's no choice because the choices have been made for us.
solankre 1 day ago
His whole thing about jeans is stupid. I buy specific jeans that I like that fit me well and am very happy about it.
Vintexen 2 days ago
@Vintexen - I haven't been able to *find* a pair of jeans that fit me well since the 1980s...
Clothing quality in the U.S. has gone steadily downhill since the 1960s.
Hiraghm 1 day ago
Good old Berry would not want everyone to wear the Tshirt and shorts would he ?? Everyone working for the gov. in forced Union labor with no private sector jobs is what they ( progressives ) want..
2012Noal 2 days ago
What a dipshit! Another "Barry" with no brains!
MemoryTechnologies 2 days ago
9:25 Here we go Lee, he goes trying to justify Marxism.
Alvin691 2 days ago
OMG! Barry? Lower your expectations? That is what I expect from a government program.
Alvin691 2 days ago
@zivjax @EmpperorIng @Howtheworldworks pretty much in conclusion.. until he starts talking about redistribution of weath he's pretty much making the "less is more" philosophical arguement and I tend to agree with it as a personal lifestyle. I wouldn't make that choice for others but i definitely understand where this line of reasoning is coming from.
anime1973 2 days ago
I don't always agree with you, hell, that's part of the reason I subscribed to your channel, you make me think about my views and review why I think they are the correct ones.. on this subject I completely agree with you. If your such an indecisive loser that choice is making you paralyzed or depressed then just grab the cheapest and move on with your life.
rodgerfox3 2 days ago
Lee, I think the paid Leftist trolls have been sent after you. These people like anime1973 are either insane, mad, or just want to be slaves.
zivjax 2 days ago
@zivjax actually i'm quite a rightist. NEVER have i argued that government intervene or do any "redistrubution" like the retard in the video suggests... But i also don't completely reject what he says from a philosophical point of the view up until the end when he starts talking about redistribution.. you can seperate philosophy from economics
anime1973 2 days ago
I suppose you can't be right about EVERYTHING. I forgive you. :)
ericsclips 2 days ago
I think you can refute Mr. Schwartz's argument pretty easily by simply pointing out that anyone who feels like he has too much choice can always give his money away voluntarily. It's silly to have institutionalized wealth redistribution when not everyone wants less choice, but you're free to limit yourself and help someone else any time.
Fetchdafish 2 days ago
I disagree based on observation. There seem to be the type of people who have no problems handling many choices, but there are people who do. My personal experiences are mostly as schwartz describes. Many choices usually means there isn't one superior solution, merely many attempts, and the reason for unhappiness with the own choice is because there is in fact no terrific choice when there is a large number of options. There is a perfectly valid philosophical foundation for this.
ComeLeVent 2 days ago
@ComeLeVent going back to my grocery store... there are also choices which quite frankly shouldn't be... as a libertarian i would never support government making that call. Take for example Low Fat PeanutButter. It costs more than normal peanut butter but is less healthy. People buy it because they are uneducated in the fact that the fat in peanuts is good for you and that low fat peanut butter has hydrogenated oil in it as a substitute. I don't think that it is a valid choice really
anime1973 2 days ago
@anime1973 Yes. There are examples in many areas of life. Take industry and science where, generally speaking, standardization reduces choice because it is obsolete - there is a one size fits all superior solution for some problems or products, or a theory that does away with many opinions. Where there is option, there is no such solution.
Having options is good in some situations, but bad in others.
ComeLeVent 2 days ago
His choice to wear shorts definitely had a negative effect.
llcoolray3000 2 days ago
Who would ever listen to a guy who showed up to a lecture wearing a pocket-tee and shorts? Obviously he is so confounded by choice that he cannot even dress himself. Let him wallow in his own ignorance and move on.
dlstb 2 days ago
Idiots like Barry Schwartz are worried about making the wrong choices. I have a solution for all of them: Grow up! Sure, you may make a bad choice, but so what? Are you so stupid that you won't change your mind? You know, seeking the "best" in a product is both subjective, and more often than not, overrated. I deal in wine a lot, so I can tell you that a price or a fancy label doesn't tell me if a wine is good or not. And I don't really care about what a magazine says about them. cont..
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless cont.. Most of my customers don't care either. They like what they like, whether it costs them $10 a bottle or $1,000 a bottle. And I can tell you that if you're buying a wine for more than $100, you're not necessarily buying the best wine. In fact, more often than not you're buying a label. Most people can't tell the distinctions, and even so, you can do just as well with a $40 bottle. I prove this in tasting after tasting.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
Oh, for crying out loud! What a crap lecture!! Yes, we'll just turn into the old Soviet Union which was parodied in an old Wendy's commercial-- THIS is the choice that the Communists in charge want you to have: watch?v=5CaMUfxVJVQ
RisenPhoenix68 2 days ago 4
I use steam. Steam has a choice of thousands of games. I don't react negitivly to it.
666or999 2 days ago
@666or999
What about those hundreds(thousands) of hours you could have used to do something else?
Something that would have benefited ALL of society
Har Har
poplug 2 days ago
"why should we care if you're less satisfied with a better item" The utility someone derives from a thing--whatever it is--in the United States you have 401Ks for example--is largely subjective. That's the genius of choice. That's a fundamental tenant of a market economy--you have a different utility function for a thing than I do, which means that trade makes us both better off. So, Lee, don't ignore the importance of satisfaction in choices. I agree with most of your stuff but differ here
steelyman40 2 days ago
i work in a grocery store. i assure you there is too much choice there. There's no one better off with 50 different varities of pringles.
anime1973 2 days ago
@anime1973 From the genius who owes his very job to the fact that people shop at a grocery store because of variety. LOL.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 days ago 39
@HowTheWorldWorks You must be some kind of fanatic. It seems you hear one sentence and instead of thinking about it you go on a rampage.
What the guy says is actually true for the most part. Ask any sales person (or a guy in a grocery store(!) what happens when a customer is presented with 10 options instead of 3. The customer will "think about it". So this information can actually be used FOR capitalism. Its not a matter of going against it.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 So what if someone will "think" about his options? What does that matter to you, or to that clerk he was responding to? You know, most stores have what is known as a shelf fee that they charge for vendors to put their products there. If there is a particular item that is selected more often than not, the vendors principally will adjust their distribution accordingly.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless It matters to the owner of the shop! he doesnt make the sale! Jesus.... And nobody is paying a shelf fee if they dont get any sales anyway.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 Yes, but I wasn't talking about the owner - I was talking about that clerk, wasn't I? Plus, every store is different. Many department stores have no shelf fee for certain items. As far as that clerk is concerned, it's not his business how many options someone has.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless The clerk commented on the 50 choices available. He has first hand experince on a daily basis. You dragged him into this ... WTF?! That is the dumbest comment on Youtube this week. And consider this IS Youtube.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 But, he doesn't make those decisions. Does he? He doesn't choose what products get put on the shelves and where, does he? Does he run the store? No, he didn't say that. So why should all those options concern him? Dumbest comment on YouTube, eh? Obviously, you flunked reading comprehension.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless You ask what it matters to us. What does it matter to Lee Doren? We are discussing the subject of "choice" here. It matters to us all. The comment you came up with is retarded. Very very retarded.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 Why? Is that all you have? Personal attacks and animus? What does it matter if someone has a lot of choices of products? If you feel regret or anxiety about making a decision about something, that's a personal issue. Sounds to me like if you have a problem with that, then you need to grow up.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Personal issue or not. The problem is real and sales ppl come across this problem most days of the week. You can brush it off like Lee Doren does but the problem still exists.
mr82769 1 day ago
@mr82769 Who cares? That's a personal problem with you, and your worthless ilk. Not me. You can choose to be worthless. I choose to do something. Then again, I'm pretty wealthy, so I guess I've already made it.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 day ago
@MaxxTheMerciless I actually work for ppl who care. I get paid good money to care. So somebody must care...
mr82769 13 hours ago
@mr82769 They're idiots, then. I mean, really, if they're feeling regret and anxiety about making decisions, then I say they seriously need psychological help, and stop trying to hamper the market for the rest of us. It's not my problem they don't have balls.
MaxxTheMerciless 12 hours ago
@HowTheWorldWorks grocery stores thrived before this level of variety. I'm not saying variety is bad though... but it's not always great. The variety doesn't increase sales. If you buy bbq pringles it would probably be done at the expense of sour cream or regular. The "extreme" flavors often go weeks between being restocked.
anime1973 2 days ago
@anime1973 Someone purchasing something at the expense of something else is a preposterous argument.It assumes that someone is only physically capable of buying one particular thing, which is absurd, and doesn't take into account the hundreds of individuals with different tastes. If "extreme" flavors are unpopular that's an argument for your store to not purchase them from the suppliers. Not an argument to compel a "one size fits all" solution for consumer demand for products good and services.
EmpperorIng 2 days ago
@EmpperorIng the store does all sorts of things that makes it miss it's full profit potential. They spend about a 1000 per cashier per year to get a manager to have to go and put in their passwords to sell any gift cards, returns, voids over $3, and coupons over some amount. I'm also not advocating for a one size fits all. I'm just argueing that variety to infinity isn't always helpful or practical. I'd rather see competition in brands than varieties within the same brand.
anime1973 2 days ago
@anime1973 Competition between brands is largely reduced due to government regulation putting unnecessary costs on businesses. Costs larger companies can endure, but smaller ones have trouble with. That said, companies, at the end of the day, are trying to make a profit. If that means that they sell their brand in many varieties, it's because consumers demand Pringles come in multiple flavors.
EmpperorIng 2 days ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
So you think if there was less variety in grocery storers, pleople would go hunting in the woods? While I don't have an issue with variety, I think people shop at grocery stores for convenience, not so much because of variety. Your detection of irony in anime1973's comment is painstakingly contrived.
gronkar66 2 days ago
@HowTheWorldWorks - I work at a massive retailer whose success is due to their making choice affordable to more people. (their name is not S-Mart, but sounds similar...)
Hiraghm 2 days ago
@anime1973 too much choice? you realize if your store had less choice than Grocery Sore B, you'd be out a of a job, right?
And what's wrong with a lot of choices?
Would you rather have just one type of pringle? IF you don't like that one kind, tough shit. But I guess that's better than choice, hu?
Eat what we tell you, or starve.
WOOT!
pseudohippie55 2 days ago
@anime1973 wow, seriously? People like different things. With 300 million people, there could be more than 50 and it would be just fine.
AnsemRush 2 days ago
@anime1973 THAT IS JUST FASCTIST!!! I MEAN PEOPLE GETTING TO CHOSE WHAT THEY EAT AND BUY INSTEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT DOING IT FOR THEM?! You should sue somebody! On a more serious note, what is wrong with people choosing from 50 different kinds of bread?
BrandonCRC 2 days ago
@anime1973 I'll echo Lee's comment. The very reason my wife and I still shop at a traditional supermarket over a big box super center is that the supermarket has a wider selection.
jtkirkfan2002 2 days ago
@anime1973 Are you kidding. I never have to have the same kind of pringle twice, that is simply awesome. I can literally buy a can a day and not have to get the same kind ever again in a month, that's just cool.
pittland44 2 days ago
@anime1973 What about all the anime? There are so many to choose from. I think I'm in heaven.
rzxwm10 2 days ago
I think he saying we are spoiled and will not be happy until we are all miserable. Do i have it right?
necrom666 1 week ago
This is my favorite video you've done, Lee. It touches on one of the most important axioms of the left mantra.
Oyaji291 2 weeks ago in playlist HowTheWorldWorks Critiques
Perfect example of low expectations leading to pleasant surprises and fake happiness: any Tom Cruise movie. You go in with low expectations. You sit through it because you still have popcorn left. You have a few laughs, ohhs and ahhhs. The credits roll and you say "that wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be." Should all movies be like this? HELL NO.
quantumG 3 weeks ago in playlist HowTheWorldWorks Critiques
Youtube has lots of competition and choice.
I was pleasantly surprised by this video.
Jotto999 1 month ago
This is not constructive criticism, and if it's not constructive what's the point?... You are great at contradicting people in a video on youtube but I don't think you would do well in a debate. Search for "Dan Gilbert: Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy? "
tocaciuvladandrei 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Schwartz (1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill and (2) cites mainstream research that too much choice in *too many* area of our lives at once is generally not a good thing. Schwartz does NOT advocate Communism at all and openly states that not everybody suffers from unlimited choice (but many people do). You do not know what you are talking about.
flutterandwow 1 month ago
Schwartz (1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill and (2) cites mainstream research that too much choice in *too many* area of our lives at once is generally not a good thing. Schwartz does NOT advocate Communism at all and openly states that not everybody suffers from unlimited choice (but many people do). You do not know what you are talking about.
flutterandwow 1 month ago
@flutterandwow
"(1) cites mainstream social research about inequality of wealth being a major factor of social ill"
So? I'd like to be as rich & succesful as Mitt Romney, but ust because I'm not, doesn't mean I want to take his success away from him.
In the past 30 years, the poorest gained far more proportionally then the rich, compared to the poor of 30 years ago, they own far more appliances and can buy more food.
Futher, most of the poor, over time, become middle class or higher.
AlaskaFinal 2 weeks ago
@AlaskaFinal Sorry, but I think you may be living in a fantasy world. Where is your data to show what you said about the poor gaining more?! And it is a *fact* according to the mainstream studies that countries with greater gaps between rich and poor seem to have more problems. Oh and remember, there are NO victimless millionaires.
flutterandwow 2 weeks ago
@flutterandwow
"is your data to show what you said about the poor gaining more?! "
Right here;
/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
HTRWW also brought it up somewhere, but not as comprehensivly.
"greater gaps between rich and poor "
Well Russia has less gaps, yet clearly more problems. As Margret Thatcher liked to say "Let the poor be poorer, so long as the gap is smaller".
That's all redistribution of wealth gives you, less wealth for everyone, the USSR is the perfect example of that.
AlaskaFinal 2 weeks ago
@AlaskaFinal Russia? Why are you talking about autocracies?! And 'redistribution of wealth' is a meaningless phrase! Empowering the average person through education, healthcare services and participation in politics is a systemic change about human rights. Was women coming into education and the workplace a 'redistribution of wealth'?!!
flutterandwow 2 weeks ago
@flutterandwow
"Why are you talking about autocracies?!"
You said countries who have higher wage gaps "seem to have more problems"
Do you consider Russia as some sort of an exception? I don't quite see why.
And when you talk about wage gaps, the normal conclusion to solve it for the left, is reaching for what I just said, "redistribution of wealth", which is a flawed policy.
I'm not sure how anything I've said connects to your point about women.
AlaskaFinal 2 weeks ago
@AlaskaFinal Apparent democracies, I'm talking about. Sure, we can include North Korea or the Congo if you like, but what's the point? The same argument you are using to justify existing power structures and inequality could have been used about women in the past. Allowing women to earn money and even become rich is taking power away from men already there. Allowing them socialized healthcare and education means they will disturb all those men who are trying to keep their power.
flutterandwow 2 weeks ago
@flutterandwow
"The same argument you are using"
My argument has been thus:
1. Individual wages have gone up over the last 20 years, fact.
2. Most poor people over time pull themselves out of poverty, fact.
3. "Redistribution wealth", which is where the Gov't TAKES money from people to give to someone else, is poor policy, and only results in making everyone poorer, as observed in Socialist and former Communist states, fact.
Women have nothing to do with the last point.
AlaskaFinal 2 weeks ago
@AlaskaFinal
1. Nominally - yes. But in real wages?
2. No.
3. There hasnt yet been a truly communist country in the world but do a cost/benefit of this: Take a billion away from someone owning 5 billion dollars and give it to 100 ppl. Will the utility taken from the billionaire be higher than that gained by the 100 ppl?
To me it seems your "facts" are just something you dont like to discuss.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 1. Actually, it is a fact, and yes, in real wages and real purchasing power. Why is it that so many "poor" people in the U.S. have HDTVs, and even own their own home?
2. Yes, it happens all the time. Well, less so under Obama.
3. The age-old cry of the commie is that "true" communism hasn't been tried. If such a system requires absolutely adherence to doctrine from everyone in charge and their subjects, then it will always fail because human beings are not robots.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
1. From where did you get that so many poor ppl have HDTVs?
2. The social mobility is not very big. Yes, ppl get a higher income as they get older as a general rule but ppl dont pull themselfes out of poverty just as time goes.
3. You can call it an age-old cry all you want. Its true nonetheless. Just as some argue real capitalism never existed because it turnes into corporatism.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 1. From experience and sales reports.
2. It's better than none at all, which happens under socialism. Invariably, poor people who don't pull themselves out of poverty do so because of either ignorance or an unwillingness to try, to do what it takes to succeed.
3. But it's a strawman argument, meant to detract from the mistakes done in the name of communism by saying "if only the right people were in charge." Yeah, if only.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
1. Sales reports with ppls income in it? I´d like you to go find a chart of the real wages and their development the last 50 years.
2. Yes it is better if it happens. Plz stay on subject. And you cant just "do good" all of a sudden. It takes more than that.
3. Again, stick to the subject. And plz answer my question.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 1. Yes. There are surveys conducted every now and then.
2. Happens all the time.
3. What question? I'm not going to answer a false premise.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
1. Present the facts you speak of then.
2. The fact that it happens doesnt mean it will happen everytime.
3. What false premise? Then instead of billions put "millions". Doesnt change anything. Redistribution will be able to increase utility in a society. Its the extend of redistribution that is to be discussed. No whether or not to.
mr82769 2 days ago
@mr82769 1. I did.
2. It happens, though, and it's worse to bring about socialism which would only hamper such movement.
3. No, it doesn't. Why? Because it creates no utility. It creates no value. All it does do is serve to inflate prices.
It's a simple concept. If you know that a segment of clients has more disposable income, you can gradually increase your prices. Ever wonder why housing prices increased almost tenfold since the 50s? How did prices inflate so much?
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless A big part of the rise in housing prices is the result of rent controls in a lot of the major cities combined with open space laws outside of metropolitan areas that caused a drop in the available supply of housing and restricted builders from adjusting that supply quickly or efficiently. Thomas Sowell has a whole book on the subject.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 That's true, but another aspect involves the fact that more and more households began to have more than one source of income. As more and more women sought careers, the real estate market capitalized on that, knowing that a couple could potentially afford a bigger mortgage. If you know what someone can afford, that can affect market prices as well.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless A lot of that had to do with demand for larger, nicer homes rising. The next piece of that was in places like Cali and New York where they had rent control and open space and anti sprawl laws you have governments not making the same kinds of restrictions on "luxury" housing. This is actually the biggest source of mcmansions and the source of the decline in "starter" homes. The state where I live, Colorado, they bitch constantly about mcmansions up in the city of boulder but...
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 There have always been high priced luxury housing, and rent controls and zonings have always been a part of real estate, and I don't ignore their impact. But what is new is the rise of the two-income household, which also must cater more to what women want in a home, which you know will only make things more expensive than they have to be. I call this the Sparkle Effect, the reasons why weddings have gotten so out-of-control expensive.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless No, there was a time when there were no rent controls. Nor were there zoning boards. The problem, by and large, was not the fact that women were making more money or getting more amenities in their houses as a result, the problem was that the types of housing and the overall costs of doing business were being affected by what a lot of state and local governments were doing and then the feds sought to further alter the system without addressing the original problem.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 I'm not even talking about the mortgage crisis. NYC did have rent controls as far back as the 1800s (so did London). Housing prices did, in fact, rise principally because two-income households did present a lucrative opportunity for realtors. You can actually see a sharp rise in the prices of homes, both new and old, which correlates to the rise of the two-income household, during the 70s and 80s.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Actually the point where housing prices began to shoot up was 1967 when LBJ began his program of inflation. The next thing that happened was as a result of that inflation was more people began investing in "hedges" against inflation, which included real estate, this further brought up the price as real estate ceased to simply be peoples homes and became seen as assets, this included the phenomena of flipping houses.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 That's true too, but again how much less bad might this have been if by and large we didn't have the rise of the two-income household? Indeed, socialists do tend to prey on women's desire for financial security, so it does beg the question just how much things might've been different if they didn't pass Women's Suffrage? That's a very touchy question, one I don't think a lot of people want to explore.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Totally agree with you about socialists either preying on, or appealing to certain aspects of women's nature or temperament. Case in point before they came to power the NSDAP (Nazi party) and Hitler were extremely popular among German women, particularly mothers. The other thing that I think effects that was the rise of single person single income homes as a result of the rise of feminism and no fault divorce, which drastically effected the number of people living alone.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 Especially feminism, where it has effectively made being an ex-wife rather lucrative these days.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless It also has a huge effect on the number of housing units needed. There was a time when single people did not own houses in this country, only families did. The divorce craze altered that. I remember as a kid plenty of moms having houses while the dads had apartments. Had they been living together that would mean there was more available housing for everyone.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Also, rent control in NYC did not start in the 20th century in it's current for until 1943. San Francisco it was 1959 and Baltimore it was 1962. Now there wer e emergency rent laws in the early 20's but they were abolished by 1926. As of 2007 51 cities in the state of New York participate in some kind of rent control. Also, you have open space restrictions like in California, the demand for existing properties is going to go up if they can't build new houses.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 The point is that there's been rent control in one form or another long before Roosevelt, especially in Europe. Horace Greeley even complained about that, especially during the Civil War. And, again, I'm not arguing those aspects or ignoring them. Indeed, I'm just postulating another effect of all of this.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless No, you're postulating another cause, we both agree on the effect (the rise in the price of housing). Now I'm not saying you are wrong, and I think that there are even some pieces to your argument that need to be further analyzed, but I don't think it is the primary source of the spike in prices. Now that doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect (to one degree or another I'm sure it does) but that doesn't mean it is the biggest weight on that scale either. Good discussion though.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 It's a little tough to go into all that when you only got 500 characters to work with. I did, actually, read The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. My point is to that guy is that taking money from someone and redistributing it to a lot of people like that won't really make things better, it just helps to inflate prices. If the govt. were to suddenly give everyone in America a million bucks, would prices remain the same or jump a little bit?
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless They are totally going to jump because demand for everything will go up. If everyone can suddenly afford a Cadillac (for example) and the market for them jumps 150% say, then of course the price for new and used Cadillacs is going to jump through the roof.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 A case in my last point is brilliantly illustrated in the wine business, which I am sort of a part of. You know, you can actually make quite a bit of money in this business if you know who to cater to. If you cater to millionaires, you can afford to sell your cases which normally might go for $300 if you buy direct from the vineyard to them for $4,000 a case, sometimes higher especially if they're well reviewed, and rare.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless It's the same thing with the better (or rarer) varieties of whiskey, which I know something about. The more money people have, the more demand there will be for just about everything.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 Yeah, I'm familiar with how well scotch-whiskeys sell.
I currently possess a case of 1999 Opus One, which I bought for $1200 back in 2002, and I can sell that for $10,000, and it's not a particularly great year for that label. Heck, I might just keep it for myself.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Here's a question: Why do socialists target (or at least seem to target) women more than men?
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 I have a number of answers. I think it relates to how both men and women relate to one another. Men want to protect women, want to cater to their needs and desires because men are intuitively looking for an angle that'll get us sex. Maybe that's a bit too trite a statement, but given that it's the majority of legislators, judges, and executives that are men, it seems to have merit. There are other reasons....cont...
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@pittland44 cont... I think that socialists also target women because they saw what happened during WWII, about how many women just went off to work and they saw a bonanza in terms of additional tax revenues. Business also saw a bonanza in terms of a malleable labor pool.
But with socialists specifically women, especially single women with children, are much more disposed to govt. power if they feel they'll come and help them. Women intuitively seek providers and financial security.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless That makes sense. We need to talk more, maybe go drinking ;).
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 I have another theory, and this one was something that Erin Pizzey once said about men and women in an interview she did. She said, regarding govt. and business, "Men are mavericks, men are a nuisance." She pointed out that if you're trying to consolidate govt. power into a central authority it helps if women are the predominant workers, since they are less likely to cause trouble as a result of govt. policies. I think that has merit too.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Absolutely. I think another piece was the fascist drive towards tribalism unfortunately spread after WW2 and got into a lot of people's cultural blood stream and this was the rise of the leftist mantra about issues of race, gender and class.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 eugenics...
UpalKashey 1 day ago
@pittland44 Sure, I'd be down with that. We'll get some chicks and tour Oregon's wine country.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Now we're talking.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Another good example of what we are talking about is the boom towns of the old west, it was not impossible to see goods sold in the boom towns with 100-150% mark up in the 1870's and 1880's. This happened in Tombstone all the time.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless they have all kinds of restrictions on what kind of house you can build, where, what they have to have amenity wise, plus the antisprawl laws in boulder cut down on the available supply of land. This further jacks up the price without adding value, so they build mcmansions to justify the price of a house when what you are paying and extra 70 grand for is not a nicer house, or even a bigger lot but just the land the house is built on.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless The final piece of the puzzle is that once housing prices in some cities began to get out of hand this created a series of migrations (NYC to suburban Conn and NJ, Coastal CA to central CA & AZ and so on) which further started to alter the aggregate demand. Then the feds stepped in and wanted to ensure that everyone could buy a home, but rather than combat open space laws and rent control they started leaning on banks and the like to lend to people who weren't good for it.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless This caused all the "creative" lending solutions among which were subprime loans, which were originally business loans. So you have a house of cards sitting on a jenga tower built of shifting sand. What the hell did people think would happen. If people studied physics and understood the concepts of elasticity and inertia these thing wouldn't happen as much or be as bad.
pittland44 2 days ago
@pittland44 Sub-Prime Loans and the legislation that led to that is not what I'm talking about, but it does relate to what I'm saying. Imagine, if you will, what America might be like if politicians didn't cater to the women's vote. Not that I'm advocating, necessarily, for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, but it is important to understand how this changed things.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless I'm not saying it doesn't, but it is a minor factor compared to other parts of the equation. Case in point, Houses in places like Pittsburgh and Houston in 2007 at the height of the "bubble" were coming in at an average price of $150,000.00 per home, while in San Francisco and Los Angeles the average price of a home was coming in at somewhere around $400,000.00 per home. What was the difference? The inelastic costs the govt imposed on the market.
pittland44 2 days ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
1. You presented nothing. You said something and then said "fact". I think I want more than that.
2. Stop talking about socialism and if that is the only alternative. You need to create and environment where it is actually possible and not just let the market rule everything. It simply doesnt work. Ppl will not just bring themselves out of poverty.
3. Yesterday you said real wages had gone up. Now prices on houses sky-rocketed since the 50s?
mr82769 1 day ago
@mr82769 1. No, you don't. You don't want fact. You want whatever fits into your false premise.
2. The market is far better than the alternative - relying on morons like you to run things.
3. They have. But, I guess you're too stupid to notice.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 day ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
1. Ive asked for these facts for a few days now. Just give me a link or some kind of source. How hard can it be?
2. Again you talk about "the" alternative. There is not just one alternative.
3. Did real wages go up or go down? Id really like for you to make up your mind. At first you said they had gone up and then you said housing prices had gone up. Which is it?
mr82769 13 hours ago
@mr82769 1. You don't want one.
2. But socialism is not an alternative.
3. Both. But, you're not interested in understanding anything. You're interested in promoting an agenda.
MaxxTheMerciless 12 hours ago
@mr827
"Nominally - yes. But in real wages?"
Individual wages IS real wages.
2, Yes, there have been numerous studies to show this. This man here quotes data from two separate periods which you can look over, the 70-80s, and the 80s to 2005.
/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
3. If you choose to take people from the top, and give it to the bottom, when does it stop? Eventually, you just hurt the financially well-off's ability to reinvest in the economy, and growth suffers. Communism doesn't work.
AlaskaFinal 1 day ago
@AlaskaFinal
1. I think you misread. I said nominal - not individual.
2. When ppl are poor, they cant afford to go to school. They are often exposed to an environment which doesnt in different ways hinder their way to a better life. This has to be helped. The market wont do it by itself.
3. I dont know if you read the whole thread but I actually said its not a matter whether or not to redistribute wealth. Its a matter of how much. So I agree thats its a matter of "where to stop".
mr82769 13 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr827
"Nominally - yes. But in real wages?"
Individual wages IS real wages.
2, Yes, there have been numerous studies to show this. This man here quotes data from two separate periods which you can look over, the 70-80s, and the 80s to 2005.
/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
3. If you choose to take people from the top, and give it to the bottom, when does it stop? Eventually, you just hurt the financially well-off's ability to reinvest in the economy, and growth suffers. Communism doesn't work.
AlaskaFinal 1 day ago
You are right. If we don't want to be gladly living with poor biological fitness in a dictatorship then choices are still good. Of course, there's a thing about not overdiong it if we don't want ot end up in a total friction.. =) You should be able to choose whether you want to choose.
IBMua 1 month ago
I'm so glad HowTheWorldWorks just ripped through Barry Schwartz ridiculous rhetoric.
His speech reminded me of when I was watching an Oprah episode where people were lamenting about their overweight/obesity issues & ^complaining^ about the fact that there is just soo much food that is readily available to them...
tygerk 1 month ago
@tygerk it might be "complaining" to you but how do you think a gambling addict would do in Las Vegas?
mr82769 2 days ago
And how many consumers these days are well informed? I would say that, without a doubt, MOST consumers in the US are NOT well informed and therefore the paradox of choice has yet to dissolve.
blueniner 1 month ago
Barry Schwartz identifies himself in his video. I understand who he is, what he does for a living and where he's coming from. He makes some very interesting points. If you read between the lines he admits that he loves the opportunities that choices provide for us (joke about the internet.) But he also tells us about the other side of the medal.
What I'm trying to say is. Who the hell are you?
ZoccoPapito 2 months ago
@ZoccoPapito Yay appeal to authority.
TheStrangerInTheRye 2 months ago in playlist HowTheWorldWorks Critiques
@HowTheWorldWorks, your premise is ridiculous because you think that somethings, namely things that are so good that whatever harm they cause is inconsequential, should not be talked about.
That is ridiculous.
Berry is actually just doing what TED speakers do.
Shedding light on an oft overlooked aspect of choice... PRECISELY BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED.
This is mainstream TED.
Overlooked/ignored = looked at and discussed at TED.
magneticnorth03 3 months ago
What happens when your "fewer choices" all suck and there are no other options?
The market regulates how many "choices" are available. If they suck and don't sell and they wouldn’t exist (except in our bizzaro gov. bailout “fair” world). Problem is already solved.
Does that Barry guy talk about your preferences and how they change? Something like your taste and how it differs over time. Having a lot of choices is UBER better than not. It's scary that he is up there speaking like that.
drshlotzkin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VelvetHoneyBlossom So what you are saying is that if we have fewer options and those options are crap then we should be happy with them? How is that progress?
As long as people can say this is crap and I can make a better one and they have the ability in a free market to do so then the over all quality will continue to increase.
WHO is going to make the choice of how many products of a certain type can be sold? Central planning is slavery for the individual.
HoldingOnToLiberty 5 months ago
@VelvetHoneyBlossom So what you are saying is that if we have fewer options and those options are crap then we should be happy with them? How is that progress?
As long as people can say this is crap and I can make a better one and they have the ability in a free market to do so then the over all quality will continue to increase.
WHO is going to make the choice of how many products of a certain type can be sold? Central planning is slavery for the individual.
HoldingOnToLiberty 5 months ago
Did you even hear the bit where he says: No question. That some choice is better than NONE but it doesn't follow from that that more is better than some. The last minute of this video shows your true worry and motivation. That you are expressing IRONICALLY you are selling a book to make money off your argument while we get to hear/see Barry express his ideas for FREE.
lauriejamesmackeson 6 months ago
You can say he is wrong all you want. I know what I experience every day and I know how much happier I am as a result of understanding that: More choices doesn't always = better.
lauriejamesmackeson 6 months ago
Your critique would be much more impressive and convincing if you didn't have to edit your own response. The fact you edit your critique suggest to me that it is a tricky topic to argue against it and not as 'clear cut' as you suggest. My life became more 'functional' after watching his video and your video just reminded me how I can waste my own time. I am sure many people disagree with me.
lauriejamesmackeson 6 months ago
So we hate ourselves for picking an imperfect salad dressing? Not really. Realistic people will know no salad dressing, or anything is perfect. And yes, people will try different salad dressings to find the one they like the most. There's no buyers remorse in not having something exactly the way we run it.
TheReviewer777 6 months ago
Show me the data.
calebtru 6 months ago
Barry is stupid.
If I walk into a Gamestop and I only see 1 video game for each type of console, Im not going to be relieved, Im going to be PISSED!
If I go in there and see a bunch of games, then Im going to be happy I get to choose.
Sure if I choose a game that I dont like, Im going to feel disappointed. But guess what?
Next time Ill look up information about those games to make sure I get a game that I like.
Limited choices is the dumbest thing anybody could do.
superlucci 6 months ago
At least that's what happens in the current monopolistic patent-based economy, where the most obvious and valuable improvements are only available to a few players on the market - the first to patent them - and the rest of the competition is stuck with making weird, contrived, forced "improvements" that aren't really improvements but only gimmicks meant to manipulate customers into buying something that's not really a better choice.
d0nj03 6 months ago
"The more choice, the more competition [...] whatever we choose will be better"
Wrong again. When you have just a few products, competition will probably make them better as each producer tries to out-sell the others by making the most obvious improvements (low-hanging fruit). But if you have too many, the "improvements" some of them start trying out will be more and more excentric, crazy, stupid and useless. This is wasteful and leads to less and less real improvement in quality.
d0nj03 6 months ago 2
@d0nj03 i like your arguments ...
13PeterSL 6 months ago
"So what if you're less happy if the choice is objectively better"?! Watch it now, someone might think this means that an authority with illusions of objectivity might have the right to force choices on people who don't want them because "they just don't know what's good for them". Are you sure you want to be associated with this kind of totalitarian thinking?
Last I checked, free market theories were built on the assumption that value is subjective and that buyer satisfaction is paramount.
d0nj03 6 months ago
Firstly, don't insist so much on how Schwartz's theory is "ridiculous". It makes people suspect the main thrust of your objections will be the appeal to ridicule, an illogical argument.
Now, to your first reply: the "solution" to paralysis is to teach people to invest? Ridiculous! :) His example wasn't just about mutual fund investment decisions, it was about EVERY kind of choice the market offers and obviously not everyone can become an expert at everything in order to make decisions faster.
d0nj03 6 months ago
Barry is so obviously wrong its hilarious. I am 14 and I have a better sense of the world than Barry. example: If I have a lemonade stand and my nieghbor has a lemonade stand, I am going to make the best lemonade I can so people buy my lemonade and I make more money than my nieghbor. If we both have to make the same lemonade, we will both make mediocre money.
OffwagoBros 7 months ago
Barry is so obviously wrong its hilarious. I am 14 and I have a better sense of the world than Barry. example: If I have a lemonade stand and my nieghbor has a lemonade stand, I am going to make the lemonade I can so people buy my lemonade and I make more money than my nieghbor. If we both have to make the same lemonade, we will both make mediocre money.
OffwagoBros 7 months ago
I feel like you're not on the same wavelength here. Barry Schwartz is talking about psychology and you're just getting all defensive because you think he's all anti-free market and politically motivated. He has done research and he's telling you about the results. There's nothing more to it.
Happypast 7 months ago
@Happypast He said it would therefore be good to redistribute wealth. What you just said is nonsense.
HowTheWorldWorks 7 months ago 19
@HowTheWorldWorks I can't help but get the feeling that you're just being biased here and that the only reason you think this science is fake is because you think it must imply something that conflicts with your political conviction (and ok, yes barry schwartz does imply those scary scary things) But it's like you're debunking absolutely everything he's saying instead of just addressing how we should interpret this real psychological phenomena. You have some good points and so does mr Schwartz.
Happypast 7 months ago
@Happypast The main issue I have with Schwartz's argument is the lack of evidence to support any of his premises, as far as his presentation is concerned. What he gives us are seemingly logical conclusions which assume the following: that more choice causes paralysis, that more choice causes dissatisfaction.
TheLambdaComplex 7 months ago
@Happypast The first assumption disregards the fact that advances in technology allow us to access relevant information more quickly, that humans spend more time choosing products or services which are significant or have a large cost, and that humans manage time so as not to waste hours on what they consider trivial matters. The second assumption disregards utility which would probably have a stronger correlation with satisfaction than opportunity cost.
TheLambdaComplex 7 months ago
@TheLambdaComplex This is the kind of critiquing I would have liked this video to focused on :)
Happypast 7 months ago