 One of the arguments in favor of markets is that they're supposed to provide for individual choice So they're kind of democratic. They allow everyone to choose. It's quite the opposite markets radically restrict choice In a very important way So take speak concrete. I have to get home tonight, right? The market does offer me a choice Between Toyota and Chevrolet. It does not offer me a choice between a car and a subway That would be better for me would be better for my grandchildren and help save the environment and so on But that's not a choice available in the market Markets sharply restrict choices to individual consumption For what that is many negative aspects to it quite apart from externalities for one thing it means that Lots of choices just aren't available the choices that an individual might prefer and see I would prefer But furthermore, it kind of exaggerates the most negative aspects of human Potentiality it turns you into someone who is dedicated to maximizing individual gain not Social concern exactly the opposite of what Smith human leaders took to be the essential view of nature That's intrinsic to markets quite apart from that comes the question of externalities, which by now Are species destroying? Yeah, I mean it's inherent to markets that Exxon mobile That will try to maximize profit independently of what happens to the fate of the species and they're doing it so Exxon mobile just announced again that They're not going to waste any any They're not going to waste any resources on the marginal profit that you might get from sustainable energy they're going to Try to extract all the fossil fuel they can With new technology and they'll be huge profits and so on of course the grandchildren may not have a world to live in But that doesn't matter part of market Economics is you don't care about the fate of your grandchildren. You care about more profit tomorrow These are all essential aspects of markets and among the reasons why they're literally lethal Destructive to the individual because of the sharp restriction of choice to Individual gain that Creates it almost inherently creates a kind of sociopathic society. It's maximizes the sociopathic elements of human relations and even individual psychology and it's also just Completely unsustainable actually take a look at history. There are a few cases where markets were in fact Actually functioned one of them is the third world. In fact, that's how the third world became the third world They as in the case of Egypt and India. They just had these conditions forced on them. So then yes, they the industrialized became What the United States would have become if it had followed Adam Smith's recommendations that were freezing do the opposite The other interesting case is England in 1846 England Was way in advance of other societies industrially that had more than twice the per capita capitalization of any other country. So under those conditions England's merchants and manufacturers the ruling classes could Consider the possibility of accepting free trade because they were going to win Anyone who's going to win is in favor of free trade So they did move towards lessee fair sort of They could maintain the protected market in India huge market, but that was protected Not no free trade and they wouldn't let India develop. They would let other countries move in and this experiment didn't last very long the effects of permitting lessee fair were so harmful to english industrialists and manufacturers and merchants that they pretty soon called off the experiment By the 1920s when Japan was out competing They simply closed off the empire No more free trade will close off the empire because we can't compete So free trade is fine if you're going to win But with restrictions But not if you're not going to win same happens in the united states The united states was the most protect probably the most protections country in the world From its origins right up to the second world war and prosper By the time you get to the end of the second world war the united states was So much in advance of every other country that free trade seemed like a decent idea The united states literally had half the world's wealth at that time. So fine. Let's have free trade With a condition and the condition was very striking. So for example in february 1945 the united states called an a hemispheric conference In Mexico so all the countries came and the united states dick essentially dictated an economic charter for the americas Which was opposed to economic nationalism in all its forms said everyone has to accept pure market principles With a single exception which wasn't mentioned the united states The united states instituted massive state intervention in the economy That's why you have these devices that are here through the 1950s in particular this huge state expenditures Into developing the Basis of the modern economy a lot of what's done right here in fact right. We were sitting down below Invention of Development of computers or the internet micro electronics and so on almost all through the state sector This went on for decades So that but that's kind of an exception. You don't talk about that. So economic no economic nationalism for anyone else But a lot of economic nationalism for us We make sure that We'll have a powerful intervention in a state that ensures profit for the future and it's still happening walk around just walk around this neighborhood And take a look at the buildings You have Novartis, you know genetic engineering All the big commercial companies and multinationals. Why are they here? because they're feeding off of the research that's done through state Funding primarily state funding and the research in the main research laboratories and the university laboratories