After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s, many of these neo liberal Think Tanks advised former Soviet countries on how to restructure their economies. As you can imagine, it basically meant to privatize everything whether it makes sense or not and allow foreign investors to buy up state assets for pennies. During that time my country Latvia was ranked one of the most business friendly countries by the World Bank. And what does it mean to be “business friendly”? It had one of the highest work place accident rates in Europe, one of the highest infant mortality rates in Europe and one of the lowest healthcare standards. A 1% tax on property and almost 59% flat tax on labor, split between the employer and the employee. The housing market was so inflated, in order to save the banks from a decline in property prices every new mortgage borrower had to bring their whole family to the bank to sign the mortgage, so the whole family would be held liable. In a study conducted by the European Union at that time, 1/3 of working age Latvians intended to emigrate to other European countries in the next 5 years.
Jeffrey Sachs and Co. completely obliterated the chances of the former Soviet States to have anything but Oligarchy and kleptocracy. And yet will never be held to account
I do not support Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but this pressuring to privatise and sell out to the west makes me understand why Putin was (at least initially) viewed favourably by Russians for refusing to bend over backwards to the west like that.
I’ve been looking forward to this since you mentioned it, fascinating insight. Like most people, I hear these headlines and ‘studies’ in fields I’m unfamiliar with and assume there’s some legitimacy, unless I actually take the time to look further, wade through the deliberately obfuscating language and academic-sounding titles (as you mentioned). Funnily enough I know a whole slew of people currently or formerly in think tanks (all from LSE) and they’re a mixed bag, so it’s annoying that ‘think tank’ is often understood to imply ‘lobby group’…due to the people you talked about. Great vid.
This is true. The think tanks that I think are good should not be lumped into the 'lobby group' think tanks that I think are bad. That's just not fair. I mean yeah, both put out headlines and 'studies' that use deliberately obfuscating language and academic sounding titles, but those think tanks with those people that he talked about. Grrrrr!
The question is: are they producing independent research that can be and more importantly was peer reviewed? Do the findings match with the bulk of existing evidence or is it suspiciously novel? Can you find who funds them? Who funds them? Can you even review the paper?
@@fritobandito5374 I’d say it’s a good sign if they openly say who funds them, they produce independent research you can read not pamphlets or white papers, it’s not suspiciously novel and fitting to an agenda and they are published in peer reviewed journals
@@fritobandito5374 You've only demonstrated that you didn't understand the video. I didn't say anything about what stance makes a think tank good, but clearly they way they practice does. Are you really so foolish to assert that every independent group of researchers is bad? Your comment doesn't make much sense.
@@OpiatesAndTits Did you have an institution in mind? I think you hit the nail on the head when asking who funds these institutions or studies. Funding and PR incentives can routinely produce an agenda whether cognisent or not. Even within "independent" research or media. This can also include programs to overtly or covertly recuit "social influencers".
I'm always skeptical of a vague tweet that just says "economists" "scientists" or "experts". When you click on the interview it's usually someone still in study who just joined a fancy institute. That or the "economist" is just some businessman who never studied economic theory and just reads a lot of books about stock.
Even excluding outright fraud, people tend to vastly overestimate their abilities with broad-reaching statements like that. Marx also thought that a theory of value is simple, and didn't even recognize he never produced one (as critical as that is to any economic system) :D
And that's not to mention that most "real" economists are simply blind followers of capitalism/neo-liberalism, so their opinions are usually biased and factually wrong.
@@LuaanTi HELP. I cant supress the Urge to recommend Science-RUclipsrs, Atheist-Channel and 'Some More News' and 'Forrest Valkai' when i see 'how' this channel here is and 'how' its Fans tick, but i also dont wanna sound like an ad-bot (duh)!! Anyone got Ideas?
So to put it briefly, most think tanks are basically rich people telling the rest of society :"No we cannot let go of our wealth and power, because it would totally hurt you! Out of the kindness of my heart I cannot let you be hurt by all my money!"
I decided to read some Adam Smith Institute articles, as to fact check Tom. I was honestly surprised by how accurate his description of them are. The most stunning thing was perhaps how ideological these "fact based" institutes are. In one article they claimed that capitalism was natural, spontaneous and the only way to do economics, citing no sources (not to mention the fact that there have been several non-capitalist systems that have been/ are in effect).
It depends a lot on what you call "capitalism". There's definitely something about capitalism (and free markets) that's very human. You have A, I have B... If we both benefit from exchanging the two, why wouldn't we? Then you get into the early violent societies that started claiming land, you get the aristocrats... Some of capitalism is rejecting that, some is accepting that as a part of the natural order of things. Some feel it's unfair, but necessary. Of course, the scope of capitalism is also quite important. You rarely find it in families; still uncommon in tribes. But as the scope increases, capitalism really gets more and more natural, and just as importantly, necessary. There's a common myth that "communism" (the Soviet kind) failed because people weren't good enough. But in my country, all the documents have been publicly available. There was a lot of scapegoating on the highest levels about who was responsible for "ruining" the communist utopia. But when you actually read those transcripts of meetings about economic policy and such... yes, dicks were always there (the same kind that today leads a corporation, most likely). But the honest good guys, of which there were plenty (not in USSR, mind), just _couldn't make it work_ . People severely underestimate how complex even relatively small economies are. Even without accounting for different people having different values, it's incredibly difficult allocating scarce resources in a way that serves those values the best. Heck, even the Soviets resorted to copying the prices and just altering many of them to serve the "common communist values" (much like today, democratic socialists let the markets do their thing, but then engage in price fixing, subsidies, taxation etc.).
@@LuaanTi capitalism is literally using money, or capital, to invest and, hopefully, get a return. It has nothing to do with free markets or free exchanges. You’re confusing natural markets (I trade my crops for your livestock) with money. Capitalism inevitably creates a class completely divorced from labor, whose investments are enough to not engage in production. Nothing natural about that. That’s all design.
@@ianm1462 People value things that don't require manual labour too. Taking something from where it's cheap to where it's expensive benefits everyone involved. Money is of no importance of its own - it's just something to help with trading (until governments start printing more money to "finance" themselves, of course). You're a lumberjack. A chainsaw will increase your productivity four times, let's say. If I sell you a chainsaw, we both benefit. Regardless of whether _I_ manufactured the chainsaw or not. If you don't have enough money to buy a chainsaw, I can lend you the tool for a cost. Or I can just lend you the money directly. There are other people who could increase their productivity by getting that money (to invest in _their_ tools etc.), so there's a market for the money too. Just because I have a preference for money in the future, and you have a preference for money now, doesn't mean that I'm exploiting you. We both benefit - otherwise there would be no trade. Indeed, a lot of _other_ people benefit too - such as the carpenter, who now has access to cheaper wood, and his customers, who get cheaper furniture. If they have employees (I know, what a dirty word), they can afford to pay them better. Indeed, as more and more people get access to the better tools and cheaper materials, they _have_ to pay their employees better, as long as labour is relatively scarce (which it usually is, of course). Marx never saw any value in that, of course. He never did any labour, he never did any trading, he didn't even have wealthy parents (instead, he got a friend with wealthy parents). As a true socialist, he only focused on the most visible effects - the dastardly capitalist could give the lumberjack the money, and the lumberjack would be better off - and it's not really going to hurt the capitalist, is it? He's not doing any manual labour, so what claim does he have to his wealth anyway? Money isn't capital. Money isn't value. It's just a medium. Your ability to work is capital; the land you own is capital; money doesn't create value out of nothing - but if you use it well, you can use it to enable trades that wouldn't otherwise happen. Mind, that's quite a separate issue from the "landed elites". Those of course trace their original value to providing military service, and to an extent, administration; as that decayed, so did the value of the "elites". Of course, most of them just lost all their wealth - once more or less free competition was established, they usually couldn't compete. Where they survived as landed elites, it was always as a result of laws that protected them from competition. That's where you get the vast majority of "the idle rich". If you don't take care of it, you _will_ lose it. How? Well, as surprising as it might be, it's far easier to _lose_ money on investment than _gain_ money. And everything you own depreciates over time (and not reliably either). For every Musk out there, there's millions of entrepreneurs who lost everything (and often, started over, and over). And that's before you account for things like Musk being a lying, thieving bastard - he should be in jail, not one of the "wealthiest" (there's the stupid "net worth" again) people in the world. If governments did their job, people like Musk _wouldn't_ be rich. Instead, more often than not, governments enable them to be, even when they're not providing a valuable service, or when they're cheating and exploiting. Bigger isn't better (economies of scale are a bit more nuanced than that) - but it is when you're dealing with the government. The government will always be happier working with one guy "representing" a hundred thousand workers than working with ten thousand people employing then people each. I'd recommend starting on someone like Bastiat. It's far enough removed in time, yet you'll find the topics he addresses are very much up to date anyway.
Well, one marxist author has said "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.", so seeing capitalism as the only viable system is the mainstream opinion and it is nothing new if you know a bit about economics. And I suppose the idea that capitalism is natural stems from the fact that all socialist systems in absence of government regulation revert to capitalism.
@@werrkowalski2985 The problem isn't "socialist systems in absence of government regulation". It's how much power people actually have over those governments. Unregulated, centralised power is a problem in itself, regardless of what governance system you have. It doesn't matter much whether that centralised power is a egocentric maniac, a communist panel, a multi-national corporation... You should always be suspicious of people who want to spend other people's money. You should always be suspicious of people who want you to give up control over your life. Who asks isn't particularly important - that kind of power always attracts the same kinds of people. We need to keep finding solutions that require as small institutions as possible. Not hoping for "the right people to come", who can safely be given all our rights and freedoms. And always look at other sides of the problem. Don't just listen and watch what they want you to hear and see. It doesn't matter whether it's socialists, capitalists, corporativists, anarcho-syndicalists, Proudhounists, Smithists, objectivists, theists... Don't get stuck on claims like "We brought people 8 hour work days!", look into what they've done to, say, make it hard for people to have 6 hour work days.
I teach high school economics. There is a profusion of free, professional-looking teaching material (lesson plans, activities, etc.) available online from FEE and other libertarian think tanks, and I'd guess a lot of economics teachers don't even realize these are lobbying organizations.
I heard from a friend that their librarian friend was looking through most of their school's books on South American history, and discovered most of them were funded and written by large fruit companies 😅 like Dole. NGL, given my experiences so far I'd call it a believable story.
I’d argue they wouldn’t care if they were lobbying organisations. My high school economics teacher was a total neoliberal who sucked off the teet of Milton Friedman. I at the time was just a progressive lib and didn’t understand the history of neoliberalism or difference between neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism or that neoliberals like to pretend they’re laissez faire. But I did know the idea of the free market was bullshit and was skeptical of everything she said because of how much she harped on that. She also frequently quoted rand who I hated. This was a macro economics class but it was still useful I suppose in the basics of supply snd demand
That is absolutely terrible. The job of an Economics teacher is to explain the consensus academic views in the field, free from any partisan considerations...
@@robertsanders7060 You should understand that the academic perspective on this is that's impossible. You can't segregate your world view from the information you're presenting, because your worldview is largely part of how you understand and process information.
I'm from Brazil and this video is extremely enlightening. Thanks for the amazing work. Unfortunately my country has also become a victim of blatant political disinformation and our life has gotten a lot worse in recent years.
Infelizmente fake news tem de todos os lados e em todos os países hj em dia. Ao msm tempo, não é pq alguém julga algo como Fake news q realmente seja. Grande exemplo é a narrativa da Amazônia pegando fogo, Fake news total, os fatos mostram q a tendência do desmatamento vem caindo com os anos. Na pandemia a quantidade de fake news aumentou mto tb, lembra quando quase obrigaram as pessoas a se vacinarem, com o pretexto q essa escolha não deveria ser pessoal pois afetava aos outros, mas dps descobriram q a vacina n ajudava no contagio? Passamos perto de perder liberdades individuais por causa de fake news.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." I'm guessing this isn't the Adam Smith Institute's favorite Adam Smith quote.
I wasn't thinking of a specific quote, & I'm no friend to capitalism, but I've read a lot of Adam Smith & during that part I was thinking to myself "Adam Smith would be horrified by literally everything about the institution stealing his name" lol.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw myself and all my friends would vote for you if you ran for literally any office :) ever consider becoming a representative? A disturbing number of local/state/federal positions are unopposed...
Thank you! This was brilliant! In my country (Bulgaria), "economists" is now synonymous with think tank employees with dubious credentials funded by unknown benefactors. The exact same model replicated half a decade later.
this channel is always like "after this 2h long dissection of Ancient Roman politics, we can finally start to see how they have affected CoD voice chats". And I love it because of this.
This is a fantastic summary as someone in academia. Especially dangerous are the "climate skeptic" think tanks, of which many promoted "scientists" that questioned the link between cigarettes and lung cancer and promoted leaded gas in their past. The Heartland Institute comes to mind
There are two kinds of climate scientists: Those that agree climate change is real and we can and must do something about it, and those who have recently been handed large sacks of cash from oil companies.
Yes! I really wish he had brought these up and the dangerous propaganda they spew, especially through the mouths of PragerU. I’m curious about the lung cancer one though, I’d have to look into it. I know my conservative dad loves to talk about how it’s a myth that smoking causes cancer.
Having studied at an American university, the amount of study and class materials, courses, programs, campus clubs, books and other stuff provided by all these institutes and groups was really off-putting to me. Almost every field of study was subject to these thinktanks and their protégés.
@@jsb2195 it pains me that there could be an argument there, as long as you refuse to acknowledge how exploitative it is. Also the fact the countries being exploited would not be (exploited) without a global economy and leveraging the class differences in desperation and education from even the poverty-stricken in Western countries. Having labor laws and minimum wage stops these companies from exploiting the West, which forces many Eastern countries to relax their policies to have anything near the industry the West has built. Thus forcing the impoverished in those countries to choose either grossly underpaid labour for Western companies or routes like prostitution, drug trade, or international robbery. It might be the least dangerous option, but by making it also the least profitable and only marginally the least dangerous, they keep these countries from rapidly excelling as America did in its infancy. TL;DR: without proper context you could make a compelling argument for that stance, which is foul
@@xxeman445xx Yep, this is a huge issue in American political discourse. So many people who aren't specialists in a topic are very willing to believe something very strongly simply because of a consistent line of logic - even if there's no evidence. Take it from a scientist - almost anything can make sense, logically. What matters is hard, observable, and ideally consistent evidence. Ideas mean nothing until they reasonably describe an existing phenomenon. As you've outlined, we can all see the frank reality of the situation - but never underestimate a con's ability to warp that information.
@@jsb2195 On one hand the relationship between first world countries and third world countries often prevent those third world countries from developing which create the situations where sex slavery thrives.
@@jsb2195 That's a ridiculous argument for child labour. I mean, you can honestly make good arguments for why children should be allowed to work... but this is about on the same level as arguing that it's fine to send kids to the coal mines, because then you can make narrower tunnels. I mean, sure, that's true... but dude! :D
finally, been waiting on someone to address this very serious issue. people really underestimate the influence these "experts" have on public policy and journalism, especially here in the third world.
this is why debating theory, philosophy or ideology on the right is borderline impossible... because they pull out a "study" that I then have to debunk piece by piece and then when that doesn't work (because they are just stubborn) I then have to go into the fact that their source is publishing through a known propagandistic "think-tank" and then pull up other articles to prove it is what I say it is... this is a common tactic for those who do not want to argue the actual merits of the idea and instead bog down in details... they pull out one "fact" I have to spend 5 minutes debunking and then they have successfully side-stepped my original question. More places need to hire researchers and do proper vetting vs just leaving it to the journalists themselves to try and handle it all on their own.
Annoyingly, yes. And I'm mostly on the right (though obviously not the USA kind of right :D). I think everyone should read up on things like Marx' theory of value, Bastiat's essays, Adam Smith (not particularly original, but very influential and decent books), compare Keynes with Hayek. Societies were always built up on certain trusts, and trusting that people are generally good is one of the pillars of human cooperation in general. Undermining those is a huge problem, no matter how socialist or capitalist you are. It doesn't help that plenty of the parties involved like to confuse things on purpose; there's a huge leap between laissez-faire and corporativism, for example. Journalists should be very clearly separated. Reporting is one thing, and very important. Interpreting is another matter entirely - even though obviously there's always some distortion in any reporting, we should always strive to keep it as small as possible. But of course, government-run institutions have plenty of experience with abusing those powers too.
@@achinthmurali5207 granted some places short-hand with punditry and "experts" which have no actual legal requirement on a news network and this is a problem regardless of where you go... that being said, the most popular news network on the right is Fox News and it's most popular presenter is Tucker Carlson... someone who slings white-supremacist talking points for a living... I am curious which news network on the left is actively slinging Marxist rhetoric and theory...
@@LuaanTi Haha, if you're mildly right of center from Denmark's or Estonia's point of view, that'd put you left of Bernie Sanders. Most of the "radical left" in 'Murica is pretty average for some nations' political stances.
@@coopergates9680 Yup, definitely. All of USA politics are a nightmare as far as I'm concerned :) And mind, I think there's plenty of what Sanders says that I consider completely idiotic, but not because it's "too far left" :D It's also weird that so many people (in the US and elsewhere) have problem understanding that you can be "right" and "liberal" at the same time. That you value human life _and_ freedom at the same time (of course, freedom means something a bit different in US and European politics :D ). It's part of the polarization strategies to prevent people from coming together. There used to be a whole spectrum of liberal thought, but it was hijacked by the radical left again. That said, there's a lot of weird things in USA "radical left" (and right, and whatever else). One dangerous thing about the _really_ radical leftists was always that they attach themselves to other movements when they have some similar goals, and then hijack and destroy everything (usually in the name of fighting capitalism). When the first green parties appeared in Europe, they weren't left or right. They were just people concerned about the environment. And they managed to push a lot of changes, and put most things on the right track, and then... left. And the movement was almost completely hijacked by lunatics who kind of want to destroy human life (how much of an exaggeration that is varies :D). And since Putin consolidated his strength in Russia, heavily supported and funded by Russia (who of course doesn't care about any ideology, just destabilizing the West in any way possible - they also support fossil fuel use for example, of course). Unfortunately, the worst corporations and industries took that breathing room and turned it around. A lot of people don't want to associate with the "new" green movements, because they _are_ awful. But due to the silly polarization, that leaves them with just the fossil fuel enthusiasts to represent them. The authoritarians from all over the spectrum have immense control over the political systems - and there is very little opposition.
Hey, former think tank intern here. I just wanted to comment quickly on the history and focus of this video which may be beneficial to note. Forgive me for the wide date range, I am writing mostly from memory. Most, if not all the information I have can be found in Donald Abelson’s “Do Think Tanks Matter.” The book itself compares Canadian and US think tanks though the author beautifully describes the history of think tanks as a whole. Highly recommend the read. The first point I would like to make is about Brookings in a historical context. Brookings, though influential, was not as important and influential to the right as you would describe. The biggest influence that Brookings had was on AEI, which presents itself as a counterpart to Brookings (even today). It is true, AEI was founded with libertarian principles in mind, mainly because the founders were concerned about FDR’s spending policy. The reason I bring up AEI is because this is the organization that brings what you’re characterizing as advocacy tanks all together. Around the 1960s/70s, AEI started to focus on marketing their research heavily, focusing on publishing books, reports, etc. This model directly inspired Heritage. The organization itself has said that if focuses a lot more on great marketing rather than high quality research. Thus, what Abelson describes as the “advocacy think tank” was born. Now on to other historical points I thought I could mention as well. The Brookings Institute for Government Research was created in 1916, merging with the Brookings graduate school of economics in 1927 (for the longest time, you could actually receive a degree from Brookings). The first other big think tanks that arose were the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910), The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (1920), and the Council on Foreign Relations (1921). Though I understand that Brookings is important to your central argument, it is important to mention this think tanks as well, especially Hoover, which has gained a reputation as a conservatives think tank. The categorization of think tanks is important here as well. Not all think tanks are the same. They do not all try to achieve the same goals. Brookings (maybe AEI, though Abelson describes AEI more as an advocacy tank-- though his timeline of think tank history challenges that idea as AEI was created in the 1930s, while the first advocacy tanks popped up in the 1970s) is described as “university without students.” These tanks focus on good, high quality research first and foremost. Organizations like the Rand can be described as government contractors. These popped up around the 1950s. And finally advocacy tanks, like Heritage, were first popping up in the 1970s and are still popping up to this day, though in new ways. Though all of these are “think tanks,” I would never describe them as the same. They serve wildly different purposes and it is important to be critical of these advocacy tanks. Which is why I appreciate what this video is trying to do: educate those who may be using advocacy think tank research without verifying it’s validity because it came from a well known institution. It’s important to note as well, these advocacy think tanks are not only a right-wing phenomenon. Most notably, the Center for American Progress has been getting a lot of traction as well. Though, I will say, advocacy tanks do seem to be more cited by the right, though I am not sure if there is any possible way to verify this. An interesting concept to expand upon may be the idea of “dark money” organization and advocacy in general. Not necessarily think tanks, but how political organizations mobilize voting bases. These are just some comments I wanted to make. This video is well made. I appreciate that you put your sources in the description, that is always awesome to see.
@@GalacticNovaOverlord I don’t believe that’s the case. They themselves characterize themselves after historical progressives like FDR and Roosevelt. They have close connections to both Clintons and Biden.
Also a former intern to several think tanks (in the foreign policy-security sphere), thank you for the great writeup. A couple additional comments on the state of "university without students" think tanks in the US and continental Europe. My comments exclude the conservative think tanks described above - Heritage, CATO, AEI, etc. Even "university without students" think tanks, while serious and with some of the foremost experts in their field which produce excellent research, suffer from problems which impact their work. They rely on external funding and therefore cannot really be considered fully nonpartisan or independent. Their degree of independence can only be asserted by assessing who gives them funding, which many think tanks are not fully transparent about. Below are the three problems that plague the "university without students" think tanks in the foreign policy-security field, like Brookings, CSIS, Atlantic Council, CEPA, etc. 1. The first problem is the influence of private and foreign money into the published output of think tanks, including the most serious ones. Think tanks, while for the overwhelming majority nonprofit, receive generous funding from corporations, the US government, and to a minor extent from foreign governments. Two of the three's goal is to shift research towards preferred policies or to silence criticism. Internally, think tanks work very much like firms - they try to balance maximizing income while maintaining publication output and reputation. Give enough money to a think tank, and they'll find ways to self-censor the criticism they have in store for you. This is why Facebook became one of the largest contributors to the Atlantic Council - a well-respected institution in DC foreign policy circles- when they started a program on disinformation research, which conveniently rarely criticizes them. Many defense contractors also try to hype some technologies through the security programs of some of those think tanks - the Missile Defense Project of CSIS, for example, is thought by some of the top experts in the field of ballistic missiles to be corporation-driven in their research. The kind of funding that each program inside each thank receives is a constant source of discussion inside think tanks - programs (think "departments") within think tanks are expected to find the money themselves, with some oversight from the think tank leadership. As for foreign funding, Ben Freeman's "Foreign Funding of Think Tanks in America" (2020) of the Center for International Policy attempted to track the foreign money received by DC think tanks, which got $174 millions from foreign governments between 2014 and 2018. The top 3 donors were Norway, the UK, and the UAE. 2. The revolving door. Generally, when there's a party switch in US presidential elections, civil servants will leave senior positions in the administration and either join think tanks, universities or the private sector. The reason why think tanks hire former high-ranking civil servants into their positions is because of their expertise, but oftentimes this is also done because of their current contacts within the incoming administration civil servants (who were previously in think tanks) and because they are able to raise money from donors more easily. Many of those become "parked", waiting for a switch in the White House to be rehired in civil servant positions. Now, put yourself in the position of a think tank: would you rather hire the not-so-competent but high-ranking former civil servant who has many ties across the world, or the young brilliant civil servant who is one position below in the hierarchy, and who doesn't have many contacts worldwide? Reputation and probability of re-insertion are what motivate think tanks to hire some civil servants. Many are competent, some not so much. This drastically affects the quality of research. 3. The third problem is the amount of criticism that these think tanks are willing to engage in against one another. There is some sort of unwritten rule that it is bad practice to criticize the ideas of fellow colleagues in think tanks, even though they may be at odds against each other. Why? The field you're working in is extremely tight-knit and everyone knows one another. Think tanks want to be seen as neutral and impartial, so criticism is stifled internally. And if you criticize some colleague's publication, I wouldn't expect to be invited on panels at your colleague's think tank. Contrast this behavior with university academics, which routinely engage in critical review of the work of others and publish criticism much more freely. What you end up having is what can be called "groupthink" (see Irving Janis' classic "Victims of groupthink" ), a behavior where criticism is kept private and sometimes even self-censored, and where all publications end up resembling one another, thus giving policymakers narrower choices than what actually exist. Similarly, they can also spawn made-up ideas. The Atlantic Council and a whole array of other reputable institutions, in the aftermath of the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, were instrumental in hyping up inexistent concepts such as the "Gerasimov Doctrine" (not a Russian official doctrine) or the idea of nuclear "escalate-to-deescalate" based on extremely dubious assumptions. It took several years for those ideas to be rejected within the think tank realm, despite them being non-starters from the moment they were proposed, and many still live on today. Groupthink in US intelligence and in think tanks is also what led to Iraq in 2003. Obviously none of the structural problems can be solved by think tanks alone. Perhaps it is an evil that they will carry on forever. The best public policy for better, more independent and more constructive think tanks, in my opinion, is to make them much more transparent than they are today. If lobbyists are required to fully disclose where their funding comes from, why shouldn't think tanks?
@@redfruit1993z Easy taxes and policies that reduce private and public rent-seeking are advocated by the ASI and were advocated by Adam Smith. At least read their website where they set out their policy ideas.
@@MUSTASCH1O Hilarious! Private ownership, of what should not be owned privately is the basis of most rent seeking. I am guessing you are somewhere in the ASI related food chain.
@@jonathanhall5660 Depends how broadly you define that food chain. I have tried to open my mind to economically liberal ideas in recent years through spare-time learning, and have come to believe they hold a lot of potential for the betterment of all. Upon reading the ASI's suggestion I do now find I agree with many of them. I have become a neoliberal capitalist pig in other words.
I used to have a cartoon from the newspaper editorial pages called "The Think Tanks", It depicted various army tanks destroying various public institutions. For instance the Cato tank going after Education. The Heritage tank running down the environment. And the American Enterprise tank firing away at Social Security.
"welfare programs for the poor had made it profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that were destructive in the long term" The guys who get bonuses based on quarterly earnings reports want people to think that short sightedness, and poor planning is exclusively a poor people issue.
To be fair, you seem to be agreeing that systems can have incentives for short term gains/security at the cost of longer term problems. Is it just the framing of the issue you disagree with or are you bigoted against people with more wealth than you?
@@Uruz2012 homeless people spending welfare checks on malt liquor doesn't have the same world economy melting effects as suit wearing coke addicts engaging in speculation on poorly appraised derivatives with money from retirees. How's that for framing?
Brilliant video Tom! At 66 I am finally "waking up" despite having a degree in English with Pyschology (1996 from South Bank University) I have largely chosen to dream amongst the movies! Its fantastic to see the concept of "Think Tanks" being deconstructed! Would love to support more financially but not possible as yet! Would love to see you on Have I Got News For You one day! Hugs Keith xxx
Amazing job, as always, Tom! I'm always impressed at how dense, yet digestible, your content is. It's easy to make an hour long video, pointing at a problem, and saying a whole lot of nothing. Your videos actually unpack the deeper details that matter, and give a genuinely better picture of the situation.
@@Tom_Nicholas Tom, if you read this I'd be very grateful if you could explain why you say "libertarianism or what's now often called neo-liberalism". That was extremely confusing to me. Libertarianism alluding to extreme laissez-faire capitalism is a distinctly American usage of the term (at least it was originally American, though now it's used that way in the English-speaking world and even beyond) whereas for most of the history of the term it was basically a synonym of anarchism (in other words, the opposite of capitalism). Meanwhile, neo-liberalism has been used for longer to refer to Thatcher and Reagan-style laissez-faire economics. In other words, if anything I would say "neo-liberalism or what's now often called libertarianism", the opposite of what you said. I'm very confused by your choice of words.
@@Tom_Nicholas You should wait until it's actually done. Two days ago he backed off. In a very Elon-esque way it's being like: "Twitter is interesting, maybe..." two days later buys 9%. stocks up. "maybe it wasn't that good idea" stocks down. Buys 100%. two days later "I have doubts, how many bots there?" then "don't worry, I'm all in"... It's like a rollercoaster.
@@julianmartinez3048 like when he said he'd never dump Tesla stock to investors and then proceeded to do so. Guys a sleazy man, once he bought his way into PayPal he started selling all the user data he could. More profitable to do that than it is to just provide a "secure" way to pay for stuff online.
If someone suggested colonizing an inhospitable environment would solve poverty on earth, I would assume the plan is to send impoverished people to that environment die for other people's economic benefit.
@@michimatsch5862 It’s actually kinda funny how having a bunch of citizens who aren’t well enough to be more financially productive for themselves or for others is seen by many as necessary for people’s personal fortunes. Overall, lifting people out of poverty is a great investment. Unfortunately, the few people who wouldn’t necessarily benefit (or even who would, just in the long term) are disproportionately powerful.
@@saintpepsi8602 educate yourself or get to know one of these “creepy blokes” first. You sound like a total ldiot who knows nothing about what he’s saying
I worked for a contractor that did administration and call support for The Heritage Foundation. It was eye opening. We would get calls from some guy in Indiana who thought because he gave them $100 buck for a hat and form letter from the head that he could just call up and talk to him and explain what they needed to tell congress. (From their small business tyrant experience) and we'd have to jerk them around and say they were never there or we'd take a message. Meanwhile they would rapid fire tons of predatory emails and letters saying they didn't pay their dues to bilk them of more money and it would piss off tons and they would call in all pissed off and we'd have to lie and tell them it was a mistake. But then we'd get a few people to send in the $60-$300 dollar subscription fees so they could get a shitty newsletter and a hat. It was clearly a grift targeting older and richer boomers with the fear of everything Republicans run on. Best of all we would occasionally get calls from the offices of foreign businesses or big business lobbying firms thinking we were actually the office in DC to confirm meetings and it was very apparent when both sides realized we weren't who we said we were and lots of quick hang-ups.
HELP. I cant supress the Urge to recommend 'Some More News' and 'Forrest Valkai' when i see 'how' this channel here is and 'how' its Fans tick, but i also dont wanna sound like an ad-bot (duh)!! Anyone got Ideas?
This video came at a perfect time for me. I just finished a course with a teacher who worked for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Texas. Needless to say his views were damaging to my school experience. And no, he did not even try to make the class "non-partisan." Most of the time we had to read documents written by his cronies in the same think tank.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle are you sure about that? Been some time since I last heard a libertarian honestly considered nationalisation or how socialistic policies could serve the common good.
My biggest concern is (funnily enough) Vtubers and how they are controlled and influenced by such corporations/think tanks. We are rapidly approaching an era where corporations are desperately seeking to recruit influencers. The popularity and ambiguity of Vtubers makes them the perfect mascot to push and spread ideas. Social media is about to hit a new level of weird.
@@Tom_Nicholas I believe Jack is referring to the wave of youtubers (mainly atheists youtubers) that switched from their previous content to being right wing anti-sjw/anti-pc starting around 2010 or so; often referred to as part of the "Intellectual Dark Web". It's still on going and was somewhat touched on in your video on Veritasium.
@@burstofsanity he specifically said vtubers though? They don’t have a significant overlap with these anti-woke youtubers, or am I missing something here?
While that is theoretically possible, I've not seen any evidence of it personally. Certainly not from the biggest groups (Hololove and Nijisanji). Even if they wanted to, those are Japanese companies. I'm not sure what message or idea they could ask the members to push that would also make sense coming from people who are scattered in countries all around the world (and not seem obvious). And honestly I think a lot of members would be heavily opposed to a push like that if the companies tried it.
@@toebs_ Many Vtubers already work for (and with) corporations behind the scenes. You may not realise this but their popularity and success is a direct result of marketing; they are not self made celebrities like Markiplier, MrBeast Pewdipie etc. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, nor am I stating that they are expressly right wing, alt-right etc. In fact some are actually suffering at the hands of corporations; there's evidence they work hard and receive little pay. But they do seem to have certain opinions on issues that seem to fall in line with those they work for. One thing that I do want to warn everyone about is that; *these Vtubers are not people, they are manufactured personae designed to appeal to men, teens and children* . I know this may sound paranoid, but I refuse to trust a manufactured personality that has massive influence, works with powerful corporations and advertisers, and also creates a strong parasocial link with their fanbase. There's also something strange about the fact that they try hard to mask/hide their identity. It's a critical part of their act/persona, but we really know next to nothing about these people. Consequently they aren't even considered "real". I dare you to try to find *anything* even remotely negative about them, or the things they say. Even one thing. There's nothing at all. Normal RUclipsrs get called out all the time, but Vtubers break the social rules by being fictional. Think about it; this means anything they say can be potentially treated as a joke; even a political message or view. They are the perfect marketing and political tool.
Superbly done Tom. The seemingless endless tide of these think-tanks & the deeply pernicious effects of their influence in the UK is something which really needs more light shine upon it.
Thanks Tom. “Our leaders know we’re turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what’s happened.” ― Matt Taibbi, Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America “We are living in a world where moral climates have no atmosphere.” ― Roderick Vincent, The Cause
Just how looney and irresponsible Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are, especially as they massively-lash-out against Transgender right-now, this very Summer right-here-and-now, is the best Exmaple how Fake-Experts destroy the World intellectually. Science-Youtuebrs and Atheist-Channel never respected Ben, but right-now they’re basically at War. Sorry for the long comment but i hope you look into it and side with Science and LGBT, as some really try ot bring us back to the Dark-Ages, tbh. In Conclusion, i do think i proved that Thinktanks are looney.
I am 72 years old and living in the UK and I have to say your vlog really opened my eyes. I always questioned some of the so-called expert research on which some agendas were set. There were many times that I would try to do a fact check on reports only to hit a brick wall. usually a quotation from a Think Tank report. Thank you for the hard work you put in to create that video.
They aren't invincible, they are right in front of us. What happens is that we have been fed this same crap all our lives that it can only be what's "good" and "just the way things are". It takes a good pair of glasses to see what actually happens rather than just passively accepting it
@@kiza94bg Your assumption is incorrect. Most people have no idea that think tanks exist, let alone what they actually do. Most people aren't political nerds. And when they hear names like "American Enterprise Institute", it sounds harmless. It's extremely helpful for someone like Tom to shine light on them.
... land ownership already exists. How exactly would giving wealthy land owners more land to own benefit the poor? That'd be really amazing, since the wealthy owning land on Earth has only ever benefited the wealthy.
"Only ever benefited the wealthy" is a _bit_ too cynical. But yeah, it's a ridiculous "idea". They're not really even trying to sell those "ideas" anymore, are they? They know they'll be picked up by the media no matter how completely retarded and baseless they are.
Tom, there is this german comedian group Die Anstalt and they did a really good video about Mont Pelerin Society. There is a portuguese subtitled version but I coundn't find a english subtitled version. It's quite good and complementary to your video.
As an academic researcher, I want to thank you for this video and all the work you put into it. I would also love to see a video from you about what is happening with CRT as we are going through something similar in France.
My rule of thumb on all such things: follow the money. Continuing on to read the article with that in mind, there’s normally a fair few clues as to the motivations in writing the article.
It helps to read the articles too. Sometimes it's enough even to read the abstracts. But I'm sure they'll develop that to look more reasonable over time, so it's not something you can rely on. When you throw around 50 citations that seem reputable on the surface, and when academia actively discourages non-original research...
This video should be, like, made into a pamphlet and distributed through colleges throughout the nation, as a “vaccine” to let students know what they’ll be dealing with
You can now watch my videos ad-free on Nebula! Grab a full year's membership of Nebula & Curiosity Stream for just $14.79 here: curiositystream.com/tomnicholas
Tom, I just wanted to say thank you. Folks like yourself, Georgie Taylor and Dan Olson are amazing. Please keep doing the work that you do to counter the Scamlords of our present and the future as well.
"Property Rights on the Moon"... Christ... I studied Space Law and Regulation one of my times through uni and this made my soul leave my body. The concept of property rights on the moon or any other large celestial body, are not just a nightmare, but completely antithetical to the very state of space law. It is one of the bedrock concepts (along with no WMDs in space) that kept the Cold War cold, or well, assisted anyway. To suggest that there is a need for property rights on any celestial body with a surface gravity of greater than 0.01g is a genuinely sociopathic. So it's not surprising that it came up from the Adam Smith Institute.
Property rights in space will probably be necessary eventually, but just taking what we have now and plastering it all over the Moon, that's just ridiculous. A retarded corporation mismanaging a trivial asteroid transfer operation sounds like a great way for a global extinction event that will make any negative externalities incurred by irresponsible dicks on Earth look like a kid pissing in the pool :D
@@guyferrari8124 That's not exactly a sustainable approach. Not to mention that it's hard to see how it could ever be easier to support a population on the Moon than on however crowded Earth.
@@guyferrari8124 running away from problems on earth means that ONLY the wealthy will have this option. Scenario Two: it becomes a prison planet. Both of these options suck. Manage the planet we HAVE and stop indulging in science fantasy.
I mean, it's not that it literally isn't a problem. It is a problem. But it's a problem that needs to be solved within the welfare system, not by _abolishing_ the system. The purpose of the welfare system should be to put you back on your feet as soon as possible. That should be the goal (at least according to my values, of course). Even in Victorian times, a core principle of the emerging welfare systems was that it should almost always be preferable to work, rather than be idle. It should be a safety net, not a place you live in your whole life. You shouldn't _want_ to end up on welfare; and when you do, you should want to get rid of it (and a big part of the work of the social workers should be to help you with that). Of course, in the context of US welfare in particular, it's completely ridiculous :D I don't like throwing the words "worker exploitation" around lightly, but it feels like the US is about on par with former USSR or North Korea :D
exceptional video. i'm always surprised at how often right wing 'progressivism' goes back to the idea of basically just eugenics. shaun's video that you mentioned on the bell curve was really enlightening on that. subbed.
Okay, I knew this was a problem, especially with the Heritage Foundation’s ties to all the recent TERFery, but I had no idea just how deep and wide it went. Is it just me or is this even more powerful than regular lobbying? I guess it’s a type of lobbying but these guys get to appear on the news as “impartial” experts as well!
You’d love Citations Needed, a podcast about the history of power, PR, and the history of bullshit. They talk about the news media framing of issues, very similar to this video.
@@kaitlyn__L Kind of like the Think Tank PR teams that pushed the word TERF into the zeitgeist. It's like when these people get to appear on the news as "impartial" experts as well. Although you are above that sort of thing and not falling for rhetorical PR campaigns. Or maybe you are just a part of them.
@@fritobandito5374 I was using the term in 2007 and it was invented decades before that. I don’t really care how people have found it more recently. Regardless, the phenomenon it describes existed independently - which is why other radical feminists in the 80s and 90s coined the term to differentiate between themselves and those who held those specific policies. Janice Raymond et al proudly used the term themselves until the mid-00s. The spread of the term to describe that kind of person is qualitatively different than groups pushing widespread specific governmental policies, even if there may be some similarities in mechanism. I would love some sources for who you believe spread it. Lastly, I knew someone might take issue with my use of the term, and deliberately placed it there as a little “bait”, if you will, to see if someone got upset about it. So…. thanks!
This was a really great video, thanks for making it! Even if it gets less attention than others you've made, please don't stop making critically important pieces like this!
Of course we need a follow up video to this topic. Not just from you, but from everyone who can commit the time to bring this long standing blight to society, to the cleansing light of exposure. This all barely scratches the surface, and humanity deserves better than what we have all collectively allowed to continue unhindered at the expense of ourselves and our children.
As someone interested in one day working for a think-tank, this was a very helpful video for letting me know where *not* to look for a job. Thank you for this enlightening video.
There are good think tanks -- just look for ones that are 501 (c) (3) nonprofits and then look up their 990s - if their funding is diverse (roughly 1/3-1/3-1/3 government, private industry, and grants, that's kind of the sweet spot.
Great to see a well made, informative video shining a light on the shady ways these awful organizations influence policy. Re: CRT, Carlos Maza put out a very good video about it a while back but I’d like to see you take as well!
Seems like you are single handedly trying to teach the internet the art of critical thinking. Good on you. Actually an incredibly important mission. Critical thinking is probably our greatest passive tool against the establishment. Subscribed. 👍
29:41 made me double check what day this was posted. Since the very next day something along those lines was used in an act of terrorism in the US. Tom, you’re the greatest. Great work and research on the history of how politics and news are influenced.
Happy to see you've gotten into Nebula too! My biggest problems with the service are no recommendations page, and no comments on videos. Other than that, a great place I would maybe suggest that for Nebula you wait until near the end of the video to do the spot, as you're more likely to get a response if people are looking for the next thing to watch at the end of your video
Brilliant. I don't think anyone's ever done such a massive, thorough analysis of right-wing think tanks. Very helpful. And yeah I'd love to see a thorough analysis of the Critical Race Theory hysteria, as well as an analysis of Critical Race Theory itself, its history and its influence.
@@fattyboombatty2000 they omit that kind information, it doesn't help the progressive narrative, when Florida banned certain math books, progressives outlets were like: "Florida bans math teaching!", But if you look closely the content at their books are about to do equations to identify how many POC are suffering from a abstract white privilege and some brain gymnastics to identify racism in some kind of equation. You won't see MSNBC , CNN and NYT talking about this. But this guy forgets that the tactics he described in the video are employed by the political left
@@fattyboombatty2000 yeah bro ok lmao. CRT is literally just history and examines the effects of systemic racism. my favorite part is people calling it inherently marxist which would be based if true.
@@cultural_marxism_fan I’m sorry, but you sound like you’ve gotten your opinion straight from cnn. You should know that what you just said is the watered down version they scrambled to come up with after months of denying that crt was ever in schools. Some people at cnn actually said that crt doesn’t even exist! I still don’t think they have made up their minds which story they want to stick with just yet. Critical race theory is based off of critical theory from the communist Frankfurt school. Critical theory was an attempt to find where Marx and communism went wrong and adapt it to western society. These people recognized that people in the west were too happy to overthrow their government as Marx predicted. This was Marxism just slightly adjusted in a way to put forward a more critical view of society in order to foment a Marxist revolution. That is extremely simplified, but a fair assessment. Critical race theory is simply critical theory/ Marxism but with the oppressed and the oppressor roles being swapped to white people and black people instead of the original class based Marxism. In Marx, one class is the oppressor and the other is oppressed and all that changes in crt is that whites are the oppressor class, and blacks are the oppressed class. So, it basically is Marxism with a lot of other stuff added in. It is not at all based.
@@fattyboombatty2000 You: *Explains that the hysteria behind CRT is just that... hysteria. Correctly states people aren't characterizing it correctly, then proceeds to mischaracterize it.* You can't make this shit up, folks.
Thanks for the insight. I have seen spokespersons from the Adam Smith institution being interviewed on a number of high profile news programmes and usually coming out with extreme, right wing ideological viewpoints like the drop in a company share price after a ceo is sacked is the actual value of that ceo. But I had assumed that they were legitimate and not just pushing a purely ideological propaganda viewpoint.
That is an extreme bastardization of a quote George Orwell wrote. In fact, in an essay centered on denouncing the biases of various British groups, he was disparaging the idea that American troops had been brought to Europe during WW2 to nip an English revolution in the bud by some Left wing thinkers. "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945). Clearly not a quote about US right-wing think tankers, whom I would not call intellectuals.
@@pilazpilaz But that is entirely the point of the quote, and HE was correct !, some ideas ARE so stupid that only left wing intellectuals believe in them !, there is a long long history demonstrating that.
@@pilazpilaz ""One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)." -> Assuming you are correct that this is the exact words of Orwell, the core thesis remains the same. There are stupid things that only intellectuals believe.
An amazing job 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 I have been part of one group that gets it’s funding from the Atlas Network and I see propaganda being put across as academic knowledge
The lack of conversation regarding awareness on this issue is honestly concerning because a lot of people specially old people who buy anything these "people" say.
My dad is an educator and I can see steam that blows out of his head every time someone mentions CRT. I would love to share that video with him if you end up making it!
Between your channel and John Oliver’s videos, I’m finally coming to terms with the fact that my kink is charming, polite British men teaching me how incredibly fucked our contemporary political moment is.
Wow!!! Absolute firstclass indepht journalism. Time flies watching this, because everything is truly indepht news. Giving the watcher a fair and good firstclass information. Keep up the good work. Very important!!!
Thanks again, Tom! Love the way you skewer disinformation and provide well-organized source material for your audience, all with an impish grin and sense of good fun. Wishing many more understood the role of think tanks. Such a subversion of democracy. Bravo! And yes, please do make a subsequent video exploring CRT and its roots in think tanks. Can't wait!
Great video! Any chance of doing videos on how to identify red flags in those "researches"? The constraint of time and vast amount of consumable information has led to a fatigue of choice for me at least. Being able to differentiate experts and "experts" is an important conversation to move forth.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute pretty much defines Australian defence policy and thus procurement policies despite being funded by weapons manufacturers, the US state department, Israel and others. It's so powerful that persons such as Stan Grant of the ABC, a notable 'left wing hawk', are senior fellows of the think tank.
@@stephengentle2815 I think this really comes to the weird thing where "real" capitalism doesn't really benefit capitalists. It benefits people who want to start a venture, and it can be beneficial for both the employees and the customers. But an _existing_ company (especially a corporation) benefits _heavily_ from ties to the government; the last thing they want is a capitalist free market where a "no name" company could come out of nothing and do things better. Economies of scale don't say that bigger is always better; but corporations and governments seem to be hell-bent on interpreting them that way. So you start as a socialist, and (hopefully; it's certainly not a given) care about people. Then you get tied into supporting those "big guys" (after all, look at how many employees would lose their shitty jobs if you didn't support them!). Before you know it, you have Lisa Simpson claiming Elon Musk is awesome :D
Yes, but so does every other defense and foreign policy think tank - some of its funding comes from the national government, some from corporations, and some from foreign governments. The proportion is what needs to be looked at here. If you look at ASPI's 2020-2021 report, over 60% of its funding came from Australian federal agencies, whereas foreign governments only provided 18% of its total budget. And Israel wasn't among the foreign funders in 2020-2021: the three largest donors were the US, Canada and Japan. As for weapons manufacturers, they were only 3% of the total funding that year (almost all dedicated to sponsoring a security conference), and there was an additional 7% from the private sector. Not enough to significantly influence the work of ASPI, in my opinion.
YES. A thorough takedown of the ridiculousness that is the CRT panic would be most welcome. The next iteration of this sort of manufactured panic is already in full swing with the next three letter acronym , ESG.
The first "think tank" I heard of was the RAND corporation that in the mid twentieth century pushed certain views about the nuclear arms race. Where does the RAND corporation fit into this overall picture?
A great video, I think you should do more on tracing specific ideas that different think tanks have pushed. Things like the Mont Pelerin Society basically founding Neoliberalism and then having extremely prominent economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek push their ideas, to the point that mainstream economics as it is taught at university now very closely resembles their teachings (often being taught as fact rather than theory, see Unlearning Economics vids for more),
Where does mainstream economics as taught on universities very closely resemble the Austrian school? Everywhere I looked in Europe, the German school (Keynes et al.) absolutely dominates and controls mainstream economic policies too. In fact, for economic policies, it seems to be the case in the US too.
@@LuaanTi Well I'm at university in Australia and the economic textbooks that we use (some of which are written in America) teach that minimum wages are bad, unions are bad etc. I'm also not sure I understand your point fully, are you saying that mainstream economic opinion currently across the US is Keynesian? Because it very clearly isn't. The last few decades of neoliberalism, deregulation and globalisation cheered on by economists is proof of that. They are now starting to change their tune as they've been so clearly wrong about the impact, but that's been relatively recently.
I've heard of Mont Pelerin very recently. I'm reading a book called "Tax Haven Ireland" which is about my country's role as a tax haven, and the second chapter traces this back to a historical period of tax havens being developed across Europe, including by the UK, which then influenced Ireland in that direction (or something along those lines, I'm not far enough in).
I was raised with the idea that social insurance was for everybody. When it's for everybody, people feel their taxes are investments in their own personal insurance against loss of job, health, etc. plus a higher grade of public infrastructure, ie. a less stressful, higher quality of life. Making it about a wealth transfer from those managing to survive to those NOT managing to survive seems brutally insane. It's like playing civilisation at a simpler, more barbaric level of game play. We need to "level up" the UK.
"Making it about a wealth transfer from those who were born rich since their mom slept with a weird old millionaire to those who work nine to five in order to feed their family is the only right thing to do." There, I fixed your sentence. Also, I love how you manage to contradict yourself in the span of literally two sentences.
@@4cps777 Man, I dont think your sentence fix got his point at all, and rather you are actually skewing what he thinks. My boi Brad is saying that making social insurance about the rich donating to the poor and only donating to the poor (no changing policy or work environment etc. for the benefit of the people) is absolutely insane and cruel. Brad is opposing the idea that the rich donating wealth to the poor would magically make their lives better, so I dont know how the fuck you interpreted that "...is the only right thing to do." segment from his comment.
ive just recently got addicted to your channel. your videos are so damn great but i cant see you as anything other than ramsey bolton meets pyrocynical. love the channel
Thank you for making this video! You provide a great history and summary on this insidious form of media manipulation. As another example, the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade, which protects access to abortions, in the U.S. by the Supreme Court is also the product of think tanks shifting the discourse in a direction that favors their beliefs. Rather than directly argue against abortion access, they promoted the benefits of originalism when review law cases; essentially trying to interpret what the U.S. constitution writers had envisioned by adherring strictly to the language of the document in the context it was written a few hundred years ago. That process of nudging the discourse over decades created the pipeline of judges, building their bench resumes, and elected representives willing to promote them to Supreme Court justices which provided the court a majority who now views that decision as the only sensible one to make. For the think tanks promoting originalism, this was their ultimate goal.
Mostly the Roe v. Wade overturn comes strictly from the fact that the people elected to Congress and state legislatures are far more conservative than the people who elect them on average, which is a product of the competition in party primaries, that more conservative people actually show up to primaries, and give the rest of us bad choices in the general elections. If the U.S. had proportional representation and got rid of party primaries (instead each voter would get 1000 names to choose from among several parties during the House election, have the parties get a proportion of seats equal to their proportion of votes, and have each party fill its seats with its most voted for candidates), then a law providing access to abortion would have been passed.
The primary piece of cheek perpetrated by these 'think tanks' is to take upon themselves names such as the "Centre for Policy Studies" as if there were only one place where policies were studied, and that this was it.
One of things I find most annoying about these "think-tanks" is that they are registered charities in the UK and as such can claim tax rebates form the state. They should not be able to register as charities. The other is that they are often funded by "dark money". All contributors (over a certain limit) should have to be named by law. The lazy or deliberately complicit British media regularly introduces them as experts.
Aah, I hadn't come across that but this would make sense. I know there were talks of one think tank that was essentially training-up court clerks to be able to influence decision-making in the justice system in the US somewhere (this is a half-remembered story I read though so don't quote me on it!).
Personally, I agree with overturning roe v wade. Imagine this. Lets say you get some absurdly religious judges. And you get some one appealing their murder charge on an infant for killing the mom. It goes all the way to the court. And the court not only agrees that the fetus is an infant and its murder, but all rights should be preserved and defacto says all abortion is now illegal because its murder. This is why legislation from the bench is bad. Even if you agree with it, it can be used against your political side just as easy and you'll have to just accept it at that point.
Excellent video, thanks for making it! For those looking for that sequel, Carlos Maza and Some More News both have great videos on that exact topic (with obvious titles!)
I keep seeing people commenting this is “insightful” or “enlightening”; but when one boils it down, the video simply says: “rich people establish organizations to influence media and policy making”. Okay. Don’t we all know that already? (And does it really have anything to do with right wing or left wing?) Moreover, the video seems to suggest the “media” is an innocent party - they are just being ignorant about the credentials of their guests. Well, I beg to differ, it seems to me the “media” is the real culprit here, rather than being the innocent party they willingly invite these “experts” to give them a platform - and can anyone really deny it is the “media” that is influencing policy here, rather than the experts themselves?
No, we don't all know that already. Children grow up into adults, and many of them are unaware of many issues. Also, anybody that's not interested in the subject or that hasn't had the time to look into it because they're busy getting barely enough money to survive is likely to not know about it.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s, many of these neo liberal Think Tanks advised former Soviet countries on how to restructure their economies. As you can imagine, it basically meant to privatize everything whether it makes sense or not and allow foreign investors to buy up state assets for pennies.
During that time my country Latvia was ranked one of the most business friendly countries by the World Bank. And what does it mean to be “business friendly”?
It had one of the highest work place accident rates in Europe, one of the highest infant mortality rates in Europe and one of the lowest healthcare standards. A 1% tax on property and almost 59% flat tax on labor, split between the employer and the employee. The housing market was so inflated, in order to save the banks from a decline in property prices every new mortgage borrower had to bring their whole family to the bank to sign the mortgage, so the whole family would be held liable.
In a study conducted by the European Union at that time, 1/3 of working age Latvians intended to emigrate to other European countries in the next 5 years.
Jeffrey Sachs and Co. completely obliterated the chances of the former Soviet States to have anything but Oligarchy and kleptocracy. And yet will never be held to account
Poland says hi. 90s were a crazy time.
I do not support Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but this pressuring to privatise and sell out to the west makes me understand why Putin was (at least initially) viewed favourably by Russians for refusing to bend over backwards to the west like that.
And, I would add, it ultimately led to the rise of the Putin regime in Russia. We are now witnessing the disaster for the world that turned out to be.
@@ZZZONEVR I think he’s talking about at the time like shortly after the collapse of the USSR conditions may have gotten better since then tho
I’ve been looking forward to this since you mentioned it, fascinating insight. Like most people, I hear these headlines and ‘studies’ in fields I’m unfamiliar with and assume there’s some legitimacy, unless I actually take the time to look further, wade through the deliberately obfuscating language and academic-sounding titles (as you mentioned). Funnily enough I know a whole slew of people currently or formerly in think tanks (all from LSE) and they’re a mixed bag, so it’s annoying that ‘think tank’ is often understood to imply ‘lobby group’…due to the people you talked about. Great vid.
This is true. The think tanks that I think are good should not be lumped into the 'lobby group' think tanks that I think are bad. That's just not fair. I mean yeah, both put out headlines and 'studies' that use deliberately obfuscating language and academic sounding titles, but those think tanks with those people that he talked about. Grrrrr!
The question is: are they producing independent research that can be and more importantly was peer reviewed? Do the findings match with the bulk of existing evidence or is it suspiciously novel? Can you find who funds them? Who funds them? Can you even review the paper?
@@fritobandito5374 I’d say it’s a good sign if they openly say who funds them, they produce independent research you can read not pamphlets or white papers, it’s not suspiciously novel and fitting to an agenda and they are published in peer reviewed journals
@@fritobandito5374 You've only demonstrated that you didn't understand the video. I didn't say anything about what stance makes a think tank good, but clearly they way they practice does. Are you really so foolish to assert that every independent group of researchers is bad? Your comment doesn't make much sense.
@@OpiatesAndTits Did you have an institution in mind? I think you hit the nail on the head when asking who funds these institutions or studies. Funding and PR incentives can routinely produce an agenda whether cognisent or not. Even within "independent" research or media. This can also include programs to overtly or covertly recuit "social influencers".
I'm always skeptical of a vague tweet that just says "economists" "scientists" or "experts". When you click on the interview it's usually someone still in study who just joined a fancy institute. That or the "economist" is just some businessman who never studied economic theory and just reads a lot of books about stock.
Even excluding outright fraud, people tend to vastly overestimate their abilities with broad-reaching statements like that. Marx also thought that a theory of value is simple, and didn't even recognize he never produced one (as critical as that is to any economic system) :D
And that's not to mention that most "real" economists are simply blind followers of capitalism/neo-liberalism, so their opinions are usually biased and factually wrong.
@@LuaanTi HELP. I cant supress the Urge to recommend Science-RUclipsrs,
Atheist-Channel and 'Some More News' and 'Forrest Valkai' when i see 'how' this channel here is and 'how' its Fans tick, but i also dont wanna sound like an ad-bot (duh)!! Anyone got Ideas?
@@loturzelrestaurant "atheist channel" to me means the same as "religious channel" not scientific.
That's unrelated though, lol
@@dexorne9753 Yeah,
many people dont realize that Science- Atheist- and Conspiracy-Debunk-Channel are 3 Sides of the same Coin.
So to put it briefly, most think tanks are basically rich people telling the rest of society :"No we cannot let go of our wealth and power, because it would totally hurt you! Out of the kindness of my heart I cannot let you be hurt by all my money!"
Well not most, necessarily. Just the ones with the most money and influence, and probably the least profound ideas...
@@DerAnanasbaum if anyone really has anything meaningful to say, they'd probably just publish in a peer reviewed journal
@@Bojoschannel except peer review has issues of it's own
@@OtherDalfite it absolutely has, but at least those papers aren't 99% propaganda as think tanks are
Actually they tell others, usually with some kind of authority to tell us ;)
I decided to read some Adam Smith Institute articles, as to fact check Tom. I was honestly surprised by how accurate his description of them are. The most stunning thing was perhaps how ideological these "fact based" institutes are. In one article they claimed that capitalism was natural, spontaneous and the only way to do economics, citing no sources (not to mention the fact that there have been several non-capitalist systems that have been/ are in effect).
It depends a lot on what you call "capitalism". There's definitely something about capitalism (and free markets) that's very human. You have A, I have B... If we both benefit from exchanging the two, why wouldn't we? Then you get into the early violent societies that started claiming land, you get the aristocrats... Some of capitalism is rejecting that, some is accepting that as a part of the natural order of things. Some feel it's unfair, but necessary.
Of course, the scope of capitalism is also quite important. You rarely find it in families; still uncommon in tribes. But as the scope increases, capitalism really gets more and more natural, and just as importantly, necessary. There's a common myth that "communism" (the Soviet kind) failed because people weren't good enough. But in my country, all the documents have been publicly available. There was a lot of scapegoating on the highest levels about who was responsible for "ruining" the communist utopia. But when you actually read those transcripts of meetings about economic policy and such... yes, dicks were always there (the same kind that today leads a corporation, most likely). But the honest good guys, of which there were plenty (not in USSR, mind), just _couldn't make it work_ . People severely underestimate how complex even relatively small economies are. Even without accounting for different people having different values, it's incredibly difficult allocating scarce resources in a way that serves those values the best. Heck, even the Soviets resorted to copying the prices and just altering many of them to serve the "common communist values" (much like today, democratic socialists let the markets do their thing, but then engage in price fixing, subsidies, taxation etc.).
@@LuaanTi capitalism is literally using money, or capital, to invest and, hopefully, get a return. It has nothing to do with free markets or free exchanges. You’re confusing natural markets (I trade my crops for your livestock) with money. Capitalism inevitably creates a class completely divorced from labor, whose investments are enough to not engage in production. Nothing natural about that. That’s all design.
@@ianm1462 People value things that don't require manual labour too. Taking something from where it's cheap to where it's expensive benefits everyone involved. Money is of no importance of its own - it's just something to help with trading (until governments start printing more money to "finance" themselves, of course).
You're a lumberjack. A chainsaw will increase your productivity four times, let's say. If I sell you a chainsaw, we both benefit. Regardless of whether _I_ manufactured the chainsaw or not. If you don't have enough money to buy a chainsaw, I can lend you the tool for a cost. Or I can just lend you the money directly. There are other people who could increase their productivity by getting that money (to invest in _their_ tools etc.), so there's a market for the money too. Just because I have a preference for money in the future, and you have a preference for money now, doesn't mean that I'm exploiting you. We both benefit - otherwise there would be no trade. Indeed, a lot of _other_ people benefit too - such as the carpenter, who now has access to cheaper wood, and his customers, who get cheaper furniture. If they have employees (I know, what a dirty word), they can afford to pay them better. Indeed, as more and more people get access to the better tools and cheaper materials, they _have_ to pay their employees better, as long as labour is relatively scarce (which it usually is, of course).
Marx never saw any value in that, of course. He never did any labour, he never did any trading, he didn't even have wealthy parents (instead, he got a friend with wealthy parents). As a true socialist, he only focused on the most visible effects - the dastardly capitalist could give the lumberjack the money, and the lumberjack would be better off - and it's not really going to hurt the capitalist, is it? He's not doing any manual labour, so what claim does he have to his wealth anyway?
Money isn't capital. Money isn't value. It's just a medium. Your ability to work is capital; the land you own is capital; money doesn't create value out of nothing - but if you use it well, you can use it to enable trades that wouldn't otherwise happen.
Mind, that's quite a separate issue from the "landed elites". Those of course trace their original value to providing military service, and to an extent, administration; as that decayed, so did the value of the "elites". Of course, most of them just lost all their wealth - once more or less free competition was established, they usually couldn't compete. Where they survived as landed elites, it was always as a result of laws that protected them from competition. That's where you get the vast majority of "the idle rich". If you don't take care of it, you _will_ lose it. How? Well, as surprising as it might be, it's far easier to _lose_ money on investment than _gain_ money. And everything you own depreciates over time (and not reliably either). For every Musk out there, there's millions of entrepreneurs who lost everything (and often, started over, and over). And that's before you account for things like Musk being a lying, thieving bastard - he should be in jail, not one of the "wealthiest" (there's the stupid "net worth" again) people in the world. If governments did their job, people like Musk _wouldn't_ be rich. Instead, more often than not, governments enable them to be, even when they're not providing a valuable service, or when they're cheating and exploiting. Bigger isn't better (economies of scale are a bit more nuanced than that) - but it is when you're dealing with the government. The government will always be happier working with one guy "representing" a hundred thousand workers than working with ten thousand people employing then people each.
I'd recommend starting on someone like Bastiat. It's far enough removed in time, yet you'll find the topics he addresses are very much up to date anyway.
Well, one marxist author has said "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.", so seeing capitalism as the only viable system is the mainstream opinion and it is nothing new if you know a bit about economics. And I suppose the idea that capitalism is natural stems from the fact that all socialist systems in absence of government regulation revert to capitalism.
@@werrkowalski2985 The problem isn't "socialist systems in absence of government regulation". It's how much power people actually have over those governments. Unregulated, centralised power is a problem in itself, regardless of what governance system you have. It doesn't matter much whether that centralised power is a egocentric maniac, a communist panel, a multi-national corporation...
You should always be suspicious of people who want to spend other people's money. You should always be suspicious of people who want you to give up control over your life. Who asks isn't particularly important - that kind of power always attracts the same kinds of people.
We need to keep finding solutions that require as small institutions as possible. Not hoping for "the right people to come", who can safely be given all our rights and freedoms.
And always look at other sides of the problem. Don't just listen and watch what they want you to hear and see. It doesn't matter whether it's socialists, capitalists, corporativists, anarcho-syndicalists, Proudhounists, Smithists, objectivists, theists... Don't get stuck on claims like "We brought people 8 hour work days!", look into what they've done to, say, make it hard for people to have 6 hour work days.
I teach high school economics. There is a profusion of free, professional-looking teaching material (lesson plans, activities, etc.) available online from FEE and other libertarian think tanks, and I'd guess a lot of economics teachers don't even realize these are lobbying organizations.
I heard from a friend that their librarian friend was looking through most of their school's books on South American history, and discovered most of them were funded and written by large fruit companies 😅 like Dole.
NGL, given my experiences so far I'd call it a believable story.
I’d argue they wouldn’t care if they were lobbying organisations. My high school economics teacher was a total neoliberal who sucked off the teet of Milton Friedman. I at the time was just a progressive lib and didn’t understand the history of neoliberalism or difference between neoliberalism or laissez faire capitalism or that neoliberals like to pretend they’re laissez faire. But I did know the idea of the free market was bullshit and was skeptical of everything she said because of how much she harped on that. She also frequently quoted rand who I hated. This was a macro economics class but it was still useful I suppose in the basics of supply snd demand
That is absolutely terrible. The job of an Economics teacher is to explain the consensus academic views in the field, free from any partisan considerations...
I'm guessing you're also American so we can be real, most of our teachers aren't that bright.
@@robertsanders7060 You should understand that the academic perspective on this is that's impossible. You can't segregate your world view from the information you're presenting, because your worldview is largely part of how you understand and process information.
I'm from Brazil and this video is extremely enlightening. Thanks for the amazing work. Unfortunately my country has also become a victim of blatant political disinformation and our life has gotten a lot worse in recent years.
Infelizmente fake news tem de todos os lados e em todos os países hj em dia. Ao msm tempo, não é pq alguém julga algo como Fake news q realmente seja. Grande exemplo é a narrativa da Amazônia pegando fogo, Fake news total, os fatos mostram q a tendência do desmatamento vem caindo com os anos.
Na pandemia a quantidade de fake news aumentou mto tb, lembra quando quase obrigaram as pessoas a se vacinarem, com o pretexto q essa escolha não deveria ser pessoal pois afetava aos outros, mas dps descobriram q a vacina n ajudava no contagio? Passamos perto de perder liberdades individuais por causa de fake news.
I'm from Brazil and I love your work as well!
"fundacion libertad" in argentina is one the culprits. look it up.
What is this, a crossover episode? Love your channel, man!
Such disinformation is rampant across most of the world. Think tanks are quoted and individuals are invited onto news programmes as experts.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
I'm guessing this isn't the Adam Smith Institute's favorite Adam Smith quote.
Most non professional economist Adam Smith stans have never read Smith beyond pithy little blurbs of writing and famous quotations, I'm convinced.
I wasn't thinking of a specific quote, & I'm no friend to capitalism, but I've read a lot of Adam Smith & during that part I was thinking to myself "Adam Smith would be horrified by literally everything about the institution stealing his name" lol.
Adam Smith doesn't mind doing a land value tax, why don't we just do that lol
@@Cecilia-ky3uw myself and all my friends would vote for you if you ran for literally any office :) ever consider becoming a representative? A disturbing number of local/state/federal positions are unopposed...
Blow their minds by collecting all the Adam Smith anti-landlord quotes you can find and ask who said it, Smith or Mao?
Thank you! This was brilliant! In my country (Bulgaria), "economists" is now synonymous with think tank employees with dubious credentials funded by unknown benefactors. The exact same model replicated half a decade later.
The only wrong part was him claiming this is a tool of the right lol
this channel is always like "after this 2h long dissection of Ancient Roman politics, we can finally start to see how they have affected CoD voice chats". And I love it because of this.
I mean really that’s how the world works. We didn’t get here out of nowhere.
Your voice chats are wonky too. ROMANS GO HOME!
Being at least somewhat of a scholar of ancient Roman law I can confirm that this is seriously how the world works
@@Kaspar502 I'm still in high school, but my school in very very classics-oriented (mostly Rome ans Greece), and I must say I'm seeing it too
This is a fantastic summary as someone in academia. Especially dangerous are the "climate skeptic" think tanks, of which many promoted "scientists" that questioned the link between cigarettes and lung cancer and promoted leaded gas in their past. The Heartland Institute comes to mind
There are two kinds of climate scientists: Those that agree climate change is real and we can and must do something about it, and those who have recently been handed large sacks of cash from oil companies.
yea
Yes! I really wish he had brought these up and the dangerous propaganda they spew, especially through the mouths of PragerU. I’m curious about the lung cancer one though, I’d have to look into it. I know my conservative dad loves to talk about how it’s a myth that smoking causes cancer.
you project so hard we can see your face on the moon.
The Heartless Institute.
Having studied at an American university, the amount of study and class materials, courses, programs, campus clubs, books and other stuff provided by all these institutes and groups was really off-putting to me. Almost every field of study was subject to these thinktanks and their protégés.
@@jsb2195 it pains me that there could be an argument there, as long as you refuse to acknowledge how exploitative it is. Also the fact the countries being exploited would not be (exploited) without a global economy and leveraging the class differences in desperation and education from even the poverty-stricken in Western countries. Having labor laws and minimum wage stops these companies from exploiting the West, which forces many Eastern countries to relax their policies to have anything near the industry the West has built. Thus forcing the impoverished in those countries to choose either grossly underpaid labour for Western companies or routes like prostitution, drug trade, or international robbery. It might be the least dangerous option, but by making it also the least profitable and only marginally the least dangerous, they keep these countries from rapidly excelling as America did in its infancy.
TL;DR: without proper context you could make a compelling argument for that stance, which is foul
@@xxeman445xx Yep, this is a huge issue in American political discourse. So many people who aren't specialists in a topic are very willing to believe something very strongly simply because of a consistent line of logic - even if there's no evidence.
Take it from a scientist - almost anything can make sense, logically. What matters is hard, observable, and ideally consistent evidence. Ideas mean nothing until they reasonably describe an existing phenomenon.
As you've outlined, we can all see the frank reality of the situation - but never underestimate a con's ability to warp that information.
@@jsb2195 On one hand the relationship between first world countries and third world countries often prevent those third world countries from developing which create the situations where sex slavery thrives.
... and these same Institutes will complain that univdersities are overrun with Marxists!
@@jsb2195 That's a ridiculous argument for child labour. I mean, you can honestly make good arguments for why children should be allowed to work... but this is about on the same level as arguing that it's fine to send kids to the coal mines, because then you can make narrower tunnels. I mean, sure, that's true... but dude! :D
finally, been waiting on someone to address this very serious issue. people really underestimate the influence these "experts" have on public policy and journalism, especially here in the third world.
I remember a time in my life when I thought "Think Tanks" were metaphorical tanks that shoot "thoughts". Then again, I wasn't completely wrong
You're confusing your "dreams" with "The Venture Bros."
this is why debating theory, philosophy or ideology on the right is borderline impossible... because they pull out a "study" that I then have to debunk piece by piece and then when that doesn't work (because they are just stubborn) I then have to go into the fact that their source is publishing through a known propagandistic "think-tank" and then pull up other articles to prove it is what I say it is... this is a common tactic for those who do not want to argue the actual merits of the idea and instead bog down in details... they pull out one "fact" I have to spend 5 minutes debunking and then they have successfully side-stepped my original question.
More places need to hire researchers and do proper vetting vs just leaving it to the journalists themselves to try and handle it all on their own.
Annoyingly, yes. And I'm mostly on the right (though obviously not the USA kind of right :D). I think everyone should read up on things like Marx' theory of value, Bastiat's essays, Adam Smith (not particularly original, but very influential and decent books), compare Keynes with Hayek. Societies were always built up on certain trusts, and trusting that people are generally good is one of the pillars of human cooperation in general. Undermining those is a huge problem, no matter how socialist or capitalist you are. It doesn't help that plenty of the parties involved like to confuse things on purpose; there's a huge leap between laissez-faire and corporativism, for example.
Journalists should be very clearly separated. Reporting is one thing, and very important. Interpreting is another matter entirely - even though obviously there's always some distortion in any reporting, we should always strive to keep it as small as possible. But of course, government-run institutions have plenty of experience with abusing those powers too.
That sounds like what leftists do as well.
@@achinthmurali5207 granted some places short-hand with punditry and "experts" which have no actual legal requirement on a news network and this is a problem regardless of where you go... that being said, the most popular news network on the right is Fox News and it's most popular presenter is Tucker Carlson... someone who slings white-supremacist talking points for a living... I am curious which news network on the left is actively slinging Marxist rhetoric and theory...
@@LuaanTi Haha, if you're mildly right of center from Denmark's or Estonia's point of view, that'd put you left of Bernie Sanders. Most of the "radical left" in 'Murica is pretty average for some nations' political stances.
@@coopergates9680 Yup, definitely. All of USA politics are a nightmare as far as I'm concerned :) And mind, I think there's plenty of what Sanders says that I consider completely idiotic, but not because it's "too far left" :D
It's also weird that so many people (in the US and elsewhere) have problem understanding that you can be "right" and "liberal" at the same time. That you value human life _and_ freedom at the same time (of course, freedom means something a bit different in US and European politics :D ). It's part of the polarization strategies to prevent people from coming together. There used to be a whole spectrum of liberal thought, but it was hijacked by the radical left again.
That said, there's a lot of weird things in USA "radical left" (and right, and whatever else). One dangerous thing about the _really_ radical leftists was always that they attach themselves to other movements when they have some similar goals, and then hijack and destroy everything (usually in the name of fighting capitalism). When the first green parties appeared in Europe, they weren't left or right. They were just people concerned about the environment. And they managed to push a lot of changes, and put most things on the right track, and then... left. And the movement was almost completely hijacked by lunatics who kind of want to destroy human life (how much of an exaggeration that is varies :D). And since Putin consolidated his strength in Russia, heavily supported and funded by Russia (who of course doesn't care about any ideology, just destabilizing the West in any way possible - they also support fossil fuel use for example, of course).
Unfortunately, the worst corporations and industries took that breathing room and turned it around. A lot of people don't want to associate with the "new" green movements, because they _are_ awful. But due to the silly polarization, that leaves them with just the fossil fuel enthusiasts to represent them. The authoritarians from all over the spectrum have immense control over the political systems - and there is very little opposition.
Hey, former think tank intern here. I just wanted to comment quickly on the history and focus of this video which may be beneficial to note. Forgive me for the wide date range, I am writing mostly from memory. Most, if not all the information I have can be found in Donald Abelson’s “Do Think Tanks Matter.” The book itself compares Canadian and US think tanks though the author beautifully describes the history of think tanks as a whole. Highly recommend the read.
The first point I would like to make is about Brookings in a historical context. Brookings, though influential, was not as important and influential to the right as you would describe. The biggest influence that Brookings had was on AEI, which presents itself as a counterpart to Brookings (even today). It is true, AEI was founded with libertarian principles in mind, mainly because the founders were concerned about FDR’s spending policy. The reason I bring up AEI is because this is the organization that brings what you’re characterizing as advocacy tanks all together. Around the 1960s/70s, AEI started to focus on marketing their research heavily, focusing on publishing books, reports, etc. This model directly inspired Heritage. The organization itself has said that if focuses a lot more on great marketing rather than high quality research. Thus, what Abelson describes as the “advocacy think tank” was born.
Now on to other historical points I thought I could mention as well. The Brookings Institute for Government Research was created in 1916, merging with the Brookings graduate school of economics in 1927 (for the longest time, you could actually receive a degree from Brookings). The first other big think tanks that arose were the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910), The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (1920), and the Council on Foreign Relations (1921). Though I understand that Brookings is important to your central argument, it is important to mention this think tanks as well, especially Hoover, which has gained a reputation as a conservatives think tank.
The categorization of think tanks is important here as well. Not all think tanks are the same. They do not all try to achieve the same goals. Brookings (maybe AEI, though Abelson describes AEI more as an advocacy tank-- though his timeline of think tank history challenges that idea as AEI was created in the 1930s, while the first advocacy tanks popped up in the 1970s) is described as “university without students.” These tanks focus on good, high quality research first and foremost. Organizations like the Rand can be described as government contractors. These popped up around the 1950s. And finally advocacy tanks, like Heritage, were first popping up in the 1970s and are still popping up to this day, though in new ways.
Though all of these are “think tanks,” I would never describe them as the same. They serve wildly different purposes and it is important to be critical of these advocacy tanks. Which is why I appreciate what this video is trying to do: educate those who may be using advocacy think tank research without verifying it’s validity because it came from a well known institution. It’s important to note as well, these advocacy think tanks are not only a right-wing phenomenon. Most notably, the Center for American Progress has been getting a lot of traction as well. Though, I will say, advocacy tanks do seem to be more cited by the right, though I am not sure if there is any possible way to verify this.
An interesting concept to expand upon may be the idea of “dark money” organization and advocacy in general. Not necessarily think tanks, but how political organizations mobilize voting bases.
These are just some comments I wanted to make. This video is well made. I appreciate that you put your sources in the description, that is always awesome to see.
Hey thanks for putting the time together to write this :) will check out your book suggestion to dive deeper into the topic!
I commend your post very much.
I just read center for American progress, and they seem pretty right wing in the economic and imperialist sense.
@@GalacticNovaOverlord I don’t believe that’s the case. They themselves characterize themselves after historical progressives like FDR and Roosevelt. They have close connections to both Clintons and Biden.
Also a former intern to several think tanks (in the foreign policy-security sphere), thank you for the great writeup. A couple additional comments on the state of "university without students" think tanks in the US and continental Europe. My comments exclude the conservative think tanks described above - Heritage, CATO, AEI, etc.
Even "university without students" think tanks, while serious and with some of the foremost experts in their field which produce excellent research, suffer from problems which impact their work. They rely on external funding and therefore cannot really be considered fully nonpartisan or independent. Their degree of independence can only be asserted by assessing who gives them funding, which many think tanks are not fully transparent about.
Below are the three problems that plague the "university without students" think tanks in the foreign policy-security field, like Brookings, CSIS, Atlantic Council, CEPA, etc.
1. The first problem is the influence of private and foreign money into the published output of think tanks, including the most serious ones. Think tanks, while for the overwhelming majority nonprofit, receive generous funding from corporations, the US government, and to a minor extent from foreign governments. Two of the three's goal is to shift research towards preferred policies or to silence criticism. Internally, think tanks work very much like firms - they try to balance maximizing income while maintaining publication output and reputation. Give enough money to a think tank, and they'll find ways to self-censor the criticism they have in store for you. This is why Facebook became one of the largest contributors to the Atlantic Council - a well-respected institution in DC foreign policy circles- when they started a program on disinformation research, which conveniently rarely criticizes them.
Many defense contractors also try to hype some technologies through the security programs of some of those think tanks - the Missile Defense Project of CSIS, for example, is thought by some of the top experts in the field of ballistic missiles to be corporation-driven in their research. The kind of funding that each program inside each thank receives is a constant source of discussion inside think tanks - programs (think "departments") within think tanks are expected to find the money themselves, with some oversight from the think tank leadership. As for foreign funding, Ben Freeman's "Foreign Funding of Think Tanks in America" (2020) of the Center for International Policy attempted to track the foreign money received by DC think tanks, which got $174 millions from foreign governments between 2014 and 2018. The top 3 donors were Norway, the UK, and the UAE.
2. The revolving door. Generally, when there's a party switch in US presidential elections, civil servants will leave senior positions in the administration and either join think tanks, universities or the private sector. The reason why think tanks hire former high-ranking civil servants into their positions is because of their expertise, but oftentimes this is also done because of their current contacts within the incoming administration civil servants (who were previously in think tanks) and because they are able to raise money from donors more easily. Many of those become "parked", waiting for a switch in the White House to be rehired in civil servant positions. Now, put yourself in the position of a think tank: would you rather hire the not-so-competent but high-ranking former civil servant who has many ties across the world, or the young brilliant civil servant who is one position below in the hierarchy, and who doesn't have many contacts worldwide? Reputation and probability of re-insertion are what motivate think tanks to hire some civil servants. Many are competent, some not so much. This drastically affects the quality of research.
3. The third problem is the amount of criticism that these think tanks are willing to engage in against one another. There is some sort of unwritten rule that it is bad practice to criticize the ideas of fellow colleagues in think tanks, even though they may be at odds against each other. Why? The field you're working in is extremely tight-knit and everyone knows one another. Think tanks want to be seen as neutral and impartial, so criticism is stifled internally. And if you criticize some colleague's publication, I wouldn't expect to be invited on panels at your colleague's think tank. Contrast this behavior with university academics, which routinely engage in critical review of the work of others and publish criticism much more freely. What you end up having is what can be called "groupthink" (see Irving Janis' classic "Victims of groupthink" ), a behavior where criticism is kept private and sometimes even self-censored, and where all publications end up resembling one another, thus giving policymakers narrower choices than what actually exist. Similarly, they can also spawn made-up ideas. The Atlantic Council and a whole array of other reputable institutions, in the aftermath of the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, were instrumental in hyping up inexistent concepts such as the "Gerasimov Doctrine" (not a Russian official doctrine) or the idea of nuclear "escalate-to-deescalate" based on extremely dubious assumptions. It took several years for those ideas to be rejected within the think tank realm, despite them being non-starters from the moment they were proposed, and many still live on today. Groupthink in US intelligence and in think tanks is also what led to Iraq in 2003.
Obviously none of the structural problems can be solved by think tanks alone. Perhaps it is an evil that they will carry on forever. The best public policy for better, more independent and more constructive think tanks, in my opinion, is to make them much more transparent than they are today. If lobbyists are required to fully disclose where their funding comes from, why shouldn't think tanks?
Economists: The Adam Smith Institute is the stupidest think tank we've heard of
Adam Smith Institute: But you _have heard_ of us
Funnily enough, Adam Smith would probably not agree with anything Adam Smith Institute promotes.
@@redfruit1993z Easy taxes and policies that reduce private and public rent-seeking are advocated by the ASI and were advocated by Adam Smith. At least read their website where they set out their policy ideas.
@@MUSTASCH1O Hilarious! Private ownership, of what should not be owned privately is the basis of most rent seeking. I am guessing you are somewhere in the ASI related food chain.
@@jonathanhall5660 Depends how broadly you define that food chain. I have tried to open my mind to economically liberal ideas in recent years through spare-time learning, and have come to believe they hold a lot of potential for the betterment of all. Upon reading the ASI's suggestion I do now find I agree with many of them. I have become a neoliberal capitalist pig in other words.
You stupidly believe in econimies that have been abject failures. Nothing more antiscientific than denying objective reality
I used to have a cartoon from the newspaper editorial pages called "The Think Tanks", It depicted various army tanks destroying various public institutions. For instance the Cato tank going after Education. The Heritage tank running down the environment. And the American Enterprise tank firing away at Social Security.
"welfare programs for the poor had made it profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that were destructive in the long term"
The guys who get bonuses based on quarterly earnings reports want people to think that short sightedness, and poor planning is exclusively a poor people issue.
It's pure projection if I ever saw it.
While there's no virtue in poverty. There's sure as hell no inherent virtue in being rich either!
Well surely the rich prove that they don't have these issues by virtue of the wealth and success! /s
To be fair, you seem to be agreeing that systems can have incentives for short term gains/security at the cost of longer term problems. Is it just the framing of the issue you disagree with or are you bigoted against people with more wealth than you?
@@Uruz2012 homeless people spending welfare checks on malt liquor doesn't have the same world economy melting effects as suit wearing coke addicts engaging in speculation on poorly appraised derivatives with money from retirees. How's that for framing?
Brilliant video Tom! At 66 I am finally "waking up" despite having a degree in English with Pyschology (1996 from South Bank University) I have largely chosen to dream amongst the movies! Its fantastic to see the concept of "Think Tanks" being deconstructed! Would love to support more financially but not possible as yet! Would love to see you on Have I Got News For You one day! Hugs Keith xxx
Amazing job, as always, Tom! I'm always impressed at how dense, yet digestible, your content is. It's easy to make an hour long video, pointing at a problem, and saying a whole lot of nothing. Your videos actually unpack the deeper details that matter, and give a genuinely better picture of the situation.
Thanks so much! That's what I always aim for so it's lovely to hear that you think I'm hitting the mark!
@@Tom_Nicholas please do make a video discussing what's happening around Critical Race Theory. It'd be much appreciated.
@@Tom_Nicholas +1 on the CRT video please! :)
@@Tom_Nicholas Tom, if you read this I'd be very grateful if you could explain why you say "libertarianism or what's now often called neo-liberalism". That was extremely confusing to me. Libertarianism alluding to extreme laissez-faire capitalism is a distinctly American usage of the term (at least it was originally American, though now it's used that way in the English-speaking world and even beyond) whereas for most of the history of the term it was basically a synonym of anarchism (in other words, the opposite of capitalism). Meanwhile, neo-liberalism has been used for longer to refer to Thatcher and Reagan-style laissez-faire economics.
In other words, if anything I would say "neo-liberalism or what's now often called libertarianism", the opposite of what you said. I'm very confused by your choice of words.
@@Tom_Nicholas you are a master of ostensive teaching!
I would definitely be down to hear your thoughts on critical race theory!
Oh cool! It won't be the next video as a certain someone bought Twitter and so I need to cover that but I'll definitely have a think about it!
@@Tom_Nicholas yes!
@@Tom_Nicholas You should wait until it's actually done. Two days ago he backed off. In a very Elon-esque way it's being like: "Twitter is interesting, maybe..." two days later buys 9%. stocks up. "maybe it wasn't that good idea" stocks down. Buys 100%. two days later "I have doubts, how many bots there?" then "don't worry, I'm all in"... It's like a rollercoaster.
@@julianmartinez3048 like when he said he'd never dump Tesla stock to investors and then proceeded to do so. Guys a sleazy man, once he bought his way into PayPal he started selling all the user data he could. More profitable to do that than it is to just provide a "secure" way to pay for stuff online.
@@Tom_Nicholas If you have the time give it a try!
If someone suggested colonizing an inhospitable environment would solve poverty on earth, I would assume the plan is to send impoverished people to that environment die for other people's economic benefit.
B I N G O
Your assumption is spot on.
Which would still not work as capitalism needs poor people who will take any job.
@@michimatsch5862 It’s actually kinda funny how having a bunch of citizens who aren’t well enough to be more financially productive for themselves or for others is seen by many as necessary for people’s personal fortunes. Overall, lifting people out of poverty is a great investment. Unfortunately, the few people who wouldn’t necessarily benefit (or even who would, just in the long term) are disproportionately powerful.
✨ brilliant assessment. ✨
Either that or they’re planning on using the impoverished as rocket fuel.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate your characterisation of the UK media spectrum as “Centrist Transphobes to Racist Tories”.
No one likes them creepy blokes in dresses though
@@saintpepsi8602bruh
@@saintpepsi8602 "them creepy blokes in dresses"...very erudite and thoughtful
@@saintpepsi8602 educate yourself or get to know one of these “creepy blokes” first. You sound like a total ldiot who knows nothing about what he’s saying
@@saintpepsi8602 Margaret Thatcher, ye?
I worked for a contractor that did administration and call support for The Heritage Foundation. It was eye opening. We would get calls from some guy in Indiana who thought because he gave them $100 buck for a hat and form letter from the head that he could just call up and talk to him and explain what they needed to tell congress. (From their small business tyrant experience) and we'd have to jerk them around and say they were never there or we'd take a message. Meanwhile they would rapid fire tons of predatory emails and letters saying they didn't pay their dues to bilk them of more money and it would piss off tons and they would call in all pissed off and we'd have to lie and tell them it was a mistake. But then we'd get a few people to send in the $60-$300 dollar subscription fees so they could get a shitty newsletter and a hat. It was clearly a grift targeting older and richer boomers with the fear of everything Republicans run on.
Best of all we would occasionally get calls from the offices of foreign businesses or big business lobbying firms thinking we were actually the office in DC to confirm meetings and it was very apparent when both sides realized we weren't who we said we were and lots of quick hang-ups.
HELP. I cant supress the Urge to recommend 'Some More News' and 'Forrest Valkai' when i see 'how' this channel here is and 'how' its Fans tick, but i also dont wanna sound like an ad-bot (duh)!!
Anyone got Ideas?
@@loturzelrestaurant What were you even trying to say here
@@nox6438 Apparently 3 people realized im recommending stuff but you didnt??
@@nox6438That Tom Nicholas regularly makes quite leftist content for a left-wing audience.
This video came at a perfect time for me. I just finished a course with a teacher who worked for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Texas.
Needless to say his views were damaging to my school experience. And no, he did not even try to make the class "non-partisan." Most of the time we had to read documents written by his cronies in the same think tank.
A true libertarian would make the class non-partisan
Thank you for sharing that as someone who lives in DFW, that is slightly concerning.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle are you sure about that? Been some time since I last heard a libertarian honestly considered nationalisation or how socialistic policies could serve the common good.
@@michimatsch5862 I have yet to meet a libertarian that is not egocentric and cares at all about others well being
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle a true libertarian would do his best to dumb down progressive politics.
My biggest concern is (funnily enough) Vtubers and how they are controlled and influenced by such corporations/think tanks. We are rapidly approaching an era where corporations are desperately seeking to recruit influencers. The popularity and ambiguity of Vtubers makes them the perfect mascot to push and spread ideas.
Social media is about to hit a new level of weird.
While I've not seen any evidence that this is happening so far, I don't think that's a completely unreasonable fear.
@@Tom_Nicholas I believe Jack is referring to the wave of youtubers (mainly atheists youtubers) that switched from their previous content to being right wing anti-sjw/anti-pc starting around 2010 or so; often referred to as part of the "Intellectual Dark Web".
It's still on going and was somewhat touched on in your video on Veritasium.
@@burstofsanity he specifically said vtubers though? They don’t have a significant overlap with these anti-woke youtubers, or am I missing something here?
While that is theoretically possible, I've not seen any evidence of it personally. Certainly not from the biggest groups (Hololove and Nijisanji). Even if they wanted to, those are Japanese companies. I'm not sure what message or idea they could ask the members to push that would also make sense coming from people who are scattered in countries all around the world (and not seem obvious). And honestly I think a lot of members would be heavily opposed to a push like that if the companies tried it.
@@toebs_ Many Vtubers already work for (and with) corporations behind the scenes. You may not realise this but their popularity and success is a direct result of marketing; they are not self made celebrities like Markiplier, MrBeast Pewdipie etc.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, nor am I stating that they are expressly right wing, alt-right etc. In fact some are actually suffering at the hands of corporations; there's evidence they work hard and receive little pay. But they do seem to have certain opinions on issues that seem to fall in line with those they work for.
One thing that I do want to warn everyone about is that; *these Vtubers are not people, they are manufactured personae designed to appeal to men, teens and children* . I know this may sound paranoid, but I refuse to trust a manufactured personality that has massive influence, works with powerful corporations and advertisers, and also creates a strong parasocial link with their fanbase.
There's also something strange about the fact that they try hard to mask/hide their identity. It's a critical part of their act/persona, but we really know next to nothing about these people. Consequently they aren't even considered "real".
I dare you to try to find *anything* even remotely negative about them, or the things they say. Even one thing. There's nothing at all. Normal RUclipsrs get called out all the time, but Vtubers break the social rules by being fictional. Think about it; this means anything they say can be potentially treated as a joke; even a political message or view. They are the perfect marketing and political tool.
Superbly done Tom. The seemingless endless tide of these think-tanks & the deeply pernicious effects of their influence in the UK is something which really needs more light shine upon it.
Thanks Tom.
“Our leaders know we’re turning into a giant ghetto and they are taking every last hubcap they can get their hands on before the rest of us wake up and realize what’s happened.”
― Matt Taibbi, Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America
“We are living in a world where moral climates have no atmosphere.”
― Roderick Vincent, The Cause
Just how looney and irresponsible Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are, especially as they massively-lash-out against Transgender right-now, this very Summer right-here-and-now,
is the best Exmaple how Fake-Experts destroy the World intellectually.
Science-Youtuebrs and Atheist-Channel never respected Ben, but right-now they’re basically at War.
Sorry for the long comment but i hope you look into it and side with Science and LGBT, as some really try ot bring us back to the Dark-Ages, tbh.
In Conclusion, i do think i proved that Thinktanks are looney.
I am 72 years old and living in the UK and I have to say your vlog really opened my eyes. I always questioned some of the so-called expert research on which some agendas were set. There were many times that I would try to do a fact check on reports only to hit a brick wall. usually a quotation from a Think Tank report. Thank you for the hard work you put in to create that video.
Tom always sheds lights on the invisible things that shape our world.
Thank you! I do my best!
@@Tom_Nicholas Sunlight is the best disinfectant
@@macomputersuck That is a nice sentiment, but i don't really see it working in this case. Most people know this yet it changes noting.
They aren't invincible, they are right in front of us. What happens is that we have been fed this same crap all our lives that it can only be what's "good" and "just the way things are". It takes a good pair of glasses to see what actually happens rather than just passively accepting it
@@kiza94bg Your assumption is incorrect. Most people have no idea that think tanks exist, let alone what they actually do. Most people aren't political nerds. And when they hear names like "American Enterprise Institute", it sounds harmless. It's extremely helpful for someone like Tom to shine light on them.
... land ownership already exists. How exactly would giving wealthy land owners more land to own benefit the poor? That'd be really amazing, since the wealthy owning land on Earth has only ever benefited the wealthy.
"Only ever benefited the wealthy" is a _bit_ too cynical. But yeah, it's a ridiculous "idea". They're not really even trying to sell those "ideas" anymore, are they? They know they'll be picked up by the media no matter how completely retarded and baseless they are.
Tom, there is this german comedian group Die Anstalt and they did a really good video about Mont Pelerin Society. There is a portuguese subtitled version but I coundn't find a english subtitled version. It's quite good and complementary to your video.
I'll have to check that out and try and find some subs for it!
I can definitely recommend that video! The episode in which they analyse the Mont Pelerin Society ended up banned from TV, if I remember correctly...
As an academic researcher, I want to thank you for this video and all the work you put into it. I would also love to see a video from you about what is happening with CRT as we are going through something similar in France.
Wdym?
My rule of thumb on all such things: follow the money. Continuing on to read the article with that in mind, there’s normally a fair few clues as to the motivations in writing the article.
It helps to read the articles too. Sometimes it's enough even to read the abstracts. But I'm sure they'll develop that to look more reasonable over time, so it's not something you can rely on. When you throw around 50 citations that seem reputable on the surface, and when academia actively discourages non-original research...
This video should be, like, made into a pamphlet and distributed through colleges throughout the nation, as a “vaccine” to let students know what they’ll be dealing with
I like cats
such a fantastic video, thanks for covering this!!
You can now watch my videos ad-free on Nebula! Grab a full year's membership of Nebula & Curiosity Stream for just $14.79 here: curiositystream.com/tomnicholas
Tom, I just wanted to say thank you. Folks like yourself, Georgie Taylor and Dan Olson are amazing. Please keep doing the work that you do to counter the Scamlords of our present and the future as well.
Thank you for making the ad its own chapter. It improves the viewing experience.
"Property Rights on the Moon"... Christ... I studied Space Law and Regulation one of my times through uni and this made my soul leave my body. The concept of property rights on the moon or any other large celestial body, are not just a nightmare, but completely antithetical to the very state of space law. It is one of the bedrock concepts (along with no WMDs in space) that kept the Cold War cold, or well, assisted anyway.
To suggest that there is a need for property rights on any celestial body with a surface gravity of greater than 0.01g is a genuinely sociopathic.
So it's not surprising that it came up from the Adam Smith Institute.
Property rights in space will probably be necessary eventually, but just taking what we have now and plastering it all over the Moon, that's just ridiculous. A retarded corporation mismanaging a trivial asteroid transfer operation sounds like a great way for a global extinction event that will make any negative externalities incurred by irresponsible dicks on Earth look like a kid pissing in the pool :D
I mean we are eventually going to need it when this planet becomes too overpopulated
@@guyferrari8124 That's not exactly a sustainable approach. Not to mention that it's hard to see how it could ever be easier to support a population on the Moon than on however crowded Earth.
@@LuaanTi I wasn’t talking about now, I was more talking hundreds of years in the future.
@@guyferrari8124 running away from problems on earth means that ONLY the wealthy will have this option.
Scenario Two: it becomes a prison planet.
Both of these options suck.
Manage the planet we HAVE and stop indulging in science fantasy.
That welfare-dependency argument sounds so very Victorian, it‘s hard to believe it still lingers on.
conservatives will just parrot whatever talking points they hear. It doesn't have to make sense
I mean, it's not that it literally isn't a problem. It is a problem. But it's a problem that needs to be solved within the welfare system, not by _abolishing_ the system. The purpose of the welfare system should be to put you back on your feet as soon as possible. That should be the goal (at least according to my values, of course). Even in Victorian times, a core principle of the emerging welfare systems was that it should almost always be preferable to work, rather than be idle. It should be a safety net, not a place you live in your whole life. You shouldn't _want_ to end up on welfare; and when you do, you should want to get rid of it (and a big part of the work of the social workers should be to help you with that).
Of course, in the context of US welfare in particular, it's completely ridiculous :D I don't like throwing the words "worker exploitation" around lightly, but it feels like the US is about on par with former USSR or North Korea :D
This huge problem also extends to foreign affairs with military industrial complex funded think tanks like ASPI.
exceptional video. i'm always surprised at how often right wing 'progressivism' goes back to the idea of basically just eugenics. shaun's video that you mentioned on the bell curve was really enlightening on that. subbed.
"And now, I will privatise, THE MOON!" just sounds like such a supervillain thing to say.
What a lovely day to burst another one of my bubbles! Already looking forward to the next one.hahaha Thanks, Tom!
I've actually got a bit of the next one written already. But it's quite the epic topic so it might be some time I've afraid!
Okay, I knew this was a problem, especially with the Heritage Foundation’s ties to all the recent TERFery, but I had no idea just how deep and wide it went. Is it just me or is this even more powerful than regular lobbying? I guess it’s a type of lobbying but these guys get to appear on the news as “impartial” experts as well!
It's better than lobbying, since this gets the ordinary people fired up to believe whatever they push, instead of just getting politicians in line
You’d love Citations Needed, a podcast about the history of power, PR, and the history of bullshit. They talk about the news media framing of issues, very similar to this video.
@@aprofondir yeah exactly!
@@kaitlyn__L Kind of like the Think Tank PR teams that pushed the word TERF into the zeitgeist. It's like when these people get to appear on the news as "impartial" experts as well.
Although you are above that sort of thing and not falling for rhetorical PR campaigns. Or maybe you are just a part of them.
@@fritobandito5374 I was using the term in 2007 and it was invented decades before that. I don’t really care how people have found it more recently.
Regardless, the phenomenon it describes existed independently - which is why other radical feminists in the 80s and 90s coined the term to differentiate between themselves and those who held those specific policies. Janice Raymond et al proudly used the term themselves until the mid-00s.
The spread of the term to describe that kind of person is qualitatively different than groups pushing widespread specific governmental policies, even if there may be some similarities in mechanism. I would love some sources for who you believe spread it.
Lastly, I knew someone might take issue with my use of the term, and deliberately placed it there as a little “bait”, if you will, to see if someone got upset about it. So…. thanks!
This was a really great video, thanks for making it! Even if it gets less attention than others you've made, please don't stop making critically important pieces like this!
Of course we need a follow up video to this topic. Not just from you, but from everyone who can commit the time to bring this long standing blight to society, to the cleansing light of exposure. This all barely scratches the surface, and humanity deserves better than what we have all collectively allowed to continue unhindered at the expense of ourselves and our children.
As someone interested in one day working for a think-tank, this was a very helpful video for letting me know where *not* to look for a job. Thank you for this enlightening video.
There are good think tanks -- just look for ones that are 501 (c) (3) nonprofits and then look up their 990s - if their funding is diverse (roughly 1/3-1/3-1/3 government, private industry, and grants, that's kind of the sweet spot.
Great to see a well made, informative video shining a light on the shady ways these awful organizations influence policy. Re: CRT, Carlos Maza put out a very good video about it a while back but I’d like to see you take as well!
first video being released since I've subscribed, and I'm very excited
Ahh, welcome!
Seems like you are single handedly trying to teach the internet the art of critical thinking. Good on you. Actually an incredibly important mission. Critical thinking is probably our greatest passive tool against the establishment. Subscribed. 👍
29:41 made me double check what day this was posted. Since the very next day something along those lines was used in an act of terrorism in the US.
Tom, you’re the greatest. Great work and research on the history of how politics and news are influenced.
Happy to see you've gotten into Nebula too! My biggest problems with the service are no recommendations page, and no comments on videos. Other than that, a great place
I would maybe suggest that for Nebula you wait until near the end of the video to do the spot, as you're more likely to get a response if people are looking for the next thing to watch at the end of your video
Brilliant. I don't think anyone's ever done such a massive, thorough analysis of right-wing think tanks. Very helpful. And yeah I'd love to see a thorough analysis of the Critical Race Theory hysteria, as well as an analysis of Critical Race Theory itself, its history and its influence.
@@fattyboombatty2000 they omit that kind information, it doesn't help the progressive narrative, when Florida banned certain math books, progressives outlets were like: "Florida bans math teaching!", But if you look closely the content at their books are about to do equations to identify how many POC are suffering from a abstract white privilege and some brain gymnastics to identify racism in some kind of equation. You won't see MSNBC , CNN and NYT talking about this. But this guy forgets that the tactics he described in the video are employed by the political left
Ryan Chapman has a good RUclips video, "A Guide to Critical Race Theory".
@@fattyboombatty2000 yeah bro ok lmao. CRT is literally just history and examines the effects of systemic racism. my favorite part is people calling it inherently marxist which would be based if true.
@@cultural_marxism_fan I’m sorry, but you sound like you’ve gotten your opinion straight from cnn. You should know that what you just said is the watered down version they scrambled to come up with after months of denying that crt was ever in schools. Some people at cnn actually said that crt doesn’t even exist! I still don’t think they have made up their minds which story they want to stick with just yet.
Critical race theory is based off of critical theory from the communist Frankfurt school. Critical theory was an attempt to find where Marx and communism went wrong and adapt it to western society. These people recognized that people in the west were too happy to overthrow their government as Marx predicted. This was Marxism just slightly adjusted in a way to put forward a more critical view of society in order to foment a Marxist revolution. That is extremely simplified, but a fair assessment.
Critical race theory is simply critical theory/ Marxism but with the oppressed and the oppressor roles being swapped to white people and black people instead of the original class based Marxism. In Marx, one class is the oppressor and the other is oppressed and all that changes in crt is that whites are the oppressor class, and blacks are the oppressed class. So, it basically is Marxism with a lot of other stuff added in. It is not at all based.
@@fattyboombatty2000 You: *Explains that the hysteria behind CRT is just that... hysteria. Correctly states people aren't characterizing it correctly, then proceeds to mischaracterize it.*
You can't make this shit up, folks.
Thanks for the insight. I have seen spokespersons from the Adam Smith institution being interviewed on a number of high profile news programmes and usually coming out with extreme, right wing ideological viewpoints like the drop in a company share price after a ceo is sacked is the actual value of that ceo. But I had assumed that they were legitimate and not just pushing a purely ideological propaganda viewpoint.
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe in them."
-- George Orwell
That is an extreme bastardization of a quote George Orwell wrote. In fact, in an essay centered on denouncing the biases of various British groups, he was disparaging the idea that American troops had been brought to Europe during WW2 to nip an English revolution in the bud by some Left wing thinkers.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945).
Clearly not a quote about US right-wing think tankers, whom I would not call intellectuals.
@@pilazpilaz But that is entirely the point of the quote, and HE was correct !, some ideas ARE so stupid that only left wing intellectuals believe in them !, there is a long long history demonstrating that.
@@pilazpilaz ""One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)."
-> Assuming you are correct that this is the exact words of Orwell, the core thesis remains the same. There are stupid things that only intellectuals believe.
"I already own the nft of the moon. It's mine. Sorry."
Capitalist problems require capitalist solutions
*Stupid posts require stupid responses
neoliberalism relies on government intervention, just on the behalf of the wealthiest entities.
Like for the algorithm and more of Tom Pogging.
great work! this had to be talked about. These think tanks are insidious.
Thanks! I'm glad you found it interesting!
Manufacturing Consent 2.0 for the digital age! Thank you Tom for this brilliant analysis. You truly are the Chomsky and Herman of the video essay!
I would absolutely love a sequel, Tom. I’m ashamed at say what I’m ready to do to get it🥺
Great Vid!
And I would love to see a sequel focusing on the CRT panic.
The New Republic has a 15 September 2017 article titled: "The Credible Think Tank Is Dead."
Yes, this is quite a good primer for anyone that wants a 5 minutes intro. I reference it a couple of times in the script to the video.
An amazing job 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
I have been part of one group that gets it’s funding from the Atlas Network and I see propaganda being put across as academic knowledge
Ooh, that's really interesting. I'd love to hear more about the day-to-day of how it works behind-the-scenes.
I'm really astounded at how much work must go into these, they are so packed with detail. Really interesting, thanks for what you do
The lack of conversation regarding awareness on this issue is honestly concerning because a lot of people specially old people who buy anything these "people" say.
My dad is an educator and I can see steam that blows out of his head every time someone mentions CRT. I would love to share that video with him if you end up making it!
Between your channel and John Oliver’s videos, I’m finally coming to terms with the fact that my kink is charming, polite British men teaching me how incredibly fucked our contemporary political moment is.
What about 'Some More News'?
Hm, I guess all Nicholas needs to do is contact NSFW furry artists to commission politically active pieces from them 😆
@@nenmaster5218 Hell yeah, Some More News is yet sorely underrated. Cody is damn well musically talented, too
@@tylerphuoc2653 Cody resembles Hbomberguy and Creaky Blinder, just so you know.
Wow!!! Absolute firstclass indepht journalism. Time flies watching this, because everything is truly indepht news. Giving the watcher a fair and good firstclass information. Keep up the good work. Very important!!!
Yes, it was so 'indepth' [sic] that it didn't examine even one left-wing think tank or organisation.
privatise the moon sounds like something straight outta escape from corio foo
It sounds like something out of HG Wells the time machine
In Canada, we get the Fraser Institute. It drives me up the wall when people use it as an "objective" source.
The quality of these video essays are way better than they get views for!
Keep up the good work Tom, you're doing great!
Thanks again, Tom! Love the way you skewer disinformation and provide well-organized source material for your audience, all with an impish grin and sense of good fun. Wishing many more understood the role of think tanks. Such a subversion of democracy. Bravo! And yes, please do make a subsequent video exploring CRT and its roots in think tanks. Can't wait!
Pls make a video on the indices too such as freedom of press index, happiness index, etc
Use of the term "institute" is regulated in the UK - I really don't understand how lobbyists like the IEA got the title approved.
Great video! Any chance of doing videos on how to identify red flags in those "researches"? The constraint of time and vast amount of consumable information has led to a fatigue of choice for me at least. Being able to differentiate experts and "experts" is an important conversation to move forth.
A sequel on CRT would be lovely :)
To paraphrase slavoj zizek “only when one believes they are free from ideology are they most effected by ideology”
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute pretty much defines Australian defence policy and thus procurement policies despite being funded by weapons manufacturers, the US state department, Israel and others. It's so powerful that persons such as Stan Grant of the ABC, a notable 'left wing hawk', are senior fellows of the think tank.
It’s true. Of course, I don’t know anybody on the left that would say Stan Grant has been in any way “left wing” for years!
@@stephengentle2815 I think this really comes to the weird thing where "real" capitalism doesn't really benefit capitalists. It benefits people who want to start a venture, and it can be beneficial for both the employees and the customers. But an _existing_ company (especially a corporation) benefits _heavily_ from ties to the government; the last thing they want is a capitalist free market where a "no name" company could come out of nothing and do things better. Economies of scale don't say that bigger is always better; but corporations and governments seem to be hell-bent on interpreting them that way.
So you start as a socialist, and (hopefully; it's certainly not a given) care about people. Then you get tied into supporting those "big guys" (after all, look at how many employees would lose their shitty jobs if you didn't support them!). Before you know it, you have Lisa Simpson claiming Elon Musk is awesome :D
Yes, but so does every other defense and foreign policy think tank - some of its funding comes from the national government, some from corporations, and some from foreign governments. The proportion is what needs to be looked at here. If you look at ASPI's 2020-2021 report, over 60% of its funding came from Australian federal agencies, whereas foreign governments only provided 18% of its total budget. And Israel wasn't among the foreign funders in 2020-2021: the three largest donors were the US, Canada and Japan. As for weapons manufacturers, they were only 3% of the total funding that year (almost all dedicated to sponsoring a security conference), and there was an additional 7% from the private sector. Not enough to significantly influence the work of ASPI, in my opinion.
YES. A thorough takedown of the ridiculousness that is the CRT panic would be most welcome. The next iteration of this sort of manufactured panic is already in full swing with the next three letter acronym , ESG.
The first "think tank" I heard of was the RAND corporation that in the mid twentieth century pushed certain views about the nuclear arms race. Where does the RAND corporation fit into this overall picture?
A great video, I think you should do more on tracing specific ideas that different think tanks have pushed. Things like the Mont Pelerin Society basically founding Neoliberalism and then having extremely prominent economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek push their ideas, to the point that mainstream economics as it is taught at university now very closely resembles their teachings (often being taught as fact rather than theory, see Unlearning Economics vids for more),
Unlearning economics is just a tool tbh.
@@adwaitnaravane5285 Why?
Where does mainstream economics as taught on universities very closely resemble the Austrian school? Everywhere I looked in Europe, the German school (Keynes et al.) absolutely dominates and controls mainstream economic policies too. In fact, for economic policies, it seems to be the case in the US too.
@@LuaanTi Well I'm at university in Australia and the economic textbooks that we use (some of which are written in America) teach that minimum wages are bad, unions are bad etc.
I'm also not sure I understand your point fully, are you saying that mainstream economic opinion currently across the US is Keynesian? Because it very clearly isn't. The last few decades of neoliberalism, deregulation and globalisation cheered on by economists is proof of that. They are now starting to change their tune as they've been so clearly wrong about the impact, but that's been relatively recently.
I've heard of Mont Pelerin very recently. I'm reading a book called "Tax Haven Ireland" which is about my country's role as a tax haven, and the second chapter traces this back to a historical period of tax havens being developed across Europe, including by the UK, which then influenced Ireland in that direction (or something along those lines, I'm not far enough in).
Your videos are consistently informative and well thought out. Thank you!
I was raised with the idea that social insurance was for everybody. When it's for everybody, people feel their taxes are investments in their own personal insurance against loss of job, health, etc. plus a higher grade of public infrastructure, ie. a less stressful, higher quality of life. Making it about a wealth transfer from those managing to survive to those NOT managing to survive seems brutally insane. It's like playing civilisation at a simpler, more barbaric level of game play. We need to "level up" the UK.
"Making it about a wealth transfer from those who were born rich since their mom slept with a weird old millionaire to those who work nine to five in order to feed their family is the only right thing to do."
There, I fixed your sentence.
Also, I love how you manage to contradict yourself in the span of literally two sentences.
@@4cps777 Maybe read it again?🤷♂ I have no idea what you're trying to say
@@bradbell4022 user issue
@@4cps777 Man, I dont think your sentence fix got his point at all, and rather you are actually skewing what he thinks. My boi Brad is saying that making social insurance about the rich donating to the poor and only donating to the poor (no changing policy or work environment etc. for the benefit of the people) is absolutely insane and cruel. Brad is opposing the idea that the rich donating wealth to the poor would magically make their lives better, so I dont know how the fuck you interpreted that "...is the only right thing to do." segment from his comment.
ive just recently got addicted to your channel. your videos are so damn great but i cant see you as anything other than ramsey bolton meets pyrocynical. love the channel
Great video (as always) Tom! I would love to see a sequel focusing on CRT :)
OK this is excellent work, I knew a lot of this, but you present the story very well.
Thanks so much Ben, I'm glad you thought so!
Thank you for making this video! You provide a great history and summary on this insidious form of media manipulation.
As another example, the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade, which protects access to abortions, in the U.S. by the Supreme Court is also the product of think tanks shifting the discourse in a direction that favors their beliefs. Rather than directly argue against abortion access, they promoted the benefits of originalism when review law cases; essentially trying to interpret what the U.S. constitution writers had envisioned by adherring strictly to the language of the document in the context it was written a few hundred years ago. That process of nudging the discourse over decades created the pipeline of judges, building their bench resumes, and elected representives willing to promote them to Supreme Court justices which provided the court a majority who now views that decision as the only sensible one to make. For the think tanks promoting originalism, this was their ultimate goal.
Mostly the Roe v. Wade overturn comes strictly from the fact that the people elected to Congress and state legislatures are far more conservative than the people who elect them on average, which is a product of the competition in party primaries, that more conservative people actually show up to primaries, and give the rest of us bad choices in the general elections.
If the U.S. had proportional representation and got rid of party primaries (instead each voter would get 1000 names to choose from among several parties during the House election, have the parties get a proportion of seats equal to their proportion of votes, and have each party fill its seats with its most voted for candidates), then a law providing access to abortion would have been passed.
The primary piece of cheek perpetrated by these 'think tanks' is to take upon themselves names such as the "Centre for Policy Studies" as if there were only one place where policies were studied, and that this was it.
One of things I find most annoying about these "think-tanks" is that they are registered charities in the UK and as such can claim tax rebates form the state. They should not be able to register as charities. The other is that they are often funded by "dark money". All contributors (over a certain limit) should have to be named by law.
The lazy or deliberately complicit British media regularly introduces them as experts.
Yes! Keep the pace. Part 2 of critical views of those “Think Damps”, please.
I've always found the term "think tank" to be incredibly pretentious.
Imagine having to outsource the act of thinking.
Great video, well done connecting smaller topics to larger ones and giving context to each topic. Some might say that’s how to educate people!
think tanks played a huge role in the recent overturning of roe v wade.
Aah, I hadn't come across that but this would make sense. I know there were talks of one think tank that was essentially training-up court clerks to be able to influence decision-making in the justice system in the US somewhere (this is a half-remembered story I read though so don't quote me on it!).
@@Tom_Nicholas
The Federalist society.
Personally, I agree with overturning roe v wade. Imagine this. Lets say you get some absurdly religious judges. And you get some one appealing their murder charge on an infant for killing the mom. It goes all the way to the court. And the court not only agrees that the fetus is an infant and its murder, but all rights should be preserved and defacto says all abortion is now illegal because its murder.
This is why legislation from the bench is bad. Even if you agree with it, it can be used against your political side just as easy and you'll have to just accept it at that point.
every time Tom Nicholas isn't on screen I just mentally picture all this being explained to me by the 11th doctor
Excellent video, thanks for making it!
For those looking for that sequel, Carlos Maza and Some More News both have great videos on that exact topic (with obvious titles!)
I keep seeing people commenting this is “insightful” or “enlightening”; but when one boils it down, the video simply says: “rich people establish organizations to influence media and policy making”. Okay.
Don’t we all know that already? (And does it really have anything to do with right wing or left wing?)
Moreover, the video seems to suggest the “media” is an innocent party - they are just being ignorant about the credentials of their guests. Well, I beg to differ, it seems to me the “media” is the real culprit here, rather than being the innocent party they willingly invite these “experts” to give them a platform - and can anyone really deny it is the “media” that is influencing policy here, rather than the experts themselves?
No, we don't all know that already. Children grow up into adults, and many of them are unaware of many issues. Also, anybody that's not interested in the subject or that hasn't had the time to look into it because they're busy getting barely enough money to survive is likely to not know about it.