LSE Events | Prof. Ha-Joon Chang | 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 янв 2011
- Speaker: Professor Ha-Joon Chang
Chair: Professor Robert Wade
This event was recorded on 5 October 2010 in Old Theatre, Old Building
We may like or dislike capitalism, but surely we all know how it works. Right? Wrong. Today, most arguments about capitalism are dominated by free-market ideology and unfounded assumptions that parade as 'facts'. This lecture in which Ha-Joon Chang will talk about his new book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism| tells the story of capitalism as it is and shows how capitalism as we know it can be, and should be, made better.
My left ear is really enjoying this.
Rational Israel hahaha
What?!🦻
Change your sound setting to Mono will bring you to the center.
Really wish more of the people commenting here actually listened to the video... is very important material.
+Danielle Gleason so many comments misrepresenting what he even said, it's crazy
Thank you for reminding me that capitalism need not be parasitic if the financiers are actually producing something instead of financing finance.
Very interesting presentation quite enhanced by Dr Ha-Joon Chang's dry even droll humour. A very good listen.
Agreed! an excellent and important lecture.
It actually starts at 6:40. Please thumbs up to let other people see this message.
The man who introduces him does not say the title of the book he's promoting, does he? Bad Samaritans and 23 Things... are both enlightening and clearly written books and I suggest them.
LSE great lecture !
Thanks dude. seen it already but it's exactly what I'd like to see. we can only hope.
We are reaching a point in history when the lack of working hard is a minor problem or no problem at all. The pressure to create ever more growth, and consumption is itself becoming the major threat. I appreciate Chang's comments. The blind profit vision of capitalism is totally unsuitable for our situation. Anachronistic.
These issues need more study and debate to include allowing the public to provide more input by being able to study in more details the issues here presented.
I'm 10 minutes in and i like this guy already.
Why u no show the slides?
'Thankyou, I Like Your Style!'
Spot on!
Good stuff
the 'simplicity' of your thinking is impressive indeed. you should start a talk radio show, you could be the new peter schiff.
thanks
such a great book
excellent. Does anyone recommend other vids?
+Johnny bizaro look up jeremy rifkin
Film: "The Flaw", "Inside Job"
Book: "Free Market Madness"
Great
Markets are politics and vice versa. No system or religion will be able to solve the problem of politics, we have to live witj it and try to hold our own and help others as best as we can. Politics is a never ending struggle.
Question is: Why finance is financing finance instead of production? What is the root of this phenomenon? Because "greed" - if seen badly - has always existed, so it is not because greedy people got greedier, it might be because it was more rewarding to invest in finance... Because government lowering interest rates might be interesting to look at...?
Finance has no interest in production when the financial market is so huge that you can play in the casino. Once a person truly understands that the banking sector is simply an extension of the public sector in a fiat monetary system, one can quickly realise that deregulation is the culprit.
Banking sector is uniquely charged with executing the monopoly currency via credit and debt. This function is part of the "commons" which is by nature public. The neoliberalism viewpoint hates government and by logic the "commons" because the only way to grow is to privatize the commons and replace it with a monopoly. Is it no wonder that the first thing a monopolist does is raise his own profit?
because finance is more profitable than industry.
you don't have to invest a lot if you have inside knowledge of the stock market to make a huge buck.
So it is only normal to put more capital into finance than anything else.
nmsg1983 It is profitable because government policies or the lack thereof makes its profitable. While there isn't anything wrong with profit, the financial system today simply extracts "economic rents" from the economy produce little value to society.
Cool Video
@mensoelrey agree...that book is an eye opener.
you hit the nail on the head there m8
I like the way he says "dodge the rickshaw"
With such educational purposes oriented those of us who bread from developing countries we could move our countries forward. I hope more young people can give themselves times to read to enrich their way of looking at esues
@TheBlindPowerslave The same reason millions of people visit every year, beautiful weather, amazing beaches, great swimming, diving, water sports, delicious fresh pineapples and wonderful sun rises and sunsets. The point is, of course, that there are more people than there are beautiful spots on the earth where a person can live (not just visit), so, because of this inherent inequality, things should be organized by markets and private exchange rather than central planning.
Why didn't the camera focus on the power point as Chang was discussing his slides? Makes the video less understandable.
In which case I don't understand what you were getting at with your original point. Note that my post was in response to ThePassiveFist. I just wanted to point out that it was incorrect to suppose that economics or the economy is easy to understand: Contrary to ThePassiveFist's assertion.
the thing we should know is he doesn't deny capitalism or the trading systems. he insist on how to trade and how to make better capitalism.
@63muhammad Can i ask before i answer my your question what jobs do they work at right now?
Sort the sound out please LSE!
@TheBlindPowerslave Because I like earning as much money as I can while seeing as much of the world as I can. I believe in free trade and a part of that is the free movement of people, whether for competitive business or for leisure.
The point is that with important things like other people's money, it is important to communicate in simple language, use simple models to manage risk, and take every stake-holder into confidence. Not "having an edge over other people", which is exactly wrong. Else, the finance industry as well as all of us are doomed, as we will see in the next couple of years.
There are only two basic things of value. The Earth with its recourses, and human work to produce from that. Its simple. Try starting a game of monopoly with $5 and the rest start with $20, 000 . See if you still believe you have a chance ? That is the world we live in.
Like for Illuminatus Trilogy being quoted. :D
i think the whole '23' thing is much closer to the douglas adams thing: he secret to life, the universe and everything.
@Di0genesus You just wanted to say that. But to clarify, what i say is that rich buy innnovation, they put their money into it.
Is that why they screwed it up so comprehensively then? Because it's so complicated?
@TheBlindPowerslave Everything changes and nothing is certain. This is a key lesson from history and evolution. Any attempt to make things even, level and "certain" is doomed to fail. And selfishness? So what? It was selfish cell phone makers which have now allowed even the poor to place cheap calls to anyone, no matter where they are. It was greedy restaurateurs who provide delicious food from all over the globe to hungry consumers. Allowing private interest is an engine of progress.
This is good unintentional ASMR
lol perfect depiction of france at 0:36:10
skip: 6:25
i spend hours and hours reading the book and still only on thing 15 after like 10+ hours reading and i can all be done in 1 hour 23 minutes hmmm?
When rich people go in, they go all in or put their money in the market not under the mattress.. Thes money is being spent, on new concepts.
Giving money to more poor or middle lifes would only represent less spending on innovative and broader markets.
The tax driver's pay difference is not determined by their performance but by the supply and demand in their respective market. In Sweden, there are less supply for taxi drivers because there are many other good alternative jobs available. And further more people in Sweden are willing to pay more. In New Delhi there are not many high paying job available, so obviously lots of people want to be a taxi driver.
Also the cost of living in Sweden for taxi driver is different from a driver in New Delhi.
Price is not determined by the inherent quality of the service or good, but by what the two party consider to be off equal value. In a given location, if both taxi driver and passenger think a taxi trip is worth $x, then $x is the price. And in general, as a country becomes richer the cost of service will rise and the cost of commodity will fall.
The role of a trader in a free market is to move goods from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. Similarly in a purely economic situation, people will move from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. What prevent that is politics, social systems and whether the person likes the location's environment.
They are two totally different markets, so the price is of cause different. Its like complaining that the price of water in a desert is higher than those in a supermarket.
+Greedy Milk If you removed the immigration barrier - what would happen to the supply and demand of these jobs? That is the question he is asking. Also, Sweden has laws on minimum wages that has nothing to do with supply and demand
Mandeep Soor spot on.
Mandeep Soor we actually dont have a minimum wage, we have a very unionised country where the unions usually
set a standard wage
unionised or not, the point that Mandeep raises is still a legit one insofar wages are regulated - hence showcasing a form of political intervention.
engineers and scientists are well paid and have incentives
@TheBlindPowerslave Also, I DO take the matter of individual freedom very seriously. The rights of one should not be subverted for the "glory of the masses". Call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism.. the ideology is the same; the individual does not matter, only the state. Who decides what the proper level of personal property (if any) should be? The State. Who says what books should be printed? The State. Who puts limits on personal ambition? The State. I reject that in its entirety.
The amount of angry comments is the proof he's hitting the nail in the head :D
No it isn’t
@timmyjunior1 Equal in what? Income? Things? Well I want to live in Hawaii on the North Shore of Oahu. How much beach front property is available in Oahu? I somehow suspect that there are more people who want to live on the shores of Oahu then there are plots on the beach. How then, comrade, does society make such land "equally available to all"?
@63muhammad No thank you, I won't give up. Everyone should be equal IMO.
that's because we're still hung up on the concept of insulated economies. If we treated the economy as what it is - a GLOBAL concept then all three of those questions answer themselves, and the answerss are the same for 1 and 2.
Better living condititions for a large %age of popn with a slight decrease in the disgustingly opulent living conditions of the richest 1%.
and for three, No. if production and economics balance is achieved globally then everybody wins.
I can live with that.
I think not, It is obvious Chan struggles in English, but the points he makes are valid, and he should continue to promote them. Attacking the messenger personally is a well known invalid argument in reasoned debate. The well informed reasoned person will look at the content not the packaging. Perhaps you´d like to address the issues , and not the personalities ? Why capitalism- monetarism is a destructive, abusive, and anachronistic system for our times for example.
fell asleep at about 10 min mark and missed all 23, sorry.
Peter Schiff absolutely outwitted this guy in a debate.
@TheBlindPowerslave So, move to Denver, or Jackson Hole, or Helena, or Calgary, I don't care. I never said everyone should want to live in Hawaii, it is just that more people want to live there than there are beach plots. Lots of people want to live in Aspen, but again, there are limits on how many people can move there while the town retains it's charm. Same with Breckenridge, or Whistler, or every other ski town in the world.
6:40
Well, I agree, but why would even he call it a criticism of capitalism when he himself states that he's just against 'this form' of capitalism? I am against 'this form' of capitalism too, but 'this form' has an own name, which is corporatism. Real capitalism is a great thing!
since the first pirates reached land ;)
49:30 Face Palm. LOL
If you are investing in a hedge fund then it's your responsibility to understand the models that they're using. Upon request, financial statement can be obtained from any law abiding fund manager. People like you do not know that there's CFA charterholder's pledge for ethics, that there's SEC, CFTC, OTCBB, CBOE regulations that prohibit unlawful actions with no motive for money because they've never been in the industry. Join the industry and will whether we are doomed.
Yes, yup and right on .... get another scoup on this issue and a real and cool solution that will take us right into a future never seen before by the book "The Laws of M.O.S.E.S ( America's Financial Future)" Google it to see the TV video and excerpts for free at the approriate sites!
I don't understand your answer. I am aware that the economy of a single country is part of a global economy. I agree that their may be global solutions which might mean we do not need to worry about any of these individual questions. The fact remains that these are questions about simple policy changes that are difficult to answer. Those questions haven't answered themselves. You have just asserted we ought to have a better world (I like your better world btw).
I don't think that really gets it either. There's obviously coercion in modern markets. In fact, in my opinion markets are side effects and supporting structures of the means of coercion.
cheers.
Search Peter Schiff. Game over.
@TheBlindPowerslave It is also interesting to note your language, how I am a "victim" of Beck. Marxist semantics is always interesting. In your mind, I cannot possibly be a free thinking individual. I have to be a misguided "victim". People are not employees, they're 'slaves', the rich are not rich because they are good at providing that which people want, but they are "exploiters". And the state is "the people". Marxism is a religion, really, with the state as the god. A vengeful god.
you seem smart
not to be negative in any way...cuz it's my own problem....but i have a hard time, not understanding, but listening for a long time to most people with an accent...especially Asian accents... Wish there were more Americas explaining the downsides to capitalism...
sociology is very simple to me,yes.Im a Friedmanist by the way.
Title fail.
What he talks about is not free market lazzie faire capitalism.
If economics is that simple consider what the answers to these questions are:
What is the effect on unemployment of increasing the minimum wage by 1 dollar?
Would a 90% tax rate on the top 1% in the US increase or decrease tax revenues over the next 15 years?
Does immigration from Mexico make low-skill workers in America worse off?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. These simple questions are hard because the economy is complex.
Jump to 59:00 for a datdatda explosion., yeah? huh?
It seems you are saying that because you don't understand the mechanics of it that it must therefore be hard.
If the rich are investing less, than why haven't interest rates decreased on average? When people save, interest rates decrease.
Interest rates are targeted by the central bank. Do you mean that the central bank will tend to lower their target rate if firms invest less and save more?
"we" are the ones that elected a government that is vulnerable to the influence of big business.... unfortunately, all "we" can think about doing is creating a bigger and even more burdensome and powerful government (like wack-a-mole) to solve the latest, unintended government created problem.
A smaller, weaker government that doesn't have enough power to dole favors is, IMO, the best option.
@Di0genesus Im not sure they could really do something. The rich are pampered but not dumb and like Marvin Gaye said, "who is willing to try?". The cost is too high with a huge uncertainty. People want to live well and there are always poor that want their own, because its their turn. How to enlighten a new generation? I still think that big original ideas make big people and the others become second rate workers, and you never know how obsessed big ones become of perfection to tyranny.
They really need to put more public speaking classes in his college. Content wasn't so bad.... but God, the first 12 minutes are torture.
oh and about generosity....its always the other guy who is greedy...never me eh
@TheBlindPowerslave Another important point about "nationalized" means of production. The fact is competition works. If a person or group of investors wants to take the risk in starting a factory that makes widgets, then they should reap the benefits if there are any. If there is no private ownership then there is no incentive to innovate. Also, lack of efficiency and reduced quality means no one in cold places can get fresh produce as just one example.
corporation and government pick and chooses who is rich who is poor.
meaning the starting salary of college majors in most american institute.
so it's time to change that. level out the salary of what is more important vs what is in demand. most position in demand are lies. training for these "indemand" position can be broken down to 3 to 4 individuals in secondary position in highly specialized post. most that is not all.
prof doesn't understand the sound dynamics of a MICROPHONE!
Turn the captioning on = hilarious.
I'm grateful for the information, but the argument has long been lost, since the majority of people have long been brainwashed by glamorous sounding rhetoric. People really need to think more deeply, but it hurts, and who wants to do work? Anyway, I agree with the speaker.
this guy is funny
Listen to what people say, not how they say it. You might learn something then...
I do, and i can. like i said, it's not that hard. it's made to look hard, and is overcomplicated by beaurocracy.
At 9 :40 he says he doesn't like 25 . I don't like even numbers !! What ?? He must be numerically challenged ! So he has spent over 3 minutes on the meaningless of why the book has such a title.
Ha Joon Chang's argument is essentialy that market economies are not really totally free so we have to totaly abandon the whole idea of a making a market more free than it is at any time.
Why not totally abandon the idea of a non free market because it too is not an exact reality and never can exist totally controlled.
His anaogy of the drivers operating intwo different countries is not a good example for having skill comparison and unequal pay. He even shoots his own argument against free markets down by mentioning the restrictions on freedom of markets which allows this to occur.
The part he has not mentioned is the tax scales that apply in many poor countries which work against their country benefitting from trade. These taxes include import duties, consumption taxes, high income taxes, high cost of government charges and other lack of critical continuity of good financial management by their governments.
Hhe again shoots down his own arguments by saying that deregulation made people rich becasue they benefitted from financial systems, regulated and deregulated.
You can't have it both ways saying that derulation allowed the financiers to make more money and at the same time say that they did not get more efficient.
Just how does that work again? Get no more efficient but make more money by being what??
+Rob Mews He said 25 is too obvious, he doesn't like even numbers (implying 22/24), and 21 was too close to 20. Hence why it's called 23.
+Kflee A wate of good video time with personal likes and and irelevant stuff. He might as well be talking about the colour of his socks.
You might as well major in political economy and counter argue Chang with 23 Things every bullshit topic Chang mentioned XD
@Di0genesus There wont be more rich people? How is there not gonna be rich people? Point aside, there is nothing masses can or will do.
The Shaun the Sheep Movie
Free market existence brought into question. No dispute it does actually exist , one struggles to look for an occult and accurate academic definition. Predilection for a technical rather than palaeolithic description. A market place dependant on supply and demand equilibrium for efficient allocation of resources, competition and growth. Comes with low tax regime, plenitude of skilled and otherwise supply of labor, flexible wage and contract systems. Those can only be attained by non interventionist gov policy, little trade union activity, always a sign of a small state. The state only omnipotent in provision of legal and economic framework institutionally. The rest is basically left to the markets to self regulate, firms enjoying laissez-faire with the state guidance rather than rigid yoke of quangos and red tape.
23:18 BURNNNNNNNNNNN HAHAHAHAAHA
Forward to 6:20 to skip that long, boring introduction.
@semperFi4ever100 There is no such thing as "Real" Capitalism, because every form of economy which has capital is a form of Capitalism, and so all forms of Capitalism fall under the definition of "Real" Capitalism.
Or a lot of people like to have a minority that they can place all of their own accountability and blame on.
Did I claim Chang didn´t do the same ? It is another invalid argument to claim because the other does it it is then valid. You seem to know. Stll nothing on his points I notice.
try running your own company, and see how simple it is to succeed and grow ( instead of moralizing about others )
I disagree with your premise. The average Joe Shmoe won't know anything in any area that he has not been educated in. I would also not say that everyone would have equal ease in learning economics across the board, people require different teaching methods and people have different interests.
Apparently Evil intent, which is usually the default mechanism of denial of responsibility, is very often disguised as "stupidity", because a failure to learn by doing experience of the common good is the default opposite of intentionally taking responsibility for distributing mutual benefits.
A belief in Capitalism has this same problem of intentional knowledge of (lawful) responsible actions and default ignorance of consequences when privatisation dominates decisions.., ie "Dark Money" falsified legalisation has dominance over legitimate governance. (As anyone can see)
Pi is approximately 22/7, so the prime number 23 is excluded "outside the circle" of inclusive cofactors, if you need a less amorphous excuse for the kind of Numerology Economists often use. (?)
If, as in the case of MMT, theory is an aspect of superficial trending.., plus/minus valuation of market quantization, ..so T is for Trends in Monetary policy after the fact of economic activities as they exist in the global Ecology, then the reason "Precision is not Accuracy" is because discovered evidence disproves "Correlation is not Causation", ..halfway to e-Pi-i cause-effect unity=duality=> Relativity, is temporal substantiation of Existence in Singularity. Or "ist and ism" tending towards.., includes money management Capitalism and does not automatically exclude dis-management practices from Dark Money (and the best legal system money can buy), corrupting the nominally inclusive Democratic Courts system. Ie Judgement of difference between legitimate and legal, ethically.