Globalization was never intended to reduce inequality and bring prosperity. It is quite the opposite: it is the stage of development in which the accumulation of wealth without any accountability goes global to increase their gains and profit even more by exploiting cheap labour and weak regulations overseas. Ant to intervene if that poor institutional framework could change at some point.
yeah. even if it were, it would've been impossible, and that's by design. also, i don't think they actually believed in the concept of all that wealth trickling down (LOL), or that it would've made any significant improvement to people's lives.
The fact that there are inequality issues in the world economy is undeniable. Globalization is one of the contributing factors, but we still lack an efficient system to address this effectively. One of the most significant factors contributing to inequality is the lack of skills among workers. Moreover, the population increasing daily, the global market is becoming more competitive. Without efficient regulation of the labor market, quality and human values will continue to decline. Countries should invest more in their own populations instead of seeking cheap labor abroad.
Thank you for posting this insightful lecture and discussion. My takeaway is that globalisation is a modern form of utilitarianism in which the rich get richer, more countries (emerging) get an uplift, but fundamentally, there remains a minority of inequality and poverty with an ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Utilitarianism is all about the greater good and the majority benefiting.
This lecture gives me the math and science to support what I always knew but couldn't describe. Now that we understand what is happening, we can change it. Thank you for this presentation.
There are few select humans who are genuinely struggling to make human living as humans. We humans have indeed lived on hope . Many many prayers and blessings for these genuine humans to multiply and make lives lovely. Love and peace to all.
Reduced inequality in emerging economies does not always translate to a rise added value manufacturing. In many cases they simply are first tear skills, interventions that do not build nations future prospects, keeps them rooted traditional products assemble or extractions jobs.
Mass production means mass money pouring into the minority of rich people. Th globalization helps them gaining most of resources among their communities.
I cannot speak as to whether this man knows his stuff, but after 35 minutes, I have decided to come back to this when I have insomnia. It may be rude, but I cannot take another minute.
The title istelf should have been a tell sign. The assumption that globalization was meant to reduce inequalities is so ridiculous that they had to bring a nobel laureate to give such a pointless lecture some weight
What’s the point? Don’t we know that unequal skill causes inequality? Capitalists never pledge to address this issue. They enjoy the comparative advantage at the expense of social inequality. Education alone is insufficient to address the issue because labor demand change rapidly. Consider China's education system, which has achieved significant advancements, yet the Gini coefficient has also risen. The point is, in order to reduce inequality, the state must actively participate in the realization of the concept of Common Prosperity.
Isn't equality the wrong goal. In a nation where the middle class rises and the lower classes get wealthier, I woud not care about the super rich. To hate inequality is taught by marxists. Envie may not be the best way to reform an economy.
@@thomasbentele2468 You are correct. Another issue is that humans do not develop equality. Humans as a species aren't equal in skill, talent, desire, grit or creativity, and gravitate twords different interests and career goals. It is impossible not to have inequities among people. People can also increase their economic situation through education and hard work. The government or United Nations can spend all day readjusting resources and shares and never achieve equal outcomes. I resent the United Nations and its goal for global equity aka socialism. It's policies and ideologies are destructive and demoralizingnto hard working people who were forced to function in a system they did not create. Much like the USSR under Stalin, the United Nations goal is global socialism, neo-communism.
@@CJ-gv6bq Yes, therefore we see mostly socialist or communist politicians in the UN, assisted from malthusian/eugenic misanthropes, renamed as philanthropes by there own newspapers.
Problem of inequity is problem of heart. Equity goes where the heart goes. To pay families to send their children to school makes sense, provided what they will study will enhance their farming or whatever services are needed in the village.
in the past innovation took years to reach the market in any size....so IP periods were understandably long...that is not longer the case. These old rules governing IP including ideas like secondary patents only get in the way of national and global innovation.
@@SRINATHKADIAM-o6f Thank you. There are several mistakes in auto-generated transcripts because of voice modulation in a talk. Also, the slides are important reference not only for the subject matter of the talk but also for correct interpretation. Is it possible to mail the transcript with slides? I am aware that this involves so much unproductive work. If the subject matter was not important, I would not make the request.
@@AdenwalaM @AdenwalaM Sorry sir, I am not in a position to do so, I'm just some random person on the Internet. I just wanted to know why auto-generated transcript isn't good enough. Thanks for the reply. You have a nice day.
How can one accept intellectual and opportunity inequality (the basic premise of A, B, C and D over time) and expect financial equality ? It will be wrong to over-simplify. "Life Finds it's Way".
I submit that getting people out of poverty is more important. And on that level, globalization was a success beyond the wildest dreams. Without wealth creation, many poor starve. Either way, whether world wide equality is increasing or decreasing is an empty statement, it does not represent anything representative
Income equality is very important for societal stability. So it does represent something very meaningful, and minimising it (through natural market or social influence, NOT by forceful government intervention) is of utmost importance to maintain social stability.
Liberal democracy is signified by the lust for domination by a select few. It never was - by, of and for the people. China in 2020 has proved otherwise, the flaws of liberal democracy.
In some sense, the former grotesquely begets the latter... In a system of perverse incentives, Complexity, and improperly priced/valued inputs, as well as negative externalities... The massive distortions are just plain NOT 🚫 so very surprising 😮 😑 🙄😒😞
what comes out clearly is that the process of globalisation is not determistic in reducing income inequality Bur even if the role of Government is certainly recognised only skills upgrade may not solve the problem though that will be a step forward
@24:00 he is wrong... computer software still needs plenty of other staff: someone filling and maintaining coffee machine, cleaner for office floor, cooks in lunch restaurant, working delivery services for equipment orders, parking spaces so engineers get to work and so on. I get where he is coming from but politicians forget these details and things dont function properly. You'd be surprised what kind of simple dumb problems(in practical sense) modern bigger cities can have.
Countries especially in emerging areas spend more on the army rather than on educating their citizens because their “seat” is more important than their citizens welfare!!
let's talk about equity instead of equality, please. And it is not about wage disparities between genders. It is about getting the wealth necessary to lead a peaceful and content life. Not everyone needs a million dollars to reach such goal. Not everyone wishes to go to university, to have children, to own a house, etc. Some lifestyles may seem to agree with one's definition of poverty while the people leading such a lifestyle, do not see it as poor. Universalism is a real plague in our modern world.
You could make inequality all inclusive, that is a fair equality equity sustainable solution, with a possibility of integrative merit based lader, as a step towards self dignity evaluation standard, of universal human rights. Now that I think about, it is not a joke. That is the true Fermat's last theorems.
University graduate economist are too narrow in their models and principles. They are neither true computational finance theorist nor true political economist. They don't see the riches of the few. Anything against will fire them from academic position.
Nice winner of the bankers price. Nothing about the origin of money, nothing about stock exchange speculators, nothing about credit creation, nothing about credit guidance, nothing about the international financial institutions and rules, nothing about the techniques of neocolonialism..... The Bankers will be satisfied.
Take Electrical Engineering or Nuclear Engineering; In the United States, in the 2000's these fields would have been terrible fields to go into for the fact that there were no jobs.... You mention workers who are high skilled without even mentioning the fact that high skilled workers who are not in Computer Science, can't find jobs because of the offshoring off production..... This was mainly due to globalization and blows up your argument. You mention software without mentioning any other science. In fact, the fields to go into at that time were not the sciences at all, but would have been Finance or Law, or healthcare. Those were the growing fields....Not the sciences, not high skilled "workers".
Prosperity has gone up! That is all that matters. Inequality is envy, it is not important for a rational person who can see that the rich getting richer at a faster pace does not matter when a regular guy is now living like kings used to! Not a zero sum game! Governments should not try and "fix" a non-problem.
In the last 60 years that I have been alive the number of people living in absolute poverty has been reduce by four fifths, the number of wars by 90% and this is because of the rise of Capitalism, International trade, international finance and as a consequence more people live in freedom and dignity than at any time; only Africa stubbornly holds out. Don't take my word for it, this can be checked out by UN statistics.The lecturer is wrong.
@@ignacioduran5993 Global warming and rising CO2 levels always lead to the wealthiest economies. Incorrect? What about the great thing, that only in capitalism, better CREDITISM, people can get richer, without any other who has to get poorer. All other historian systems only allowed to get rich, by robbing other ones. (Semblance of exception when for example gold was injected into the economy, but that was in reality money expansion.) Credit creation and credit guidance into the productive economy creates sustainable wealth (no boom-bust, no recession, no depression), without stealing or beggar thy neighbour. History and even contemporary history proofs it, but the money masters dont like it, so it only rarely unfolds completely.
When human beings have gone far, very far, and deeply far in greed, madness, and wickedness to name a slaves ship,'Jesus', a jungle human, has shaped. The other is then a prey.
ahhh, economic sciences. these guys are useless. nobody will ever talk about the basic underlying structures. people created religion which formed societes which became nation states which accumulate capital which is transforming humanity, via science and technology, for a few thousand years now. all of the steps are connected, with decreasing influence over distance. each step transformed an idea into a more useful concept, despise that all these entities want to impose on to others, which leads to most problems. so if we cut out the intermediate steps, what is left? people using capital to build utopia, thats right! star trek, in a nutshell.
That is not what he said. He said it increased prosperity, and it clearly has! Envious people are jealous that the rich are getting richer. Sucks to be envious. Enjoy your cheap iphone and try and learn from the rich instead of hating them!
The old lizards residents of Venezia Rotterdam City of London New York all build over swamps have many wonderful qualities however sharing is unknown concept to the poor creatures. Only Mao's reeducational camps claims to have the know how but remains to be seen if it's working.
I am pretty sure you did not listen to the whole discussion that is why you got disinterested...secondly you seem to have some negative judgement towards him, you have to acknowledge that he gave this talk in japan, some people could have found difficulty to understand his words if he would have talked faster.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Globalization was never intended to reduce inequality and bring prosperity. It is quite the opposite: it is the stage of development in which the accumulation of wealth without any accountability goes global to increase their gains and profit even more by exploiting cheap labour and weak regulations overseas. Ant to intervene if that poor institutional framework could change at some point.
Well said, the bias in the title of this video (i hope its not also the title of the lecture) stems from either duplicity or stupidity
Because that was NOT the goal.
yeah. even if it were, it would've been impossible, and that's by design.
also, i don't think they actually believed in the concept of all that wealth trickling down (LOL), or that it would've made any significant improvement to people's lives.
exactly what I thought the moment I saw the video.
To run any type of machinery you need a significantly high difference in temperature.
Care to open up? @@TJ-hs1qm
Exactly. Actual Globalisation (Forced Free Trade) mostly serves the traders... and is designed to do so.
The fact that there are inequality issues in the world economy is undeniable. Globalization is one of the contributing factors, but we still lack an efficient system to address this effectively. One of the most significant factors contributing to inequality is the lack of skills among workers. Moreover, the population increasing daily, the global market is becoming more competitive. Without efficient regulation of the labor market, quality and human values will continue to decline. Countries should invest more in their own populations instead of seeking cheap labor abroad.
Thank you for posting this insightful lecture and discussion. My takeaway is that globalisation is a modern form of utilitarianism in which the rich get richer, more countries (emerging) get an uplift, but fundamentally, there remains a minority of inequality and poverty with an ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Utilitarianism is all about the greater good and the majority benefiting.
This lecture gives me the math and science to support what I always knew but couldn't describe.
Now that we understand what is happening, we can change it. Thank you for this presentation.
There are few select humans who are genuinely struggling to make human living as humans. We humans have indeed lived on hope . Many many prayers and blessings for these genuine humans to multiply and make lives lovely. Love and peace to all.
Reduced inequality in emerging economies does not always translate to a rise added value manufacturing. In many cases they simply are first tear skills, interventions that do not build nations future prospects, keeps them rooted traditional products assemble or extractions jobs.
Thanks sir
Very interesting theme, but it would have helped if the camera would have shown the slides, not the speaker.
Mass production means mass money pouring into the minority of rich people. Th globalization helps them gaining most of resources among their communities.
Because role players are the global power
It's called 'Capitalism'.
Or, more accurately, 'Theft then Usury'.
Hence our plan.
starts at 14:20
Thank you - the intro was excruciatingly boring
I cannot speak as to whether this man knows his stuff, but after 35 minutes, I have decided to come back to this when I have insomnia.
It may be rude, but I cannot take another minute.
The title istelf should have been a tell sign. The assumption that globalization was meant to reduce inequalities is so ridiculous that they had to bring a nobel laureate to give such a pointless lecture some weight
@@AlainPaulikevitchSeems fair.
What’s the point? Don’t we know that unequal skill causes inequality? Capitalists never pledge to address this issue. They enjoy the comparative advantage at the expense of social inequality.
Education alone is insufficient to address the issue because labor demand change rapidly. Consider China's education system, which has achieved significant advancements, yet the Gini coefficient has also risen. The point is, in order to reduce inequality, the state must actively participate in the realization of the concept of Common Prosperity.
Isn't equality the wrong goal.
In a nation where the middle class rises and the lower classes get wealthier,
I woud not care about the super rich. To hate inequality is taught by marxists.
Envie may not be the best way to reform an economy.
@@thomasbentele2468 You are correct. Another issue is that humans do not develop equality. Humans as a species aren't equal in skill, talent, desire, grit or creativity, and gravitate twords different interests and career goals. It is impossible not to have inequities among people. People can also increase their economic situation through education and hard work. The government or United Nations can spend all day readjusting resources and shares and never achieve equal outcomes. I resent the United Nations and its goal for global equity aka socialism. It's policies and ideologies are destructive and demoralizingnto hard working people who were forced to function in a system they did not create. Much like the USSR under Stalin, the United Nations goal is global socialism, neo-communism.
@@CJ-gv6bq Yes, therefore we see mostly socialist or communist politicians in the UN,
assisted from malthusian/eugenic misanthropes,
renamed as philanthropes by there own newspapers.
Without COMMON PROSPERITY, the billionaires could park their wealth and their CORPSE inside monuments erected on Mars.
Problem of inequity is problem of heart. Equity goes where the heart goes.
To pay families to send their children to school makes sense, provided what they will study will enhance their farming or whatever services are needed in the village.
Very very thanks!.
in the past innovation took years to reach the market in any size....so IP periods were understandably long...that is not longer the case. These old rules governing IP including ideas like secondary patents only get in the way of national and global innovation.
Excellent lecture 🙏
Can the transcript of the lecture (along with slides) be made available - except the auto-generated one on RUclips? Thank you.
Sir, why are auto-generated ones not ok?
@@SRINATHKADIAM-o6f
Thank you. There are several mistakes in auto-generated transcripts because of voice modulation in a talk. Also, the slides are important reference not only for the subject matter of the talk but also for correct interpretation. Is it possible to mail the transcript with slides? I am aware that this involves so much unproductive work. If the subject matter was not important, I would not make the request.
@@AdenwalaM @AdenwalaM Sorry sir, I am not in a position to do so, I'm just some random person on the Internet.
I just wanted to know why auto-generated transcript isn't good enough.
Thanks for the reply.
You have a nice day.
@@SRINATHKADIAM-o6f
Thank you Mr. Kadam.
How can one accept intellectual and opportunity inequality (the basic premise of A, B, C and D over time) and expect financial equality ? It will be wrong to over-simplify. "Life Finds it's Way".
I submit that getting people out of poverty is more important. And on that level, globalization was a success beyond the wildest dreams. Without wealth creation, many poor starve. Either way, whether world wide equality is increasing or decreasing is an empty statement, it does not represent anything representative
Income equality is very important for societal stability. So it does represent something very meaningful, and minimising it (through natural market or social influence, NOT by forceful government intervention) is of utmost importance to maintain social stability.
I think so too.
This Video Explains does not have Board Explanation by the Noble Laureate.,
Because the real democracy is Common prosperity (Social Democracy) not capitalism (Liberal Democracy).
😂 come on
@@ryanwalters6184 Yeah 😎 New Golden era celebration to Embrace spirit of the Youth finally arrive, welcome to new world era.
Liberal democracy is signified by the lust for domination by a select few. It never was - by, of and for the people. China in 2020 has proved otherwise, the flaws of liberal democracy.
I believe the distinction between High Skilled workers and Low Skilled workers is evident and does not require definition
Ridiculous
@@bucketiii7581Jiu jitsu
Inequality of opportunity? Or inequality of outcome?
In some sense, the former grotesquely begets the latter... In a system of perverse incentives, Complexity, and improperly priced/valued inputs, as well as negative externalities... The massive distortions are just plain NOT 🚫 so very surprising 😮 😑 🙄😒😞
what comes out clearly is that the process of globalisation is not determistic in reducing income inequality
Bur even if the role of Government is certainly recognised only skills upgrade may not solve the problem though that will be a step forward
I think they r going perfectly accordingly to their plan
@24:00 he is wrong... computer software still needs plenty of other staff: someone filling and maintaining coffee machine, cleaner for office floor, cooks in lunch restaurant, working delivery services for equipment orders, parking spaces so engineers get to work and so on. I get where he is coming from but politicians forget these details and things dont function properly.
You'd be surprised what kind of simple dumb problems(in practical sense) modern bigger cities can have.
you havent watched the entire discussion...he later on said that it was the common idea which did not happen in reality
It didn’t “fail” because it was never its purpose.
I failed to go through male puberty. But of course. Because I’m a woman.
😂😂😂😂😂
Countries especially in emerging areas spend more on the army rather than on educating their citizens because their “seat” is more important than their citizens welfare!!
👌👌👌
most of the young people in lots of these so called "emerging" markets, are nowadays highley educated, STILL nothing happens!
They give awards to anyone these days 😮
Do they now? Clown.
Because Discrimination is every where .
Ask the American Oligarchs.
educating was the idea starting in the 90’s a false promise but it never happened, it’s a bit late now
let's talk about equity instead of equality, please. And it is not about wage disparities between genders. It is about getting the wealth necessary to lead a peaceful and content life. Not everyone needs a million dollars to reach such goal. Not everyone wishes to go to university, to have children, to own a house, etc. Some lifestyles may seem to agree with one's definition of poverty while the people leading such a lifestyle, do not see it as poor. Universalism is a real plague in our modern world.
You could make inequality all inclusive, that is a fair equality equity sustainable solution, with a possibility of integrative merit based lader, as a step towards self dignity evaluation standard, of universal human rights.
Now that I think about, it is not a joke.
That is the true Fermat's last theorems.
Socialism would reduce inequality: it is misery, equally distributed.
How about SOCIALISM with COMPASSION? No two fingers are the same. What if we all had ten THUMBS?
Has poverty decreased? Why not focus on that?
University graduate economist are too narrow in their models and principles. They are neither true computational finance theorist nor true political economist. They don't see the riches of the few. Anything against will fire them from academic position.
Nice winner of the bankers price.
Nothing about the origin of money,
nothing about stock exchange speculators,
nothing about credit creation,
nothing about credit guidance,
nothing about the international financial institutions and rules,
nothing about the techniques of neocolonialism.....
The Bankers will be satisfied.
I had to listen to this at 1.5x speed
Skip ahead to 14:30 to actually hear his talk.
Really nothing new here…
This un university is just for show if this is the quality of their usual talks.
Where are the students of this "university"?
Take Electrical Engineering or Nuclear Engineering; In the United States, in the 2000's these fields would have been terrible fields to go into for the fact that there were no jobs.... You mention workers who are high skilled without even mentioning the fact that high skilled workers who are not in Computer Science, can't find jobs because of the offshoring off production..... This was mainly due to globalization and blows up your argument. You mention software without mentioning any other science.
In fact, the fields to go into at that time were not the sciences at all, but would have been Finance or Law, or healthcare. Those were the growing fields....Not the sciences, not high skilled "workers".
Prosperity has gone up! That is all that matters. Inequality is envy, it is not important for a rational person who can see that the rich getting richer at a faster pace does not matter when a regular guy is now living like kings used to! Not a zero sum game! Governments should not try and "fix" a non-problem.
Will you still do so after this mess you have been witnessing. If you do, then we can put globalization process on hold. Maybe even forever
In the last 60 years that I have been alive the number of people living in absolute poverty has been reduce by four fifths, the number of wars by 90% and this is because of the rise of Capitalism, International trade, international finance and as a consequence more people live in freedom and dignity than at any time; only Africa stubbornly holds out. Don't take my word for it, this can be checked out by UN statistics.The lecturer is wrong.
It could be that it's not "because of the rise of capitalism" but in spite of it!
@@ignacioduran5993 Global warming and rising CO2 levels always lead to the wealthiest economies.
Incorrect?
What about the great thing, that only in capitalism, better CREDITISM, people can get richer,
without any other who has to get poorer. All other historian systems only allowed to get rich,
by robbing other ones.
(Semblance of exception when for example gold was injected into the economy, but that was in reality money expansion.)
Credit creation and credit guidance into the productive economy creates sustainable wealth (no boom-bust, no recession, no depression),
without stealing or beggar thy neighbour.
History and even contemporary history proofs it,
but the money masters dont like it, so it only rarely unfolds completely.
When human beings have gone far, very far, and deeply far in greed, madness, and wickedness to name a slaves ship,'Jesus', a jungle human, has shaped. The other is then a prey.
Why it failed? It was never intended. Cut bullshit
ahhh, economic sciences. these guys are useless.
nobody will ever talk about the basic underlying structures.
people created religion which formed societes which became nation states which accumulate capital which is transforming humanity, via science and technology, for a few thousand years now.
all of the steps are connected, with decreasing influence over distance.
each step transformed an idea into a more useful concept, despise that all these entities want to impose on to others, which leads to most problems.
so if we cut out the intermediate steps, what is left?
people using capital to build utopia, thats right!
star trek, in a nutshell.
This was a useless, boring, banal lecture. And yes: globalisation has done nothing to alleviate poverty, inequality or economic disparity.
That is not what he said. He said it increased prosperity, and it clearly has! Envious people are jealous that the rich are getting richer. Sucks to be envious. Enjoy your cheap iphone and try and learn from the rich instead of hating them!
Must be his fist day. Lol
The old lizards residents of Venezia Rotterdam City of London New York all build over swamps have many wonderful qualities however sharing is unknown concept to the poor creatures. Only Mao's reeducational camps claims to have the know how but remains to be seen if it's working.
Bottomless pit
Because it empowers the rich to exploit lower income people. Duh. Saved you a long boring video.
Low quality talking head
I am pretty sure you did not listen to the whole discussion that is why you got disinterested...secondly you seem to have some negative judgement towards him, you have to acknowledge that he gave this talk in japan, some people could have found difficulty to understand his words if he would have talked faster.
This is what i call a load of bullshit....