Disclaimer: This video is a very simplified version of every economist’s views and ideas. I would recommend reading more about them if you’re interested. Also this video should be titled “Five of the most influential WESTERN economists” as it centres around Western thought.
Adam Smith is really the economist that everyone quotes but nobody reads. His overall view of the economy is fairly liberal, but he did not actually advocate for complete laissez-faire. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith, "father of capitalism" .
The only thing people are denying is trying to tax the rich obscenely. Because of two reasons: 1. They *already* pay the most on taxes, contributing far far more than your average person. This is just and fair, because they can afford it. 2. If you tax them or their property too much they will just leave. Leaving the higher taxes at the foot of everyone else's bill. Generally though I think your comment shows in a good way that using spectrums or trying to place names on people's ideas really doesn't do much other than detract from the *whole* of there ideas.
@@orion5055 1. Of course they pay the most taxes, they have the most money. People want them to pay even more than what they make proportionally because they need a smaller proportion of their wealth to be comfortable. That extra money spent on taxing them can be used much better on a larger group of people. I won't even touch on that last sentence, it's just silly. 2. Just don't let them take "their" money (Wealthy people generally have their wealth in assets which can not be freely liquidated, such as stocks and real estate). Wealth isn't tied to a rich person, nor is the person themselves all that important, you can replace them with some relative ease.
@@James-jh3sz RICH SHOULD PAY EXACTLY SAME AMOUNT AS OTHERS PAY IF WE ARE GETTING SAME SERVICES WE SHOULD ALL PAY SAME! OHHHH IT CAN BE USED BETTER FOR LARGER GROUPS WHY TF SHOULD I BE FORCED TO CARE FOR OTHER PPL IF U ASK THEM THEY WONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME SO IDC AND YES ITS THEIR MONEY U DIRTBAG
@@meowtherainbowx4163 as you should. Honestly nobody should own land and just rent it from government or some other collectively owning entity. Land taxes can generate far more revenue than income taxes.
You're ignoring that Adam Smith strongly argued for gov't regulation to maintain the freedom of the market. Saying that the gov't needed to break up monopolies and landlords.
Yeah, most people now don't understand that Smith's capitalist ideals and America's economic policy is EXTREMELY protectionist. For the better I'd say, but there's always a line in keeping it a free-market vs a state-controlled one.
I honestly feel like the bare minimum research was put into this video, it's short yes, but I could find the same info with a Google search and the same bias that paints Adam Smith as a lover of lasiefair capitalism and neoliberalism.
I find it very humanizing that for all the lofty complexity of these grand economic theorems they all started as just men seeing worst of their homelands and thinking "there HAS to be something better". Good bit sized vid, hoser.
I mean that's also pretty much the history of academia overall, albeit this more along the lines of philosophy and political science. Stuff like engineering is more like "there has to be a way to do this better."
@@101jir the difference between engineering is that it’s absolute. If you do your calculations right and didn’t fail your physics and engineering classes (big if), you will get a certain result. It’s rooted in actual hard science. Economics isn’t science because none of the theories have any sort of universal application. It’s too subjective and no one can agree on anything and it’s always been that way. We just don’t know what the hell we are doing.
Side note: at 0:47 the GDP is mentioned in context of Adam Smiths theory. But actually, the GDP as a mearsurement for a national economy wasn't developed until the 1940s.
1934 to be precise, with the work of Simon Kuznet. But there were other, relatively similar indicators before. Also, the way we calculate GDP today is significatively different from the way we did it in the 1930s.
Adam Smith described a concept which we today label GDP. He did not name it as such, in fact I don't recall him giving it a name aside from "the sum total of all the productive labours of a nation" or similar, but it was the same concept.
He used Smith has a medium for his theoretical socialism, one we can argue most of those analysis about Smith were incorrect. He used to disarticulate and criticize free market theory
Adam Smith did actually favor interventions to break up non-producing rent-seekers like landlords and monopolists. This aspect of his advice is consistently ignored by people who are really fans of Friedman or Austrian Economics
@@TheStrangeBloke He was also against joint stock companies. No one ever listens to that. The stock market does create a kind of de facto oligarchy of the rich, given enough time.
@Heisenberg Easy to say with the hindsight you're afforded while sitting behind a screen. Not even the most prominent economists can say for sure what would've happened otherwise, so don't crack wise as if you do.
Important to say with smith is that he also believed that consumers should have an good education so they would make the most sensibel decisions for a happy life
@@Dd-fr6vc absolutely, but since children don’t vote the voting age population have to keep that in mind, and for the voters to do that, what do they have to be?
@@shrekeyes2410 Economics was possibly the most influential class I took yet bruh. I was ass with it, but it was still really interesting. Ima be honest, its probably PURPOSEFULL why Economics is somehow not mandatory, while schools put money towards stupid shit. Me and a buddy of mine started an investing club awhile back. Economics and shit is actually really popular with kids too. It was literally a trend awhile back to open up a robinhood account and gamble your shit away. Thats literally what keynes did but on a more deterministic sense with his ideas too. Also parents complained about economics not being taught, so the school instead decided to teach kids about fucking "making a budget" or "loaning to a bank" instead of actually teaching us how the economy works. Bro I swear if the deepstate actually does exist, their probably the reason why macroeconomics isn't mandatory.
Yeah maybe modern economist, but I read a 1000 page book about the entire history of economics. THAT I DON'T FUCKING REMEMBER 90 PERCENT OF BECAUSE IT IS SO BORING. But yeah there were economists even before the death of jaysus
For instance, Keynes advocates for a budget surplus, lower spending, during positive output gaps but I never see any politicians who do so making their “scientific” fiscal policies.
1:14 Ay to say that Marx disliked Smith is complete bullshit. Marx’s ideas are a reaction to the developing capitalism of the 1800’s, but the actual economics Marx employs in Das Kapital are completely classical (IE, built on the work of Smith ). Marx paid lots of credit to Smith in his writing for essentially formalizing the study of economic relations. Keep in mind, Marx understood socialism to be the system which resolves the existential contradictions innate to the structure of capitalism. Marx even repeatedly remarks on the capacity of capitalism to rapidly develop and radically change huge swathes of literal continents - his issue was that the system is built to fail and its built on the back of a captive working class.
@@shrekeyes2410 People are retarded and take the Manifesto as Marx’s end-all-be-all. Its really supposed to be a primer for the rest of his work, but that’s lost on 90% of classes and most history teachers in the west.
As a student of economics, it is wrong to say Marx hated Smith. One who has read Wealth of Nations and Das Capital will know that they have a lot more in common that people think
Hayek never said State Welfare would lead to Totalitarianism. Infact he was in favor of some State Welfare. The Road to Serfdom is Simply about that Central Planning leads to Totalitarianism and without Private property you cannot have Political Freedom
People debate his stance on welfare because, like most people, he changed his mind a lot. But because he is mostly cited by libertarians, his legacy has become "state welfare leads to totalitarianism" Which is a shame
Agree, but Hayek was against the welfare in a traditional way, more prefering decentralised welfare like Germany, Austria or Canada have, and he was also against government subsidies to welfare saying that it would be more effecrtive for welfare to compete on a rules of market, than as a legal monopoly
@@chbert1373 this has always been my argument for UBI over current welfare systems - instead of the govt making all these rules about what you can/cant buy, and therefore spending even more money to police that, why not just give the money directly to the people and let them decide for themselves what they need? its basically "free market welfare" lol think of someone below the poverty line who owns a small, cheap house - they can probably afford food/water/electricity, but may not be able to afford major repairs necessary to keep their home in working order. current welfare systems dont help this person, but UBI would, and would be easier/cheaper for the govt
Think yuo've done Adam Smith a lil dirty there - his ideas were massive because before him people believed in mercantlism (i.e every trade has a winner and a loser and that there is only so much wealth in the world which you need to compete for) whereas Smith understood that trade can, and does, add value on both sides of the trade
Hayek and Friedman was walking down the road when they both see a pile of manure. Hayek said: "I am going to give you $1000 to eat some of them." Friedman agreed. Friedman then said: "Now I am going to give you $1000 to eat some of them." Hayek agreed. After that, Hayek asks: "Did nothing change at all?" Friedman said: "No, the GDP has increased by $2000."
Friedman's claim is wrong. The GDP did not increase. Hayek is also wrong, because something did change: Their dental health went down the fucking toilet by eating manure. Two of the worst economists to ever exist on this Earth.
Two Corrections: GDP, a specific unit of measurement, did not exist when Adam Smith was alive. It's a more recent invention. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed that value came from the labor put into it. They came to different conclusions about this, of course.
Marx was not the first economist to argue that value can be objectively quantified by the amount of labor used to produce it. Ricardo and even Smith have argued for forms of the labor theory of value. Marx's contribution to the theory was to refine the source of value to be socially averaged necessary labor time.
and hence non observable labor time since it becomes abstracted in the act of exchange! cant expect much from these vdieos, but everything he said ab marx was wrong...
You got something a bit wrong, or inaccurate, in your video, Adam Smith also used the Labor Theory of Value, not just Marx. They were in agreement on quite a lot, as basically all classical economists were.
Marx did not believe value could be objectively calculated based on the labour time, that's something you find in Smith's philosophy. Estimating the value of labour based on objective notions of labour-time to social use was according to Marx part of the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism. The real value the workers should reclaim is mainly use-value, the access to the bare natural materials and the freedom to shape them and use them as needed.
@@pridefulobserver3807 Yeah, if I'm not mistaken that's why automation/industrialization is an integral part of marxism, to free people from labour as an objective and exchangeable value
The video mentioned Smith as "the first modern man to really think of how to run an economy", though that status probably belongs to Anders Chydenius. His book, 'The National Gain', expressed and discussed views on economics very similar to the views Smith would independently develop, with 'The National Gain' predating 'The Wealth of Nations' by 11 years. Though aside from having his face plastered onto a Finnish banknote, Chydenius is largely forgotten and overlooked. Also, important to note is that the way the term 'The Invisible Hand' is currently used is a result of later economists changing and broadening the term to mean what it currently does. Smith was the first one to use the phrase, in both 'The Wealth of Nations' and his earlier work, 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments', though what he meant by The Invisible hand was actually far more constrained than what modern economists seem to suggest.
And then there is Xenophon who wrote about the benefits of trade and specialization as a sidenote to his military a philosophic text. He was a pupil of Socrates.
@@crocodilepoet try reading Adam smith thoughts on value, Ricardo’s too, Marx etc. I’m at my second year so I don’t know much to suggest you, I know there’s a lot of good stuff coming in these next years. I will come back here eventually with more interesting stuff, but for now, try reading the classics. A good book is The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi, and Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
@@raylo996 my dude, I’m being taught everything, I’m at a state university at São Paulo, the biggest state at Brazil, so I’m fine, thanks for asking? And it’s very naive of you to think state approved stuff are Keynesian stuff lol 😂, in Yugoslavia? Maybe. But in the United States? Come on, be honest
I think Keynes was kinda hype ngl, probably has the most badass quote. Your channel literally got me into economics and I'm writing exams next week, thank you for being an inspiration
The problem with all of them expept marx and adam is that they didn't account for big multinational companies. These monopoly or ogypogoly make that the companies can just destroy all competition and set prices to anything
Adam Smith defended the labor theory of value, I don't understand why everytime people who don't know about economics reference Adam Smith it's to mention that "invisible hand of the market" bullshit. He did a lot more than this.
Adam Smith was the first to describe free market capitalism. People who haven’t actually read him think that that means he uncritically supported it even though anyone who has actually read Wealth of Nations would know that isn’t the case.
He DID NOT speak about the invisible hand of market. STOP SPREADING THE LIE. He did speak about an invisible hand 3 times, each in a different book, but to refer to... God ! Smith also criticised markets and the division of labor as potential threats to our humanity... and freedom
This is really good for a crash course! Please do Ricardo, Malthus, Schumpeter, & Mill next. If you want a hero-like figure (subjective ofc), try Paul Volcker and his campaign against high inflation in the 70s.
@RIMON DAS dude he is the most prominent in our current day and age, and he's arguable the smartest aswell. Being honest, I have not heard of a single person the comment listed
4:45 The bottom picture with the red arrow is not Friedman - it is Alan Greenspan. Not sure if you are pointing at Greenspan to emphasize the Federal Reserve, but the other arrows were all pointing at Milton Friedman, so I assumed that you intended to do the same with the third. :)
Halfway in and this is already extremely cringe. Adam Smith used the metaphor of an "invisible hand" once and his theory of how economies function was accepted by Marx. Smith also explicitly laid out the "labour theory of value". Marx really agreed with Smith about almost everything.
I love that this video included a little bit about their backgrounds and the conditions in which their ideas developed. Like, if you grew up during hyperinflation you'd arrive at different conclusions than if you grew up during the great depression.
i hope you realize that adam smith actually came up with the labor theory of value. also you get the distinction between value and price mixed up for Marx who thought that labor value was a sort of baseline for market price alongside use value
For the next part you have to add Ludwig Erhard and his impact on Europe with his concept of social market economy which still dominates European economics and started the post war "Wirtschaftswunder".
Was it not David Ricardo that would present the specialization of trade and nations for comparative advantage and not smith? Smith from what i recall would still believe in Absolute advantage for trade.
Pretty good summary of their ideas. Great as an introduction. Bad as a means of engaging in economic theory. There’s so much more to talk about regarding each economic theory’s outcome and the nuance that comes with it. Overall though, for what the video was supposed to be its pretty good 👍
A little known fact is that most of Keynesian theories are inspired by the measures taken by the Japanese central bank to fight off the great depression.
Wow! Really good quick explanation. I teach intro to economics at a high school and will definitely be incorporating this into my curriculum next year! Good stuff!
Please do not. His representation of Smith and Marx here is abysmal. Marx is particularly more egregious here, the only thing represented semi-correctly is “Capitalist profits are based on theft,” which is describing it at a mile’s distance; it’s like speaking of calculus as “Using numbers and letters for math.” It’s vague and unusable
so both the replies here were urging you not to, and, honestly...maybe don't use it as a genuine representation of information? BUT it might be helpful to get the students wanting for actual knowledge behind the figures
Sometimes I think that maybe I can understand economics a little and then I think about it for like 30 seconds and remember why I don't know anything about economics
Interesting , a number of the most eminent market experts have been expressing their views on the severity of the impending economic downturn and the extent to which equities might plummet. This is because the economy is heading towards a recession and inflation is persistently above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. As I'm aiming to create a portfolio worth no less than $850,000 before I turn 60, I would appreciate any advice on potential investments.
I've been in touch with a financial advisor ever since I started my business. Knowing today's culture The challenge is knowing when to purchase or sell when investing in trending stocks, which is pretty simple. On my portfolio, which has grown over $900k in a little over a year, my adviser chooses entry and exit orders.
My advisor is SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market
David Ricardo is more influential than Hayek. He is the reason we have international trade. He put forth the idea of comparative advantages, where even if i am objectively worse at producing something, because if i am relatively better we can still trade.
Your government uses Keynesian policy, I can guarantee it. Especially after a recession, Keynesian policy is the go to of every government. To call him authoritarian is silly.
@@B4CKWARDS_CH4RM Keynes is authoritarian. And he completely messed up peoples perceptions of why recessions happen. I'm not going to explain, but the one economist they left off the list was Ludwig Von Mises. I'd recommend you look him up.
He studied what was then called “political economy” which is basically political science, economics, and philosophy all mixed together. It wasn’t until the 1900s (especially after WWII) that people had a distinction between these studies at all. So yes you could say Marx was an economist, but also a philosopher, sociologist, and political scientist.
Henry George was significantly more popular in his time than Marx. He divided the economy into labor, capitalists, and *land owners*. You can see land owners were more influential than capitalists given how successfully George’s idea were snuffed out compared to Marx.
No, more people are landowners, so they didn't like a theory that went against them. Marx went against the Jews and the rich, and people couldn't have cared less about them.
@@patrickbateman1660 i believe the point is that if the system were different, capitalists wouldnt be land owners (to the same extent) which would be better
Your stuff is usually good but this is an awfully researched video. The entire thing about the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith is a myth that started out of Samuelson's textbook in the 40s which he later tried to correct, to no avail. Smith uses the metaphor only once in the entire book and for a completely different reason, it's really of almost no significance if you read the book itself. Furthermore, Marx and Smith did not disagree regarding the value of commodities either, they BOTH upheld the labour theory of value, in fact every major economist until the 20th century did so. Furthermore, Marx's analysis of capitalism doesn't start from class struggle, you did a terrible job of distinguishing Marx's critique of capitalism from his political principles. Class struggle and crisis theory ARE discovered in his critique of political economy, as they are in both Smith and Ricardo, but they are discovered in the process of the critique, they ARE NOT starting points. You seem to have gone from popular conceptions rather than actually researching these thinkers.
LTV was the standard until the 19th century actually, it was mainly left aside after the marginalist revolution and Alfred Marshall's books became the standard in the first economics schools
What we call learn from this is that economist absolutism is a thing to aware of, this economic theories were based on the environment these people lived in, so their theories are based on how to fight the economic difficulties that their countries were facing at the time, so each of their theories can be used in different places at different times and the idea that one is absolutely good or absolutely bad is something that all interested in economics should ditch before even beginning to study the subject
The idea that all economic systems are equally true is laughable false, regardless of where on the political and economic spectrum one finds themselves. The theories contradict each other at their core, therefore, they are incompatible.
Marxism is the only theory which made sense in a deeply hierarchical Western world back then, and makes sense in the Global South exploited by Global North MNCs now
I think part of the problem here is that different people have really different ideas what they mean when they say "value." I can think of several completely different definitions here. 1. Marginal time spent making it. 2. Average time spent making it including amortizing capital goods. 3. Average time spent making it including amortizing capital goods and human capital. 4. Monetary cost to a co-op with no wage floor and inherited capital. I.E. the raw cost to buy the inputs of production. 5. Monetary costs incurred by a slave-owner after amortizing the cost of slaves and capital goods. 6. Monetary costs incurred by a for-profit businesses with wage labor amortizing the cost of training and capital goods. 8. Maximum Prosumption price. The maximum price at which it is more economically favorable for the producer to use a newly produced item themselves than sell it on the market. 9. Minimum viable market price. The lowest price at which it would be economically rational for the seller to sell instead of either using the good for themselves or not producing it at all, irrespective of market conditions or equilibrium price. Below this price, commodity production will not occur much if at all. 10. Monopsony price. The price when an all powerful consumer's union dictates the price. Maximizes the absolute benefit to consumers. 11. "true" Equilibrium price. What would the chil- I mean good, sell for on the open market to an end user? Largely assumes that buyers and sellers don't negotiate on price and that price discrimination policies don't exist or are circumvented effortlessly, also assumes that speculation does not occur. Note this means it is not accurate to real market conditions. This is the price that causes the largest absolute economic value added from the sale of this good on the market in aggregate, though not necessarily the most efficient gain of value when there are many different goods on a market competing for production resources. 11. Mean market price. Dollars paid over goods sold. The actual price on a market under real conditions, with haggling, senior discounts, and rampant speculative purchasing. Anything from an honest reflection of the equilibrium price for better or worse, to pure chaos and madness. 12. Maximum level playing field monopoly price. The maximum price that a cartel or monopoly can charge while keeping barriers to entry high enough that nobody can actually compete with THAT price. 13. Monopoly price. The price a monopoly that doesn't worry about competition because it has anticompetitive practices or exclusive rights or state backing or death squads or controls every viable source of an important resource would charge. Maximizes industry-wide profit at the expense of consumers. 14. Maximum viable price. The maximum price someone could actually buy something at while feeling like they have gained enough from the transaction to justify the effort of making it. 15. Use value. The actual utility someone attributes to their possession of a good.
Adam Smith most certainly did not say that we could trade with each other and increase Gross Domestic Product circa 1776. GDP was developed by Simon Kusnets in 1934.
So, genuine question. Is private ownership a necessity for individual freedom? And if so, while also assuming individual freedom is the most important good. Does that make Marxist-socialism inherently as evil as feudalism? I have heard convincing arguments for why it’s inherently imperialistic but I am curious as to what y’all think.
In an ideal communist state you are technically free to do whatever you like and have full freedom in all senses of the word only if you don't consider the freedom of using/continue using the land, wealth, property and other socio-economic privileges steeped in just plain tradition you might have the right to legally inherit or the opportunity to exploit from your bourgeois family as a commercial enterprise as a violation of individual freedoms. However, in many communist states this hasn't been the case even where it was as simple as criticism of the state because of an irrational paranoia that the global bourgeoisie can use any evidence of civil dissatisfaction as a legal justification to fund the Western politicians for feigning off all strokes of communism from its own territories and to suffocate the infant communist regimes via trade blockades, tariffs etc etc
Pretty sure that by the end of his life, Hayek favoured having social safety programmes be run privately. I mean the man thought it would be a good idea to have banks print their own currencies and compete with each other for monetary dominance of the economy. The guy was clearly a bit mad
@@Jokkkkke I'm sure he favored private pensions, but I don't think he ever went back on his positions. However, he didn't do a lot to correct misrepresentations of them by his politician patrons, either.
![Moneybagg Yo - WHISKEY WHISKEY [feat. Morgan Wallen] (Official Audio)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kJamyq0WplE/mqdefault.jpg)
Disclaimer: This video is a very simplified version of every economist’s views and ideas. I would recommend reading more about them if you’re interested.
Also this video should be titled “Five of the most influential WESTERN economists” as it centres around Western thought.
Lovely video t'ho yes a bit too compressed. Gotta hit the 10 minute mark to hit the monetization sweet spot.
Glad you clarified that. I wasted an entire semester in History of Economics.
Next video should be a longer video (15-20 min) about less influential but still relevant economists such as the Freiburg school boys
hoser i love you and your existence
As a current Econ student I'd say it's a good intro to economists, works well as a quick info dump and refresher.
Adam Smith is really the economist that everyone quotes but nobody reads. His overall view of the economy is fairly liberal, but he did not actually advocate for complete laissez-faire.
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith, "father of capitalism" .
He also hated landlords
The only thing people are denying is trying to tax the rich obscenely. Because of two reasons:
1. They *already* pay the most on taxes, contributing far far more than your average person. This is just and fair, because they can afford it.
2. If you tax them or their property too much they will just leave. Leaving the higher taxes at the foot of everyone else's bill.
Generally though I think your comment shows in a good way that using spectrums or trying to place names on people's ideas really doesn't do much other than detract from the *whole* of there ideas.
@@orion5055
1. Of course they pay the most taxes, they have the most money. People want them to pay even more than what they make proportionally because they need a smaller proportion of their wealth to be comfortable. That extra money spent on taxing them can be used much better on a larger group of people. I won't even touch on that last sentence, it's just silly.
2. Just don't let them take "their" money (Wealthy people generally have their wealth in assets which can not be freely liquidated, such as stocks and real estate). Wealth isn't tied to a rich person, nor is the person themselves all that important, you can replace them with some relative ease.
@@James-jh3sz RICH SHOULD PAY EXACTLY SAME AMOUNT AS OTHERS PAY IF WE ARE GETTING SAME SERVICES WE SHOULD ALL PAY SAME! OHHHH IT CAN BE USED BETTER FOR LARGER GROUPS WHY TF SHOULD I BE FORCED TO CARE FOR OTHER PPL IF U ASK THEM THEY WONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME SO IDC AND YES ITS THEIR MONEY U DIRTBAG
@@meowtherainbowx4163 as you should. Honestly nobody should own land and just rent it from government or some other collectively owning entity. Land taxes can generate far more revenue than income taxes.
“A bad economy and weak governments meant that the people are a little unhappy.”
And bad economy and strong governments?
@@user-xi5ej4ox5s the people are forced to look happy
@@user-xi5ej4ox5s But good economy and strong government 😎
@@niclas3672 happiness
@@niclas3672 What about a good economy and a weak government?
You're ignoring that Adam Smith strongly argued for gov't regulation to maintain the freedom of the market. Saying that the gov't needed to break up monopolies and landlords.
glad someone mentioned it
Adam Smith overlooked now because The capitalist Rentiers can't handle his ideas
Yep, it is often forgotten that this was to be free market with checks and balances :)
Yeah, most people now don't understand that Smith's capitalist ideals and America's economic policy is EXTREMELY protectionist. For the better I'd say, but there's always a line in keeping it a free-market vs a state-controlled one.
I honestly feel like the bare minimum research was put into this video, it's short yes, but I could find the same info with a Google search and the same bias that paints Adam Smith as a lover of lasiefair capitalism and neoliberalism.
I find it very humanizing that for all the lofty complexity of these grand economic theorems they all started as just men seeing worst of their homelands and thinking "there HAS to be something better".
Good bit sized vid, hoser.
I mean that's also pretty much the history of academia overall, albeit this more along the lines of philosophy and political science. Stuff like engineering is more like "there has to be a way to do this better."
that can apply to a whole lot of historical events which is simply beautiful
@@j.37 human ingenuity at work :D
@@101jir the difference between engineering is that it’s absolute. If you do your calculations right and didn’t fail your physics and engineering classes (big if), you will get a certain result. It’s rooted in actual hard science. Economics isn’t science because none of the theories have any sort of universal application. It’s too subjective and no one can agree on anything and it’s always been that way. We just don’t know what the hell we are doing.
@@willyorgy4677 I never said it was, but both are rooted in the pursuit of human improvement.
Side note: at 0:47 the GDP is mentioned in context of Adam Smiths theory. But actually, the GDP as a mearsurement for a national economy wasn't developed until the 1940s.
1934 to be precise, with the work of Simon Kuznet. But there were other, relatively similar indicators before. Also, the way we calculate GDP today is significatively different from the way we did it in the 1930s.
Adam Smith described a concept which we today label GDP. He did not name it as such, in fact I don't recall him giving it a name aside from "the sum total of all the productive labours of a nation" or similar, but it was the same concept.
Y’know, Marx actually cites Smith a HELL of a lot in Kapital. They weren’t fundamentally opposed
He used Smith has a medium for his theoretical socialism, one we can argue most of those analysis about Smith were incorrect. He used to disarticulate and criticize free market theory
Yeah. The "labour theory of value" is not a socialist thing and not from Marx, it's laid out explicitly in The Wealth of Nations.
"first modern man to really think of how to run an economy and he told us not to run it at all" immaculate advice seeing the current state of economy
Hello Heisenberg 🗿🤝
Adam Smith did actually favor interventions to break up non-producing rent-seekers like landlords and monopolists. This aspect of his advice is consistently ignored by people who are really fans of Friedman or Austrian Economics
@@TheStrangeBloke He was also against joint stock companies. No one ever listens to that. The stock market does create a kind of de facto oligarchy of the rich, given enough time.
@@Merle1987 I'd take Adam Smith as an economist over whoever we currently have 💀
@Heisenberg Easy to say with the hindsight you're afforded while sitting behind a screen. Not even the most prominent economists can say for sure what would've happened otherwise, so don't crack wise as if you do.
Important to say with smith is that he also believed that consumers should have an good education so they would make the most sensibel decisions for a happy life
This is a given, its sad to see how little economy and politics looks at elementary education
@@shrekeyes2410sounds too expensive isn’t it bruv
@@thehumanian634 its the basis of our modern society so maybe we should see it as an necessary cost that should not be cut cost on
@@Dd-fr6vc absolutely, but since children don’t vote the voting age population have to keep that in mind, and for the voters to do that, what do they have to be?
@@shrekeyes2410 Economics was possibly the most influential class I took yet bruh. I was ass with it, but it was still really interesting.
Ima be honest, its probably PURPOSEFULL why Economics is somehow not mandatory, while schools put money towards stupid shit.
Me and a buddy of mine started an investing club awhile back. Economics and shit is actually really popular with kids too.
It was literally a trend awhile back to open up a robinhood account and gamble your shit away.
Thats literally what keynes did but on a more deterministic sense with his ideas too.
Also parents complained about economics not being taught, so the school instead decided to teach kids about fucking "making a budget" or "loaning to a bank" instead of actually teaching us how the economy works.
Bro I swear if the deepstate actually does exist, their probably the reason why macroeconomics isn't mandatory.
Gotta love how it took humanity over 3000 years to develop the first real economic theory, and it was “eh, let it be”
Nah, Ibn Khaldun did it first in the 1200s. He came up with the famous pin factory example about division of labor.
Nah, the ancients had them first. Inflation by giving out coins with less value is not new.
Yeah maybe modern economist, but I read a 1000 page book about the entire history of economics. THAT I DON'T FUCKING REMEMBER 90 PERCENT OF BECAUSE IT IS SO BORING. But yeah there were economists even before the death of jaysus
That's how you got Great Depression
Socorro
i love the part where he said "Its Stimulatin' time!" and stimulated all over the place
I love simulations, especially ones that are giving to poor and needed, not already rich.
Fun fact for how influential Keynesian economics has been, economists still debate exactly what he meant in many parts of his General Theory.
For instance, Keynes advocates for a budget surplus, lower spending, during positive output gaps but I never see any politicians who do so making their “scientific” fiscal policies.
Isn't that more or less true for pretty much any influential thinker?
@@thedestoryer21 ya politicians like to do the spending part, but not to stop spending when they should
At the same time he did not know what Say meant.
1:14 Ay to say that Marx disliked Smith is complete bullshit. Marx’s ideas are a reaction to the developing capitalism of the 1800’s, but the actual economics Marx employs in Das Kapital are completely classical (IE, built on the work of Smith ). Marx paid lots of credit to Smith in his writing for essentially formalizing the study of economic relations. Keep in mind, Marx understood socialism to be the system which resolves the existential contradictions innate to the structure of capitalism. Marx even repeatedly remarks on the capacity of capitalism to rapidly develop and radically change huge swathes of literal continents - his issue was that the system is built to fail and its built on the back of a captive working class.
I admire marx , but the communist manifesto was a joke and the interpretations of marxism were terrible.
@@shrekeyes2410 same
@@shrekeyes2410 People are retarded and take the Manifesto as Marx’s end-all-be-all. Its really supposed to be a primer for the rest of his work, but that’s lost on 90% of classes and most history teachers in the west.
@@shrekeyes2410 how's so?
@@shrekeyes2410 you haven't read Marx
As a student of economics, it is wrong to say Marx hated Smith. One who has read Wealth of Nations and Das Capital will know that they have a lot more in common that people think
For that to know, one needs to read his works on the surplus value theory. Mostly people don't even go beyond few pages of the capital.
Hayek never said State Welfare would lead to Totalitarianism. Infact he was in favor of some State Welfare. The Road to Serfdom is Simply about that Central Planning leads to Totalitarianism and without Private property you cannot have Political Freedom
so basically State welfare leads to totalitarianism... you just counterargumented yourself...
People debate his stance on welfare because, like most people, he changed his mind a lot. But because he is mostly cited by libertarians, his legacy has become "state welfare leads to totalitarianism"
Which is a shame
Agree, but Hayek was against the welfare in a traditional way, more prefering decentralised welfare like Germany, Austria or Canada have, and he was also against government subsidies to welfare saying that it would be more effecrtive for welfare to compete on a rules of market, than as a legal monopoly
@@chbert1373 this has always been my argument for UBI over current welfare systems - instead of the govt making all these rules about what you can/cant buy, and therefore spending even more money to police that, why not just give the money directly to the people and let them decide for themselves what they need? its basically "free market welfare" lol
think of someone below the poverty line who owns a small, cheap house - they can probably afford food/water/electricity, but may not be able to afford major repairs necessary to keep their home in working order. current welfare systems dont help this person, but UBI would, and would be easier/cheaper for the govt
@@oliverfern8039 but doesn't it leads? Lmao
Think yuo've done Adam Smith a lil dirty there - his ideas were massive because before him people believed in mercantlism (i.e every trade has a winner and a loser and that there is only so much wealth in the world which you need to compete for) whereas Smith understood that trade can, and does, add value on both sides of the trade
Hayek and Friedman was walking down the road when they both see a pile of manure.
Hayek said: "I am going to give you $1000 to eat some of them." Friedman agreed.
Friedman then said: "Now I am going to give you $1000 to eat some of them." Hayek agreed.
After that, Hayek asks: "Did nothing change at all?"
Friedman said: "No, the GDP has increased by $2000."
AND, there's less manure now
These are the last two economists to say that…
I’d eat manure for free maaaaan
Friedman's claim is wrong. The GDP did not increase. Hayek is also wrong, because something did change: Their dental health went down the fucking toilet by eating manure. Two of the worst economists to ever exist on this Earth.
Karl Marx: but why are we eating manure in the first place??? This is clearly a coercive exploitation of the money incentive!
The whole thing is basically one guy saying to another guy: "NUH UH"
Welcome to social science
Adam Smith actually also believed in labor theory of value which laid the groundwork for Marx.
He didn't "believe" in, he is the author of it.
Two Corrections:
GDP, a specific unit of measurement, did not exist when Adam Smith was alive. It's a more recent invention.
Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed that value came from the labor put into it. They came to different conclusions about this, of course.
my favorite moment was when Kaynes said “It’s stimulatin’ time” and stimulated the economy
Marx was not the first economist to argue that value can be objectively quantified by the amount of labor used to produce it. Ricardo and even Smith have argued for forms of the labor theory of value. Marx's contribution to the theory was to refine the source of value to be socially averaged necessary labor time.
and hence non observable labor time since it becomes abstracted in the act of exchange! cant expect much from these vdieos, but everything he said ab marx was wrong...
You got something a bit wrong, or inaccurate, in your video, Adam Smith also used the Labor Theory of Value, not just Marx. They were in agreement on quite a lot, as basically all classical economists were.
there's an awful lot in this video that is just horseshit
Marx did not believe value could be objectively calculated based on the labour time, that's something you find in Smith's philosophy. Estimating the value of labour based on objective notions of labour-time to social use was according to Marx part of the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism. The real value the workers should reclaim is mainly use-value, the access to the bare natural materials and the freedom to shape them and use them as needed.
labour has no value, the value is in the energy of transforming something into a product, and for that labour is NOT necesary, automations proves it.
People debating what Marx actually said, tale as old as time.
@@Web720 A lot of those people haven't read Marx also (including a lot of marxists), which makes them debate arguments he never held
@@azaraniichan Again, a tale as old as time.
@@pridefulobserver3807 Yeah, if I'm not mistaken that's why automation/industrialization is an integral part of marxism, to free people from labour as an objective and exchangeable value
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.
Porém podem perder a sua comida e seus empregos
We know the ussr failed it was a dictatorship of people
@@zMasterFlashSzpq os brasileiros são tão anti-socialismo?
@@zMasterFlashSz escravo
So basically, capitalism runs on the basis of
"They will buy that Joe"
"Why do you think that?"
"They just will"
and it works
No, only if there is demand. If I am producing useless products, no one will buy them
Yeah, basically. It's essentially a streamlined barter system.
Capitalism is the principle of supply and demand which is how any economy works
Economics is tough no way to simplify really
@@iandavidvillaloboswong5180 you mean which is how any capitalist economy works
The video mentioned Smith as "the first modern man to really think of how to run an economy", though that status probably belongs to Anders Chydenius.
His book, 'The National Gain', expressed and discussed views on economics very similar to the views Smith would independently develop, with 'The National Gain' predating 'The Wealth of Nations' by 11 years. Though aside from having his face plastered onto a Finnish banknote, Chydenius is largely forgotten and overlooked.
Also, important to note is that the way the term 'The Invisible Hand' is currently used is a result of later economists changing and broadening the term to mean what it currently does. Smith was the first one to use the phrase, in both 'The Wealth of Nations' and his earlier work, 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments', though what he meant by The Invisible hand was actually far more constrained than what modern economists seem to suggest.
And then there is Xenophon who wrote about the benefits of trade and specialization as a sidenote to his military a philosophic text. He was a pupil of Socrates.
As an economics student this video hurts immensely 💀
Could you recommend some study material for someone who wants to understand economics but doesn’t have a formal education?
Are you going to public university in USA or Canada? Likely you are being taught state approved economics classes that teach Keynes bs
@@crocodilepoet try reading Adam smith thoughts on value, Ricardo’s too, Marx etc. I’m at my second year so I don’t know much to suggest you, I know there’s a lot of good stuff coming in these next years. I will come back here eventually with more interesting stuff, but for now, try reading the classics. A good book is The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi, and Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
@@raylo996 my dude, I’m being taught everything, I’m at a state university at São Paulo, the biggest state at Brazil, so I’m fine, thanks for asking? And it’s very naive of you to think state approved stuff are Keynesian stuff lol 😂, in Yugoslavia? Maybe. But in the United States? Come on, be honest
@@edugames1238 USP?
I like how this video shows that these aren't just people who have different ideas, they have ideas that draw from and build on each other.
Nice to see a short format video that just gives you the basics
Glad to see some love for Hayek
Keynes wipes
You can find a lot of love for Hayek at dinner parties where they eat poor people.
Hayek schizo fans explaining how letting millions of people starve to death for literally no reason is a good idea:
Marx solos
Hayek sucks.
I desire a longer version of this
I think Keynes was kinda hype ngl, probably has the most badass quote. Your channel literally got me into economics and I'm writing exams next week, thank you for being an inspiration
Whoa, that was a great explanation of all the best. Imagine having this memorized for casual talk.
This video changed my life. Got me invested into economics.
Just read the road to serfdom.
Your great. Thx.
Pretty cool video, I like how objective it is
The problem with all of them expept marx and adam is that they didn't account for big multinational companies. These monopoly or ogypogoly make that the companies can just destroy all competition and set prices to anything
Não existem monopólios em um genuíno livre-mercado. É simplesmente impossível.
@@zMasterFlashSznot only is monopolisation possible, it’s inevitable.
Adam Smith defended the labor theory of value, I don't understand why everytime people who don't know about economics reference Adam Smith it's to mention that "invisible hand of the market" bullshit. He did a lot more than this.
Adam Smith was the first to describe free market capitalism. People who haven’t actually read him think that that means he uncritically supported it even though anyone who has actually read Wealth of Nations would know that isn’t the case.
Adam Smith errou muito. Valor-trabalho foi um desses erros.
He DID NOT speak about the invisible hand of market. STOP SPREADING THE LIE.
He did speak about an invisible hand 3 times, each in a different book, but to refer to... God !
Smith also criticised markets and the division of labor as potential threats to our humanity... and freedom
This is really good for a crash course! Please do Ricardo, Malthus, Schumpeter, & Mill next. If you want a hero-like figure (subjective ofc), try Paul Volcker and his campaign against high inflation in the 70s.
Should add Nicholas Kaldor and Elinor Ostrom to that list!
Thomas Sowell is a must have
Henry George please! (Is Pope Leo XIII, Chesterton, and Proudhon also an option?)
@@MrKobus-rz4qy no he isn't a prominent economist
@RIMON DAS dude he is the most prominent in our current day and age, and he's arguable the smartest aswell. Being honest, I have not heard of a single person the comment listed
Hats off to you for doing a decent crash course, felt like Econ political thought all over again
Yeah because this is 75% wrong
@@ynk1611 okk mister cat
4:45 The bottom picture with the red arrow is not Friedman - it is Alan Greenspan. Not sure if you are pointing at Greenspan to emphasize the Federal Reserve, but the other arrows were all pointing at Milton Friedman, so I assumed that you intended to do the same with the third. :)
I like your videos so much! and you only put up this video 5 minutes ago when I saw the video! Thank goodness I found this video early!
You should do a video on Sweden, Austria, Poland, France, Germany, and Mongolia
Keynes literally admitted he was wrong the week before he died
Would be great if Friedman was alive through the covid money printing era.
We need to have a video on the most influential ancient economists empires have ever bought
Hearing a bunch of different famous economists theories is like hearing the story of blind me groping an elephant to figure out what it is.
Halfway in and this is already extremely cringe.
Adam Smith used the metaphor of an "invisible hand" once and his theory of how economies function was accepted by Marx. Smith also explicitly laid out the "labour theory of value". Marx really agreed with Smith about almost everything.
i literally came to say exactly this. the labor theory of value was literally what even the american government subscribed to until fairly recently.
Amazing how Henry George disappears when Hayek and Keynes had to contend with or justify their work in contrast to his work in their time.
This 5 minutes vid is so good bro. I swallow all the knowledge without need for drinks
I love that this video included a little bit about their backgrounds and the conditions in which their ideas developed.
Like, if you grew up during hyperinflation you'd arrive at different conclusions than if you grew up during the great depression.
Wow hoser you’ve really outdone yourself I’m so proud xoxo
this is the most interested i’ll ever be in economics
Don't worry, most of it is just made up stuff.
Same LOL
Putting “just print more money” above Milton Friedmans picture in the thumbnail is criminal lmao
i hope you realize that adam smith actually came up with the labor theory of value. also you get the distinction between value and price mixed up for Marx who thought that labor value was a sort of baseline for market price alongside use value
For the next part you have to add Ludwig Erhard and his impact on Europe with his concept of social market economy which still dominates European economics and started the post war "Wirtschaftswunder".
#LongLiveMarketEconomy😘
Except that it wasn't his concept, but he was forced into doing it by the general strikes of 1948
Very informative! You should make more videos like this.
A true privilege to gain knowledge regarding the historical backgrounds and philosophies of economics!
thanks bro really educationally interesting
Was it not David Ricardo that would present the specialization of trade and nations for comparative advantage and not smith? Smith from what i recall would still believe in Absolute advantage for trade.
Pretty good summary of their ideas. Great as an introduction. Bad as a means of engaging in economic theory. There’s so much more to talk about regarding each economic theory’s outcome and the nuance that comes with it.
Overall though, for what the video was supposed to be its pretty good 👍
This is a helpgul video for me considering I want to become an economist
Great video. However, at 4:44, the person on the bottom photo is not Milton Friedman but rather Alan Greenspan.
A little known fact is that most of Keynesian theories are inspired by the measures taken by the Japanese central bank to fight off the great depression.
Wow! Really good quick explanation. I teach intro to economics at a high school and will definitely be incorporating this into my curriculum next year! Good stuff!
Please do not. His representation of Smith and Marx here is abysmal. Marx is particularly more egregious here, the only thing represented semi-correctly is “Capitalist profits are based on theft,” which is describing it at a mile’s distance; it’s like speaking of calculus as “Using numbers and letters for math.” It’s vague and unusable
😟
so both the replies here were urging you not to, and, honestly...maybe don't use it as a genuine representation of information? BUT it might be helpful to get the students wanting for actual knowledge behind the figures
Bro that final graph is scary AF
Sometimes I think that maybe I can understand economics a little and then I think about it for like 30 seconds and remember why I don't know anything about economics
0:49
h0ser just made a Neo-Doggerland
Interesting , a number of the most eminent market experts have been expressing their views on the severity of the impending economic downturn and the extent to which equities might plummet. This is because the economy is heading towards a recession and inflation is persistently above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. As I'm aiming to create a portfolio worth no less than $850,000 before I turn 60, I would appreciate any advice on potential investments.
I've been in touch with a financial advisor ever since I started my business. Knowing today's culture The challenge is knowing when to purchase or sell when investing in trending stocks, which is pretty simple. On my portfolio, which has grown over $900k in a little over a year, my adviser chooses entry and exit orders.
My advisor is SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market
@@serenasmith2859 Well, that's a good suggestion! Sofia is someone I also know. She is my mentor as well. I heartily endorse her
@@jamesgeorge5896 I'll be sure to avoid SOFIA ERAILDA SEMA as a financial advisor if I ever come across her. Thanks!
@@juvnal no one cares
Now we need another economist and future ones to do stuff that stabilizes
Its like each economist is only allowed to discover one piece of the puzzle
Henry George is slowly on the rise
David Ricardo is more influential than Hayek. He is the reason we have international trade. He put forth the idea of comparative advantages, where even if i am objectively worse at producing something, because if i am relatively better we can still trade.
The 'invest in BITCOIN' quote over Kayens is just pure art. Oh the irony lol
money is quite a good thing i do believe
We need more heroes like Hayek and less a totalitarian enablers like keynes
Your government uses Keynesian policy, I can guarantee it. Especially after a recession, Keynesian policy is the go to of every government. To call him authoritarian is silly.
@@B4CKWARDS_CH4RM Keynes is authoritarian. And he completely messed up peoples perceptions of why recessions happen. I'm not going to explain, but the one economist they left off the list was Ludwig Von Mises. I'd recommend you look him up.
Bro your Chanel makes me wanna learn.
This has an impressive amount of information for a 5-minute video.
Adam Smith is basically the Isaac Newton of economics
Smith was shizo or something?
Thats not what he was. Thats just what he wanted to be.....
Marx bad.
@@Anonkontello Adam good
@@technoimperialist9509 yep
RIP Henry George
You should make a video about countries like Bangladesh, Peru, Angola, Sudan since they would be interesting.
special thanks for directly getting to the point and not putting intro and outro
Was marx an economist? i always thought of him as more of a sociologist.
he was freeloader an a fraud
Nowadays, he is more important in sociology rather than economics. I think you may guess why Marxism is kinda out of fashion in economics... hahaha
Yeah well uhh.. classical leftism = sociology
He studied what was then called “political economy” which is basically political science, economics, and philosophy all mixed together. It wasn’t until the 1900s (especially after WWII) that people had a distinction between these studies at all.
So yes you could say Marx was an economist, but also a philosopher, sociologist, and political scientist.
I always though of him as more a philosopher
Henry George was significantly more popular in his time than Marx.
He divided the economy into labor, capitalists, and *land owners*.
You can see land owners were more influential than capitalists given how successfully George’s idea were snuffed out compared to Marx.
No, more people are landowners, so they didn't like a theory that went against them.
Marx went against the Jews and the rich, and people couldn't have cared less about them.
The overlap between capitalists and land owners is almost 99.9%
@@patrickbateman1660 i believe the point is that if the system were different, capitalists wouldnt be land owners (to the same extent) which would be better
In the way you put this, it sounds like if every man in this video was smoking something when they write about economy.
in the end, supply and demand still dictates the price, no matter how hard you work for something, if nobody wants to buy it, it's worthless
Your stuff is usually good but this is an awfully researched video. The entire thing about the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith is a myth that started out of Samuelson's textbook in the 40s which he later tried to correct, to no avail. Smith uses the metaphor only once in the entire book and for a completely different reason, it's really of almost no significance if you read the book itself. Furthermore, Marx and Smith did not disagree regarding the value of commodities either, they BOTH upheld the labour theory of value, in fact every major economist until the 20th century did so. Furthermore, Marx's analysis of capitalism doesn't start from class struggle, you did a terrible job of distinguishing Marx's critique of capitalism from his political principles. Class struggle and crisis theory ARE discovered in his critique of political economy, as they are in both Smith and Ricardo, but they are discovered in the process of the critique, they ARE NOT starting points. You seem to have gone from popular conceptions rather than actually researching these thinkers.
My only problem is that he describes Adam Smith the father of economics
@@blocks4857 That was one of the only things he got right!
@@jsegovia but he isn't
Adam smith fans are the biggest wankers
LTV was the standard until the 19th century actually, it was mainly left aside after the marginalist revolution and Alfred Marshall's books became the standard in the first economics schools
What we call learn from this is that economist absolutism is a thing to aware of, this economic theories were based on the environment these people lived in, so their theories are based on how to fight the economic difficulties that their countries were facing at the time, so each of their theories can be used in different places at different times and the idea that one is absolutely good or absolutely bad is something that all interested in economics should ditch before even beginning to study the subject
The idea that all economic systems are equally true is laughable false, regardless of where on the political and economic spectrum one finds themselves. The theories contradict each other at their core, therefore, they are incompatible.
Marxism is the only theory which made sense in a deeply hierarchical Western world back then, and makes sense in the Global South exploited by Global North MNCs now
That's just the framing of the video, lol.
Love ur videos!
I think part of the problem here is that different people have really different ideas what they mean when they say "value."
I can think of several completely different definitions here.
1. Marginal time spent making it.
2. Average time spent making it including amortizing capital goods.
3. Average time spent making it including amortizing capital goods and human capital.
4. Monetary cost to a co-op with no wage floor and inherited capital. I.E. the raw cost to buy the inputs of production.
5. Monetary costs incurred by a slave-owner after amortizing the cost of slaves and capital goods.
6. Monetary costs incurred by a for-profit businesses with wage labor amortizing the cost of training and capital goods.
8. Maximum Prosumption price. The maximum price at which it is more economically favorable for the producer to use a newly produced item themselves than sell it on the market.
9. Minimum viable market price. The lowest price at which it would be economically rational for the seller to sell instead of either using the good for themselves or not producing it at all, irrespective of market conditions or equilibrium price. Below this price, commodity production will not occur much if at all.
10. Monopsony price. The price when an all powerful consumer's union dictates the price. Maximizes the absolute benefit to consumers.
11. "true" Equilibrium price. What would the chil- I mean good, sell for on the open market to an end user? Largely assumes that buyers and sellers don't negotiate on price and that price discrimination policies don't exist or are circumvented effortlessly, also assumes that speculation does not occur. Note this means it is not accurate to real market conditions. This is the price that causes the largest absolute economic value added from the sale of this good on the market in aggregate, though not necessarily the most efficient gain of value when there are many different goods on a market competing for production resources.
11. Mean market price. Dollars paid over goods sold. The actual price on a market under real conditions, with haggling, senior discounts, and rampant speculative purchasing. Anything from an honest reflection of the equilibrium price for better or worse, to pure chaos and madness.
12. Maximum level playing field monopoly price. The maximum price that a cartel or monopoly can charge while keeping barriers to entry high enough that nobody can actually compete with THAT price.
13. Monopoly price. The price a monopoly that doesn't worry about competition because it has anticompetitive practices or exclusive rights or state backing or death squads or controls every viable source of an important resource would charge. Maximizes industry-wide profit at the expense of consumers.
14. Maximum viable price. The maximum price someone could actually buy something at while feeling like they have gained enough from the transaction to justify the effort of making it.
15. Use value. The actual utility someone attributes to their possession of a good.
Adam Smith most certainly did not say that we could trade with each other and increase Gross Domestic Product circa 1776.
GDP was developed by Simon Kusnets in 1934.
It was formally introduced by Kuznets yeah
@@h0ser 👍
adam smith also believed the labor theory of value
And he was also wrong :). The labor theory of value is the fallacy he copied directly from Adams.
I'm pretty sure that in that last picture the guy the arrow is pointing to is Alan Greenspan not Milton Friedman.
Let's goooo!!!! This channel is the best, and I just finished another video and now there a new video!! 😮😮😮
No Henry George
😢😢😢
The truth is that Fridman is likely the most correct but people refuse to believe the simplest explanation is the best explanation we have.
Good video essay, you get an A+ sir...
Can't wait to watch :)
So, genuine question.
Is private ownership a necessity for individual freedom?
And if so, while also assuming individual freedom is the most important good.
Does that make Marxist-socialism inherently as evil as feudalism?
I have heard convincing arguments for why it’s inherently imperialistic but I am curious as to what y’all think.
In an ideal communist state you are technically free to do whatever you like and have full freedom in all senses of the word only if you don't consider the freedom of using/continue using the land, wealth, property and other socio-economic privileges steeped in just plain tradition you might have the right to legally inherit or the opportunity to exploit from your bourgeois family as a commercial enterprise as a violation of individual freedoms.
However, in many communist states this hasn't been the case even where it was as simple as criticism of the state because of an irrational paranoia that the global bourgeoisie can use any evidence of civil dissatisfaction as a legal justification to fund the Western politicians for feigning off all strokes of communism from its own territories and to suffocate the infant communist regimes via trade blockades, tariffs etc etc
Hayek was actually strongly in favor of social safety net programs like social security, welfare, and universal health care.
Pretty sure that by the end of his life, Hayek favoured having social safety programmes be run privately. I mean the man thought it would be a good idea to have banks print their own currencies and compete with each other for monetary dominance of the economy. The guy was clearly a bit mad
@@Jokkkkke I'm sure he favored private pensions, but I don't think he ever went back on his positions. However, he didn't do a lot to correct misrepresentations of them by his politician patrons, either.
What counts is what he trough of it by the end of his life
What counts is what he trough of it by the end of his life
Universal Health Care in the United States will never happen...