Biologists (I think it was Trivers) have discovered that, depending on the relation that people have to each other, they will act according to different logics. Family members will not keep track of debts they have to each other at all, a mother who raises her child will invest in it, and keep investing in it, without expecting payment. Friends will do each other favors without keeping track of who owes what to whom (at least they won't do so closely) This is the reason why it's awkward to try to pay a friend for a meal they cooked for you. Only strangers will closely keep track of debts they have to each other. So the problem with trying to let the market fix everything (as Stiglitz alluded to) is that you force people to treat each other as strangers. You erode any kind of solidarity.
At one point you need a reality check. What append after a disaster? Disaster teams are deployed and bring water and supplies. Gregory is out of is mind, an individual is rarely equipped to estimate the critically of his medical need. It's why you have triage at the hospital.
Maybe the shop owner will get a VERY short term spike in his revenues, but when everything normalizes and everyone remembers how the shop owner tried to rip everyone off, no one will shop there any longer in the long term.
I think the key issue with this kind of price gouging is that a shopkeeper has been perfectly fine selling water for the original price, and will continue to be comfortable without raising it. Buyers will be significantly worse off if a vital commodity is put out of reach for them. People are struggling enough in a disaster without worrying about the finances of existential resources.
There's also the matter of loss of trust towards the shopkeeper and the government, leading to (I would assume), increased violence, property damage and such. We'd need some expert on board, but I'll gladly hypothesize that price gouging leads to a net loss overall, even for the unscrupulous merchant.
Yes.....Mr Stiglitz " 16:00 In economics that Adam Smith's invisible hand notion is that individuals in pursuit of the self-interest will lead - as it played, that the invisible hand will lead to the well-being of society - we know that that theorem is wrong.
Adam Smith never claimed the whole of society should be directed by this "invisible hand", as he knew full well wealthy individuals could league together against the good of society for their own self-interest. Smith discussed in large how the State should provide basic goods and education to its citizens, as well as keep away from corporate interests.
Clearly the opposite is the case. The invisible hand is concept to something else then just giving hints to individuals, who has strong desires. If that could have been a satisfying outcome a nice day long prayer might have been suggested by Smith. Smith see that the hand is much more than that. Synergy, ...Transcendence, complexity... "The invisible hand is a term used by Adam Smith to describe the unintended social benefits of individual self-interested actions" ..the whole of society should benefit of the greed of its members... theoretically..
It seems there are a lot of underlying assumptions/decisions about how things should work that somehow aren't questioned. Maybe critical thinking about basic principles is not a priority when most people study economics, where I assume it's much more important among e.g. philosophy students.
The video clearly indicates the difference between the WEST and the EAST. Here in India, the answers to all the questions that intuitively come are in favour of social obligation rather than in favour of Market. In the West it seems here market has more rights and absolute rights over human beings. We must understand how markets are affecting us as a community.
Fortunately I don't think that's true of the west in general, but of The United States specifically. The US is much further right than most of Europe. I live in Scandinavia which is generally quite socialist, e.g. with nationalized health care, and I'm fairly certain we already have price gouging laws and that the vast majority of people support them. My guess is, also, that these people interviewed are more focused on self interest than the average US citizen, because they're economists (and also academics more generally speaking) likely heading towards well-payed jobs, but that's a guess admittedly.
In regards to a water shortage maybe focus on profit margin instead of the pricing directly. If someone has a local shop and raises the price astronomically I'd personally strongly object, but if someone from the outside who wasn't well off decided to mass-transport water there and the price is far higher due to transportation costs, but the profit margin isn't substantially better, then I would hardly see the problem. But really in that case it shouldn't be up to private individuals to solve the water shortage but rather the government. Personally I hope nonprofits become far more commonplace in the future.
There seems to be an idea that those that work hard deserve better, and a misconception that hard work necessarily results in a high salary, and implicitly vice versa, that a low salary means NOT hard working. Also how hard someone is able to work varies not only do to a decision, but also due to both genetic factors and health issues in the body or mind. Should someone be paid more in the cases where it's luck that allows them to work harder?
Economists succeeded at understanding markets created by human animal mind and behaviour but failed to come up with solutions to fix the gaps of the system.
So an individual dying (ie. a person with almost no time) has to use the most time out of everyone in order to be saved? Money is surely not the perfectly equitable resource, but it beats the inequality that's naturally created by the health of the people waiting in line. Healthier people have more time, while the relationship between health and wealth isn't nearly as bad as the case of time. This isn't to say that privatizing healthcare is a good idea, but if we take the example given without any additional constraints, clearly using the money is better, can't see how you could ever argue otherwise (unless inequality was really, really bad, and capitalist countries like that are rare)
The guy saying that it’s not immoral to charge people $50 for a gallon of water since people are in dire need of water?? Actually insane how people justify being shitty. Of course he hates using the word “greedy”.
So in a Nutshell: in any possible situation some people will be in good position and others will suffer. Winners and losers solution is inevitable destiny. Does that mean we should maximise the winner side of society and minimise the loser side as possible taking into account that no one solution in every situation is the best and society itself should look at what benefit them the most in a collective system as voting?
Middle prices with Middle supply. I'm not a scientist but if economists call themselves scientist then they should be able to create more choices not being like a corporate manager who make decisions based on supplied data.
Yes it is scary, all you hear from some of these kids is market, market, market, ... Even more scary is the Harvard professor espousing this sick thinking
Business is making money for the favour of shareholders, and supporting the society is part of the shareholders' interest because they are a part of that society. So selfish.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Biologists (I think it was Trivers) have discovered that, depending on the relation that people have to each other, they will act according to different logics. Family members will not keep track of debts they have to each other at all, a mother who raises her child will invest in it, and keep investing in it, without expecting payment. Friends will do each other favors without keeping track of who owes what to whom (at least they won't do so closely) This is the reason why it's awkward to try to pay a friend for a meal they cooked for you. Only strangers will closely keep track of debts they have to each other. So the problem with trying to let the market fix everything (as Stiglitz alluded to) is that you force people to treat each other as strangers. You erode any kind of solidarity.
Love this series! Absolutely love that this series shows that economics is clearly not a hard and fast science!
The kids seem to be forgetting that the more sick you are, the LESS able you are to move quickly or fight crowds to get care.
At one point you need a reality check. What append after a disaster? Disaster teams are deployed and bring water and supplies.
Gregory is out of is mind, an individual is rarely equipped to estimate the critically of his medical need. It's why you have triage at the hospital.
I watch this and see how economists end up supporting selfishness as a result of excessive thought of experiments.
Maybe the shop owner will get a VERY short term spike in his revenues, but when everything normalizes and everyone remembers how the shop owner tried to rip everyone off, no one will shop there any longer in the long term.
I think the key issue with this kind of price gouging is that a shopkeeper has been perfectly fine selling water for the original price, and will continue to be comfortable without raising it. Buyers will be significantly worse off if a vital commodity is put out of reach for them. People are struggling enough in a disaster without worrying about the finances of existential resources.
There's also the matter of loss of trust towards the shopkeeper and the government, leading to (I would assume), increased violence, property damage and such.
We'd need some expert on board, but I'll gladly hypothesize that price gouging leads to a net loss overall, even for the unscrupulous merchant.
Yes.....Mr Stiglitz " 16:00 In economics that Adam Smith's invisible hand notion is that individuals in pursuit of the self-interest will lead - as it played, that the invisible hand will lead to the well-being of society - we know that that theorem is wrong.
Adam Smith never claimed the whole of society should be directed by this "invisible hand", as he knew full well wealthy individuals could league together against the good of society for their own self-interest.
Smith discussed in large how the State should provide basic goods and education to its citizens, as well as keep away from corporate interests.
Clearly the opposite is the case. The invisible hand is concept to something else then just giving hints to individuals, who has strong desires. If that could have been a satisfying outcome a nice day long prayer might have been suggested by Smith. Smith see that the hand is much more than that. Synergy, ...Transcendence, complexity...
"The invisible hand is a term used by Adam Smith to describe the unintended social benefits of individual self-interested actions" ..the whole of society should benefit of the greed of its members... theoretically..
It seems there are a lot of underlying assumptions/decisions about how things should work that somehow aren't questioned.
Maybe critical thinking about basic principles is not a priority when most people study economics,
where I assume it's much more important among e.g. philosophy students.
The video clearly indicates the difference between the WEST and the EAST. Here in India, the answers to all the questions that intuitively come are in favour of social obligation rather than in favour of Market. In the West it seems here market has more rights and absolute rights over human beings. We must understand how markets are affecting us as a community.
Fortunately I don't think that's true of the west in general, but of The United States specifically.
The US is much further right than most of Europe. I live in Scandinavia which is generally quite socialist, e.g. with nationalized health care, and I'm fairly certain we already have price gouging laws and that the vast majority of people support them.
My guess is, also, that these people interviewed are more focused on self interest than the average US citizen, because they're economists (and also academics more generally speaking) likely heading towards well-payed jobs, but that's a guess admittedly.
@@miyalys yeah they all are educated that's why they sound "intelligent" and they still young to have experience with life ups and downs.
In regards to a water shortage maybe focus on profit margin instead of the pricing directly.
If someone has a local shop and raises the price astronomically I'd personally strongly object,
but if someone from the outside who wasn't well off decided to mass-transport water there and
the price is far higher due to transportation costs, but the profit margin isn't substantially better, then I would hardly see the problem.
But really in that case it shouldn't be up to private individuals to solve the water shortage but rather the government.
Personally I hope nonprofits become far more commonplace in the future.
What a great video. Only less than 2500 views?
There seems to be an idea that those that work hard deserve better, and a misconception that hard work necessarily results in a high salary,
and implicitly vice versa, that a low salary means NOT hard working.
Also how hard someone is able to work varies not only do to a decision, but also due to both genetic factors and health issues in the body or mind.
Should someone be paid more in the cases where it's luck that allows them to work harder?
Economists succeeded at understanding markets created by human animal mind and behaviour but failed to come up with solutions to fix the gaps of the system.
So an individual dying (ie. a person with almost no time) has to use the most time out of everyone in order to be saved? Money is surely not the perfectly equitable resource, but it beats the inequality that's naturally created by the health of the people waiting in line. Healthier people have more time, while the relationship between health and wealth isn't nearly as bad as the case of time.
This isn't to say that privatizing healthcare is a good idea, but if we take the example given without any additional constraints, clearly using the money is better, can't see how you could ever argue otherwise (unless inequality was really, really bad, and capitalist countries like that are rare)
The logic of your argument is weird.
The guy saying that it’s not immoral to charge people $50 for a gallon of water since people are in dire need of water?? Actually insane how people justify being shitty. Of course he hates using the word “greedy”.
So in a Nutshell: in any possible situation some people will be in good position and others will suffer. Winners and losers solution is inevitable destiny.
Does that mean we should maximise the winner side of society and minimise the loser side as possible taking into account that no one solution in every situation is the best and society itself should look at what benefit them the most in a collective system as voting?
High prices or shortages. Choose one.
Middle prices with Middle supply.
I'm not a scientist but if economists call themselves scientist then they should be able to create more choices not being like a corporate manager who make decisions based on supplied data.
very good format
The rich have Code houses. Truck Driver Drop like 35,000 pounds. Emergency. To know and not give is Selfishness.
these young people are the repositories of Myth. Horrified.
Yes it is scary, all you hear from some of these kids is market, market, market, ...
Even more scary is the Harvard professor espousing this sick thinking
Well sometimes I wonder even though I don't look for to be an economist should I really keep learning or should I just go play video games.
@@stevewhiteside4525 well that's some lesson to learn that you shouldn't be a text-written-by-someone-else's slave.
Business is selfish.
Do you trade with other people?
Business is making money for the favour of shareholders, and supporting the society is part of the shareholders' interest because they are a part of that society. So selfish.