when Guy Standing tells us that not even the precious Solow growth model applies anymore and that landlords and other capital owners are getting more and more of the pie, how does anyone see this is anything other than feudalism?
@@GlitzPixie because feudalism was objectively a completely different mode of production. Feudalism didn't have the kind of capital accumulation, commodity production or relatively free movement of labour power thsg capitalism does
Well, I think this makes clear that the economists are not going to save us (with the exception of Yanis Varoufakis!). I think this "discussion" also goes to show how important the philosophical basis, and even spiritual basis, of this question is. First, what is the aim of an economy? What do we want to achieve as an economic society? Answering this question is not itself economic. Yet without clarity on this guiding notion, we shall be subject to the abuse of power. This is the really big matter we face: who are we, and who do we want to be? Our future economy will follow from this understanding.
Your exceptional standard of living today comes from the free market. Maoists have been left behind and are just catching up since they embraced capitalism.
@Time to Sleep Buddy I would agree with most of what you said. Capitalism needs to be better regulated, but the question “should it be saved” seems akin to asking “should we keep using medicine when we are sick?” As if you had a better option. “Should we urgently fix capitalism?” Would make more sense.
@@JavierBonillaC Can Capitalism be fixed? We didn't end up here by chance. There are in-built mechanisms that have lead our society to where it is now over the past 200 years. Even if a "fix" were possible, how would we prevent the system from decaying into this state of affairs again? Lets also not forget that our "excpetional standard of living" is largely built on the backs of horrific standards of living in the third world. It has not come from the magic of Capitalism, in fact it has come from the same mechanisms that plagued the European and North American working class for much of the 1800s. The difference is that now we westerners don't have to confront it.
@@PsilentMusicUK ok, so what next? Colectivism? Should we all,work according to “what we can” and earn according to what we need? Trust in the good faith and selflessness of others when that won’t even take us to saving water at home? Which is this new system that will replace capitalism?
@@PsilentMusicUK I very much agree with you. Even if we have no ready made solution, and maybe there isn’t one, we need to regulate way more effectively. It is self-destructive in some of its ugliest manifestations and it has many.
There's nothing to discuss because every speaker has exactly the same view: capitalism bad. If we use 1 sentence testimonials interleaved with corporate pump music, it will be easier for the viewer to digest this crucial info
The Western world is a mix of capitalism and fascism; the Eastern world is a mix of capitalism, fascism and communism. The first mix is a lot weaker than the second mix. Therefore, the Western world (NATO) must reinvent communism, if it wants to survive.
and Krugman just skips over it... oh people are annoyed with markets, and wage markets, like there is anything resembling a wage market or ever was. As soon as you own a portion of the labour you make, you are in a smaller market than what you could have, so maybe he is right in a way lol
@@roberthorne9597 I would have said that the labor market is a dead end. Work never had a future to start with and never it will have one. Work is about helping a capitalist to eliminate his competitors with the latest robots. And the “Protestant work ethics” has only destroyed our climate.
@@VincentHondius Marxism 101: money is a fetish. Working for money is working to your own demise. Money is the hardest of drugs, you always need more, it rapidly makes you a prostitute, criminal and zombie. See Daniel Pink’s empirical studies done at the MIT (reported in his book *Drive*).
To Deirdre McCloskey: Capitalism is not only about market, trade, middle man etc. it cannot be reduced to that. Arrighi, Polanyi, Braudel, E.P. Thompson have already showed that market has always been there, but what have changed with capitalism is the domination of capitalistic (more profit less cost) economic order over social, political, and cultural order.
what do you expect from her ? whenever you question a neoliberal economist about the current state of the world ,they clear shift to this is not real capitalism . even joe biden said this is not real capitalism in his recent speech their is no fixing capitalism you could keep people"s mouth shut by giving some welfare programs but eventually people would fight for socio and economic equality
@@josephshumake5989 You can check K. Polanyi's book The Great Transformation. There you can see how market was operating before "market economy". Also you can trace the transformation of the market by E.P. Thompson's Moral economy as well. These are long and detailed texts, especially the latter one, my notes would not be enough to give you the picture.
He's good, but gets a couple of points wrong (probably for rhetorical effect) IMO. First, command capital isn't new. It has been dominant before; for example the Guilded Age. And history shows us pretty clearly it is a bad situation to be in. Additionally, his stress on "central bank money" is more likely to be misleading than helpful. The massive growth of the financial sector isn't because of central banks having loose monetary policy... It is because we've addressed every economic challenge over the last 45 years with 'encouraging investment' by making finance more profitable (at least in terms of assets valuations). We need to reign in finance, not just hobble central banks. Also, the Euro-zone is not representative of how most money works. If a nation actually issues its own fiat currency, the central bank can be a much more helpful and less adversarial institution, assuming the government uses it well.
@@ΔανιήλΤριανταφύλλης Do you think Varoufakis was mostly at fault for this or the EU? Sincere question, I'm interested in hearing a Greek perspective.
@@Tofu_va_Bien The EU states have their own interests in mind, and Greek politicians should have Greek interests in mind. Varoufakis' policy clearly made Greece suffer, and virtually every politician or economist outside his party had predicted this. He is a total failure for me, and I would rather vote for the Communist Party than for someone like him. How his party gets 3% in the national elections is a complete mystery to me.
Economics in the USA especially is the study and justification of capitalism. (It was largely the same in Marx's day, given how much of his work is a polemic against apologists for the (then) current system.
he basically says it over and over again in subtext and then comes out and tries to deny the very thing he implies all throughout, he's basically incoherent in this talk
and the whole: when pwoplw complain about capitalism it's these 3 things, not you know the whole governemnt sponsored idea of wage labour, not the privatisation of public well delivered systems or natural monopolies... noooooo
There are people in economic power who don’t want some people to know what’s happening. That why there’s: spectator sports, religion, fear based news, etc.
@@General_ONeill right. it's more important how we think than what we think. it's no coincidence that in the British commonwealth, sports is a big deal where there's rigid class stratification. in the southern US, sports and religion are ubiquitous and it's where civil rights movements have a tough time getting off the ground.
American capitalism has had some spectacular failures in the past three years, from near collapse during the pandemic, to failing to provide for basic human needs, like health care, toilet paper, baby formula, medicines and cars. It was supposed to guarantee the availability of things based on need, and instead, it repeatedly demonstrates that it can't provide anything that is in short supply. What has filled the gap? Mostly, the federal government, to the extent that it has the ability. The result is price gouging and runaway inflation, while corporations continue to make obscene profits, and their leaders criticize the efforts of our government to prevent the chaos that they created. Is this how. we want to live?
Supply interruptions are a symptom of either monopoly control, or debasement of currency, or both. The warning against the Just In Time delivery system have been out there for as long as it's implementation.
@@artandarchitecture6399 please tell me which companies the government forced to shut down. Most companies tried to continue operations while voluntarily scaling back based on material shortages, concerns about liability and other effects on their bottom line. What would you have done differently that would have kept businesses running under the circumstances? Would doing nothing and accepting another million US deaths have been a better option?
I do not appreciate you blaming capitalism while ignoring the unnecessary amount of restrictions the us government places on the economy, for example americans could import european formula, It's certainly safe and there's plenty of it to go around, but the bueurocratic government won't allow it. Instead they'll seize and destroy it. I could provide more examples if you ask. (apologies for any spelling mistakes, not a native speaker).
@@inediblenut They can't tell you because they pulled that "fact" out of their @zz. The Right/Conservatives are fundamentally delusional liars. The base of their political philosophy and world view is to stand in the way of societal progress by literally not only denying reality but offering an alternative reality that demonstrably does not exist. They can't be honest about who and what they are because the moment they do, they lose the argument.
@@petar7867 That particular government restriction, and many many others, are a product of capitalism. There are legitimate public health and safety concerns with the import of baby formula (you remember the stories of formula adulterated with melamine, right?). However, oligopolistic producers were the ones who got overly restrictive bans put in place to decrease competition. Regulatory capture isn't a problem caused by representative government and voters having too much power... It is a problem of the 'capitalist class' and corporations having too much power and using it to make government less representative. PS: Your English is fine. Better than a lot of native speakers.
Deidre McClosekey doesnt seem to understand "capital accummulation", her examples initially were of wealth accumulation. Capital Accumulation means the concentration of capital - means of production, like she said later factories, but also resources and materials used to produce things, and with those factors of production of course the economy grows (if they are being used) so yes capital accumulation is required for growth, innovation certainly helps but not necessary. She doesn't even understand what capitalism it - "Capitalism has always existed" my ass, it was preceded by feudalism. She defined it as "middlemen" and factories - these are markets and productions, not capitalism, she's confusing parts of the system with the system itself. Capitalism is the economic system in which market guides production, which happens in privately owned units (factories/companies) by capitalists who owns the means of production.
That's because these clowns equate markets to capitalism, and we've had overlapping economic systems through the transitions towards capitalism. For example, Marx discussed the artisan, who typically labored on their own, as a class of workers who were in conflict with the emerging capitalist class. Artisans existed during feudalism and the early emerging capitalism, but overtime most became part of the capitalist class or part of the working class (the proletariat). Obviously, there had to be a major economic and social shift for the artisan class to nearly disappear, right? Then it should follow, that capitalism isn't just markets.
@@BasicLib socialism, which has a wide range of structures, changes the relationship between production. Your question is more analogous to, "A dictatorship is a political structure. A Democracy is a political structure. Therefore, these political systems are the same". Obviously, this isn't true. A democratic process completely changes how decisions are made. Where as a dictatorship is typically performed through an autocracy. An economic system will still exist under wocialism, but who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and how to distribute the products of production changes drastically. The structures are highly variable, as worker's cooperatives will likely have a more market based economy, state ownership would likely use a mixed market system, and localized communes would likely produce most goods locally. Decomodification could play a major role within all of these economies, as well. That's not something you typically see within capitalism, and if you do it's highly limited.
Despite productivity rising in workers since the 70s, pay has not kept up pace, only for the CEO's. Working People only support capitalism because they want to be like the 1% via advertising and marketing. Slavery still happens today, its just accepted because some money is being paid as opposed to working for free. Conditions are still horrible Sadly, In the Uvalde massacre, the video footage of cops in the school, was provided with the screams edited out so it doesn't seem that bad. That is a great analogy for a capitalist society, hiding the flaws and injustices so the public doesnt know how bad it really is.
I am stronger therefore this is mine. Sounds like a ready made tug of war. Silent, loud, from hell or heaven. With Thor and thunderbolts and Shiva, or Angels and demons. Or educated wise mean Or fools.
Can't fail with Zizek - great speakers, but his point is how to turn all the earlier strategies and explanations into a concerted effort. He's like the zoom-out button!
“A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.” ― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France. What we saw with the (failed) Sanders campaign and the failure of the Build Back Better bill was the absolute failure to *reform* 18th century institutions to address 21st century problems. And from Burke's "conservative" standpoint, this signals the doomed nature of the capitalist ancien regime.
@@rochellehandelman6267 how can it be ancient if it is the same as todays regime? Do you even know what you are talking about? Also, when was the state more economically powerful than now? 40% to 50% of the gdp is controlled by the state, more than ever
"Economics" doesn't use the word Capitalism these days because they want to maintain the pretense that they remain a legitimate scholarly scientific discipline when they have actually become vocational trainers for online department store managers and private money managers.
I mean maybe? I think the actual answer is that no one can conceive of a world beyond capitalism anymore. I know it's been said too many times already but, ya know, "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." Economists have never been the most imaginative bunch it wouldn't surprise me if they don't even think of capitalism as an ideology and not just the way things are and the way things will always be.
They have basically been that since David Ricardo, if not Adam Smith. If people take nothing else from Marx, he showed how all of these 'political economists' were nothing more than apologists for the big capitalists/colonialists/etc.
I kind of get the feeling that sociologist and those in the more social sciences have the opposite problem. They can't conceive of the world as something other than oppressed and oppressor and thus have a myriad language for all that's wrong. Since *their* vocation depends on being coaches and support for populism and political movements, I can imagine why the cycle persists
If it can't exist on it's own, without saving, it's unnecessary. But let's be honest, in a decade or two robots will do most of the mundane work, probably more than 60% human workforce will have nothing to do, capitalist simply won't be able to apply to that. We need to go forward and experiment with new ways instead of mummifying old economy like some dinosaurs want, because they don' understand our times. Peterson is a great example of that, entangled in little ideological wars, profiting off of it, and just throwing silly slogans out there, without proper understanding of our times.
It frustrates me to no end that Peterson took the path he did. He was my first exposure to Jungian psychology, which really resonated with me and helped me find meaning in my life when I was a depressed, nihilistic 20 year old. I never read his books but they seemed to have helped tons of people in a similar way. It's such a shame that someone who had a message that could've reached way more people instead got sidetracked into being a culture war grifter. after developing a benzo addiction and going to Russia to have a coma induced no less.
I think these are all good points and considerations. The current order has meanwhile set a countdown for my mental and physical health and I am running out of time. I work full time. Please hurry up!
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” -Box. Capitalism is just a model, it has problems. Clearly those with the power have engineered a version of capitalism (crony-techno-capitalism/techno-feudalism) that has serious issues, cannot be reformed, and must be undone! Everyone agrees on this. The problem is how can this be done and what kind of model provides the incentives, is simple to understand, and removes the most egregious parts of the current system. I wish I heard more about that from the panel.
The only thing that is sustainable is continual progress. We’ll never reach a single state where all of our problems will be solved, a state which is sustainable indefinitely. We can’t imagine what the future will be like because that would mean solving problems we haven’t yet encountered, predicting what knowledge will be created in the future (which is impossible). There are major inaccuracies in all of our most cherished theories, ways of life, customs etc., that could be improved objectively, and that will always be the case. Any system must facilitate the continuation of rapid progress, otherwise we are bound to encounter a problem which we’re incapable of solving.
@@Juaniguitarra86 Our perceptions...including yours, are of course limited. Capitalism is NOT based on individual rights nor economic freedom for all citizens, it is based on those things being granted to the "winners" in the capitalist game that use having the upper hand to limit those things for everyone else...the "losers".
The immediate thing that needs to be addressed is “a more critical and universally just inclusion of ethics and universal human moral values” into accumulation and use of capital, business and labor
I’m not high and I know this is extremely difficult (not impossible) but its in the nature of “humans”, fight between “ego” and “heart”. It all depends on “intellectual’s” focus, do the put ego or heart in the front. Actually the focus from ego to heart can be done in as short as a few generations, if “those intellectuals” show up somehow…
@@haydenusaklar don’t listen to him. You have the right idea Let those who want to burn down the world in revolution keep playing with their matches. Instead let responsible people who realize there is a raging fire go on to pour water on it by fixing problems.
@@haydenusaklar how do you place ethics/moral values onto a system that incentivizes capital accumulation and exploitation? It seems to me, government capture is a pretty big issue under capitalism, and the outcomes will always be deregulation, reduced taxation, and the undermining of labor.
First of all, “accumulation and use of capital” is a “human right”, which means it doesn’t require “any special government or system”. If “a government” incentivizes” it, so be it, I dont see any problem with that. When you add the concept of “exploitation”, thats when things change. “Exploitation” is a “moral and ethics” problem. We can talk about how to “avoid” exploitation, and the role of “a government” on this can only be “regulation” through legal system, more focus on values, ethics in public education system, I cant see much else. The responsibility is on the shoulder of leaders, in the form of prominent intellectuals in public space, universities, CEOs, board directors, board members, etc, in other words the responsibility is on the “intellectuals”
@@peterclark6290 I checked, don’t worry RUclips has done that to me in the past as well.. All I know is that this treadmill economy is fundamentally going to lead to our demise through over-consumption if we don’t ‘let off the gas’ literally and figuratively. I have nothing against this current societal structure, because it’s truly beautiful but it’s as if money trumps all reason as to the sustainability of our future
The question most economists avoid is not ""what is capitalism" but "what is capital"? And how can I measure it? How do we know that capital is accumulating? Classical economics said that the inputs of an economy are labour, land and stock. Where is capital? And what is social capital and human capital? Does capital just exist as a byproduct of a group of humans interacting with each other?
The commodification of public capital (health, environment, intellectual rights, arts, time etc.) into private capital balance sheets has been a terrible error, worse still is that this hoard is not reinvested into innovative productive (read elevating public good) means.
Any discussion of whether or not we should preserve capitalism should include Richard Wolff. Please include him the next time you have such a discussion.
@Gabriel Coelho look at how much better taiwan is compared to china, and even then china would be even worse off if it was actually communist. the only reason countries like china exist as we know it is because of america and globalisation without capitalism china would have already collapsed and if they weren’t authoritarian and properly embraced capitalism they could be as prosperous as taiwan
@Gabriel Coelho china became a manufacturing hub because of their cheap labour but now prices are higher than other south asian countries and even countries like mexico, and guess what mexico is on the boarder with the US also shutting down all your main manufacturing hubs like shanghai Shenzhen and Qingdao is a good way to scare/turn away foreign investment, and that’s exactly whats happened
Insane take by McCloskey. Capitalism doesn't exist (saying it has always existed is basically equivalent to saying that it doesn't, or not in any meaningful way); what makes modern economies different to previous forms of production is "innovation". But what was it that enabled the immense growth of the capacity to innovate (or productivity to increase exponentially)? Capitalism! I.e., a qualitatively novel form of structuring the productive relations. Absolutely mind boggling.
IMPORTANT. The solution is to keep it simple: our goal is to meet people's needs. To do that we must foster altruism. Advocate altruism, organize it with free collaboration networks that meet people's needs, teach others to foster altruism.
We need radical systemic change, the lack of altruism is incentivized within the system and this will not change through a change of mindset, but a change of material conditions. A more altruistic mindset might follow this though.
Any economic model will move toward from its basic definition. Whether it is socialism or capitalism. The phase currently we are in is the last few stage of capitalism. Even if we reset the capitalism tp its basic definition it will save the capitalism yeah but we will be back at this same position within 5 decades. So the answer to this title is No, we shouldn't save capitalism.
capitalism itself is a very limited concept as well as just an acknowledgment of a reality when people are free to buy and sell goods/services. Adam Smith didn't create capitalism, he observed what would happen if the natural rights of the people were protected and preserved; the economical outcome being what he called capitalism. Capitalism is just a thing that exists when people are free and their natural rights protected. Today, people try to encompass too many social issues with capitalism and then blame those problems on capitalism, when in reality, it has nothing to do with capitalism and therefore it can not take the blame. If you read one of the top comments under this video by a person named Robert Myers, you will know what I'm talking about. for example, Russia (prior to Russian Revolution) was a capitalist nation, however, the governmental system was a feudal one. for what reason, then, could the peasants not lift themselves up out of poverty? was it because of capitalism or feudalism? post-modernists would say it was because of capitalism. but, in any government, capitalism is never at the top of the hierarchical governmental structure of its many systems. the country that has come the closest to protecting and preserving the natural rights of its people is the United States, thus making it the country that has come the closest to having a pure capitalist system. the US is the richest country with its citizens having the highest GDP per capita in the world, but unfortunately, the US government interferes with the economy too much and distorts the free market causing the prices of everything to skyrocket, especially healthcare. this problem, too, is not the result of capitalism. this high price phenomenon also happens when the government implements socialist programs; socialism never truly works for the betterment of human lives. What the Founding Fathers intended for the US government to do regarding the economy was to facilitate and uphold the free market, not hinder it. P.S. it is obvious that the economists in this video are Keynesian economists, which means they favor the idea of the government involving itself in the economy by interfering in the free market, via quantitative easing... which is what I alluded to earlier.
@@jireh5941 "Capitalism just exist when people are free and their natural rights protected". The problem here is are we truly free? And does the natural rights really exist?. By saying "free" I assume that you are referring both, that humans have free will and that humans make their own choices, the problem with this is that according to the dialectical materialism, we have not such thing as a free will since our subjectivity is determinated by the material conditions. And the statement that humans make their own decisions are also doubtful since all of us have cognitive bias, marketing itself is a kind of persuasive way to manipulate the public opinion in order to get more sales (neural marketing is even worse), so saying that humans can make their own choices without any influence of the other (being free) is pretty precarious. Now if you are referring a free state the definition is even more diffuse. First of all a state can never be completely free since it would assume there is not law. Currently I could say that the states rather than being completely free, have a conditioned freedom were you are allowed to do certain things but not others. With this definition what are the minimum "freedoms" required for the capitalism to exist. Another thing is that natural rights itself are just made in a arbitrary manner and often it does not represent the population as a whole as we have seen trough history
@@jireh5941 I also would like to know your definition of capitalism because by my understanding you are using free market as a synonym or intrinsic concept of capitalism.
@@Andres_81 whether or not we have free will or our minds are controlled by the media or state is a different issue. The rights i am referring to are the natural rights which were derived from judeo/christian beliefs which the Founding Fathers acknowledge in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judeo/christian belief that all people were made in the image of God and have intrinsic worth is the cornerstone for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers acknowledged this and put it on paper even though they couldnt fully live up to this standard themselves, because they believed the government wasn’t the arbiter of truth and could not endow people with rights like that of natural rights. There had to be a creator for this narrative to hold water. Whether you are religious or not, this is a practical methodology for the sustaining of a free country and its why people were able to make changes to the law to include black people in those rights.
In deciding whether we 'should save capitalism', we'll need to look at the evidence. For a highly social species, Capitalism has meant wealth and power for a small number and exploitation and manipulation for a much larger number, which flies in the face of our social context as a species. Those who are exploited are manipulated to feel that they too can achieve significant wealth, so they keep supporting the Capitalist ideals. Forget the labels, just think about what would be best - government by a bunch of wealthy self seekers who exploit others to increase their wealth, or some other system (which by the way, is no longer on offer). Short time to destruction if Capitalism is allowed to run unconstrained by care for the climate and environment. BTW if you're wondering who I am, the answer is another person who looks at Capitalism in an objective way - it has provided me and many others with a livelihood, but at what cost?
Then what is the alternative to capitalism? What will we do one capitalism is destroyed? Socialism? If we are going to do socialism, who will impose socialism to EVERYONE? The leaders? You think those leaders will be fair under socialism? Have you seen all socialist countries? Are they doing better than capitalist countries? You don't hate capitalism, you hate the hierarchy, and in whatever politico-social, economic system, there will always be hierarchies. Hierarchies are based on nature and so you're just hating on human nature, or even nature as a whole. You're hating something you don't even fully understand.
@@wafercrackerjack880 you're confusing capitalism with democracy. There are plenty of socialist countries that are doing better than hyper-capitalist countries such as the US. They have a strong democracy. The socialist countries that are doing worse have an autocracy or oligarchy. The concentration of power coupled with a lack of accountability is the problem. These two factors exist and can even be facilitated by the capitalist framework. You don't need capitalism to have democracy. You don't need capitalism to hold your leaders accountable. An economic system is flatly irrelevant to a political system, they've been conflated to justify the very argument you are making. An argument that misindentifies the root problem, arguably purposefully so.
@@ZachJ-0 you are confusing socialism to democracy. Give me an example of a socialist country that is doing well than capitalist country then? I am 100% sure you will give an example of a democratic country with socialist policies whose economy is primarily driven by capitalism. You're the one misidentifying here. First of all, you will throw away democracy if you will go to real socialism. Have you any idea of what socialism really is?
@@wafercrackerjack880 now you're confusing socialism with communism. Communism is by necessity socialist but socialism isn't by necessity communism. Did I once call for the abolition of all markets for a collectivist planned economy? It's disappointing that you would willfully disregard what I actually said for your talking point, and frankly undermines your integrity here. How can it be that I'm confusing socialism with democracy when I repeatedly and explicitly stated they're separate systems entirely? This is another example of you conflating economic policy with political structure and projecting that misconstruction of facts onto me. Irrelevant to the conversation here but if it will stop you from assuming my position and treating your unfounded presumptions as fact, I would advocate for a mixed economy not communism because of the problem in concentrated power I mentioned earlier.
@@ZachJ-0 "now you're confusing socialism with communism" Jesus Christ, how can you conclude that from what I said. Do you even know that socialism is an extremely broad term, in which communism falls under? Have you any idea what communism even means? Give me an example of the country you are talking about, you forgot about that? You were so sure socialist countries are doing great. If you have so much integrity then answer this question. You were the one who kept assuming about my position and started making claims you cannot back up. You talk big for someone so ignorant.
In concordance with what DHL written below regarding the manufacturing of consent and the reviewing of our educational systems/curriculum… I also think decisions about what change is shouldn’t be principally the domain of academics and whilst I’m not making this especially about race, there should be some more inclusivity from other members of the global population, not just white recipients of generational wealth for a system that was created to benefit their forefathers and therefore led to their being educated enough to speak about the system that serves their excellence… Change requires a dynamic, diverse and syndicalist landscape to germinate.
It is disingenuous and misleading to ignore slavery and the earning ( stealing) of other natural and human resources is what made capitalism in the first place. Slightly arrogant.
I'll just go then... I think this is the problem with post-colonial theory as a whole. It displaces class analysis in the discussion and seems to believe that focusing on class somehow takes away from a post-colonial critique, which couldn't be further from the truth. I wish more people understood this because this is one of the conversations that really bogs down the Left.
Where is the comment above on Capitalism being polite slavery? It seems the truth is not allowed to be shared, AND the supporters pretend the truth doesn't exist. The blame is on both the capitalistic owners of the media like RUclips and the citizens who hide behind capitalism and willfully ignore the consequences.
I see all these comments harassing economists, and I just think to myself, do I really care? Should this animus towards my field bother me? Nope. I am just merely a behavioral economist doing what I enjoy --- understanding people and their decisions. Not making claims about how actors should behave, but rather how they actually behave and why. Carry on everyone, you are not bothering me. People seem to think economists are to blame, but no one ever looks at the policy-maker that rushes over to academic journals to see if they can actually implement the theories into policy. We are both to blame, but some how policy-makers have escaped their anticipated demise by cutting out their own tongues to the public eye.
Can anyone help me with Mr. Yanis' accent? The captions are no help. I think he is saying that capitalists are being replaced by "collateralists"? He uses the term (whatever it is) several times but I did not hear him define it.
Most of these economists don't even know what capitalism is. Especially the lady saying fisheries in Rome was capitalism 🤣. Clearly confusing markets with capitalism. The only one I can trust is Yanis who says we don't have capitalism but gives a much more historically accurate definition of what it was.
@@grb1969 If you haven't already discovered him , I would recommend the economist Michael Hudson. He calls Krugman the dumbest Nobel prize winner ever.
Thanks for this. So economists at academia, activists, NGO's and so on have been saying the same old things for decades. What's missing is any sort of politico-economic solution to the problems created by the financialised economic system operated by the IMF and BIS arm in arm with the major transnational banks and organisations such as Blackrock. And populations in the west cannot vote their way out this system of international fraud any more than the people of the global south and communist countries. The question to ask is why. And why are we still listening to economists from academia who have none of the answers. Well we know the reason for that, don't we yet the majority of people in the west are in some kind of denial, and do not want to take action and responsibility for themselves or anyone or anything. All those consumers are locked in. The only people in rebellion to any significant degree are mostly bombed into oblivion, their resources stolen and taken for use by the gross consumption countries. We're a pathetic lot the human species. And hey, the 6th mass extinction is well under way, and there go humans too, to all intents and purposes. Yep, so thanks to all the economists and philosophers. No help needed thanks
Doom and gloom pessimism we're all in "denial" and "pathetic" isn't really true. Everybody knows something is wrong even the people running it. It's just that the solutions are going to require global consensus between multi-disciplines/institutions which have mutually interdependent self interest in NOT making those changes. Mass grassroots organization around specific issues/public goods are one solution. So yeah none of what you say is useful or needed, thanks.
You've got no sense of history. Yes, lots of things are very much going the wrong way right now, but this isn't the first time. Of course those academics and economists don't "have the answer", because that isn't how any of this works. Eventually, normally after things get really bad, people at large start to incorporate and implement some of these ideas and things get better, for a while at least. Most individuals don't live long enough to see even one big cycle, so they don't see it working. That said, it would be much preferable if we didn't get ossified by "power gets power" to the point of crisis and instead made more steady progress. That's why you've been hearing these warnings for so long... Folks are trying. That's literally the social role of an academic.
I appreciate your fatigue, via new media and its incessant flow of repetitive information, however a kind of postmodern misanthropy, if you will, isn't really the answer. Yes, the tropes of capitalism and academic/intellectual theorizing tend to prop each other up in a symbiotic stalemate, that supports critical thought and the trappings of wealth, for the few. Nonetheless human pragmatism and invention are refreshing characteristics that always seem at hand when problems are present that makes me believe that we will (yet again) rise above the difficulties that we, collectively experience. I think the pandemic is a good example of this.
@@crescentsi The pandemic is an interesting example. The interests of capitalists have warped the response and kept it from being nearly as effective as it could have been. Populist anti-capitalists and populist nationalists both have use the crisis to further attack basic reasonable governance and gain ground. Millions have died avoidable deaths. Yet, it could have been worse. Still, it could have been much better. There will be a next-time. Are we going to be more sensible and prepared, or less?
why should it be? debates are adversarial and hide the truth in favour of tricks, rhetoric and bad faith. debating is a hobby for university students nothing more
@@vivalaleta a discussion doesn't have to have more than one person... Have you ever even taken an exam? They ask you to "discuss" all the time Grow up, goodbye
What a wonderfully meaningful and balanced discussion, where everyone agrees on fundamental badness of capitalism in general and nobody questions anyone on their core beliefs. Just some good old-fashioned iNteLLeCtUaL circlejerk for left-leaning people taking the precious time of their day on educating the masses.
you know all these people want to maintain capitalism except yanis right? even slavoj while he says he doesn't has never supported a revolutionary movement
X-Files Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery. But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate). The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human. Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
It’s a shame that financial power, rather than truth, has been shaping public discourse these last 50 years. Are the ideas discussed in these panels discussed around kitchen tables worldwide? For the most part, no … because a literal handful of conservative multibillionaires-like seriously under ten people-consolidate their trillions beneath the Koch Donor Network umbrella and _pay_ to pipe dawn-to-dusk _lies_ to a semi-captive audience.
It is curious that all these words and thoughts that can be heard in the video seem to come from a distant time. The economic cycle has totally changed. We are in a new era. The rules are no longer the same, people's behavior is different, and therefore, economists will have to wipe the slate clean.
Fixing Interest Rate burocratically by Central Bankers, being investments costs determinant, and savers income, that means there is neither free markets (free demand/supply) nor free prices. All prices and all demand/supply are directly/indirectly dominated by the interest rate, as the price in financial markets. Control interest rate implys, as a result, an planned/centralized economy. Where no free prices as independent resources localizers. Resources localization is different among different Interest Rates. not the same with 1% and 5% interest rates, as example. Academic, teach about Free Markets Economies as equivalent to Economic Science, when there is no free markets in reality, nor capitalist economy is the only way within the economic science.
I mean, it's an interesting argument and I'm at best someone who can sort of tolerate capitalism. But in addition, realistically the theoretical model of capitalism is pretty far from what we have these days. And that's both good and bad. What is most important is to get past the catchwords and talk seriously about whether we can realistically have a model that will give us a stable society and some quality of life. Because much of the west and above a the US is in a system that is failing right now. Failing.
We need the main stream media and institutions of higher learning to stop manufacturing consent for neo liberal policies which perpetuate the injustices and the violence of capitalism. This means that the privileged elite who come from the best schools need to take a second look at what they teach and why. It also means that elementary and middle schools need to reconsider the lessons that are conveyed by what they teach and what they choose to ignore.
Good subject. Thank you.... we need to stop the federal government from making it possible to put thousands and thousands of peaceful people in jail for possessing safe and beneficial cannabis. Cannabis is safer than aspirin and ibuprofen, and way safer than alcohol. Legal or illegal, only approximately 12% of people prefer to use cannabis. Cannabis causes peaceful Behavior.. alcohol causes violent Behavior.... if we care about public safety and personal safety, we need to legalize cannabis.
@@fredwelf8650 ... I'm 81 years old, and I have been around many many people using cannabis for more than 50 years of my life. Not once have I ever seen a cannabis user become violent. However, as you said, it can make some people very uncomfortably paranoid for a couple of hours. These people of course, don't try it again. This common anxiety and paranoia effect is probably why only a mere 12% of people prefer to use cannabis regularly.... this paranoia effect is beautifully Illustrated in the song video, I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again. I hope you go watch it. It is quite educational.
Government lost control of the central bank to private banking interest in 1913. Since then they used the control of credit to control every aspect of society. That is where all these batshit crazy policies stem from. Mega wealthy banking interests. If you want to know what credit as a public utility controlled by government used in the public interest looks like. That is what China has been up to. Look at their development and compare.
@@lenuvian I think you are correct that financial capital is the dominant form of capitalism today. However, financial capitalism is regulated weakly by states. The state is necessary to maintain the interest rates and the amount of money in circulation. There must be a centralized clearing for all credit transactions so that banks can loan money without risking the savings accounts. Banks also make transaction easier. When Obama failed to properly investigate and hold those responsible for the Recession, the relation of finance capital to the state showed its real relation of dominance. Likewise, Trump’s administration made no changes in those same real estate and derivative practices. Today, the housing sector is again in a gigantic bubble! The bad policies are all about trickle-down assumptions which have led to extreme inequality. The bottom half of our population is poor and the result is crime. The organized crime that causes this is never addressed. Tax avoidance and exploitation scams are legion, inflation caused by price gouging is justified instead of criticized. The Fed regulates the economy as a whole but does not set the tax policy which is extraordinarily asymmetric! There are the crazy monetarists who assert that money is just printed with no mention of the bond market. Positions like this that fail to explain how the system works are illusory.
Deirdre referenced Marx but obviously like most soothsayers never read him for she would have known Marx not only described capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production but a system where capital directs the mode of production and he went further and said they would invest in new capital as in plant and machinery (and hence innovate) to outperform the competition. I would say Deirdre Mcloskey is a capitalist apologist - for shes certainly ignorant - lets face it just about all economists are, thats why they are called "soothsayers" by many ie dont have have clue what theyre doing
"... what is it mean for changing- how we relate to one another" Mariana Mazzucato "....i want to hear the bankers an others saying lets go reform" Guy Standing- rentier capitalism - "a system in a systemic crisis" "....i am afraid that capitalism is not sustain" Yanis Varoufakis ....to observe the continuing monopoly power play feels really bad...
One may have seen it 50 years ago? Maybe, understanding that owning corporations may eventually... But not dependent labour, even a life of stress and debt.
That opening statement was the dumbest definition of capitalism I've ever heard. Capitalism is simple: 1. Free market determines production and distribution. 2. Private ownership of means of production
Economics on a continuum: free market --> competitive market --> regulated market --> controlled market. Note what a totally free market is. A totally free market would permit horizontal price fixing (which the Levi Strauss Corporation used to do with Levi's jeans. Anyone else remember when Levi's were "fair traded"?), selling below cost (John Rockefeller did it often to crush competitors), tying arrangements, and other non-competitive economic behaviors.
Yanis Varoufakis presented a crucial concept he calls "the cloudalists". We need a modified capitalism with more transparency infused with compassionate and empathetic based policies. All the while the market can be, and should remain "free".
"We need a modified capitalism with more transparency infused with compassionate and empathetic based policies" lmao, capitalism will never be compassionate nor empathetic, capitalism is not a person, it's a system, it's a system based on accumulation of capital via the exploration of workers, if you end accumulation or the exploration of workers it literally ceases to be capitalism
There cannot EVER be a free market...a market can ONLY exist if there are enforceable rules and regulations. A "modified capitalism" can only happen by democratic government action.
Can we reinvent capitalism? To watch those debates and talks in full, head over to our main channel iai.tv/player?RUclips&
Don’t do this fake thumbnail bullshit to make it look like a conversation.
People who went to Cambridge are so good at getting the fact they went to Cambridge into the conversation within the first sentence. Incredible
Guy Standing actually criticizes what he got from his Cambridge pedagogy.
Not to diff from Harvard and Yale
Entrepreneurial educationalism - with which they hope to replace capitalism.
@@palsoumik7 Still mentions it - criticizing it is perhaps even a higher form of invidious comparison
That made me laugh, too. That said, the actual substance of his talk made a lot of sense.
wow if only someone had predicted all this 150 years ago and put it in a 3 volume series
OOF white beard man bad
when Guy Standing tells us that not even the precious Solow growth model applies anymore and that landlords and other capital owners are getting more and more of the pie, how does anyone see this is anything other than feudalism?
@@GlitzPixie because feudalism was objectively a completely different mode of production. Feudalism didn't have the kind of capital accumulation, commodity production or relatively free movement of labour power thsg capitalism does
@@afgor1088 I am not being literal. I just feel the power relationships we have aren't all that different
@@GlitzPixie aah, gotcha. well i guess that makes sense they're both a form of class society
Well, I think this makes clear that the economists are not going to save us (with the exception of Yanis Varoufakis!). I think this "discussion" also goes to show how important the philosophical basis, and even spiritual basis, of this question is. First, what is the aim of an economy? What do we want to achieve as an economic society? Answering this question is not itself economic. Yet without clarity on this guiding notion, we shall be subject to the abuse of power. This is the really big matter we face: who are we, and who do we want to be? Our future economy will follow from this understanding.
Your exceptional standard of living today comes from the free market. Maoists have been left behind and are just catching up since they embraced capitalism.
@Time to Sleep Buddy I would agree with most of what you said. Capitalism needs to be better regulated, but the question “should it be saved” seems akin to asking “should we keep using medicine when we are sick?” As if you had a better option. “Should we urgently fix capitalism?” Would make more sense.
@@JavierBonillaC Can Capitalism be fixed? We didn't end up here by chance. There are in-built mechanisms that have lead our society to where it is now over the past 200 years. Even if a "fix" were possible, how would we prevent the system from decaying into this state of affairs again?
Lets also not forget that our "excpetional standard of living" is largely built on the backs of horrific standards of living in the third world. It has not come from the magic of Capitalism, in fact it has come from the same mechanisms that plagued the European and North American working class for much of the 1800s. The difference is that now we westerners don't have to confront it.
@@PsilentMusicUK ok, so what next? Colectivism? Should we all,work according to “what we can” and earn according to what we need? Trust in the good faith and selflessness of others when that won’t even take us to saving water at home? Which is this new system that will replace capitalism?
@@PsilentMusicUK I very much agree with you. Even if we have no ready made solution, and maybe there isn’t one, we need to regulate way more effectively. It is self-destructive in some of its ugliest manifestations and it has many.
_"Guy Standing"_ 👉🏻 what an awesome name for an economist!!
... and of course, if he's the only one of that name, he'd be the last Guy Standing. Five past noon at the OK corral.
Wish this was actually a discussion instead of a cut up of different single speakers
There's nothing to discuss because every speaker has exactly the same view: capitalism bad. If we use 1 sentence testimonials interleaved with corporate pump music, it will be easier for the viewer to digest this crucial info
@@SolarPlayerinherent in Marx's analysis of capitalism is that capitalism is not "bad".
Guy Standing's assessment of the situation was spot-on ! He speaks about the underlying economic reality behind the current sociopolitical crises.
The Western world is a mix of capitalism and fascism; the Eastern world is a mix of capitalism, fascism and communism. The first mix is a lot weaker than the second mix. Therefore, the Western world (NATO) must reinvent communism, if it wants to survive.
and Krugman just skips over it... oh people are annoyed with markets, and wage markets, like there is anything resembling a wage market or ever was.
As soon as you own a portion of the labour you make, you are in a smaller market than what you could have, so maybe he is right in a way lol
@@roberthorne9597 I would have said that the labor market is a dead end. Work never had a future to start with and never it will have one. Work is about helping a capitalist to eliminate his competitors with the latest robots. And the “Protestant work ethics” has only destroyed our climate.
What he forgot to say is that these facts started to happen as soon as we had gone off the gold standard in 1971. Money printing poisons our economy
@@VincentHondius Marxism 101: money is a fetish. Working for money is working to your own demise. Money is the hardest of drugs, you always need more, it rapidly makes you a prostitute, criminal and zombie. See Daniel Pink’s empirical studies done at the MIT (reported in his book *Drive*).
To Deirdre McCloskey:
Capitalism is not only about market, trade, middle man etc. it cannot be reduced to that. Arrighi, Polanyi, Braudel, E.P. Thompson have already showed that market has always been there, but what have changed with capitalism is the domination of capitalistic (more profit less cost) economic order over social, political, and cultural order.
what do you expect from her ? whenever you question a neoliberal economist about the current state of the world ,they clear shift to this is not real capitalism . even joe biden said this is not real capitalism in his recent speech their is no fixing capitalism you could keep people"s mouth shut by giving some welfare programs but eventually people would fight for socio and economic equality
it is weird they use car and apartment as a example for capital without any context
@@aryanthakur3424 well said
Markets have always been there??? Show your notes...
@@josephshumake5989 You can check K. Polanyi's book The Great Transformation. There you can see how market was operating before "market economy". Also you can trace the transformation of the market by E.P. Thompson's Moral economy as well. These are long and detailed texts, especially the latter one, my notes would not be enough to give you the picture.
yanis is always so concise and intelligent. the overall panel was of course amazing too
He's good, but gets a couple of points wrong (probably for rhetorical effect) IMO.
First, command capital isn't new. It has been dominant before; for example the Guilded Age. And history shows us pretty clearly it is a bad situation to be in.
Additionally, his stress on "central bank money" is more likely to be misleading than helpful. The massive growth of the financial sector isn't because of central banks having loose monetary policy... It is because we've addressed every economic challenge over the last 45 years with 'encouraging investment' by making finance more profitable (at least in terms of assets valuations). We need to reign in finance, not just hobble central banks.
Also, the Euro-zone is not representative of how most money works. If a nation actually issues its own fiat currency, the central bank can be a much more helpful and less adversarial institution, assuming the government uses it well.
Maybe he is concise, but if he was intelligent, he wouldnt have caused the chaos he caused to Greece as Finance Minister (unless he doesnt care)
@@ΔανιήλΤριανταφύλλης Do you think Varoufakis was mostly at fault for this or the EU? Sincere question, I'm interested in hearing a Greek perspective.
@@Tofu_va_Bien The EU states have their own interests in mind, and Greek politicians should have Greek interests in mind. Varoufakis' policy clearly made Greece suffer, and virtually every politician or economist outside his party had predicted this. He is a total failure for me, and I would rather vote for the Communist Party than for someone like him. How his party gets 3% in the national elections is a complete mystery to me.
@@ΔανιήλΤριανταφύλλης Interesting, thanks for sharing! How popular is the communist party over there? Like would they stand a chance in an election?
Paul Krugman : Economists don't use the work Capitalism.
Of course they don't, it's already assumed
Economics in the USA especially is the study and justification of capitalism. (It was largely the same in Marx's day, given how much of his work is a polemic against apologists for the (then) current system.
Krugman is disguising the fact that "money is power" in a Capitalistic system!
he basically says it over and over again in subtext and then comes out and tries to deny the very thing he implies all throughout, he's basically incoherent in this talk
and the whole: when pwoplw complain about capitalism it's these 3 things, not you know the whole governemnt sponsored idea of wage labour, not the privatisation of public well delivered systems or natural monopolies... noooooo
Krugman doesn't understand economics. Keen ruined him.
He is actually trying to say it and deny it at the same time
So get some?
There are people in economic power who don’t want some people to know what’s happening. That why there’s: spectator sports, religion, fear based news, etc.
@@General_ONeill right. it's more important how we think than what we think. it's no coincidence that in the British commonwealth, sports is a big deal where there's rigid class stratification. in the southern US, sports and religion are ubiquitous and it's where civil rights movements have a tough time getting off the ground.
@@General_ONeill what did I say that's untrue? don't just take my word for it. listen to Chomsky.
American capitalism has had some spectacular failures in the past three years, from near collapse during the pandemic, to failing to provide for basic human needs, like health care, toilet paper, baby formula, medicines and cars. It was supposed to guarantee the availability of things based on need, and instead, it repeatedly demonstrates that it can't provide anything that is in short supply. What has filled the gap? Mostly, the federal government, to the extent that it has the ability. The result is price gouging and runaway inflation, while corporations continue to make obscene profits, and their leaders criticize the efforts of our government to prevent the chaos that they created. Is this how. we want to live?
Supply interruptions are a symptom of either monopoly control, or debasement of currency, or both.
The warning against the Just In Time delivery system have been out there for as long as it's implementation.
@@artandarchitecture6399 please tell me which companies the government forced to shut down. Most companies tried to continue operations while voluntarily scaling back based on material shortages, concerns about liability and other effects on their bottom line. What would you have done differently that would have kept businesses running under the circumstances? Would doing nothing and accepting another million US deaths have been a better option?
I do not appreciate you blaming capitalism while ignoring the unnecessary amount of restrictions the us government places on the economy, for example americans could import european formula, It's certainly safe and there's plenty of it to go around, but the bueurocratic government won't allow it. Instead they'll seize and destroy it. I could provide more examples if you ask. (apologies for any spelling mistakes, not a native speaker).
@@inediblenut They can't tell you because they pulled that "fact" out of their @zz. The Right/Conservatives are fundamentally delusional liars. The base of their political philosophy and world view is to stand in the way of societal progress by literally not only denying reality but offering an alternative reality that demonstrably does not exist. They can't be honest about who and what they are because the moment they do, they lose the argument.
@@petar7867 That particular government restriction, and many many others, are a product of capitalism. There are legitimate public health and safety concerns with the import of baby formula (you remember the stories of formula adulterated with melamine, right?). However, oligopolistic producers were the ones who got overly restrictive bans put in place to decrease competition.
Regulatory capture isn't a problem caused by representative government and voters having too much power... It is a problem of the 'capitalist class' and corporations having too much power and using it to make government less representative.
PS: Your English is fine. Better than a lot of native speakers.
Deidre McClosekey doesnt seem to understand "capital accummulation", her examples initially were of wealth accumulation. Capital Accumulation means the concentration of capital - means of production, like she said later factories, but also resources and materials used to produce things, and with those factors of production of course the economy grows (if they are being used) so yes capital accumulation is required for growth, innovation certainly helps but not necessary.
She doesn't even understand what capitalism it - "Capitalism has always existed" my ass, it was preceded by feudalism. She defined it as "middlemen" and factories - these are markets and productions, not capitalism, she's confusing parts of the system with the system itself. Capitalism is the economic system in which market guides production, which happens in privately owned units (factories/companies) by capitalists who owns the means of production.
Okay
But what then is socialism if not that but with “workers” instead “capitalists” ?
That's because these clowns equate markets to capitalism, and we've had overlapping economic systems through the transitions towards capitalism.
For example, Marx discussed the artisan, who typically labored on their own, as a class of workers who were in conflict with the emerging capitalist class. Artisans existed during feudalism and the early emerging capitalism, but overtime most became part of the capitalist class or part of the working class (the proletariat).
Obviously, there had to be a major economic and social shift for the artisan class to nearly disappear, right?
Then it should follow, that capitalism isn't just markets.
@@BasicLib socialism, which has a wide range of structures, changes the relationship between production.
Your question is more analogous to, "A dictatorship is a political structure. A Democracy is a political structure. Therefore, these political systems are the same". Obviously, this isn't true. A democratic process completely changes how decisions are made. Where as a dictatorship is typically performed through an autocracy.
An economic system will still exist under wocialism, but who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and how to distribute the products of production changes drastically.
The structures are highly variable, as worker's cooperatives will likely have a more market based economy, state ownership would likely use a mixed market system, and localized communes would likely produce most goods locally. Decomodification could play a major role within all of these economies, as well.
That's not something you typically see within capitalism, and if you do it's highly limited.
Despite productivity rising in workers since the 70s, pay has not kept up pace, only for the CEO's.
Working People only support capitalism because they want to be like the 1% via advertising and marketing.
Slavery still happens today, its just accepted because some money is being paid as opposed to working for free. Conditions are still horrible
Sadly, In the Uvalde massacre, the video footage of cops in the school, was provided with the screams edited out so it doesn't seem that bad. That is a great analogy for a capitalist society, hiding the flaws and injustices so the public doesnt know how bad it really is.
Pay has not risen -> This is slavery
Really??
Your point might be taken more seriously if it wasn't so overdramatic
@@androkguz The only way leftist can make an argument to speak against capitalism’s prosperity is by dishonest word games.
Wages have kept up with productivity, this statistic is flawed.
@@Leonardo-po7ht Proof?
27:44 "The tech companies have fought for the right to take our faces from any public space without us ever knowing. Forget about consent."
I am stronger therefore this is mine. Sounds like a ready made tug of war. Silent, loud, from hell or heaven. With Thor and thunderbolts and Shiva, or Angels and demons. Or educated wise mean Or fools.
Can't fail with Zizek - great speakers, but his point is how to turn all the earlier strategies and explanations into a concerted effort. He's like the zoom-out button!
“A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.”
― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France. What we saw with the (failed) Sanders campaign and the failure of the Build Back Better bill was the absolute failure to *reform* 18th century institutions to address 21st century problems. And from Burke's "conservative" standpoint, this signals the doomed nature of the capitalist ancien regime.
The Infrastructure Bill seems to have led to massive construction projects everywhere!
The Ancien Regime wasn't capitalistic- it was feudalistic.
@@AmazingDuckmeister I'm talking about today's *ancien regime* which is capitalistic.
@@rochellehandelman6267 how can it be ancient if it is the same as todays regime? Do you even know what you are talking about? Also, when was the state more economically powerful than now? 40% to 50% of the gdp is controlled by the state, more than ever
@@RabeltCorez You don't know what 'ancien regime' means.
Thank you! A year ago, Standing's book has changed my views a lot
"Economics" doesn't use the word Capitalism these days because they want to maintain the pretense that they remain a legitimate scholarly scientific discipline when they have actually become vocational trainers for online department store managers and private money managers.
I mean maybe? I think the actual answer is that no one can conceive of a world beyond capitalism anymore. I know it's been said too many times already but, ya know, "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." Economists have never been the most imaginative bunch it wouldn't surprise me if they don't even think of capitalism as an ideology and not just the way things are and the way things will always be.
They have basically been that since David Ricardo, if not Adam Smith. If people take nothing else from Marx, he showed how all of these 'political economists' were nothing more than apologists for the big capitalists/colonialists/etc.
I kind of get the feeling that sociologist and those in the more social sciences have the opposite problem. They can't conceive of the world as something other than oppressed and oppressor and thus have a myriad language for all that's wrong. Since *their* vocation depends on being coaches and support for populism and political movements, I can imagine why the cycle persists
If it can't exist on it's own, without saving, it's unnecessary. But let's be honest, in a decade or two robots will do most of the mundane work, probably more than 60% human workforce will have nothing to do, capitalist simply won't be able to apply to that. We need to go forward and experiment with new ways instead of mummifying old economy like some dinosaurs want, because they don' understand our times. Peterson is a great example of that, entangled in little ideological wars, profiting off of it, and just throwing silly slogans out there, without proper understanding of our times.
It frustrates me to no end that Peterson took the path he did. He was my first exposure to Jungian psychology, which really resonated with me and helped me find meaning in my life when I was a depressed, nihilistic 20 year old. I never read his books but they seemed to have helped tons of people in a similar way.
It's such a shame that someone who had a message that could've reached way more people instead got sidetracked into being a culture war grifter. after developing a benzo addiction and going to Russia to have a coma induced no less.
Deirdre McCloskey said "innovation" in the 17th... and all I heard was "colonialism " banging hard far from europe.
I think these are all good points and considerations. The current order has meanwhile set a countdown for my mental and physical health and I am running out of time. I work full time. Please hurry up!
Community purpose and mutual care is power - money is the wrong value system
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” -Box. Capitalism is just a model, it has problems. Clearly those with the power have engineered a version of capitalism (crony-techno-capitalism/techno-feudalism) that has serious issues, cannot be reformed, and must be undone! Everyone agrees on this. The problem is how can this be done and what kind of model provides the incentives, is simple to understand, and removes the most egregious parts of the current system. I wish I heard more about that from the panel.
In theory Capitalism, because of its structure, will eventually turn into the shitty situation we have now.
Paul Kruegman is great value for money, if value is continuing a lie until we all die and money is mystical substance that god gifts to the worthy
The only thing that is sustainable is continual progress. We’ll never reach a single state where all of our problems will be solved, a state which is sustainable indefinitely. We can’t imagine what the future will be like because that would mean solving problems we haven’t yet encountered, predicting what knowledge will be created in the future (which is impossible). There are major inaccuracies in all of our most cherished theories, ways of life, customs etc., that could be improved objectively, and that will always be the case. Any system must facilitate the continuation of rapid progress, otherwise we are bound to encounter a problem which we’re incapable of solving.
I like your approach. I'd say, until now, capitalism has been that system, based on individual rights and economic freedom.
@@Juaniguitarra86 Our perceptions...including yours, are of course limited.
Capitalism is NOT based on individual rights nor economic freedom for all citizens, it is based on those things being granted to the "winners" in the capitalist game that use having the upper hand to limit those things for everyone else...the "losers".
Capitalist realism comment
"Continual progress" is an ideology itself, a myth worth ridding ourselves of if we are to be grounded in the reality of what is.
@@josephshumake5989 And what is that reality then?
The immediate thing that needs to be addressed is “a more critical and universally just inclusion of ethics and universal human moral values” into accumulation and use of capital, business and labor
You're high if you think you can make capitalism ethical
I’m not high and I know this is extremely difficult (not impossible) but its in the nature of “humans”, fight between “ego” and “heart”. It all depends on “intellectual’s” focus, do the put ego or heart in the front. Actually the focus from ego to heart can be done in as short as a few generations, if “those intellectuals” show up somehow…
@@haydenusaklar don’t listen to him.
You have the right idea
Let those who want to burn down the world in revolution keep playing with their matches. Instead let responsible people who realize there is a raging fire go on to pour water on it by fixing problems.
@@haydenusaklar how do you place ethics/moral values onto a system that incentivizes capital accumulation and exploitation?
It seems to me, government capture is a pretty big issue under capitalism, and the outcomes will always be deregulation, reduced taxation, and the undermining of labor.
First of all, “accumulation and use of capital” is a “human right”, which means it doesn’t require “any special government or system”. If “a government” incentivizes” it, so be it, I dont see any problem with that. When you add the concept of “exploitation”, thats when things change. “Exploitation” is a “moral and ethics” problem. We can talk about how to “avoid” exploitation, and the role of “a government” on this can only be “regulation” through legal system, more focus on values, ethics in public education system, I cant see much else. The responsibility is on the shoulder of leaders, in the form of prominent intellectuals in public space, universities, CEOs, board directors, board members, etc, in other words the responsibility is on the “intellectuals”
Great video and so on and so on...
I want to see humanity one day overcome money entirely
As a portable 'means of exchange' money/cash is manageable. When it becomes a 'commodity' then it becomes regressive. See my standalone comment.
@@peterclark6290 I only say this because something has to be done to regulate greed and blatant manipulation..
@@Cardioid2035 Then we need systems that _absorb_ (make use of) rather than _react_ to basic human traits/fundamentals - see my standalone comment.
@@Cardioid2035 Checked, they deleted it, of course in the interests of honest exchange.
@@peterclark6290 I checked, don’t worry RUclips has done that to me in the past as well.. All I know is that this treadmill economy is fundamentally going to lead to our demise through over-consumption if we don’t ‘let off the gas’ literally and figuratively. I have nothing against this current societal structure, because it’s truly beautiful but it’s as if money trumps all reason as to the sustainability of our future
The question most economists avoid is not ""what is capitalism" but "what is capital"? And how can I measure it? How do we know that capital is accumulating?
Classical economics said that the inputs of an economy are labour, land and stock. Where is capital? And what is social capital and human capital?
Does capital just exist as a byproduct of a group of humans interacting with each other?
The commodification of public capital (health, environment, intellectual rights, arts, time etc.) into private capital balance sheets has been a terrible error, worse still is that this hoard is not reinvested into innovative productive (read elevating public good) means.
It's not an "error" its the essence of capitalism. Everything has to create profit.
Thank you all for your gorgeous comments, more then appreciated..🤩👏👏👏
Hand wringing and over analyzing won’t help the masses. Bringing the perpetrators of inequality in check may help but who’s going to do that?
Any discussion of whether or not we should preserve capitalism should include Richard Wolff. Please include him the next time you have such a discussion.
Wolff is great.
Capitalism has got to go !
@Gabriel Coelho Poland , the country.
@@tomaszhadamik880 Conservative talking points and buzzwords speedrun
@Gabriel Coelho look at how much better taiwan is compared to china, and even then china would be even worse off if it was actually communist.
the only reason countries like china exist as we know it is because of america and globalisation without capitalism china would have already collapsed and if they weren’t authoritarian and properly embraced capitalism they could be as prosperous as taiwan
@Gabriel Coelho china became a manufacturing hub because of their cheap labour but now prices are higher than other south asian countries and even countries like mexico, and guess what mexico is on the boarder with the US also shutting down all your main manufacturing hubs like shanghai Shenzhen and Qingdao is a good way to scare/turn away foreign investment, and that’s exactly whats happened
concise, I like it
Insane take by McCloskey. Capitalism doesn't exist (saying it has always existed is basically equivalent to saying that it doesn't, or not in any meaningful way); what makes modern economies different to previous forms of production is "innovation". But what was it that enabled the immense growth of the capacity to innovate (or productivity to increase exponentially)? Capitalism! I.e., a qualitatively novel form of structuring the productive relations. Absolutely mind boggling.
capitalism didn’t get the U.S to the moon, and it didn’t take Russia from farmers to astronauts within a century either
this is quite informative, thank you!
IMPORTANT. The solution is to keep it simple: our goal is to meet people's needs. To do that we must foster altruism. Advocate altruism, organize it with free collaboration networks that meet people's needs, teach others to foster altruism.
We need radical systemic change, the lack of altruism is incentivized within the system and this will not change through a change of mindset, but a change of material conditions. A more altruistic mindset might follow this though.
This should be called the Institute of advert interruptions…
Any economic model will move toward from its basic definition. Whether it is socialism or capitalism. The phase currently we are in is the last few stage of capitalism. Even if we reset the capitalism tp its basic definition it will save the capitalism yeah but we will be back at this same position within 5 decades. So the answer to this title is No, we shouldn't save capitalism.
capitalism itself is a very limited concept as well as just an acknowledgment of a reality when people are free to buy and sell goods/services. Adam Smith didn't create capitalism, he observed what would happen if the natural rights of the people were protected and preserved; the economical outcome being what he called capitalism. Capitalism is just a thing that exists when people are free and their natural rights protected. Today, people try to encompass too many social issues with capitalism and then blame those problems on capitalism, when in reality, it has nothing to do with capitalism and therefore it can not take the blame. If you read one of the top comments under this video by a person named Robert Myers, you will know what I'm talking about. for example, Russia (prior to Russian Revolution) was a capitalist nation, however, the governmental system was a feudal one. for what reason, then, could the peasants not lift themselves up out of poverty? was it because of capitalism or feudalism? post-modernists would say it was because of capitalism. but, in any government, capitalism is never at the top of the hierarchical governmental structure of its many systems.
the country that has come the closest to protecting and preserving the natural rights of its people is the United States, thus making it the country that has come the closest to having a pure capitalist system. the US is the richest country with its citizens having the highest GDP per capita in the world, but unfortunately, the US government interferes with the economy too much and distorts the free market causing the prices of everything to skyrocket, especially healthcare. this problem, too, is not the result of capitalism. this high price phenomenon also happens when the government implements socialist programs; socialism never truly works for the betterment of human lives. What the Founding Fathers intended for the US government to do regarding the economy was to facilitate and uphold the free market, not hinder it.
P.S. it is obvious that the economists in this video are Keynesian economists, which means they favor the idea of the government involving itself in the economy by interfering in the free market, via quantitative easing... which is what I alluded to earlier.
And what do you propose?
@@jireh5941 "Capitalism just exist when people are free and their natural rights protected". The problem here is are we truly free? And does the natural rights really exist?.
By saying "free" I assume that you are referring both, that humans have free will and that humans make their own choices, the problem with this is that according to the dialectical materialism, we have not such thing as a free will since our subjectivity is determinated by the material conditions. And the statement that humans make their own decisions are also doubtful since all of us have cognitive bias, marketing itself is a kind of persuasive way to manipulate the public opinion in order to get more sales (neural marketing is even worse), so saying that humans can make their own choices without any influence of the other (being free) is pretty precarious.
Now if you are referring a free state the definition is even more diffuse. First of all a state can never be completely free since it would assume there is not law. Currently I could say that the states rather than being completely free, have a conditioned freedom were you are allowed to do certain things but not others. With this definition what are the minimum "freedoms" required for the capitalism to exist.
Another thing is that natural rights itself are just made in a arbitrary manner and often it does not represent the population as a whole as we have seen trough history
@@jireh5941 I also would like to know your definition of capitalism because by my understanding you are using free market as a synonym or intrinsic concept of capitalism.
@@Andres_81 whether or not we have free will or our minds are controlled by the media or state is a different issue. The rights i am referring to are the natural rights which were derived from judeo/christian beliefs which the Founding Fathers acknowledge in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judeo/christian belief that all people were made in the image of God and have intrinsic worth is the cornerstone for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers acknowledged this and put it on paper even though they couldnt fully live up to this standard themselves, because they believed the government wasn’t the arbiter of truth and could not endow people with rights like that of natural rights. There had to be a creator for this narrative to hold water. Whether you are religious or not, this is a practical methodology for the sustaining of a free country and its why people were able to make changes to the law to include black people in those rights.
The amount of ads I had to endure watching this video is astronomical.
sharing is caring
In deciding whether we 'should save capitalism', we'll need to look at the evidence. For a highly social species, Capitalism has meant wealth and power for a small number and exploitation and manipulation for a much larger number, which flies in the face of our social context as a species. Those who are exploited are manipulated to feel that they too can achieve significant wealth, so they keep supporting the Capitalist ideals. Forget the labels, just think about what would be best - government by a bunch of wealthy self seekers who exploit others to increase their wealth, or some other system (which by the way, is no longer on offer). Short time to destruction if Capitalism is allowed to run unconstrained by care for the climate and environment. BTW if you're wondering who I am, the answer is another person who looks at Capitalism in an objective way - it has provided me and many others with a livelihood, but at what cost?
Then what is the alternative to capitalism? What will we do one capitalism is destroyed? Socialism?
If we are going to do socialism, who will impose socialism to EVERYONE? The leaders? You think those leaders will be fair under socialism? Have you seen all socialist countries? Are they doing better than capitalist countries?
You don't hate capitalism, you hate the hierarchy, and in whatever politico-social, economic system, there will always be hierarchies. Hierarchies are based on nature and so you're just hating on human nature, or even nature as a whole.
You're hating something you don't even fully understand.
@@wafercrackerjack880 you're confusing capitalism with democracy. There are plenty of socialist countries that are doing better than hyper-capitalist countries such as the US. They have a strong democracy. The socialist countries that are doing worse have an autocracy or oligarchy. The concentration of power coupled with a lack of accountability is the problem. These two factors exist and can even be facilitated by the capitalist framework.
You don't need capitalism to have democracy. You don't need capitalism to hold your leaders accountable. An economic system is flatly irrelevant to a political system, they've been conflated to justify the very argument you are making. An argument that misindentifies the root problem, arguably purposefully so.
@@ZachJ-0 you are confusing socialism to democracy.
Give me an example of a socialist country that is doing well than capitalist country then? I am 100% sure you will give an example of a democratic country with socialist policies whose economy is primarily driven by capitalism.
You're the one misidentifying here. First of all, you will throw away democracy if you will go to real socialism. Have you any idea of what socialism really is?
@@wafercrackerjack880 now you're confusing socialism with communism. Communism is by necessity socialist but socialism isn't by necessity communism. Did I once call for the abolition of all markets for a collectivist planned economy?
It's disappointing that you would willfully disregard what I actually said for your talking point, and frankly undermines your integrity here. How can it be that I'm confusing socialism with democracy when I repeatedly and explicitly stated they're separate systems entirely? This is another example of you conflating economic policy with political structure and projecting that misconstruction of facts onto me.
Irrelevant to the conversation here but if it will stop you from assuming my position and treating your unfounded presumptions as fact, I would advocate for a mixed economy not communism because of the problem in concentrated power I mentioned earlier.
@@ZachJ-0 "now you're confusing socialism with communism" Jesus Christ, how can you conclude that from what I said. Do you even know that socialism is an extremely broad term, in which communism falls under? Have you any idea what communism even means?
Give me an example of the country you are talking about, you forgot about that? You were so sure socialist countries are doing great. If you have so much integrity then answer this question.
You were the one who kept assuming about my position and started making claims you cannot back up.
You talk big for someone so ignorant.
Krugman understands that capitalism is what provides Economists their job.
Without Capital they would have to find useful work.
In concordance with what DHL written below regarding the manufacturing of consent and the reviewing of our educational systems/curriculum… I also think decisions about what change is shouldn’t be principally the domain of academics and whilst I’m not making this especially about race, there should be some more inclusivity from other members of the global population, not just white recipients of generational wealth for a system that was created to benefit their forefathers and therefore led to their being educated enough to speak about the system that serves their excellence… Change requires a dynamic, diverse and syndicalist landscape to germinate.
It is disingenuous and misleading to ignore slavery and the earning ( stealing) of other natural and human resources is what made capitalism in the first place. Slightly arrogant.
Say more? I'm not sure this conversation takes away or diminishes the one you are attempting to have...
I'll just go then... I think this is the problem with post-colonial theory as a whole. It displaces class analysis in the discussion and seems to believe that focusing on class somehow takes away from a post-colonial critique, which couldn't be further from the truth. I wish more people understood this because this is one of the conversations that really bogs down the Left.
Capitalism is polite slavery.
Where is the comment above on Capitalism being polite slavery?
It seems the truth is not allowed to be shared, AND the supporters pretend the truth doesn't exist. The blame is on both the capitalistic owners of the media like RUclips and the citizens who hide behind capitalism and willfully ignore the consequences.
@@staybalancedn That was my comment. I can still see it. Can you not? I've had plenty of other comments disappear though.
Fox and grapes. A steady diet of " it wasn't me".
I see all these comments harassing economists, and I just think to myself, do I really care? Should this animus towards my field bother me? Nope. I am just merely a behavioral economist doing what I enjoy --- understanding people and their decisions. Not making claims about how actors should behave, but rather how they actually behave and why. Carry on everyone, you are not bothering me. People seem to think economists are to blame, but no one ever looks at the policy-maker that rushes over to academic journals to see if they can actually implement the theories into policy. We are both to blame, but some how policy-makers have escaped their anticipated demise by cutting out their own tongues to the public eye.
Capitalism is too old for our new society.
all the terms are Marxism fascism libertarianism all dead and outdated for society
You can only call it a “new society” as a result of capitalism. Had we tried communism forever we would still be using hand axes.
So is Marxism
@@deckofcards87 precisely
@@deckofcards87 What do you think Marxism is?
0:37 Just these first words are already a treasure.
"The blessed Adam Smith"? Who canonized him?
This is a brilliant presentation! Thank you.
Marianna is brilliant!!
Can anyone help me with Mr. Yanis' accent? The captions are no help. I think he is saying that capitalists are being replaced by "collateralists"? He uses the term (whatever it is) several times but I did not hear him define it.
Most of these economists don't even know what capitalism is. Especially the lady saying fisheries in Rome was capitalism 🤣. Clearly confusing markets with capitalism. The only one I can trust is Yanis who says we don't have capitalism but gives a much more historically accurate definition of what it was.
Shoshana Zuboff is a real G. Love her
I didn't watch the video yet, but my answer is that we cannot save capitalism because by its very nature it will destroy itself, one way or another.
World's leading thinkers and Paul Krugman.
lol
@@grb1969 If you haven't already discovered him , I would recommend the economist Michael Hudson. He calls Krugman the dumbest Nobel prize winner ever.
Thanks for this. So economists at academia, activists, NGO's and so on have been saying the same old things for decades. What's missing is any sort of politico-economic solution to the problems created by the financialised economic system operated by the IMF and BIS arm in arm with the major transnational banks and organisations such as Blackrock. And populations in the west cannot vote their way out this system of international fraud any more than the people of the global south and communist countries. The question to ask is why. And why are we still listening to economists from academia who have none of the answers. Well we know the reason for that, don't we yet the majority of people in the west are in some kind of denial, and do not want to take action and responsibility for themselves or anyone or anything. All those consumers are locked in. The only people in rebellion to any significant degree are mostly bombed into oblivion, their resources stolen and taken for use by the gross consumption countries. We're a pathetic lot the human species. And hey, the 6th mass extinction is well under way, and there go humans too, to all intents and purposes. Yep, so thanks to all the economists and philosophers. No help needed thanks
Doom and gloom pessimism we're all in "denial" and "pathetic" isn't really true. Everybody knows something is wrong even the people running it. It's just that the solutions are going to require global consensus between multi-disciplines/institutions which have mutually interdependent self interest in NOT making those changes. Mass grassroots organization around specific issues/public goods are one solution. So yeah none of what you say is useful or needed, thanks.
@@QubitVector hi well I might agree with you, if you were right. But you are wrong.
You've got no sense of history. Yes, lots of things are very much going the wrong way right now, but this isn't the first time. Of course those academics and economists don't "have the answer", because that isn't how any of this works. Eventually, normally after things get really bad, people at large start to incorporate and implement some of these ideas and things get better, for a while at least. Most individuals don't live long enough to see even one big cycle, so they don't see it working.
That said, it would be much preferable if we didn't get ossified by "power gets power" to the point of crisis and instead made more steady progress. That's why you've been hearing these warnings for so long... Folks are trying. That's literally the social role of an academic.
I appreciate your fatigue, via new media and its incessant flow of repetitive information, however a kind of postmodern misanthropy, if you will, isn't really the answer. Yes, the tropes of capitalism and academic/intellectual theorizing tend to prop each other up in a symbiotic stalemate, that supports critical thought and the trappings of wealth, for the few. Nonetheless human pragmatism and invention are refreshing characteristics that always seem at hand when problems are present that makes me believe that we will (yet again) rise above the difficulties that we, collectively experience. I think the pandemic is a good example of this.
@@crescentsi The pandemic is an interesting example. The interests of capitalists have warped the response and kept it from being nearly as effective as it could have been. Populist anti-capitalists and populist nationalists both have use the crisis to further attack basic reasonable governance and gain ground. Millions have died avoidable deaths. Yet, it could have been worse. Still, it could have been much better.
There will be a next-time. Are we going to be more sensible and prepared, or less?
So which system encourages innovation?
This montage of educated speakers discussing Capitalism is just that - it isn't a debate as I was led to believe.
why should it be? debates are adversarial and hide the truth in favour of tricks, rhetoric and bad faith. debating is a hobby for university students nothing more
@@afgor1088 Leading economists and philosophers discuss....DISCUSS.
@@vivalaleta a discussion doesn't have to have more than one person... Have you ever even taken an exam? They ask you to "discuss" all the time
Grow up, goodbye
5:38: "Over 60% of wealth in this country is inherited wealth."
"Nostalgia de la boue" is French for “nostalgia for the mud.”
What a wonderfully meaningful and balanced discussion, where everyone agrees on fundamental badness of capitalism in general and nobody questions anyone on their core beliefs. Just some good old-fashioned iNteLLeCtUaL circlejerk for left-leaning people taking the precious time of their day on educating the masses.
you know all these people want to maintain capitalism except yanis right? even slavoj while he says he doesn't has never supported a revolutionary movement
Diedre audio for me sounds crazy. Is it just my phone?
the last 4 people are low key my heros...
X-Files
Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery.
But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate).
The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human.
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
Such a great panel!
It’s a shame that financial power, rather than truth, has been shaping public discourse these last 50 years. Are the ideas discussed in these panels discussed around kitchen tables worldwide? For the most part, no … because a literal handful of conservative multibillionaires-like seriously under ten people-consolidate their trillions beneath the Koch Donor Network umbrella and _pay_ to pipe dawn-to-dusk _lies_ to a semi-captive audience.
would have appreciated the odd, judiciously-provided subtitle for the above.
It is curious that all these words and thoughts that can be heard in the video seem to come from a distant time. The economic cycle has totally changed. We are in a new era. The rules are no longer the same, people's behavior is different, and therefore, economists will have to wipe the slate clean.
A RECESSION IS NOT DEFINED AS 2 SUCCESSIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GDP. A RECESSION IS WHEN WE SAY IT IS.
Fixing Interest Rate burocratically by Central Bankers, being investments costs determinant, and savers income, that means there is neither free markets (free demand/supply) nor free prices. All prices and all demand/supply are directly/indirectly dominated by the interest rate, as the price in financial markets. Control interest rate implys, as a result, an planned/centralized economy. Where no free prices as independent resources localizers. Resources localization is different among different Interest Rates. not the same with 1% and 5% interest rates, as example.
Academic, teach about Free Markets Economies as equivalent to Economic Science, when there is no free markets in reality, nor capitalist economy is the only way within the economic science.
Artificial lowering of interest rates causes recessions via non sustainable long term investment due to it not being backed by real savings.
Why isn't Mark Blythe on the panel ?
I mean, it's an interesting argument and I'm at best someone who can sort of tolerate capitalism. But in addition, realistically the theoretical model of capitalism is pretty far from what we have these days. And that's both good and bad. What is most important is to get past the catchwords and talk seriously about whether we can realistically have a model that will give us a stable society and some quality of life. Because much of the west and above a the US is in a system that is failing right now. Failing.
Failing who?many who fail in the west is a result of their own doing
No. The distribution of the issuance of money should be equal, not selective.
We need the main stream media and institutions of higher learning to stop manufacturing consent for neo liberal policies which perpetuate the injustices and the violence of capitalism. This means that the privileged elite who come from the best schools need to take a second look at what they teach and why. It also means that elementary and middle schools need to reconsider the lessons that are conveyed by what they teach and what they choose to ignore.
Same corporations that run govts run media.
Should we save capitalism? No, not at all: profit over life isn't sustainable.
24:32 Zizeks android speech production device crosses wires with his cpu and feeds back for a moment
Krugman is a politician
Good subject. Thank you.... we need to stop the federal government from making it possible to put thousands and thousands of peaceful people in jail for possessing safe and beneficial cannabis. Cannabis is safer than aspirin and ibuprofen, and way safer than alcohol. Legal or illegal, only approximately 12% of people prefer to use cannabis. Cannabis causes peaceful Behavior.. alcohol causes violent Behavior.... if we care about public safety and personal safety, we need to legalize cannabis.
12%? lol
basically everyone uses it, they just don't admit it even anonymously
I am skeptical of the effects of cannabis - cannabis causes violence because the user is paranoid.
@@fredwelf8650 ... I'm 81 years old, and I have been around many many people using cannabis for more than 50 years of my life. Not once have I ever seen a cannabis user become violent. However, as you said, it can make some people very uncomfortably paranoid for a couple of hours. These people of course, don't try it again. This common anxiety and paranoia effect is probably why only a mere 12% of people prefer to use cannabis regularly.... this paranoia effect is beautifully Illustrated in the song video, I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again. I hope you go watch it. It is quite educational.
Government lost control of the central bank to private banking interest in 1913. Since then they used the control of credit to control every aspect of society. That is where all these batshit crazy policies stem from. Mega wealthy banking interests. If you want to know what credit as a public utility controlled by government used in the public interest looks like. That is what China has been up to. Look at their development and compare.
@@lenuvian I think you are correct that financial capital is the dominant form of capitalism today. However, financial capitalism is regulated weakly by states. The state is necessary to maintain the interest rates and the amount of money in circulation. There must be a centralized clearing for all credit transactions so that banks can loan money without risking the savings accounts. Banks also make transaction easier.
When Obama failed to properly investigate and hold those responsible for the Recession, the relation of finance capital to the state showed its real relation of dominance. Likewise, Trump’s administration made no changes in those same real estate and derivative practices. Today, the housing sector is again in a gigantic bubble!
The bad policies are all about trickle-down assumptions which have led to extreme inequality. The bottom half of our population is poor and the result is crime. The organized crime that causes this is never addressed. Tax avoidance and exploitation scams are legion, inflation caused by price gouging is justified instead of criticized.
The Fed regulates the economy as a whole but does not set the tax policy which is extraordinarily asymmetric!
There are the crazy monetarists who assert that money is just printed with no mention of the bond market. Positions like this that fail to explain how the system works are illusory.
4:48 Give me Georgism or give me the most unsustainable economic conditions possible!
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Adam Smith
Can we be saved from capitalism?
The human shadow is not a problem for ideology.
Deirdre referenced Marx but obviously like most soothsayers never read him for she would have known Marx not only described capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production but a system where capital directs the mode of production and he went further and said they would invest in new capital as in plant and machinery (and hence innovate) to outperform the competition.
I would say Deirdre Mcloskey is a capitalist apologist - for shes certainly ignorant - lets face it just about all economists are, thats why they are called "soothsayers" by many ie dont have have clue what theyre doing
Who is "We" in the title :" Should We Save Capitalism. ..."?
No this cannot be right. I am among the world's greatest thinkers.
"... what is it mean for changing- how we relate to one another" Mariana Mazzucato
"....i want to hear the bankers an others saying lets go reform" Guy Standing- rentier capitalism - "a system in a systemic crisis"
"....i am afraid that capitalism is not sustain" Yanis Varoufakis
....to observe the continuing monopoly power play feels really bad...
One may have seen it 50 years ago?
Maybe, understanding that owning corporations may eventually... But not dependent labour, even a life of stress and debt.
More, thT rage OF enslaved ones would drag others down, except the 0.01 %that are beyond their reach?
That opening statement was the dumbest definition of capitalism I've ever heard.
Capitalism is simple:
1. Free market determines production and distribution.
2. Private ownership of means of production
Economics on a continuum: free market --> competitive market --> regulated market --> controlled market.
Note what a totally free market is. A totally free market would permit horizontal price fixing (which the Levi Strauss Corporation used to do with Levi's jeans. Anyone else remember when Levi's were "fair traded"?), selling below cost (John Rockefeller did it often to crush competitors), tying arrangements, and other non-competitive economic behaviors.
If capitalism is merely state-sponsored usury, does that mean if we take away debt, borrowing, loans from the equation there is no capitalism?
It shouldbe confided to america alone as it is to their likeness❤❤❤
No.
Next question?
When I saw the thumbnail I thought the woman was Steven Tyler.
Yanis Varoufakis presented a crucial concept he calls "the cloudalists". We need a modified capitalism with more transparency infused with compassionate and empathetic based policies. All the while the market can be, and should remain "free".
"We need a modified capitalism with more transparency infused with compassionate and empathetic based policies"
lmao, capitalism will never be compassionate nor empathetic, capitalism is not a person, it's a system, it's a system based on accumulation of capital via the exploration of workers, if you end accumulation or the exploration of workers it literally ceases to be capitalism
There cannot EVER be a free market...a market can ONLY exist if there are enforceable rules and regulations. A "modified capitalism" can only happen by democratic government action.
I'm surprised Noam Chomsky wasn't included in this.
he's actually anti-capitalist. can't have that
Of course he would ignore the Employer Employee relationship which is the foundation to understanding capitalism!
Relationship? Master/slave. The only thing standing in the way of the Boss's 100% profit is the fool who works for him.