I've been listening to a lot of his talks lately, it's shocking how lucidly he breaks down economic realities, with articulation yet straightforward delivery. I appreciate his no-nonsense approach
These videos really demonstrate the importance/influence of think tanks, and it is brilliant to see this influence used for rather than against the people for once
Great video. The precautionary principle should not rest in the hands of economists. It simply says that since we have’n’t yet proven we can prevent dangerous climate change using yet to be proven (technically and at scale and affordable cost) technical solutions and innovations, we must implement now what we know will work. This will include renewables, natural carbon capture (reforestation, peat restoration etc.), energy efficiency and low carbon buildings, less flying, eating far less meet and reducing consumption (degrowth in richer nations) among other things. Difficult to argue against, I’d say.
The speaker is intelligent and engaging, and though he is fun to watch it is far more important to hear to what he has to say. Since he went to the trouble of creating slides, these must have some value for his talk. It’s too bad that the videographers don’t understand the importance of showing slides So that they can be followed by People who did not attend the presentation.
In an obvious attempt to shock one's attention towards an alternative way of thinking ( a conceptuality ) Richard Buckminster Fuller suggested that no where within his book " Grunch Of Giants " would the reader find the word " economics " . Needless to say ...one can in deed hunt ....for this word within the book and not find it . What one does find .... is what can only " emerge through emergency " . Real Economy is having to do with translation from monetary unit accounting to finer grained energy unit accounting ...sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting sense . Fuller's related book " Critical Path " also explores what quantum Intelligence development can do to bring forward this needed change . As yesterday's vested interests looses their grip on the future logic here may prevail with automated simulations logic . The aforementioned shall expose war " economies " fiduciary results as " underperforming " and therefor obsolete .
Ha is very good with a dry sense of humour. I suggest he should learn some techniques from standup comedy. I see a Superstar Comic Economist, Ha Ha. His students are super serious too. Economics is a theory that is not challenged, or debated, and taken too seriously.
16:52 Ha-Joon Chang leaves out the *fourth category* formulated by Slavoj Zizek: _”There are also unknown knowns-things we don’t know that we know.”_ This is the category of the unconscious-the domain of fetishistic disavowal, unconscious desires/fantasies. Psychoanalysis operates in this dimension.
I like the quality of arguments, but from a personal capability POV, most of the discussion is ecological requiring detailed information and theoretical analysis of "how long is a piece of string" , what probability do we attach to sustainability with what we know in such a climate of uncertainty constantly abused by crony Capitalism. I don't know. Reiterate and re-educate, and trust no one.
26:35 *moral depravity of markets* The wage differential approach will be lower [value of human life in that market will be less] in a developing country than a rich country-because poor people/places are more _desperate,_ hence less averse to risk and less willing to spend on long term prevention measures [less flexibility to spend on ecological externalities].
If you look at the history of dramatic economic transformations, they have not happened with market innovation. They have always happened with collective action, government planning and social commitment. The idea that a market of individualised, atomised actors, can somehow solve a global problem, that transcends borders, that transcends individual actionability, is pure ideology. If you consider the fastest rate of decarbonisation in history, in terms of low carbon kilowatt-hours added per capita, per year, the countries that come to the fore are France, with the Messmer economic nuclearisation plan, building some 60 or so nuclear reactors. And in Sweden, which built multiple hydroelectric and nuclear power plants during the 60s and 70s. Both achieved rates of decarbonisation more rapid (and consummate with the rate called for by the IPCC) than the market driven, government incentive driven, German Energiewende, or by the neoliberal EU emissions trading scheme. In fact every market intervention has failed so far. From carbon taxing to carbon offsets to other Pigouvian tactics, it is difficult to justify an ongoing market ideology to solve this problem when the reason why the problem happened in the first place, was the globalisation of a market based, fossil fuel dependant economy.
@@MonMalthias private entities simply don't take that kind of risk. Spend tons of money into something that probably has zero chance to success is not the fundamental of profit seeking or any kind of risk management. Further more, collective risk taker tends to do the basic research, things that cannot be commercialised immediately, but hugely benefits to futures. Even in the United States right now, where is the idea of privatised everything, federal government still funding majority of basic research cost. Private company rather spend money on marketing "our product helps environment" rather than doing real help. Or they only do it because it's the government contract, which is eventually still collective action
no it won't. it is logically impossible. because the market economy profits from the crisis. anything that needs to be done to solve the crisis will require to sacrifice its profits. therefore it will never "solve" anything. however it will do a few things like - shift the problem to another area, or shift the problem to another time (delay the problem) instead of solving it.
@@sushantdahal7809 I think that technology and innovations are unpredictable. We don't know what usefulness a new technology have. Innovations NASA have created for space travel have turned out to be useful for non-space related things as well. Military inventions have been useful also for us civilians, like the GPS and internet. The invention of shaped charges to punch through the armor of enemy tanks have proven itself to also be useful for making airbags for cars to save lives. Newly invented material to improve armor on turrets on tanks proved itself to also be useful for making dental plates.
the bug assumption here is that people actually know how to measure risk .. a very uneducated, misinformed, subjective calculation .... so let us move on to something else
The planet doesn't need any saving, absolutely right. It's us that need to be saved. Climate change would put in danger every aspect of our economic processes. We go kaput.
His initial statement about 'climate change' gave him away as a non-scientist in the natural sciences. He must understand that science does not work by consensus!
I am a scientist and academic. In practice science does work by consensus. A new idea is not accepted until evaluated and validated by the scientific COMMUNITY. Likewise a scientific belief or theory is only finally abandoned when it is deemed false by the majority of the scientific community.
I've been listening to a lot of his talks lately, it's shocking how lucidly he breaks down economic realities, with articulation yet straightforward delivery. I appreciate his no-nonsense approach
No environment = No economy.
What an amazing lecturer. Thank you Prof. Dr. Ha-Joon Chang. If it would work I'd be hitting that like button repeatedly for half an hour straight.
These videos really demonstrate the importance/influence of think tanks, and it is brilliant to see this influence used for rather than against the people for once
Ha-Joon Chang talks are awesome. Thank you!
"numbers are like sausages. You don't know what went into them. You don't want to know what went into them" word!
Great video. The precautionary principle should not rest in the hands of economists. It simply says that since we have’n’t yet proven we can prevent dangerous climate change using yet to be proven (technically and at scale and affordable cost) technical solutions and innovations, we must implement now what we know will work. This will include renewables, natural carbon capture (reforestation, peat restoration etc.), energy efficiency and low carbon buildings, less flying, eating far less meet and reducing consumption (degrowth in richer nations) among other things. Difficult to argue against, I’d say.
TLDR - US should become more like Singapore.
The speaker is intelligent and engaging, and though he is fun to watch it is far more important to hear to what he has to say. Since he went to the trouble of creating slides, these must have some value for his talk. It’s too bad that the videographers don’t understand the importance of showing slides So that they can be followed by People who did not attend the presentation.
it's the same slide throughout most of it
29:00 “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.”
A lecture by Prof Chang that includes a quote from Donald Rumsfeld! Lol. Will wonders never cease?
In an obvious attempt to shock one's attention towards an alternative way of thinking ( a conceptuality ) Richard Buckminster Fuller suggested that no where within his book " Grunch Of Giants " would the reader find the word " economics " . Needless to say ...one can in deed hunt ....for this word within the book and not find it . What one does find .... is what can only " emerge through emergency " .
Real Economy is having to do with translation from monetary unit accounting to finer grained energy unit accounting ...sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting sense . Fuller's related book " Critical Path " also explores what quantum Intelligence development can do to bring forward this needed change . As yesterday's vested interests looses their grip on the future logic here may prevail with automated simulations logic .
The aforementioned shall expose war " economies " fiduciary results as " underperforming " and therefor obsolete .
Ha is very good with a dry sense of humour. I suggest he should learn some techniques from standup comedy. I see a Superstar Comic Economist, Ha Ha. His students are super serious too. Economics is a theory that is not challenged, or debated, and taken too seriously.
Nice video
16:52 Ha-Joon Chang leaves out the *fourth category* formulated by Slavoj Zizek: _”There are also unknown knowns-things we don’t know that we know.”_ This is the category of the unconscious-the domain of fetishistic disavowal, unconscious desires/fantasies. Psychoanalysis operates in this dimension.
Great vid
I like the quality of arguments, but from a personal capability POV, most of the discussion is ecological requiring detailed information and theoretical analysis of "how long is a piece of string" , what probability do we attach to sustainability with what we know in such a climate of uncertainty constantly abused by crony Capitalism. I don't know.
Reiterate and re-educate, and trust no one.
26:35 *moral depravity of markets*
The wage differential approach will be lower [value of human life in that market will be less] in a developing country than a rich country-because poor people/places are more _desperate,_ hence less averse to risk and less willing to spend on long term prevention measures [less flexibility to spend on ecological externalities].
Great series.
P.S: Can't see captions when i download
Money makes the world go round. Otherwise it is flat and fixed.
You need to get a life.
i wanna be a part of his class so fucking bad man..
It´s very interesting. Thanks Ha-Joon Chang. Please come to Argentina. Best Regards.
Economics cannot help. But the market economy can of course contribute with innovations that will do something to solve this crisis.
If you look at the history of dramatic economic transformations, they have not happened with market innovation. They have always happened with collective action, government planning and social commitment. The idea that a market of individualised, atomised actors, can somehow solve a global problem, that transcends borders, that transcends individual actionability, is pure ideology.
If you consider the fastest rate of decarbonisation in history, in terms of low carbon kilowatt-hours added per capita, per year, the countries that come to the fore are France, with the Messmer economic nuclearisation plan, building some 60 or so nuclear reactors. And in Sweden, which built multiple hydroelectric and nuclear power plants during the 60s and 70s. Both achieved rates of decarbonisation more rapid (and consummate with the rate called for by the IPCC) than the market driven, government incentive driven, German Energiewende, or by the neoliberal EU emissions trading scheme.
In fact every market intervention has failed so far. From carbon taxing to carbon offsets to other Pigouvian tactics, it is difficult to justify an ongoing market ideology to solve this problem when the reason why the problem happened in the first place, was the globalisation of a market based, fossil fuel dependant economy.
@@MonMalthias private entities simply don't take that kind of risk. Spend tons of money into something that probably has zero chance to success is not the fundamental of profit seeking or any kind of risk management. Further more, collective risk taker tends to do the basic research, things that cannot be commercialised immediately, but hugely benefits to futures.
Even in the United States right now, where is the idea of privatised everything, federal government still funding majority of basic research cost. Private company rather spend money on marketing "our product helps environment" rather than doing real help. Or they only do it because it's the government contract, which is eventually still collective action
no it won't. it is logically impossible. because the market economy profits from the crisis. anything that needs to be done to solve the crisis will require to sacrifice its profits. therefore it will never "solve" anything. however it will do a few things like - shift the problem to another area, or shift the problem to another time (delay the problem) instead of solving it.
@@sushantdahal7809 I think that technology and innovations are unpredictable. We don't know what usefulness a new technology have. Innovations NASA have created for space travel have turned out to be useful for non-space related things as well.
Military inventions have been useful also for us civilians, like the GPS and internet.
The invention of shaped charges to punch through the armor of enemy tanks have proven itself to also be useful for making airbags for cars to save lives.
Newly invented material to improve armor on turrets on tanks proved itself to also be useful for making dental plates.
When @GarysEconomics pops up at 8:21 😂😂😂 (youtube.com/@GarysEconomics)
the bug assumption here is that people actually know how to measure risk .. a very uneducated, misinformed, subjective calculation .... so let us move on to something else
The planet doesn’t need saving. It will be around until the sun lasts or it is broken up by some extreme heavenly body collision.
The planet doesn't need any saving, absolutely right. It's us that need to be saved. Climate change would put in danger every aspect of our economic processes. We go kaput.
The planet will be there, but will we?
I hope the audience were allowed to have a toilet break between each video!
Clever argument that of yours...
I hope the audience had a toilet break between each video!
His initial statement about 'climate change' gave him away as a non-scientist in the natural sciences. He must understand that science does not work by consensus!
I am a scientist and academic. In practice science does work by consensus. A new idea is not accepted until evaluated and validated by the scientific COMMUNITY. Likewise a scientific belief or theory is only finally abandoned when it is deemed false by the majority of the scientific community.
@@maryannjenkins875 Science does not work by consensus, however, it might a generation to figure things out on the social aspect!
Says the flat-earther.