Munk Debate on Capitalism ft. Arthur Brooks, David Brooks, Yanis Varoufakis, Katrina vanden Heuvel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2019
- This debate was held on December 4, 2019 in at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto. The polled results can be found here- munkdebates.com/debates/capit...
From the official debate description: "There is a growing belief in western societies that the current capitalist system no longer works for average people. Economic inequality is rampant. Life expectancy is falling. The environment is being destroyed for profits. Political power is wielded by wealthy elites and big business, not the people. For capitalism’s critics, the answer is a top to bottom reform of the “free market” along more socialist and democratic lines. For proponents of capitalism, it is the engine of economic and social progress, full stop. Not only has capitalism made all of us materially better off, its ideals are responsible for everything from women’s rights to a cleaner environment to greater political freedoms. The answer to society's current ills is more capitalism, more economic freedom, and more free markets."
Yanis and three children. Why don't they have any other experts?
Not children. But one well-intentioned, yet way-out-of-step reformist, and two charlatans whom - the sum of their arguments - is the father-son meme about on trying out the social welfare model
Yanis Varoufakis should have trounced them, even with his partner taking the pro-capitalism side. Malthusianism (Global Warming hoax) and Democratic-Socialist liberalism clogged his mind. He never once defended the Labor Theory of Value.
@@AtlantaBill I think he did defend the LTV by proposing that workers should be the shareholders of corporations instead of investors/speculators. Science and basic intelligence holds global warming to be true.
@@toddstevens8506 His proposal would make workers co-exploiters of surplus value. Workers are already paid shares in the corporations; it's called Democratic Socialism. The Greenhouse Effect is pseudoscience. Search: Tony Heller climate change
Brooks at 1:00:00 makes some good points though.
What the Brooks side entertained is obsolete in Greece today. Yanis is like a Bill and Ted, though coming from a future embodying far greater intelligence and understanding. My enthusiasm for Yanis's perspectives are such that I am planning to shave my head and pop on a black suit. He speaks for my experience of work and the observable erosion of my home town and my country. I watch this debate post COVID outbreak. Yanis's speeches are even more relevant, and the affordability question is even more inane. Inane. No word better captures our time. I hope we can make it through. I don't understand the final vote at all. I wonder how much different it would be were a similar debate held today.
Yanis 👏👏👍👍.
Anyone watching this debate during the COVID crisis? All of the "we have rising x,y,z" arguments are flushed out by a virus.
32:44 - 33:04 full cut of footage and audio. This debate was so much better than anticipated.
Krafterr4 Sorry about that! I don’t own the video-this is the video grabbed from Munk’s website.
@TruthspeakOfficial can you please upload more Munk Debates. You seem to have not uploaded one for so long. Maybe this year's. Thanks for the good work though
I agree with all four of them.
I think it would have been more appropriate _and_ effective if it was Prof. Richard D. Wolff who debated alongside Yanis. He would have made a far more convincing case on post-capitalist projects than a * _shivers_ * Elizabeth Warren stan.
Wolff strikes me as an idiot.
@@DonQuickZote "Wolff strikes me as an idiot"
This is the kind of empty, infantile, ad-hominem attack that requires some arguments in defence, or risks exposing its author exactly as an example of the last word in it.
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict Whatever.
@@DonQuickZote Exactly.
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict Varoufakis is an exciting and imaginative thinker. Wolf just seems like a bland socialist from the 1970s. I was throwing that out there to see if someone could change my mind. It’s going to take a lot.
This debate was four years ago, I’d like to see it happen again considering today’s conditions. To cut through the inherent false premises of these positions, capitalism has devolved into predatory and parasitic capitalism. We need a system that rewards ambition and risk but should not be a winner-take-all system. We need to develop, or recalibrate capitalism into cooperative capitalism.
I will also say this debate took place before the pandemic.
"The reality being that there is no such thing as a developed capitalist country without extensive regulation and a social safety net".- Steven Pinker
"the entire economy takes a hit at once" lol, how prescient
Was this recorded with a potato?
In this debate, it seems to me, there is an underlying lack of consensus concerning what capitalism is. Which is understandable, given its complexity. Yanis, in my opinion, refers to capitalism mainly as an economic and financial system having a dialectic relationship with forms of government (from Western democracy to other forms). The Brooks refer to capitalism as a political system that grants welfare, freedom of speech, and more fundamental rights. I tend to agree with Yanis and I find his "Marxian" definition clearer and more conceptually manageable. :)
I would say that the statement of Yanis about the violation of the basic principles of socialism resulting in the imposing of the very same system its something to always have in mind.
There is constant corporate propaganda everyday, it's hard to make people think with reason and logic regarding the flawed system we live under today. Yanis showed his brilliance on this event, very powerful words.
Apparently David Brooks hasn’t read Alfie Kohn’s book: No Contest, 4 myths of evolution.
in essence they are all same side of the coin. they just have different interpretation of the terms "capitalism" "freedom" "socialism". tldr both sides are suggesting to fix capitalism.
Yanis and Katrina clearly have more nuanced understandings of the history and socio-ecological implications of capitalism. Disappointing that so much of the crowd stood by Arthur and and David.
The most strident capitalist here speak of “competition “ but not cooperation. Cooperation is the higher side of human nature. Competition is the lower aspect of human nature. Alfie Kohn’s book: No Contest.
Competition is what pushes businesses to offer fairer prices, greater value, greater efficiency, more creativity and innovation. Capitalism offers wealth to individuals. Personal wealth, creates personal power, personal freedom, and independence. These things enable people to have greater choices. This is the process which enables people to put demands on businesses, &/or into legislation, for greater worker rights, wages, protections & provisions. Competition also compels businesses to offer more to workers, in order to keep up with, or to outbid their competitors.
I agree with Yanis about how capitalism often entices people into greedy, unethical business practices, at the expense of people &/or nature. Capitalism is ultimately... all about the money, (the bottom dollar/"all business"), which often leads people to cut corners and make money at just about any cost. But, I believe that good business practices, far outweigh the bad ones. Capitalism has proven to be, by multitudes, the most effective economic system to pull human beings (and entire nations), out of poverty, starvation and sickness. More and more people all around the world are becoming wealthier, and more self sufficient, at an ever increasing rate. And, the more that people have the opportunity to build personal wealth, the more people are able to become self sufficient. As each nations citizens gain more wealth, they also become more consumers, with more buying power. And this,, along with international trade, helps nations become economically capable of building greater infrastructure, and creating financially vested international relationships. The internet and smartphones have brought billions of people access to vast knowledge, at their fingertips. The internet, and smartphone technologies were borne from the innovativions and creativity of capitalism. This offers the world the greatest opportunity for personal wealth. Personal wealth creates personal power. Personal power enables greater personal choices, greater rights, greater freedoms. This is the way in which the people of the world gain the power to stand up and make demands upon their government. And, the citizens of the world can demand greater legislation to protect the environment/nature (from both, business and government). Eventually, perhaps, citizens can gain enough personal power to prevent their nation from offensive wars, and from doing the things which instigate wars from other nations. With global economies creating economic ties between so many nations, we are able to band together and enact economic sanctions against nations which violate certain provisions, or principles, such as human rights or deplorable environmental practices. Capitalism empowers us with this ability.
The rise of the machines will soon change the landscape of the economy as we know it and we had better buckle up for a bumpy ride.
Yanis is right in this debate but sadly the world I fear will not change until we have another (even worse) 2008 crisis. It seems likely that we aren’t far off from another crash given that we haven’t fixed the problems that caused 2008.
I hope I’m wrong and perhaps I could be if Bernie Sanders and his social democratic platform takes off in the US and Diem25 forces genuine change to take place in Europe.
Fortunately (or not so), we are in the middle of a crisis far worse than 2008
The diminishing of poverty is entirely because of capitalism. It is not the technology and science that enables us to produce more (food goods with less labor) but an abstract system that no doubt serves as a machine to distribute what science and technology has provided us with, to the few rich oligarchy. There is no free market. Protectionism is everywhere and absolutely legal. Africans cant compete German produced onions. German with 4200$ salary per month provides cheaper onion to an African with 50$ salary. The entire agriculture industry in Europe is subsidized (protected against free market). < This is only one example. You wont be searching for a long till you find more
Brooks Bros are insane. Like, actually insane. Terminal-stage affluenza.
There is no reason why David Brooks should be on this stage.
I wonder why they focus in capitalism within the confines of a State while they are talking about globalization.
Immigrants coming to Canada's paradise do not come from countries where socialism failed, but from countries and regions that have been destroyed and continue to be destroyed by Multinational Corporations and banks with the help of the governments they control.
Are Multinational Corporations interested in supporting democratically-elected governments or for free-market rules?
Don't they have the support of their countries' governments (with wars, coups, extortion) when their "interests" are in danger?
Democracy, yes but Global, not ala carte. Then we can talk about capitalism and free market.
Competition is what pushes businesses to offer fairer prices, greater value, greater efficiency, more creativity and innovation. Capitalism offers wealth to individuals. Personal wealth, creates personal power, personal freedom, and independence. These things enable people to have greater choices. This is the process which enables people to put demands on businesses, &/or into legislation, for greater worker rights, wages, protections & provisions. Competition also compels businesses to offer more to workers, in order to keep up with, or to outbid their competitors.
I agree with Yanis about how capitalism often entices people into greedy, unethical business practices, at the expense of people &/or nature. Capitalism is ultimately... all about the money, (the bottom dollar/"all business"), which often leads people to cut corners and make money at just about any cost. But, I believe that good business practices, far outweigh the bad ones. Capitalism has proven to be, by multitudes, the most effective economic system to pull human beings (and entire nations), out of poverty, starvation and sickness. More and more people all around the world are becoming wealthier, and more self sufficient, at an ever increasing rate. And, the more that people have the opportunity to build personal wealth, the more people are able to become self sufficient. As each nations citizens gain more wealth, they also become more consumers, with more buying power. And this,, along with international trade, helps nations become economically capable of building greater infrastructure, and creating financially vested international relationships. The internet and smartphones have brought billions of people access to vast knowledge, at their fingertips. The internet, and smartphone technologies were borne from the innovativions and creativity of capitalism. This offers the world the greatest opportunity for personal wealth. Personal wealth creates personal power. Personal power enables greater personal choices, greater rights, greater freedoms. This is the way in which the people of the world gain the power to stand up and make demands upon their government. And, the citizens of the world can demand greater legislation to protect the environment/nature (from both, business and government). Eventually, perhaps, citizens can gain enough personal power to prevent their nation from offensive wars, and from doing the things which instigate wars from other nations. With global economies creating economic ties between so many nations, we are able to band together and enact economic sanctions against nations which violate certain provisions, or principles, such as human rights or deplorable environmental practices. Capitalism empowers us with this ability.
"But, I believe that good business practices, far outweigh the bad ones." , but what to do about the bad ones? The opiod crisis, pushing coups and wars for resources, patent protection on life saving medicine, predatory loaning and the student debt, worker exploitations in third world countries, how do you measure that the good outweighs the bad?
the thing that worries me is, if everything else is equal, the company which has malicious practices will financially outcompete and kick out those that don't, and if you run that game for a long time you create a system where power concentrates to those that are the least deserving of trusting them with it.
Your words on personal power augmented by personal wealth, which increases rights and freedoms, is horrifying. Why should those who have accumulated a vast amount of wealth (unarguably by unethical means) possess the most social power or influence? Whatever happened to Lockean ideals of natural rights? Humans are under the shadow of God. Money should not give humans the ability to play "God." I can guarantee you that technological innovation was not born out of competition, but because in human history we have had an array of bright thinkers who look to the enigmatic world of science and mathematics to improve humanity's mortal condition. I don't think Copernicus was motivated by money to publish his ideals. Neither was Newton. In fact, when you look at our species' greatest thinkers, you will realize that many of them lived altruistic lifestyles. Not lavish or luxurious. To pay closer attention to the reality of what it means to be human, you must turn to the spiritual world of God. In terms of governing a society, money should not be the answer. Capitalism should not give individuals omnipotent power in society. Your explanation of capitalism is deeprooted in other ideologies, especially nationalism and humanism. These are detrimental viewpoints. If you really want to explain HOW capitalism could ever be beneficial to society, you must look at the historical evolution of economics from ancient civilizations to the present. Would you argue the same points you mentioned for mercantilism? Imperialism? Your defense of capitalism is unpleasant. Revisit history and improve your arguments.
@@lukasmolcic5143it’s a good and valid point that those with malicious practices have an advantage and can outcompete the good ones. This is actually an argument made against socialism as well - and evidenced by every socialist experiment we’ve seen where the I’ll-intentioned take control. The argument for capitalism is 1) this is a trait of human nature and exists in every system made up of humans, not just capitalism, and 2) the consequences of a bad actor having control over a private business is far less harmful than a bad actor having control over the entire government. Capitalism (in theory) limits the powers of the inevitable bad actors.
Answers lie in definitions. No one defines "capitalism" in a useful way which permits David Brooks in particular to degenerate into false dichotomies which yield onto slippery slope: a textbook example of fallacious rhetoric. It is fundamentally stupid to pose a serious debate in such soft, general and polarizing terms. Where does China loom in this debate? A frustrating waste of time.
David Brooks looks and sounds like an innocent child next to Varoufakis… Both Arthur and David don't listen to learn and understand, they listen only to answer with their preconceived talking points … pathetic
Yet, if I understand the results correctly, it didn't seem to matter.
I wonder why they don't speak about the main, the basic laws governing human bevior and the societies. The basic rule, the basic law for governing the human societies is simple: all laws and rules must correspond to human nature, as it is discovered and formulated by the best scientists like E.O. Wilson. In any system there will work only the rules and laws corresponding to human nature. Simple: society's (government, state) laws must support the human features like understanding themselves and others, compassion, need for equality, and restrict the bad ones, like hatred, greed and selfishness. Besides, in order to formulate the goals and targets, we must formulate the most important value for human existence. This is the (long-term) survival of humans (more broadly - of reason) in this Cosmos. Look at China: they try to restrict some and support the other human traits and qualities. How they do this, that is the other question.
I find the whole capitalism argument weird, the point of the capitalism model is profit making and that is what it does best! The problem with proponents of capitalism have is that capitalism doesn't build a society, if the entire earth got bombarded by asteroids no one would need capitalism, there will have to be a structure available for capitalism to feed on! Developed countries are really not the most capitalistic countries, in fact they are the most socialistic countries! If you want to see real free markets and all the freedom of capitalism boasted about by the capitalists in developed world then go to the poorer countries where they have their corporations paying people slave wages or in many cases no wages! The capitalism debate people have in the western world pisses me off because they are not really practising the capitalism they preach and they are not suffering the consequences of the capitalism they preach! I'm yet to watch a debate where anyone really talks about capitalism, the people employed by western clothing industry in poor countries on few cents a day, the child labour on cocoa farms for Cadbury, the people getting bombed by Western countries for oil, the slave labour of prisoners for Victoria Secret underwears, Nestle monopolizing water in Africa leaving people to die of thirst...let's really talk capitalism and not the academic nonsense!
In Africa it isnt capitalism it's the guerilla mercenaries. Or corrupt dictatorships. Capitalism is an amazing model.
North and south Korea is a prime example of socialism vs capitalism
@@squydwardyourlordansavior9723 Well next time you take a bite in your chocolate bar, look at it and say "this is not capitalism, this is guerilla mercenaries!"
The way you quickly bring up guerilla mercenaries and corrupt dictatorships I'll take a REALLY wild guess and say you know nothing about Africa! No, they are countries with no labour laws, no social safety nets, they vote like you and celebrate their democracy like you and the main difference is big corporations can go there and enjoy the capitalism you don't get to enjoy from your ivory tower!
You may not be aware of this but capitalism has no problem with corrupt dictatorships it in fact prefers corrupt dictatorships because if you don't know democracy is a socialist principle so when you see big corporations buying politicians then understand what they are trying to do is turn a country into a real capitalist state for you to enjoy!
@J P Why does GOVERNMENT make the invasion? They persuade you that they (actually you will) fight for Democracy, Liberty etc and they open the field for their companies. They all do it since the antiquity.
@J P Don't know if you know this but you can't really separate a country's government from its companies! The entire purpose of the government is to succeed economically, a country fails economically it is done. You might need to read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" if you haven't. Almost all wars fought throughout history are economic wars for a reason. The idea that the economy and the government are separate only exists in fairytale land!
@J P Who is threatening your liberty?
Couple things.
"Capitalism has gotten billions of people out of poverty"
i thought the same in both cases. And it certainly doesnt help even if Obama said it... I think Yanis rebutet it though. But, it is those lies that win. I think also a definision of capitalism would have helped. By definision it is those with capital that win, especially today with low taxes and lobying. I wish they at least could agree that some mechanism must distribute profit. Also, the point Yanis made about producing too much stuff, I mean, capitalism is built on growth, could it work in times of shrinking markets?
i used to work for an a
American company where the president made 14 million dollars a year. at the same time they let 2000 employees go. they closed factories around the world. these people lost their jobs, their savings and their homes. the company was sold within 4 years with billions of loss.
All the executives kept the huge bonuses. Yes. the capitalism is broken. We never seen so much corruption in our life. ENRON, SNC LAVALIN...and the list goes on.
It seems to me that both sides are describing similar objectives, but the anti motion side are looking wistfully backward and the pro motion side are looking realistically forwards.
Yanis is brilliant!
Capitalism has always existed with existence of human exchange, barter & credit - not as.a religion. Philosophers attempt to describe it as what they were born into. The term is fused w/democratic US, but big business interest monopolies (beginning w/wars & defense) have overtaken every aspect of our lives w/entrenched systems of their bureaucracies, while government follows & cleans up behind them w/the promise of jobs for products. We aren't citizens in a democracy, we're nothing more than consumers who are encouraged to worship GDP & growth at the expense of freedom from it (individual autonomy, decision making) & explotation, degradation of life of earth for most.
I'd like to see Charlie kirk in this debate. He would do very well
53:30 Unbelievable. David Brooks defends capitalism by citing the success of the New York Times "doing phenomenally because of Donald Trump", yet somehow doesn't recognize that his little joke is a genuine indictment of the present state of capitalism
Pros points in a nutshell: Capitalism is bad because of bad government policies/croni capitalists so let's give more power to governments. 🤡
There's no better system than capitalism. At least not one that has ever existed
@Truth Seeker we'll see about that. Capitalism hasn't failed. Its been perverted
@Truth Seeker socialism /communism always brings dystopia
@Puss nBoots it worked a lot better than any other system
@Puss nBoots all lies. Stalin? MAO? Socialism fails miserably wherever its tried. The US has to intervene so save the people from crimes against humanity.
@Puss nBoots socialism creates the conditions for genocide and violating peoples natural born rights.
This comment section is cancer