This is so spot on! The financial sector does provide value through making investment liquid, which absolutely increases the amount of investment that the private sector is willing to risk on future production. BUT creating the conditions for liquid investments should never be confused with creating actual output. The financial sector should be viewed as the lubrication system that allows the economic engine to function more efficiently, but to count “gains” in that sector in GDP is to double count the actual output created by the investment it facilitated, AND (maybe worse) overly reward the shifting of production profits away from workers.
@bina nocht your instinct to boil economics down to eggs and chickens is not wrong… at the end of the day it’s the real things that matter most. If economics isn’t helping people get the real goods and services for their lives, then what’s the point? A lot of the hard to understand parts of economics are people trying to sound smarter than they are. There are some complex things, but if someone can’t explain it in terms of eggs and chickens then they probably don’t understand it themselves. As far as your worry about interest on loans goes, the key thing to remember is that the banks that make loans and collect the interest pay most of that interest back into the economy through paychecks, rent, services, etc., and even the profits after expenses will often get spent back into the economy by the bank owners (to renovate their house or whatever). So the economy as a whole will have the money to pay the interest, it’s just a question of if the people who took out the loan will get enough of that money to make their payments. Small community banks will spend most of their money into the community they’re in, so aren’t much of a problem. Bigger national or international banks spend their money away from the communities (big financial cities mainly), so can end up sucking money out of smaller communities.
@@troypresley As Fiat Dollars face the competing Gold Standard that Putin proposed over 20 years ago appear this year, we might ask why we even participate in Capitalism at all? The prospect of the two largest Communist Nations becoming the masters of Finance, does present some interesting conflicts to the use of Capital that Monarchs and Despots have used for centuries to manipulate Humans? The fact that a majority of Humanity is not served by Capital at all, seems to be overlooked?
I studied economics at Uni, and I kid you not, they had us learn about the Laffer curve as if it were empirical reality. Meanwhile, Laffer first came up with it by scribbling it on a napkin to argue against tax increases during a meeting with government officials, and the idea has never been borne out by the evidence. All this to say: our understanding of economics is a lot less science-based than people like to think, and it's high time we rethink the way we organize our economies across the world.
Where do you think ideas come from? Do you think if he were scribbling on a notebook, his ideas would have a different weight? It's a theory, economics is a social science, and if they taught you otherwise in uni they taught you wrong.
I was a graduate student when I first read Laffer's paper arguing the case for a reduction in marginal tax rates. I was convinced that the outcomes he forecasted would not occur because of the continued potential to profit from rent-seeking activities, and in particular rent-seeking associated with speculation in land and natural resources. I wrote to Laffer about the issues. He responded that he was convinced there was no need to distinguish between the taxation of rents and the taxation of earned income flows. Thanks in part to Laffer the federal government lowered marginal tax rates on income and on business profits. And, when this only generated deficits instead of increased revenue, they lowered rates some more. As a result, trillions of dollars of increased disposable income went into all of the asset markets, turning them into credit-fueled and speculation-driven markets that were (and still are) destined to periodically crash.
@@contaalt4742of course some ideas have different weights. Comparing scribblings on a napkin to those on a notebook is a strawman fallacy. Peer reviewed research that has been scrutinised over time is more valuable to teach than ideas that have been proven incorrect, or the ramblings of a twitter user for instance (modern take). That said, it is perfectly legitimate to teach popular, incorrect ideas so long as that's explained. Indeed that is important to do. There are many papers showing that the Laffer model isn't correct. Drawing a parabola on a bit of paper and making assumptions about proper tax limits based on such a plot is high-school level stuff and should never have been used to drive policy. Economics is incredibly complicated. Such a model is insulting to the field. I have had several conversations with graduate economists and they have been educated to believe that the Laffer curve is valuable, just as the commenter says. That is a crazy thing to have done. It's equivilant to my field, physics, teaching university students that the Aether models are true. We are taught about them, but in the context that they have been disproven.
My MBA professor told me to watch a TED talk about value creation. He 1000% didn't mean this one but thank everything I tripped over it. Perfectly elocutes so many things I haven't had words for. Thanks!
Wow seriously taken by surprise here. What a fantastic presentation of a much needed idea! Truly impressed by her clarity and preparation. Her point is well explained and benefits from forgoing personal anecdotes and opinions. Historical context really grounds the idea and keeps the presentation from slipping into the hypothetical or idealistic. Conclusions and applications are left for the audience to reflect on. I often wonder how we as a society could possibly change the global economic direction in order to give more value to practices that have social capital, and incentivize global well being rather than just profit. Fascinating, succinct and thought provoking. Bravo. Thank you.
Hi Danny, as you wrote this 3 years ago I was wondering if you were any closer to a big idea? I too often ponder redesigned economic incentives for global capital flows into social capital rather than meet profit. Thank you for your consideration.
@@Mike-yd1vh What if the concept of Capital that Sumerians developed after they created some of the first Coins, were dropped entirely? That seems like an easy solution as Recession fears dominate US Capitalism.....
Though she doesn't touch on the real problem; GDP has real world implications. High GDP numbers is basically how the US maintains it's empire through the WTO and world bank as well as the G7 and G20. GDP is a diplomatic score that gives respect from your peers. So governments don't really have an interest to make GDP numbers accurately reflect the value of their economy. Rather they want to use whatever means they have to boost GDP numbers as high as possible to gain an advantage over their rivals.
That was an epic takedown of how modern economics has been used to serve the interests of the sterile leisure class. Vague doesn't just mean price. So good.
This is a mission oriented public policy that had its climax in the 50s and 60s - the man on the moon. Mariana Mazzucato is a high level scholar. She is many things, a mother , a chef de cuisine, married to a Italian filmmaker. But also a innovation economist, schumpeterian, evolutionary, Keynesian with a perspective on social history of technology and economics. So, the Entrepreneurial State is relevant for spurring innovation
This 18 minutes have more knowledge than 18 books on economy Economics without people is soul less. " Value and prices are not the same thing, they never will"
"money isn't all" or "no amount of money can bring you happiness" ... . Her insight and opinion, was not really followed up with a new theory of economics or improvement or replacement of an old one. The only thing she stated was right at the start, that economists stopped talking about how to define value and that they now don't really know. This was known by most people already i would claim. So this was at most a conversation starter. Also while talking about the consequences of the 2008 crash with millions of people loosing their homes, she smiled during that delviery which was in my opinion in bad taste. Some humility from the profession, hardly a rational science it seems, which failed so many people, i still would expect. But hey she got her freaking Ted talk from her bucket list. That just 4 years after the banks got a bailout and the people the middlefinger, the regulations which should prevent future crisis were again partly or fully removed depending the country you look at, was not mentioned. Perhaps not important anymore. Would be a bit depressing for that smile i guess. Neither this talk, nore these 18 books on economics seem to have a lot to it.
@@kinngrimm You are absolutely correct and borrowing money from the Banksters has led us into debt slavery. However there is a solution, it's called Contributionism
@@TheHiroClaw123 You have not made an argument against my points, but an attack against my character by implying my intentions would be to insult. Better look into the mirror and take your own advise.
So true, but you forgot one extremely important element.... the FEDERAL RESERVE and it's historically low interest rates for a long period of time. Now combine the low interest rates with the tax breaks we keep giving the financial elites and you can easily see the large sums of money they have at their disposal. That's how asset bubbles and debt are created. Sure, the stock market is up. Sure, some jobs are being created. But real wages have gone up less than 3% while all the money going to the elites is being used to buy up all sorts of assets (healthcare, housing, energy, stock buy backs etc...) while the prices of those things increase more than 3%. In other words, the money is not being used to make society a better place. It's simply being used to economically manipulate and control people by keeping them in perpetual debt. Modern crony capitalism basically destroyed democracy by concentrating so much wealth in so few hands. And what's really sad is TRUMP wants to double down on the tax breaks and he continues yelling at the FEDERAL RESERVE because interest rates aren't even lower. Need to keep the fake financial economy afloat long enough for the 2020 election. And even sadder is how a bunch of dopey voters who don't understand all of this actually believe the economy is great because of some stock market price.
In reference to the comments made about pharmaceuticals and prices at @14:40. The same can be said to when a medication/"product" is no longer profitable and then is abruptly discontinued and the population is left without said medication/"product". This is currently taking place in several countries. This to me clearly highlights the end of the tall tale that unregulated free markets will meet depends. There must be governmental requirements that meet the needs of the people before the profits of corporations.
Hello There Agreeing that changing practices takes ages. It’s easier to say than do. Furthermore, she stays on the idea level not offering concrete ways of how to implement these ideas. So the takeaway from this video will only be on idea level. Too hard to make an actual change if we’re not on certain position. Take away will be that instead of being too busy chasing the widely accepted concept of productivity and value, we need to stop and rethink these two concepts. It’s no harm questioning the fundamental ideas that governs the economy. And it’s no harm to have more awareness about how economy was created and how the game is being played nowadays.
Ya, TED pretty much only showcases opinions that have already gained a critical level of popularity already. This stuff has been pointed out so long ago.
Even then it would be not more than a conversation starter. The only insight/opinion was that economist stopped arguing about what value is and they now do not really know. There was no new theory, no replacement of an old one, no own example on how now to define value. Just value is not price/money which is like a saying "money isn't everything ... money can't buy happiness" So whopsidoo what a brilliant ted talk ^^.
"We have a moral imperative to charge what the market will bare' says it all about the soulless corporate creeps we have slithering around making money at the expense of everyone and everything else.
I would have no problem with charging what the market will bare, if markets were free of monopolistic privileges, subsidies, tariffs and other measures that impose higher costs on the many to benefit the few. This is no where more true than the low effective rate of taxation on land rent while government imposes heavy taxes on income earned producing goods and services, on tangible capital goods such as buildings and machinery and on commerce.
Interesting that this talk was done on the cusp of a pandemic that forced us all to reconsider the labor value of essential workers such as food producers, health care workers, teachers, etc.
This is my biggest frustration about economics. They have absolutely no idea what value, wealth and money represent. All of these things in one way or another represent work, the work put into something (value) the potential work that can be done with something (wealth) or the ability to direct work (money). Ask a physicist what work is and they will tell you work is the result you get when you use energy to make something change (something you absolutely must do to provide any service or build any product) and energy is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Thus value, wealth and money are representations of energy. The problem is this. The laws of thermodynamics means that every time energy is used a vast majority degrades, most energy is lost as heat (the ability to get more work out of the energy put in is efficiency or productivity as an economist would say) Only a small amount is embodied in the product (or person providing a service) such that more useful energy can be further extracted. The problem is the energy degrades but money does not. So you end up with mountains of money accumulating in the hands of a few who are looking for productive ways to direct energy. But out economies have been stagnating for years because the mass of people that want money and can direct it to producing things of value (i.e. need work or energy embodied in them) don't have the money. So the money just sloshes around in the FIRE sector not actually directing energy at all but instead accumulating. Watch out if that accumulated money ever actually makes it out into the productive economy where it is used to direct energy because you will see massive hyperinflation as the money to available energy (think KJs) ratio will be completely screwed. If we are to ever get the world economy back on track we need to eliminate the money sloshing around in the FIRE sector and realign value, wealth and money with energy and build in a mechanism that makes money degrade in the same way energy does every time it is used. Economics sufferes as a science because it thinks it is divorced from the laws of nature. And the laws of thermodynamics govern everything in the universe, the human economic system is no exception. You cannot blame the classical economists as the laws of thermodynamics were only just being discovered in their time. Modern economists have no excuse.
This comment is incredible. Your comment is the one I was looking for, for months. I have been researching a personal topic of interest for MONTHS, and I knew there was some connection to the economy somehow. So I researched economic papers but I still didn't feel satisfied--- I felt like there was a better way to word the phenomenon I was trying to describe. I struggled so much trying to word this concept in my mind-- I knew it was somehow real, I knew it somehow existed, but because my words were never able to concretely and accurately describe this concept, my thoughts were always approaching true understanding, but never quite reaching it. But here you are, perfectly putting into words what I suspected all along. Now as I go back to my writing drafts, I see signs that I somewhat was approaching this breakthrough in understanding, with words like "energy" and "accumulation" and "breakthrough" and "effort." I even looked into physics and read articles about work, but I didn't see the connection as explicitly as you did, so I overlooked what I read. Well then... Time to go back to studying physics!! (Havent taken a physics class in five years, currently an Economics undergrad). Finally.... Thank you. Thank you for writing this comment. You have some rather brilliant insights.
It's a nice thought but it's not that economics suffers because "it thinks it is divorced from the laws of nature" - it suffers because real human systems are incredibly complex to study. Human behavior is particularly problematic. Early economic theories assumed humans always made logical choices - we don't and now we have a new branch called behavioral economics that tries to understand human behavior but still fails to make real testable hypothesis and good predictable models. Economics is a soft science because one cannot truly control the variables of a system that is constantly evolving and the consequences of past actions are often unnoticeable until many decades have passed. Without a testable hypothesis you cannot create decent models to make predictions. All made worse by the competing interests involved that cloud academia, what gets published and what advice is actually applied in real life by the laws and policies created by our politicians. I am a biochemist, I work with human diseases. While it is still complex, and yes some conflicts of interests get involved, I have it much much easier than an economist because I get to use model species to test hypothesis. I don't need to wait until a human reaches a certain age. With Mice I know in a few years, with other model species in less than a year. I also get to control a lot more variables than economists do. You want to create real economic laws, nice equations that work as predictably as the laws of physics. As noble of quest as that is, you should give economist a break because it is not easy.
"the work put into something (value) the potential work that can be done with something (wealth) or the ability to direct work (money)." The logic is vastly too simplistic and ignores markets and market forces. Almost all prescription drugs are more expensive in the USA than the UK by a factor of five but the work content in the drugs will be the same. Products lose value due to obsolescence (market issue) even though the work content is unchanged. Identical houses in different locations have different values due to market forces. I am not saying that 'work' does not have value - just that the relationship with value is really complex.
@@thomasking3663 Human beings are not a type of capital. We have different potentials to produce tangible wealth. Economics has done scientific investigation a great disservice by blurring the distinctions between the three factors of production -- land, labor and capital goods.
couldn't be worse than Luddlow, would still be bad though. Paraphrasing "We don't know how to define value because we stopped arguing about it 300 years ago" No replacement theory, no imrpovement delvired on an existing theory just more or less a saying "value isn't price/money" which isn't far of from me saying "money isn't everything" or "money doesn't make you happy".
@@kinngrimm it would be helpful anyways it is controlled by the people who control all the money who ended up in controlling society because we run our lives by that. It's their monopoly they are in the top of the monopolies lol. There is no hope, and hopefully, they can't control Mars. I hope they don't.
@@kinngrimm btw, the order was created in 1776 and it is called capitalism private individuals running stock bonds, etc. It runs our economy and the world economy. BTW coronavirus can potentially crash the market we are in the danger zone where it happens every 10 years or so and well, it will be the perfect time to get stock at legendary cheap price.
Indeed! Diamonds are just rocks and De Beers owns metric tons of 'em! In actuality, they are just worthless crystals. They have warehouses full of them stuffed to the rafters, just so that they can control the price - and you.
@ Nonsense. How much do you value clean water, affordable shelter, and food? Would you trade them for diamonds? What if no one else did? How much value would you then think your rocks are worth? They only have value if everyone else thinks they do. *I do not.* That alone devalues your "valuables". May god b-less. ; )
@@kriskeahiolalo9053 the question that you are omitting is of value to whom? the piece of art is worth at least 10,000 dollars to the wealthy guy, if not he would not have bought it. That the well cost 5000 to produce tells us nothing about the value of the well. How much the well is worth depends on the value that those who are interested in using the well are willing to pay. All value is subjective and individual, you and I might value the same thing very differently. there is no "objective value" or "value to society". Only individuals can value society cannot. you can try to estimate what "society wants" but it remains exactly that. what you happen to believe society wants or values according to your method.
Specific public talk! very good by the way! Mazzucato has very beautiful ideas, seriously, but thinking about value in this time is a dead end. is not going anywhere. Some way this idea can be explained by mainstream thinking! In fact, the Nobel prize in economics this year explain this thing with a very "simple" maintrain framework!. Economics is about people, non-about theories, do not forget that!. ;)
Hi, thank you for this video! That stimulates a discussion. Something I see different. * Value is not a thing and cannot be produced Economics is about economic value and this is related to exchange. A production-related value, as it should arise according to the classical interpretation of the Labour theory of value, would not have a high value. Because if everything that is produced is to have value, including all the things that cannot be sold, then much “of value” would have no meaning for society. Value cannot be produced at all. * Value is a social relationship and not a singularity Such is formed between people and only works between people. Only possible reference points for value relationships are produced. In other words, value is related to things, activities (concerts), ideas (literature, patents), but only if the properties of the things, ideas, etc. produced seem good enough for an exchange. * Value has an objective component and subjective ones Value is related to the work results and usually has to include the expenses. As a social relationship, value must have an objective dimension - it must go beyond the ideal ideas of an individual. And it must have subjective elements because it is linked to people. The objective part of the value is the joint value of the supplier and the buyer. This is reflected in the sales price and often deviates from the expected value, which is expressed by the offer price. The objective part of value becomes effective between the exchange partners on the social level - in the sales contract, when paying taxes, etc. The subjective shares of the value are the subjective reflections of the objective part of value in the exchange partners. This is mostly developed from initially different subjective values related to the exchange goods. * Value and expenses Usually, with the help of the value has to been replaced the expenses that led to the production / acquisition of the (initially only potential) commodities and an surplus value that appears to be sufficient by the provider must usually be paid for. This is the only way to continue and expand production, just like artistic activities, archaeological research, etc.
......The economic value depends on demand and supply. In modern economy, they create needs (through t.v, advertising, internet,movies, etch), in order to control demand and lead people's behavior to the way they want.
Value and prices are not the same, however, as economists, we tend to use prices as a proxy to value because other variables are tougher to measure. As we move towards a digital world, I really wonder how the value will be redefined. If we stop to think for a moment, maybe we can get an answer. I know Erik Brynjolfsson is working on redefining GDP with the inclusion of digital value. That will change the future as we know it!
Better to replace GDP altogether. The organization Redefining Progress made an attempt with the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). Several states in the U.S. are using this analytical method to evaluate whether the wellbeing of their residents is increasing or not. By the GPI the general wellbeing of the U.S. population has not improved since the late 1970s.
The real problem though is that GDP is not just an academic number. It's a political one that wins election and can give tremendous power at institutions like the WTO and world bank that can make or break entire economies. There is a massive incentive to fabricate high GDP numbers which China does a lot to gain more power in geo-politics and to protect your own economy from sanctions. If China's GDP numbers were to half at this point they likely would lose their economy for real because they would lose the ability to stop the US from using it's power in international organizations to sabotage them. You can't really redefine value if the number has very real political implications. The US will never allow it's GDP number to drop cause it relies on that high GDP number to maintain it's empire. The actual US economy is secondary, what matters is that number and the power it gives. It's hard to have a serious discussion about economic numbers if governments have a massive incentive to fabricate high numbers.
From what the Dr is saying, it seems that there are CEOs out their whose contracts link their pay to the share price of the companies they run. So what do they do, instead of investing the profits they simply buy back the companies shares and collect a big bonus. They are risking the long term health of a company for short term gain.
Mir Media In the United States everything is short term thinking. We have an election cycle of four years, that has now evolved into perpetual campaigning. We have daytraders who don’t invest in a company, they buy stock in south stock in one day hoping just hoping the price goes up. Even in schools we have quarterly reports. As if somehow education can be measured in months. And I think the structure of thinking benefits the people at the top. The politicians can say the economy is doing great so they get reelected. The big business people get their bonuses. There are no grownups. And no adults to say hey let’s think about this in the long term. If so the United States would have much better passenger train systems. But who’s going to invest in that,? That’s a long-term solution. So instead we build roads with more lanes so that more cars can come in and then we complain about the traffic. Then we talk about how to solve the traffic problem and the only solution is to create more roads.
the economist the world desperately needs to listen to 🙏 i watched this talk once before, but i probably didn't understand it well then, because i didn't take note of how significant the material of the talk is
curing patients becomes unprofitable sometimes which is why we need a common good called government who should put tax money into curing people and to create ways to reduce the labour involved in the process of curing.
Curing patients is highly profitable for the society as a whole, but it is unprofitable for the medical company who would earn a lot more from constantly treating the symptoms. The same is true for plenty of other sectors where planned obsolescence is a valuable strategy. These methods work because they move money from other sectors to your sector.
Limited resources, unlimited needs. What percentage of all the resources is society willing to spend on curing one person with cancer? Human life is said to have unlimited value - if it comes to it, do we have unlimited resources to preserve that one life?
@@ferrusmanus4013 well, the word intrinsic does have a meaning so, yes, it does exist. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even considered your comment as an opportunity to correct a foolish soul.
@@HelloThere-xs8ss Peepeepoopoo has a meaning too, it doesn't mean that it exists. If something cannot be measured or observed and is hard to define, than it doesn't exist.
Extracting value and creating value is done thru the Entrepreneurs and leaders of a company such as CEOs. Then the workers/subcontracts/freelancers that carry out the execution are just as important. Overall we all play a part in creating economic value in today's economy. 🤗
Excellent talk. Ever since I realized that the worse our health care prices are the more it boosted GDP. Whether that's higher costs, poor service so more and more tests and revisits, the more we are helping the 'Economy'.
How our financial systems work is comparative to how a physical therapist works on its clients. The tending is for maintence and repairs. They do accounting for losses that occur and little to invest in operations and innovation that put an end to loss in certain sectors that uphold the fabric of devloped international relations which keep us safe from one guy with a button to big booms. Anyway, my venture in business in various ways needs a reprise and not just a rest. Alot of unneccessary factors exist and they so clearly are being used in this way to shroud itself whilst they rake in the income generated from atrocious acts.
it'd be nice if at the end of every TED speech they take the audience out to protest/implement on what they learned, practical class teaches us more you know~
The fact that you feel like you should do something in particular is a symptom of TED going down the toilet. TED used to be about how to do, not what to do.
@@elinope4745 ok maybe not TED, but someone with an audience and knowledge like that could use it to their advantage, and all those life changing ideas might become reality. And whats wrong with change, you can always learn and improve or learn and fail and improve, but if you don't change you're not learning.
The physiocrats and the classical economists like Ricardo were the ones who were the most prominent advocate of value aggregation. The French liberal school made a considerable dent in this shaky edifice (Cantillon, among others). But it wasn't until the marginal revolution swept in that the edifice was built anew on firmer ground. Subjectivism was an attempt at rescuing, not gutting, economics (though short-lived, as shows the current state of the discipline). She makes a fairy tale of economic history predigested and fit for consumption by gullible crowds. It's almost as if she wants to prove Smith's point about professors.
A fair question to ask is: "Where did economics go wrong?" Rather than build on what the political economists spent centuries working on (i.e., the three factor model of wealth production and distribution), each of the various schools of economics arising in the late 19th century abandoned land as a distinct factor of production. From that point on, economics was incapable of accurately forecasting economic cycles or putting forward proposal for changes in law and policy that would tame cycles and generate full employment without inflation. Of course, there were (and are today) exceptions, but they are still largely marginalized from the mainstream because of their heterodox positions.
She's an excellent thinker which is why I'm so surprised she fails to see her own presentation answers the question. She glossed right over it. We no longer need to wonder who/what creates value anymore than we need to wonder who/what creates the Sun's movement across the sky. Both the physiocrats and classicists thought labor was the source/cause of value; the physiocrats believed it was farm labor and the classicists believed it was industrial labor, just as she said. Land is useless until labor to grows something, raw materials are useless until labor fashions them into something. But what we now know is that "utility" is the source of value, which is to say the degree to which someone wants a thing regardless of the labor that went into it. And we know this just as surely as we know the source/cause of the Sun's movement across the sky is the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Value is not created by the person who makes a widget, but by the person(s) who wants that widget. Very few people want the dirt in your back yard, but lots of people want the gold in your back yard, if there is any, even if the labor to extract both is a simple scoop with a hand shovel. And the level of value, called the price, is determined by the number of people who want that widget (demand) divided by the number of those widgets available (supply). The "out of whack" proportion of Finance financing finance instead of financing the production of goods and services is simply a function of "utility", the source of value. The desire to "spend" money on finance is greater than the desire to spend money on "production", just as the desire shifted back in the day from spending money on farming to spending money on "production." Every physiocrat thought the industrial revolution was "production going totally out of whack." Some was good, but c'mon man, a pin factory? Who's ever gonna need that many pins?
if this value is not valued by people as she says why do people pay for it? why do we want to stop people from freely exchanging goods to “save” them? even if they themselves are the ones choosing to do it? high price means high demand - how is anyone to judge otherwise?
11:18 Great Point until this slide. Hope to see better, because there are lots of sector charts looking much worse than this. Banking helps the economy, because until today most people are not going to be a bank for somebody else..
Extraordinary woman. Wish I'd had her for micro & macroeconomics. I would love to hear her thoughts and solutions on what she does nott talk about - the corruption endemic in FIRE, the IMF & world governments, and what really has been happening presently with population and migration control, the grab for nat resources, and the private sector move to take over govts and the rush to gain control over resources outside of earth. Productivity no longer exists in our lexicon. Our politicians and media do nothing and are being paid millions to keep the status quo while we are kept entertained by bread and circuses. What's really going on?
So when adam smith comes up with a list of jobs he thinks are productive, its objective, but if prices are determined by the choices of thousands of People, value determination its subjective 👀
Mazzucato tell there are a private problem and She affirms what the solution is the State; but the state has other problems most big than private, the corruption. Only money changes the hands from private groups to public burocracy groups
@@VincentGill3 .....and no money(??????!!!!!!!). Contributionism is a proper way to make all people poor......It's a communism in new words.....Don't fall in these new order's traps
@@panoskaranasios7848 Where did you get your information? Of course there will be money but it will not be borrowed from Banksters. Contributionism has been adopted by thousands of communities and is working very well.
Marxism in some ways is right, but americans get fear, when economy is about marxism. They thing marxism is equal to revolution and communism....Because goverment taught to americans to think it just on this way. Use value and exchange value said Marx. Societies aren't just a markets, but US sees the world like a big market.
I actually found her talk rather lacking in structure and a little bit all over the place - making it challenging to understand which is a shame as she had a lot of great content!
This is so spot on!
The financial sector does provide value through making investment liquid, which absolutely increases the amount of investment that the private sector is willing to risk on future production. BUT creating the conditions for liquid investments should never be confused with creating actual output.
The financial sector should be viewed as the lubrication system that allows the economic engine to function more efficiently, but to count “gains” in that sector in GDP is to double count the actual output created by the investment it facilitated, AND (maybe worse) overly reward the shifting of production profits away from workers.
@bina nocht your instinct to boil economics down to eggs and chickens is not wrong… at the end of the day it’s the real things that matter most. If economics isn’t helping people get the real goods and services for their lives, then what’s the point? A lot of the hard to understand parts of economics are people trying to sound smarter than they are. There are some complex things, but if someone can’t explain it in terms of eggs and chickens then they probably don’t understand it themselves.
As far as your worry about interest on loans goes, the key thing to remember is that the banks that make loans and collect the interest pay most of that interest back into the economy through paychecks, rent, services, etc., and even the profits after expenses will often get spent back into the economy by the bank owners (to renovate their house or whatever). So the economy as a whole will have the money to pay the interest, it’s just a question of if the people who took out the loan will get enough of that money to make their payments. Small community banks will spend most of their money into the community they’re in, so aren’t much of a problem. Bigger national or international banks spend their money away from the communities (big financial cities mainly), so can end up sucking money out of smaller communities.
@@troypresley As Fiat Dollars face the competing Gold Standard that Putin proposed over 20 years ago appear this year, we might ask why we even participate in Capitalism at all?
The prospect of the two largest Communist Nations becoming the masters of Finance, does present some interesting conflicts to the use of Capital that Monarchs and Despots have used for centuries to manipulate Humans?
The fact that a majority of Humanity is not served by Capital at all, seems to be overlooked?
I studied economics at Uni, and I kid you not, they had us learn about the Laffer curve as if it were empirical reality. Meanwhile, Laffer first came up with it by scribbling it on a napkin to argue against tax increases during a meeting with government officials, and the idea has never been borne out by the evidence. All this to say: our understanding of economics is a lot less science-based than people like to think, and it's high time we rethink the way we organize our economies across the world.
Where do you think ideas come from? Do you think if he were scribbling on a notebook, his ideas would have a different weight? It's a theory, economics is a social science, and if they taught you otherwise in uni they taught you wrong.
@@contaalt4742 Economics, as it is presented and treated by academia today, is much more deception than science of any kind.
I was a graduate student when I first read Laffer's paper arguing the case for a reduction in marginal tax rates. I was convinced that the outcomes he forecasted would not occur because of the continued potential to profit from rent-seeking activities, and in particular rent-seeking associated with speculation in land and natural resources. I wrote to Laffer about the issues. He responded that he was convinced there was no need to distinguish between the taxation of rents and the taxation of earned income flows. Thanks in part to Laffer the federal government lowered marginal tax rates on income and on business profits. And, when this only generated deficits instead of increased revenue, they lowered rates some more. As a result, trillions of dollars of increased disposable income went into all of the asset markets, turning them into credit-fueled and speculation-driven markets that were (and still are) destined to periodically crash.
@@contaalt4742of course some ideas have different weights. Comparing scribblings on a napkin to those on a notebook is a strawman fallacy. Peer reviewed research that has been scrutinised over time is more valuable to teach than ideas that have been proven incorrect, or the ramblings of a twitter user for instance (modern take). That said, it is perfectly legitimate to teach popular, incorrect ideas so long as that's explained. Indeed that is important to do. There are many papers showing that the Laffer model isn't correct. Drawing a parabola on a bit of paper and making assumptions about proper tax limits based on such a plot is high-school level stuff and should never have been used to drive policy. Economics is incredibly complicated. Such a model is insulting to the field.
I have had several conversations with graduate economists and they have been educated to believe that the Laffer curve is valuable, just as the commenter says. That is a crazy thing to have done. It's equivilant to my field, physics, teaching university students that the Aether models are true. We are taught about them, but in the context that they have been disproven.
@@michaelwhitaker4372 After you said straw man fallacy I stopped reading.
My MBA professor told me to watch a TED talk about value creation. He 1000% didn't mean this one but thank everything I tripped over it. Perfectly elocutes so many things I haven't had words for. Thanks!
so which one did he mean
Better this than the neoliberal propaganda that is 90% of TED talks!
She is nailing it down. Just WOW.
mine did :D
Mine told me to watch this specific one. Loves it.
Wow seriously taken by surprise here. What a fantastic presentation of a much needed idea!
Truly impressed by her clarity and preparation. Her point is well explained and benefits from forgoing personal anecdotes and opinions. Historical context really grounds the idea and keeps the presentation from slipping into the hypothetical or idealistic.
Conclusions and applications are left for the audience to reflect on.
I often wonder how we as a society could possibly change the global economic direction in order to give more value to practices that have social capital, and incentivize global well being rather than just profit.
Fascinating, succinct and thought provoking.
Bravo. Thank you.
Hi Danny, as you wrote this 3 years ago I was wondering if you were any closer to a big idea?
I too often ponder redesigned economic incentives for global capital flows into social capital rather than meet profit.
Thank you for your consideration.
@@Mike-yd1vh What if the concept of Capital that Sumerians developed after they created some of the first Coins, were dropped entirely?
That seems like an easy solution as Recession fears dominate US Capitalism.....
Though she doesn't touch on the real problem; GDP has real world implications. High GDP numbers is basically how the US maintains it's empire through the WTO and world bank as well as the G7 and G20. GDP is a diplomatic score that gives respect from your peers.
So governments don't really have an interest to make GDP numbers accurately reflect the value of their economy. Rather they want to use whatever means they have to boost GDP numbers as high as possible to gain an advantage over their rivals.
One of the best TED Talks I have listened to in a long time.
That was an epic takedown of how modern economics has been used to serve the interests of the sterile leisure class. Vague doesn't just mean price. So good.
This is a mission oriented public policy that had its climax in the 50s and 60s - the man on the moon. Mariana Mazzucato is a high level scholar. She is many things, a mother , a chef de cuisine, married to a Italian filmmaker. But also a innovation economist, schumpeterian, evolutionary, Keynesian with a perspective on social history of technology and economics. So, the Entrepreneurial State is relevant for spurring innovation
I find these talks encouraging and epic.
This 18 minutes have more knowledge than 18 books on economy
Economics without people is soul less.
" Value and prices are not the same thing, they never will"
Have you heard of a new social system called Contributionism? No Banksters needed.
"money isn't all" or "no amount of money can bring you happiness" ... . Her insight and opinion, was not really followed up with a new theory of economics or improvement or replacement of an old one. The only thing she stated was right at the start, that economists stopped talking about how to define value and that they now don't really know. This was known by most people already i would claim. So this was at most a conversation starter.
Also while talking about the consequences of the 2008 crash with millions of people loosing their homes, she smiled during that delviery which was in my opinion in bad taste. Some humility from the profession, hardly a rational science it seems, which failed so many people, i still would expect. But hey she got her freaking Ted talk from her bucket list.
That just 4 years after the banks got a bailout and the people the middlefinger, the regulations which should prevent future crisis were again partly or fully removed depending the country you look at, was not mentioned. Perhaps not important anymore. Would be a bit depressing for that smile i guess.
Neither this talk, nore these 18 books on economics seem to have a lot to it.
@@kinngrimm You are absolutely correct and borrowing money from the Banksters has led us into debt slavery.
However there is a solution, it's called Contributionism
@@kinngrimm might be better if you didn't include the intention of insulting or complementing someone when you criticize them
@@TheHiroClaw123 You have not made an argument against my points, but an attack against my character by implying my intentions would be to insult.
Better look into the mirror and take your own advise.
I really liked the way she explained value creation and price.
Thank you for posting such nice content.
Regards,
Sanket.
Over the long term, value was destroyed, not created, when the taxpayers were forced to bail out Goldman Sachs.
you mean Goldman Sucks!?😉
So true, but you forgot one extremely important element.... the FEDERAL RESERVE and it's historically low interest rates for a long period of time. Now combine the low interest rates with the tax breaks we keep giving the financial elites and you can easily see the large sums of money they have at their disposal. That's how asset bubbles and debt are created. Sure, the stock market is up. Sure, some jobs are being created. But real wages have gone up less than 3% while all the money going to the elites is being used to buy up all sorts of assets (healthcare, housing, energy, stock buy backs etc...) while the prices of those things increase more than 3%. In other words, the money is not being used to make society a better place. It's simply being used to economically manipulate and control people by keeping them in perpetual debt. Modern crony capitalism basically destroyed democracy by concentrating so much wealth in so few hands.
And what's really sad is TRUMP wants to double down on the tax breaks and he continues yelling at the FEDERAL RESERVE because interest rates aren't even lower. Need to keep the fake financial economy afloat long enough for the 2020 election. And even sadder is how a bunch of dopey voters who don't understand all of this actually believe the economy is great because of some stock market price.
Every bail out is the same ... !!!
Also when the minimum wage is pushed up .. It's called inflation ...
Now imagine how much value has been destroyed from Stimulus and Lockdown Policies
In reference to the comments made about pharmaceuticals and prices at @14:40. The same can be said to when a medication/"product" is no longer profitable and then is abruptly discontinued and the population is left without said medication/"product". This is currently taking place in several countries. This to me clearly highlights the end of the tall tale that unregulated free markets will meet depends. There must be governmental requirements that meet the needs of the people before the profits of corporations.
How can you speak with such speed and depth and still without losing your breadth and stop even for a second? Thumbs up.
Its one of my reason to still watch ted x, thanks for everything
It's hilarious hearing people who push paper tell other people that they are more productive. I hear it every day
Hello There
Agreeing that changing practices takes ages. It’s easier to say than do.
Furthermore, she stays on the idea level not offering concrete ways of how to implement these ideas.
So the takeaway from this video will only be on idea level. Too hard to make an actual change if we’re not on certain position.
Take away will be that instead of being too busy chasing the widely accepted concept of productivity and value, we need to stop and rethink these two concepts. It’s no harm questioning the fundamental ideas that governs the economy. And it’s no harm to have more awareness about how economy was created and how the game is being played nowadays.
Now, you can rebut their boasting.
@@VMilcat Value Added Tax. Concrete is already being discussed.
Should I be shocked?... Cuz I ain't.
This talk should have come 20 years ago.
1: Nah. 2: 40 years would've been better? That would take us to 1980
Ya, TED pretty much only showcases opinions that have already gained a critical level of popularity already. This stuff has been pointed out so long ago.
Even then it would be not more than a conversation starter. The only insight/opinion was that economist stopped arguing about what value is and they now do not really know.
There was no new theory, no replacement of an old one, no own example on how now to define value. Just value is not price/money which is like a saying "money isn't everything ... money can't buy happiness" So whopsidoo what a brilliant ted talk ^^.
"We have a moral imperative to charge what the market will bare' says it all about the soulless corporate creeps we have slithering around making money at the expense of everyone and everything else.
I would have no problem with charging what the market will bare, if markets were free of monopolistic privileges, subsidies, tariffs and other measures that impose higher costs on the many to benefit the few. This is no where more true than the low effective rate of taxation on land rent while government imposes heavy taxes on income earned producing goods and services, on tangible capital goods such as buildings and machinery and on commerce.
Incredible talk by Mariana.
Interesting that this talk was done on the cusp of a pandemic that forced us all to reconsider the labor value of essential workers such as food producers, health care workers, teachers, etc.
This is my biggest frustration about economics. They have absolutely no idea what value, wealth and money represent.
All of these things in one way or another represent work, the work put into something (value) the potential work that can be done with something (wealth) or the ability to direct work (money).
Ask a physicist what work is and they will tell you work is the result you get when you use energy to make something change (something you absolutely must do to provide any service or build any product) and energy is governed by the laws of thermodynamics.
Thus value, wealth and money are representations of energy.
The problem is this. The laws of thermodynamics means that every time energy is used a vast majority degrades, most energy is lost as heat (the ability to get more work out of the energy put in is efficiency or productivity as an economist would say) Only a small amount is embodied in the product (or person providing a service) such that more useful energy can be further extracted.
The problem is the energy degrades but money does not. So you end up with mountains of money accumulating in the hands of a few who are looking for productive ways to direct energy.
But out economies have been stagnating for years because the mass of people that want money and can direct it to producing things of value (i.e. need work or energy embodied in them) don't have the money. So the money just sloshes around in the FIRE sector not actually directing energy at all but instead accumulating.
Watch out if that accumulated money ever actually makes it out into the productive economy where it is used to direct energy because you will see massive hyperinflation as the money to available energy (think KJs) ratio will be completely screwed.
If we are to ever get the world economy back on track we need to eliminate the money sloshing around in the FIRE sector and realign value, wealth and money with energy and build in a mechanism that makes money degrade in the same way energy does every time it is used.
Economics sufferes as a science because it thinks it is divorced from the laws of nature. And the laws of thermodynamics govern everything in the universe, the human economic system is no exception.
You cannot blame the classical economists as the laws of thermodynamics were only just being discovered in their time. Modern economists have no excuse.
This comment is incredible. Your comment is the one I was looking for, for months. I have been researching a personal topic of interest for MONTHS, and I knew there was some connection to the economy somehow. So I researched economic papers but I still didn't feel satisfied--- I felt like there was a better way to word the phenomenon I was trying to describe. I struggled so much trying to word this concept in my mind-- I knew it was somehow real, I knew it somehow existed, but because my words were never able to concretely and accurately describe this concept, my thoughts were always approaching true understanding, but never quite reaching it. But here you are, perfectly putting into words what I suspected all along. Now as I go back to my writing drafts, I see signs that I somewhat was approaching this breakthrough in understanding, with words like "energy" and "accumulation" and "breakthrough" and "effort." I even looked into physics and read articles about work, but I didn't see the connection as explicitly as you did, so I overlooked what I read. Well then... Time to go back to studying physics!! (Havent taken a physics class in five years, currently an Economics undergrad). Finally.... Thank you. Thank you for writing this comment. You have some rather brilliant insights.
It's a nice thought but it's not that economics suffers because "it thinks it is divorced from the laws of nature" - it suffers because real human systems are incredibly complex to study. Human behavior is particularly problematic. Early economic theories assumed humans always made logical choices - we don't and now we have a new branch called behavioral economics that tries to understand human behavior but still fails to make real testable hypothesis and good predictable models.
Economics is a soft science because one cannot truly control the variables of a system that is constantly evolving and the consequences of past actions are often unnoticeable until many decades have passed. Without a testable hypothesis you cannot create decent models to make predictions. All made worse by the competing interests involved that cloud academia, what gets published and what advice is actually applied in real life by the laws and policies created by our politicians.
I am a biochemist, I work with human diseases. While it is still complex, and yes some conflicts of interests get involved, I have it much much easier than an economist because I get to use model species to test hypothesis. I don't need to wait until a human reaches a certain age. With Mice I know in a few years, with other model species in less than a year. I also get to control a lot more variables than economists do.
You want to create real economic laws, nice equations that work as predictably as the laws of physics. As noble of quest as that is, you should give economist a break because it is not easy.
"the work put into something (value) the potential work that can be done with something (wealth) or the ability to direct work (money)." The logic is vastly too simplistic and ignores markets and market forces. Almost all prescription drugs are more expensive in the USA than the UK by a factor of five but the work content in the drugs will be the same. Products lose value due to obsolescence (market issue) even though the work content is unchanged. Identical houses in different locations have different values due to market forces. I am not saying that 'work' does not have value - just that the relationship with value is really complex.
Beautifully said
I would like to put a sick beat under this talk - would be a dope doubletime rap track
vynce oh please please can you actually do that??
... I mean, I'd subscribe to that content.
Who's holding you back?
Do it and increase your value.
So excellent. Value lies in labor, according to Adam Smith. Studied this from his book so, so much
Human capital .....
Yes this is why European nations were so big on slaves ...
And still big on immigration in 2020....
=The cost of labor
@@thomasking3663 Human beings are not a type of capital. We have different potentials to produce tangible wealth. Economics has done scientific investigation a great disservice by blurring the distinctions between the three factors of production -- land, labor and capital goods.
Great presentation, thank you.
She should be the economist of the US.
couldn't be worse than Luddlow, would still be bad though. Paraphrasing "We don't know how to define value because we stopped arguing about it 300 years ago" No replacement theory, no imrpovement delvired on an existing theory just more or less a saying "value isn't price/money" which isn't far of from me saying "money isn't everything" or "money doesn't make you happy".
@@kinngrimm it would be helpful anyways it is controlled by the people who control all the money who ended up in controlling society because we run our lives by that. It's their monopoly they are in the top of the monopolies lol. There is no hope, and hopefully, they can't control Mars. I hope they don't.
@@kinngrimm btw, the order was created in 1776 and it is called capitalism private individuals running stock bonds, etc. It runs our economy and the world economy. BTW coronavirus can potentially crash the market we are in the danger zone where it happens every 10 years or so and well, it will be the perfect time to get stock at legendary cheap price.
If you want US to become a Socialist Nation, here you go!
VALUE IS NOT MEASURED BY PRICE...YET PRICE GIVES THE PERCEIVED VALUE!!!
Indeed! Diamonds are just rocks and De Beers owns metric tons of 'em!
In actuality, they are just worthless crystals. They have warehouses full of them stuffed to the rafters, just so that they can control the price - and you.
If we follow that logic, EVERYTHING is worthless.
Yeshuahfullofit 2.0 They are not at all useless. They have plenty of industrial uses. However, artificial diamonds are just as good for that.
@@asdfghyter
Industrial diamonds do indeed have uses, but most folks know that I was referring to the rocks sold at _Zales, Kays, Pawn Stars,_ etc.
@
Nonsense. How much do you value clean water, affordable shelter, and food?
Would you trade them for diamonds?
What if no one else did?
How much value would you then think your rocks are worth? They only have value if everyone else thinks they do.
*I do not.* That alone devalues your "valuables".
May god b-less. ; )
Everyone can tell just by looking at their lives that those we are told are the wealth creators are actually wealth extractors.
Andrew Yang talked about this a while ago
Yang's an ouroboros trying to buy your vote with your own money
Going by the last election results, a stereotypical Asian Nerd stands no chance whatsoever in American elections.
Andrew Yang talks about it a few times a day for the last few years.
@@obsoleteoptics That's a thoughtless statement, and completely incorrect.
Hey, did you know Buttigieg is gay?😉
"Man values his gifts precisely in the degree that they are appreciated by others." Theory aside, value is set by its worth to others.
did you even watch the talk?
@@kriskeahiolalo9053 the question that you are omitting is of value to whom? the piece of art is worth at least 10,000 dollars to the wealthy guy, if not he would not have bought it. That the well cost 5000 to produce tells us nothing about the value of the well. How much the well is worth depends on the value that those who are interested in using the well are willing to pay. All value is subjective and individual, you and I might value the same thing very differently. there is no "objective value" or "value to society". Only individuals can value society cannot. you can try to estimate what "society wants" but it remains exactly that. what you happen to believe society wants or values according to your method.
“A theory of price and exchange which reveals value” is pretty much exactly how it works for Smith and Marx.
Muito bom!
Vim assistir esse TED depois de assistir ao vídeo do canal: Meteoro Brasil
Qual?
incredible!!👏👏
Failure itself is of value. Without failure, success can never happen, and success is the ultimate form of value
What does it mean to be successful?
This lady needs to run for president
Is this just me, or you guys also think it was a little heavy as a public lecture?
By the way, she is a great lecturer.
Nah, it's pretty simple
Hassan Jahan It’s just you, it’s always you.
Not just you i didnt understand a lottt of what she said 🙃 just get used to the feeling bro
Great arguments delivered way too frenetically for me to comfortably engage with
Specific public talk! very good by the way! Mazzucato has very beautiful ideas, seriously, but thinking about value in this time is a dead end. is not going anywhere. Some way this idea can be explained by mainstream thinking! In fact, the Nobel prize in economics this year explain this thing with a very "simple" maintrain framework!. Economics is about people, non-about theories, do not forget that!. ;)
Excelente!!!
Great talk! Humanity, not just economists, needs to think about 'what is value'! "Value is not just price", like she says.
Hi, thank you for this video!
That stimulates a discussion.
Something I see different.
* Value is not a thing and cannot be produced
Economics is about economic value and this is related to exchange.
A production-related value, as it should arise according to the classical interpretation of the Labour theory of value, would not have a high value. Because if everything that is produced is to have value, including all the things that cannot be sold, then much “of value” would have no meaning for society. Value cannot be produced at all.
* Value is a social relationship and not a singularity
Such is formed between people and only works between people. Only possible reference points for value relationships are produced. In other words, value is related to things, activities (concerts), ideas (literature, patents), but only if the properties of the things, ideas, etc. produced seem good enough for an exchange.
* Value has an objective component and subjective ones
Value is related to the work results and usually has to include the expenses. As a social relationship, value must have an objective dimension - it must go beyond the ideal ideas of an individual. And it must have subjective elements because it is linked to people.
The objective part of the value is the joint value of the supplier and the buyer. This is reflected in the sales price and often deviates from the expected value, which is expressed by the offer price.
The objective part of value becomes effective between the exchange partners on the social level - in the sales contract, when paying taxes, etc.
The subjective shares of the value are the subjective reflections of the objective part of value in the exchange partners. This is mostly developed from initially different subjective values related to the exchange goods.
* Value and expenses
Usually, with the help of the value has to been replaced the expenses that led to the production / acquisition of the (initially only potential) commodities and an surplus value that appears to be sufficient by the provider must usually be paid for.
This is the only way to continue and expand production, just like artistic activities, archaeological research, etc.
eye opening
US companies are way above others in terms of paying themselves by buying stocks, instead of investing in RnD, human capital and production.
So true what us value vs price as a Measure of value which mixes utility with creative value meaning Adding To The World.
All wealth is derived from the soil.🤠 From all the farmers, you're welcome.
the message , i think, is to re-think our current defitions...
Have you heard of a new social system called Contributionism? No Banksters needed.
@@VincentGill3 no. not yet. can you give me some useful info about it or perhaps references that i coulld use to educate myself about it?
i would hear this woman talking about economy even for a day
When you are a professional academic economist you have the purchasing power to buy larger t-shirts, unless you have inflation.
This was excellent!!
Thank You
......The economic value depends on demand and supply. In modern economy, they create needs (through t.v, advertising, internet,movies, etch), in order to control demand and lead people's behavior to the way they want.
I think you are exceptional
Value and prices are not the same, however, as economists, we tend to use prices as a proxy to value because other variables are tougher to measure. As we move towards a digital world, I really wonder how the value will be redefined. If we stop to think for a moment, maybe we can get an answer. I know Erik Brynjolfsson is working on redefining GDP with the inclusion of digital value.
That will change the future as we know it!
Better to replace GDP altogether. The organization Redefining Progress made an attempt with the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). Several states in the U.S. are using this analytical method to evaluate whether the wellbeing of their residents is increasing or not. By the GPI the general wellbeing of the U.S. population has not improved since the late 1970s.
The real problem though is that GDP is not just an academic number. It's a political one that wins election and can give tremendous power at institutions like the WTO and world bank that can make or break entire economies. There is a massive incentive to fabricate high GDP numbers which China does a lot to gain more power in geo-politics and to protect your own economy from sanctions. If China's GDP numbers were to half at this point they likely would lose their economy for real because they would lose the ability to stop the US from using it's power in international organizations to sabotage them.
You can't really redefine value if the number has very real political implications. The US will never allow it's GDP number to drop cause it relies on that high GDP number to maintain it's empire. The actual US economy is secondary, what matters is that number and the power it gives. It's hard to have a serious discussion about economic numbers if governments have a massive incentive to fabricate high numbers.
Having a perpetual loop of finance financing itself was much cheaper and more politically convenient than paying for a massive army.
From what the Dr is saying, it seems that there are CEOs out their whose contracts link their pay to the share price of the companies they run. So what do they do, instead of investing the profits they simply buy back the companies shares and collect a big bonus. They are risking the long term health of a company for short term gain.
Mir Media In the United States everything is short term thinking. We have an election cycle of four years, that has now evolved into perpetual campaigning. We have daytraders who don’t invest in a company, they buy stock in south stock in one day hoping just hoping the price goes up. Even in schools we have quarterly reports. As if somehow education can be measured in months. And I think the structure of thinking benefits the people at the top. The politicians can say the economy is doing great so they get reelected. The big business people get their bonuses. There are no grownups. And no adults to say hey let’s think about this in the long term. If so the United States would have much better passenger train systems. But who’s going to invest in that,? That’s a long-term solution. So instead we build roads with more lanes so that more cars can come in and then we complain about the traffic. Then we talk about how to solve the traffic problem and the only solution is to create more roads.
I'm really feeling the look for some reason
brilliant isnt it
@@gomcocramp amazing!!
Someone Invest In This Lady Being The Leader Of USA 🇺🇸
Our money comes from the future.
wow!!!!! mind blowing!
the economist the world desperately needs to listen to 🙏
i watched this talk once before, but i probably didn't understand it well then, because i didn't take note of how significant the material of the talk is
curing patients becomes unprofitable sometimes which is why we need a common good called government who should put tax money into curing people and to create ways to reduce the labour involved in the process of curing.
you're so close
@@alansmothee unless it's not necessary to cure everyone which is totally justifiable
Curing patients is highly profitable for the society as a whole, but it is unprofitable for the medical company who would earn a lot more from constantly treating the symptoms.
The same is true for plenty of other sectors where planned obsolescence is a valuable strategy. These methods work because they move money from other sectors to your sector.
Limited resources, unlimited needs.
What percentage of all the resources is society willing to spend on curing one person with cancer? Human life is said to have unlimited value - if it comes to it, do we have unlimited resources to preserve that one life?
Am wordless
Thanks for the info
I would love to get Marianas thoughts on what AI tech means for the economy, and how it could be squandered by the sterile class.
🦋I look at obstacles as a way to throw you off. There is always a way to obliterate them
@Douglas Farnsworth why are you everywhere trolling?
#andrewyang2020 Humanity First! We all have intrinsic value. -Andrew Yang
Placing a price on something that is priceless? Yeah ok...
Give me a definition of "intrinsic value" please.
Can it be measured or observed?
If not, then it doesn't exist.
@@ferrusmanus4013 well, the word intrinsic does have a meaning so, yes, it does exist. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even considered your comment as an opportunity to correct a foolish soul.
@@HelloThere-xs8ss
Peepeepoopoo has a meaning too, it doesn't mean that it exists.
If something cannot be measured or observed and is hard to define, than it doesn't exist.
What's her accent? It's really interesting. It sounds Irish but also American?
she is italian tho
@@dom2555 oh okay thank you!
@@myboycone2181 look her hands. it will take off all the doubts
@@Cristian-go6sg LOL dude ur comment is underrated
Very deep
Insightful! But this only tells us what value is not! It doesn’t even definitively tell who creates it or where it comes from…
Extracting value and creating value is done thru the Entrepreneurs and leaders of a company such as CEOs. Then the workers/subcontracts/freelancers that carry out the execution are just as important. Overall we all play a part in creating economic value in today's economy. 🤗
Great talk
If only Thorstein Veblen was alive these days,...Also Mazzucato is pure gold
Better yet, in my view, if only Henry George were alive today, or that he had lived for another 2 or 3 decades into the twentieth century.
So many disagreements in the comments its crazy but i like the connection she made about physics im going to study some physics now 👋
I will vote for any president who speaks like this.
Excellent talk. Ever since I realized that the worse our health care prices are the more it boosted GDP. Whether that's higher costs, poor service so more and more tests and revisits, the more we are helping the 'Economy'.
Value is not just price.
7:53 The measure of value is entirely subjective in nature - Carl Menger (1871), the time when Marx fooled the world
How our financial systems work is comparative to how a physical therapist works on its clients. The tending is for maintence and repairs. They do accounting for losses that occur and little to invest in operations and innovation that put an end to loss in certain sectors that uphold the fabric of devloped international relations which keep us safe from one guy with a button to big booms. Anyway, my venture in business in various ways needs a reprise and not just a rest. Alot of unneccessary factors exist and they so clearly are being used in this way to shroud itself whilst they rake in the income generated from atrocious acts.
it'd be nice if at the end of every TED speech they take the audience out to protest/implement on what they learned, practical class teaches us more you know~
The fact that you feel like you should do something in particular is a symptom of TED going down the toilet. TED used to be about how to do, not what to do.
@@elinope4745 yeah i get you, but whats the point in knowing how to do but not doing it. It just makes me realize how scared and lazy i am tbh.
@@elinope4745 ok maybe not TED, but someone with an audience and knowledge like that could use it to their advantage, and all those life changing ideas might become reality. And whats wrong with change, you can always learn and improve or learn and fail and improve, but if you don't change you're not learning.
@@gunsgirlz9829 I suggest that you learn about the peaceful resistance strategy of action through inaction. It was taught by Buddhist monks long ago.
A key underlying message here, which is rarely spoken about in explicit terms, is: stop prioritising the shareholder above everything else.
Do you know how hard it is to say "similarly" out loud? And she nails it!
Very interesting to see her advising the German government under Robert Habeck now 🧐🤩
A World Without Currency - is what we need!
Money 💰 values everything except the humanity
Ökonomie meets Philosophie (postmoderer Dekonstruktovismus 👏🏿)👌
The physiocrats and the classical economists like Ricardo were the ones who were the most prominent advocate of value aggregation. The French liberal school made a considerable dent in this shaky edifice (Cantillon, among others). But it wasn't until the marginal revolution swept in that the edifice was built anew on firmer ground. Subjectivism was an attempt at rescuing, not gutting, economics (though short-lived, as shows the current state of the discipline). She makes a fairy tale of economic history predigested and fit for consumption by gullible crowds. It's almost as if she wants to prove Smith's point about professors.
A fair question to ask is: "Where did economics go wrong?" Rather than build on what the political economists spent centuries working on (i.e., the three factor model of wealth production and distribution), each of the various schools of economics arising in the late 19th century abandoned land as a distinct factor of production. From that point on, economics was incapable of accurately forecasting economic cycles or putting forward proposal for changes in law and policy that would tame cycles and generate full employment without inflation. Of course, there were (and are today) exceptions, but they are still largely marginalized from the mainstream because of their heterodox positions.
*Value is NOT just price*
She's an excellent thinker which is why I'm so surprised she fails to see her own presentation answers the question. She glossed right over it. We no longer need to wonder who/what creates value anymore than we need to wonder who/what creates the Sun's movement across the sky. Both the physiocrats and classicists thought labor was the source/cause of value; the physiocrats believed it was farm labor and the classicists believed it was industrial labor, just as she said. Land is useless until labor to grows something, raw materials are useless until labor fashions them into something. But what we now know is that "utility" is the source of value, which is to say the degree to which someone wants a thing regardless of the labor that went into it. And we know this just as surely as we know the source/cause of the Sun's movement across the sky is the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Value is not created by the person who makes a widget, but by the person(s) who wants that widget. Very few people want the dirt in your back yard, but lots of people want the gold in your back yard, if there is any, even if the labor to extract both is a simple scoop with a hand shovel. And the level of value, called the price, is determined by the number of people who want that widget (demand) divided by the number of those widgets available (supply). The "out of whack" proportion of Finance financing finance instead of financing the production of goods and services is simply a function of "utility", the source of value. The desire to "spend" money on finance is greater than the desire to spend money on "production", just as the desire shifted back in the day from spending money on farming to spending money on "production." Every physiocrat thought the industrial revolution was "production going totally out of whack." Some was good, but c'mon man, a pin factory? Who's ever gonna need that many pins?
Why are all the comments like 3 days ago.
Technology Entertainment Design and This
if this value is not valued by people as she says why do people pay for it? why do we want to stop people from freely exchanging goods to “save” them? even if they themselves are the ones choosing to do it? high price means high demand - how is anyone to judge otherwise?
we need to rethink? who's we?
11:18 Great Point until this slide. Hope to see better, because there are lots of sector charts looking much worse than this. Banking helps the economy, because until today most people are not going to be a bank for somebody else..
👏👏👏👏
I mostly agree in a critique to crony capitalism but I have a doubt: did Goldman pay back Obama or were the 10 BD lost?
a bit to fast ...i catch only part of it ..but that's okay i will watch again
You could lower the playback speed, comes in handy sometimes
Great Video
Extraordinary woman. Wish I'd had her for micro & macroeconomics. I would love to hear her thoughts and solutions on what she does nott talk about - the corruption endemic in FIRE, the IMF & world governments, and what really has been happening presently with population and migration control, the grab for nat resources, and the private sector move to take over govts and the rush to gain control over resources outside of earth. Productivity no longer exists in our lexicon. Our politicians and media do nothing and are being paid millions to keep the status quo while we are kept entertained by bread and circuses. What's really going on?
So when adam smith comes up with a list of jobs he thinks are productive, its objective, but if prices are determined by the choices of thousands of People, value determination its subjective 👀
The looting and the bleatings shall continue until morale improves.
Mazzucato tell there are a private problem and She affirms what the solution is the State; but the state has other problems most big than private, the corruption. Only money changes the hands from private groups to public burocracy groups
The economy is a sham!
Have you heard of a new social system called Contributionism? No Banksters needed.
@@VincentGill3 .....and no money(??????!!!!!!!). Contributionism is a proper way to make all people poor......It's a communism in new words.....Don't fall in these new order's traps
@@panoskaranasios7848 Where did you get your information? Of course there will be money but it will not be borrowed from Banksters. Contributionism has been adopted by thousands of communities and is working very well.
Marxism in some ways is right, but americans get fear, when economy is about marxism. They thing marxism is equal to revolution and communism....Because goverment taught to americans to think it just on this way. Use value and exchange value said Marx. Societies aren't just a markets, but US sees the world like a big market.
Wow she is so based
Shes brilliant but I wish she spoke slower.
I actually found her talk rather lacking in structure and a little bit all over the place - making it challenging to understand which is a shame as she had a lot of great content!