Is capitalism actually broken?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 окт 2022
- Explore the different types of capitalism, how they operate, and how they impact issues like climate change and rising inequality.
--
People have become increasingly worried that the threats we face today, like climate change and rising inequality, can’t be solved by a capitalist economic system. So, is that true? And if it is, can we fix capitalism or do we need to tear the system down and build a new one from scratch? Explore the different types of capitalism and the role it plays in our society.
Directed by Lorenzo Mercanti, AIM Creative Studios.
This video made possible in collaboration with World Economic Forum
Learn more about how TED-Ed partnerships work: bit.ly/TEDEdPartners
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPatreon
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFacebook
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwitter
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdInstagram
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/is-capital...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/lessons/is-capital...
Animator's website: aimcreativestudios.com
Music: / aim-music
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! John Hellmann, Poompak Meephian, Chuck Wofford, Adam Pagan, Wes Winn, Conder Shou, ntiger, Noname, Hansan Hu, David D, Mac Hyney, Keith Ellison, robin valero walters, Lynne Truesdale, Gatsby Dkdc, Matthew Neal, Denis Chon, Julian Oberhofer, Monte Carroll, Eddy, Jay M, Constantino Victor Delgado, Andrea Galvagni, Andrew Tweddle, Laurel-Ann Rice, Fernando A. Endo, Helen Lee, pam morgan, sarim haq, Gerardo Castro, Michel-Ange Hortegat, Enes Kirimi, Amaury BISIAUX, ND, Samyogita Hardikar, Vanessa Graulich, Vandana Gunwani, Abdulmohsin Almadi, AJ Lyon, Geoffrey Bultitude, Mi Mi, Thomas Rothert, Brian Elieson, Oge O, Weronika Falkowska, Nevin Spoljaric, Sid Chanpuriya, Anoop Varghese, David Yastremski and Noah Webb.
Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, once said:
"You have to ask yourself: if our economic system actively destroys the biosphere *and* fails to meet most people's basic needs, then what is actually the point?"
A very good question.
It has never made sense that a few have and many don't.
Might as well go back to feudal societies, at least those lord physically fought and endangered themselves for power
This is the history of the state. A paraside, calling the outside world dangerous and demanding people to work for itself, to defend them from an imaginary threat.
Nobody should work for anything or anybody, but instead work for and with everybody.
It's because the alternative systems are even worse at doing so.
@@Finallymademyaccount there are other alternatives than state owned economy, like the so called "communist" countries have produced in the last century.
Look at Rojava.
The best joke on us when Ted Ed is sponsored by world economic forum who is literally group of billionaires enforcing their idealogy to the world and the subject is failure of capitalism .. 🤣
I did not know that! 😂
they are fiddling us like a stick.
Time to unsubscribe TED.
@@NeonVisual I just did too. Fck that sht.
isn't that all information at least it's transparent
3:23 “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
Awesome
quote of the year
Do you hink he was refering to just politicians or economists to or ceos ?
@@malcolmfreeman1330 I think it refers to the working class. If you knew how much you were being screwed, or looked at the facts and misjudged that you were being screwed. Would you turn up to work and give for best for the people you know/ feel are exploiting you?
That's my understanding at least
Americans should all read Oil. One of the greatest books I've ever read.
The narrator saying “Will any of it make a difference? Is inequality inescapable?” Just as the WEF logo enters the screen is the kind of visual story telling Vince Gilligan would be proud of
Bravo Vince!
The fact the few owners in a capitalistic system is allowed to fiddle with the dials or influence those who can is largely what's wrong with the whole setup.
I agree, when politicians can be bought out the entire systems collapses.
Thats not capitalism, thats called mercantilism and capitalism was created to end mercantilism. TedEx stopped to be a good source of information years ago.
I agree, but I also think that it’s impossible to prevent this under capitalism. Capital necessarily brings with it power, so the owners of large amounts of power will have more power, which necessarily allows the capital-owning class to change the dials more than anyone else. I think the solution is to do away with capitalism overall, but that’s a bit far away for now.
If politians and lobbying is involved then it is not capitalism. Get the definition right then you can make correct observations.
@@calvinpell1738 the key is strengthening small and medium sized businesses
As a rule of thumb for the bare minimum I generally like to use: if you can't live because you're really poor, there's something horribly wrong
There's been something terribly wrong with the world for the last 12 000 years we've had civilization then. Curiously enough we are at the best moment in history to live in, simply because it's possible. A world wide population of 7 billion couldn't have ever survived with technology stuck in the bronze age for example.
Utopias don't exist and cannot exist in a world where humans are corruptible.
@@carlosjosejimenezbermudez9255 I'm obviously not referring to worldwide scenarios, but individual states and societies, some of which have accommodations in place so that in general people aren't dying of hunger and disease because they can't afford care.
It is really sad that an utopia for you is "Well not everything is perfect but at least we aren't looking the other way while people die of hunger in our faces"
Life is a game we all agree/or not to play. And in every game, you can either be winning or be losing. I dont think lack of wealth reflects a wrong system.
@@juanitome1327 its not the lack of wealth its that people are literally dying of curable disease because healthcare is so broken meanwhile the top 1% swim in money like scrooge Mcduck and have enough to spend millions a day for multiple life times
@@juanitome1327 a lack of wealth shouldn't kill you. You do realize that is the opposite of freedom and adjacent to the definition of slavery?
Thank you world economic forum for providing critical and unbiased information about capitalism.
My thinking exactly LOL! The irony.
Considering that Capitalism was originally defined by Marx, it has never really been critically analyzed in an unbiased manner.
@@spartanparty3894 Strong effort reading everything said about capitalism. They should probably consult you next time they consider this subject.
@@spartanparty3894 correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the wealth of nations much older, and also describes free market capitalism?
wouldn't suprise me if the WORD capitalism was a marxian invention but the concept of capitalism is much older
@@TheMajorpickle01 Not really, the Wealth of Nations describes how economies work, not how capitalist economies work. It says that people in all countries obey the profit incentive, and that rich nations are rich because they are efficient and have fair enforcement of laws. And that efficiency comes from decision of labor.
None of this is about capitalism, but about economics as a whole. Capitalism as a concept is largely a criticism of the economic status quo.
What worries me is that the reality is far more complex than this short video describes, yet this short video is far more in-depth than most people's understanding of the issue. Education has failed so many of us.
No, education it's okay, but capitalistic corupted system is another
Yes, education was designed out of the Industrial Revolution to make workers who were just smart enough to run the machines and do the paper work, but not smart enough to critically think about the enslavement and instability of the system they exist in, and organize along class lines to change it. Although, many organizations of people have tried over the decades, but ultimately, didn't change the system - they might have gained some more rights, but the system remains in tact.
That's why we need system change. "A NEW WORLD Free from financial slavery - UBUNTU & Contributionism by Michael Tellinger"
Yes, the video is oversimplifying facts.
France and the US are not part of different dimensions. So if the US system is broken, whe whole world is broken as the US have a large economy and political hegemony over most of the countries in the world.
If for example you live in eastern europe you got lower salaries than in the west and similar cost of commodities like cars, computers, smartphones, etc. and you got multinationals who are killing small businesses by stealing employees from them becausw they can offer better salaries and benefits.
So, even though in Europe we have better healthcare and more rights than enoloyees in the US, the US system being broken severely affects the rest of the world. In many cases the american corporations just decided to hire labours were they are cheapers but, not because they want to help other economies to grow but just for selfish interests.
So, I agree with you, nice video but not 100% accurate and the educational system doesn’t work properly.
@@hellboy0189 Well said. We live in the global economy and it has Market Power Houses like USA, China and Russia. So, the whole system is dangerously unsustainable and unjust.
We need system change for each community around the world to take their town back from the Central Banks and Big Corporations.
See a little about Ubuntu Contributionism and One Small Town model, for some ideas of community building a way out!
@@samuraiace454the education system is corrupt aswell, it teaches you to be a worker rather than a thinker while wealthy schools teach you can start a business and become a successful person rather than a worker.
Great job, very on-brand for the WEF: break things down so you can say that technically things are not the worst they could possibly be right now, own up to the unavoidable individual problems without actually saying the current system is broken, and then throw your hands up with a "we need to have a deeper discussion about what we actually need to do next" and then not have that deeper conversation so that no answers are given and no problems are solved. Thanks WEF!
I'm here thinking, so we just aren't going to talk about that potential new machine we could build?
@@jacewhite8540 yes, the socialist machine?
@@jacewhite8540 I think that's a logical fallacy too. "Oh, the alternative to this is DESTROYING SOCIETY!" or... turn the dials a bit and see what happens?
The best line was: “with enough grit and determination anyone can join the ranks of the wealthy, is that really true?” You mean; is that really the point!?? Are we supposed to have people beyond wealthy in a functioning society? It seem to drive prices of almost everything up despite most people having less and less.
@@Sharpened_Spoon "Capitalism has given everyone more money" well if everyone has more of everything, then the value stays the same, no?
I trust the WEF for unbiased opinions on the social order :DDD
ruclips.net/video/_1jil1xi8Y4/видео.html
its not biased - its a ruling class capitalist think tank - see above - it has major prblems with whats in its dials
@@malcolmfreeman1330 bro did you just define "biased" from first principles
Name one sucesfull communist country.
Just one.
@@superhond1733 CuUuBaAa - im joking btw
The fact that this is funded by the WEF and basically posit the question for destructive/reconstructive revolution concerns me, since they too are looking to take control of the dials on a global scale.
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
If you intellectualize the impressions they're trying to convey, and what that says about their ultimate ends, this is one of the most terrifying pieces of propaganda in my life.
exactly.. WEF is not trustable. This is just propaganda!
Eat ze bugs to save the planet,
Doesn't the WEF already control "the dials" as it were?
Lets see how others would react to this. It presents so much to talk about.
My problem with this video is that it never gives an actual answer to any question it poses.
It first goes through a question: can a form of capitalist system solve climate change and inequality? No answer is given. It pretty much dismisses the climate change side of the question. They muddled the inequality question. They practically change the question from "can a form of capitalist system solve inequality" to " is capitalism increasing inequality or not." These are two entirely different questions.
Near the end when it "tried" to answer the question it proposes in its very title: is capitalism actually broken? It hand waves away the pure capitalism as irrelevant and is pretty much dismissive at contemporary capitalism (a wishy-washy "not looking good").
Then it quickly dismiss the original question, to essentially ask an entirely different question that they claim is the "critical" question: can we fix contemporary capitalism? Again, no answer, and I don't think a video even just "trying" to answer this is coming. And worse, by saying that this is the critical question, they indirectly say that the original question is not.
Overall, a pretty pointless video for me. Not only do it not give an answer to its central question, it pretty much dismisses it in end. Great animation though.
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
While I agree the video doesn't answer the questions it asks, it's unfair to say that its useless in my opinion. The questions like "can capitalism solve climate change" quickly boil down to "how do you solve climate change", and that's one of the biggest questions in the modern world. It's unfair to ask any video to give a complete answer to these questions, there's just too much to talk about.
What the videos trying to do in my opinion is present a new way of thinking about capitalism. And it gave a pretty good perspective on it if you ask me.
@@mcmuffin9805 again, like what this video did, you are changing the question. "How to solve climate change" is different from "can capitalism solve climate change." And giving an answer doesn't need you to talk about every detail. They just really need a tentative answer that it "might" be a yes or a no, instead of just quickly dismissing the question.
And, note, my point was, none of the questions are answered. Not answering one or two isn't an issue, but giving a bunch of questions and not provide a definite answer to any of them? That is just being cowardly.
And what new thinking? This kind of thinking (i.e. fixing capitalism, or finding the version of capitalism that works) has been a common thinking since decades ago and has been a common thinking by many present capitalist.
What this video actually does is present capitalism to be not a problem and is not really broken at its core, but that we haven't find a version of it that works. We just need to fix it. Hence the "critical question" in the end. Again, this thinking is decades old. Nothing new. And the same number of decades have past trying to fix capitalism.
This is why many have commented on what is sponsoring this video, because it is them that have spouted this rhetoric for decades now and have a big stake in this.
It is a philosophical approach rather than a technical approach. In philosophy, there is no absolute answer, which in itself makes it philosophy.
@@Kkubey by your own words, even philosophy tries to provide an answer. Not absolute, but an answer. It makes a stand to what it thinks the answer is. This video didn't. So even with this point you bring in, the video still fails.
"Sponsored by the world economic forum"
MORE ABOUT CAPITALISM:
watch?v=_1jil1xi8Y4
yes eat your bugs
@@smithjohnsonwilliams i will not eat ze bugs
I wonder which unbiased answer video sponsored by World Economic Forum will give us
they're pushing keynesian economics, in their minds the problem is not capitalism, the problem is the lack of regulations. They're doing that because capitalism is collapsing so they need keynesian economics back to save capitalism from itself just like in 1920.
Well it was surprisinly usbiased, I expected a bunch of outright propaganda and lies for capitalism but the video pointed actual doubts about capitalism's functionality.
This video is probable sponsored by the World Economic Forum.
@@Samuel-kz5kj imo it just muddies the waters. It ignores the fact that the main driver of poverty reduction under capitalism was always colonialism and give very extreme examples.
'on one hand we have child mining companies and the other we have North Korea!'
yeah if you put it like that what we have today may seem okay. But the problem is that todays capitalism is simply unsustainable. I maybe biased but we our current economic model threatens the existence of civilization and most of the life on Earth via extreme pollution and global warming then it may be a little bit broken.
@@Samuel-kz5kj people over exaggerate the we forum’s bias. Yes it’s forums are often a luxury vacation retreat for rich CEOS and politicians but the organization genuinely advocates for the better
While capitalism has absolutely contributed to redistributing wealth from the nobility, the graph from 1801 shows us that's not the whole story. The rise of class consciousness, unions, and regulations, which unimpeded capital would inevitably lead to, was much more influential in the steady decline of economic inequality than the existence of capitalism itself was. This can also be seen in the graph, which shows how neoliberalism, deregulation, the disempowerment of unions, and the shift toward the highly-alienated society of today resulted in increasing inequality since the 70s.
tell me something, would you like to live in a equal society or a prosperous society
countries like north korea or afghanistan are pretty equal, but everyone lives equally miserable
@@joseaca1010 In what world are North Korea and Afghanistan equal???? Just an example from each which makes this sound ridiculous. Firstly in North Korea military officials and anyone close to the supreme leader are treated much better than anyone else in the country. In Afghanistan women are treated significantly worse than men being denied basic human rights.
@@nightowlofnotofdoom1524 i dont know if you are aware of this, probably not, but economic inequality can be measured, its called the Gini index
if you take a close look at it you will see "equal" countries that arent particularly good to live in, and "unequal" countries to which people emigrate
heck i live in Chile (or rather emigrated to Chile), a very unequal country, but the living standards are so high in comparison to the rest of the region, the country had been getting flooded with immigrants before the pandemic
equality is almost completely irrelevant, it doesnt tell you how good people live, on top of that, its IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of because we are all different, and so we will invariably end up in an unequal society
you could take the money of every single person on earth and redistribute it equally, i guarantee you in 2 hours you will have inequality again, since some people will save it, some will invest it, and some will spend it immediately
on the other hand, poverty is something we can get rid of, and capitalism has been brutally effective at getting rid of poverty
then just go to North Korea. You will know what is equal like!
But economic equality doesn't mean any thing. The question is if the lives are getting better.
I don't care if Bezos makes more money as long as I can live in peace. Him having more doesn't affect my mental happiness or economic standing.
What's missing from this is a fourth dial representing the degree of direct worker's ownership and control over the means of production. Laissez faire capitalism is contrasted with a Soviet/North Korea-style state controlled system but both are systems with a ruling class at the top that exploits and oppressed everyone else. The real contrast is a system in which everything from workplaces, to infrastructure to government is managed democratically yet such a system is not represented anywhere in this video.
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
based. but even political scientists never considered this option when talking about the free market vs fiscal pendulum because it hasnt been achieved yet in Western history.
stalin literally slept on a couch while he was the head of the country
I dont see the point, if a business is run democratically or not should be decided by the owners of said business, like a house or whatever, the way you manage your business should be whatever you want to be as long as no one is harmed
@@mechamedegeorge6786 But the point being made here is that the nuances of how we can decide *who* actually is a legitimate owner is lost here when we only have the dial between tyrannical plutocrats owning everything and tyrannical autocrats owning everything. As a market socialist, I advocate for a (admittedly regulated) market economy where all legally recognized firms are worker cooperatives, where the workers of the company collectively own it, and thus where workplace democracy isn't "allowed" to happen by some private owner doling out the niceties of economic autonomy and control to the workers that create their company's value but is instead rather how all the _actual owners,_ those being the workers, of the company make decisions about how to run it, including their wages, hours, conditions, benefits, and so on.
The solution to all these issues begins with the recognition that, in a market based economy, our political rights mean little unless they are backed up with economic guarantees allowing people to effectively utilise those rights and liberties, allowing them to have the same ability to affect in the governance of their society as the wealthy oligarchs.
Wealth needs to be decoupled from political power, and coupled with providing citizens a basic guarantee of their fundamental freedoms. In other words, what is is needed is a new wave of liberty, nothing less than an "economic emancipation", and the reforging of justice, so that the wealthy and strong many not harm the poor and weak 🗽
This is equivalent to sayingm the rich shouldn't be powerful. Knowing how humans and frankly the whole natural world operates....well, good luck with that.
@@CraftyF0X Behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist. I'm sure the first few people to ever propose the abolishment of chattel slavery were met with a similar response 😅
You are right though. I do believe the rich should not have unaccountable power. It is fundamentally illiberal and ultimately unjust that they do.
Whatsmore, there is at least as much evidence to show the vast majority of humans don't innately seek power over humans as there is to the contrary. Is it a useful conceit for those with power to entrench the belief in those without power that their domination and our subjugation is the natural order of things. It never has been and it never will be.
@@CraftyF0X
Your fore fathers are laughing at you.
There can never really be true liberty under a top-down capitalist system.
@@CraftyF0X That is correct, the rich shouldn't exist.
I haven't mentioned the animation quality in a Ted-Ed video in a while because they're all very good but my god is this one just stunning to look at. The toy-like art style rendered in 3D is so fluid it's like a whole other world.
Thank you again to the animators. Your work contributes to 50% of our learning in these shorts.
as loud as my phone goes and i have to go outside just to watch it, i have to choose if ima look or listen
That’s because it’s a sponsor
THIS IS EXTREMELY BEAUTIFUL AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND! Great job illustrators
it’s stunning because its propaganda paid for by billionaire 😅
I almost always love the animations, but I did not like this one in particular. It was too chaotic for me, it made it harder for me to keep up and associate with what was being said.
One issue I have with the abstraction of these dials, it still works in the binary of government+command economy vs private property+markets (and a mix of those). It does not take into account systems that make use of non-government common property (cooperatives, commons etc.) and distribution systems that are neither markets, nor command economy, nor a mix (like decentralized bottom-up planning). It's not a surprise though, since the major players of the past century fit mostly in those three binaries the video used.
Good point.
A cooperative is property of a group of people. Still private property as -I assume- no one is being coerced to participate in them.
If they are being coerced, then that cooperative is an diminute state. Still not a third option between market and state.
Or maybe I'm missing something, in which case I would like to know what you meant or how is it different to private property or state-property
I was thinking this the entire video!
@@juanandresramirez5336 Tbf I'm using a socialist/anarchist rather than the current legal definition of private property. Private property in this, is property intended for its owner to generate wealth without (exclusively) their own labor (traditional companies, rental properties, housing as asset etc.), where a collective/common property would be owned by all users for mutual production (cooperatives, community gardens, etc.), and personal property would be for the owner's personal use (your toothbrush, your house, your car)
I know the video uses the legal term, but I think the distinction between those types of properties is important if you're exploring different economic systems, some of which base their framework on those distinctions.
@@juanandresramirez5336 you are missing the fact that it is OWNED BY WORKERS, which is the entire point of owning the means of production.Instead of owned by a leisure class that does not work and majority shareholders not only do not work at the company but also dictate management.
it isn't broken, it is working precisely the same way it always has done
It's working fine, this is how it's supposed to run, sure the way it's supposed to run is horrible, but it's working like it's supposed to run.
@@cxjivnlew8010 are there really any other options? no. so deal with it bud
It incentivises individuals to better their and lives of those around them. What a truly horrible system.
I wish everyone's lives were exactly the same with no further improvement for future generations.
@@lorenzo5781 I mean that is the difference, Lew and I most likely think that we as humans can come up with a better system.
@@yashkapoor5805 it doesn't necessarily do that though, at the end of the day what makes capitalism distinct as an economic model is its need and function to produce profit. Even in feudalism people where insensitivised to do good to themselves and others by growing more crop for their lord's, some kind of socialist system allegedly would do the same, where people work to improve not only themselves, but the conditions of the people around them.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes, but our sponsors would really not want us to admit it.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!💯
They tip-toed around the answer and only asked a question at the end and didn't answer it
The sponsor is the WEF
@@Hihepux ouff that explains
You can't pretend that anyone knows for sure
@@kylenetherwood8734 - you're funny
Oh wow thank you WorldEconomicForum for sponsoring this video critiquing capitalism!
Glad to see that there have been zero dislikes so far 👍
If only I could like this comment twice
that’s because youtube removed dislikes
This. This need’s to be top comment. Even if there was or wasn’t meddling by WorldEconomicForum, vid still shouldn’t be sponsored by a bias company
Oh my god ok i just looked deeper at this company yeah no ted has lost all respect from me taking bribes 😕
@@nikheetisnotcool2951 pssst....thats the joke, well one of them.
Having the World Economic Forum sponsor a video on Capitalism is deeply irresponsible.
With every economic, social or political reform we forget to be civilized and ethical. The biased thinking and petty grabs leads us towards the darker side of the respective reform or change.
Capitalism is inherently non ethical.
That's why we've had things like revolutions in the past. And it's why those revolutions have generally made things worse rather than better. Four legs good, two legs bad...
@@simongross3122 Revolution doesnt neccesaryil mean a sudden upheaval. It can be a slow gradual change in how we organise our society. I'd say post WW2 social democracy was revolutionary at the time compared to how things were before.
@@mdaniels6311 Yes that's true. Democracy does help to reduce the number of violent revolutions. There are exceptions, of course. I guess you could say that democracy has orderly revolution built into it in the form of elections.
But the social changes that occur through the electoral process are not dramatic either. The major and swift changes have often been accompanied with violence. For example: Abolishing slavery in the USA. Cromwell in Britain. Cultural revolution in China. Dozens of other regime changes throughout the world. The rise of marxism and communism in Europe and Russia.
Slow and steady is the better course I think, or at least that's what I prefer. Unfortunately that's not fast enough for some, but history is long and getting longer.
@@simongross3122 I used to believe this too, but the last two decades has been a class war against the lower classes in the explosion in inequality and stagnating living standards. In the UK and US at least, we see the slow and gradual degredation in the form of neoliberlaism, which is now so entrenched, elections just won't shift it. While I don't want a violent sturggle, I am starting to think it's ineivtable. I think WW3 will be between the two classes, and not between nation states.
I think the question of whether capitalism is broken is actually redundant - capitalism at its core is about using profit as motive, so no matter what the positive or negative by-products of it, as long as it’s generating profit - it’s not broken, it’s performing exactly as it should.
Ok? All economic systems are profit driven. Thats the point of an economic machine, to generate excess value that can be used to benefit those who own it. Even socialisms are driven by profits. The only difference is that in a capitalism the profiting owners are a distributed collective of private elites rather than the centralized political elites. Neither works for the benefit of those that don't own a right to its profits.
What if there was an economic system not based on profit, but on beneficial use?
Like some sort of economy based on borrowing or sharing, like from a library, and using whatever the local community owned to sustain everyone?
@@jalexander7743 There is no economic system that enables the availability of the thing worth having without chasing the production of the excess value (profits) that made those things available. Libraries are not magical places where you go and wish stories into existences. They are places where you go and profit off the work of others in exchange for you giving them a small bit of the profits of your own work in the form of taxes/a library fee.
Sweet sweet profit.
@@josephclements2145 no not all Economic system are built on profiting. What we call profit is the surplus value of other labour. You don't profit unless you employ others. When I get my salary I don't profit, (the company owners however do). A Democratic Economic system than plan production after need and not on generating surplus, is not profit driven as the driving factor would be heightening the living standard, reducing work time, automating production or whatever is required to satisfy social need. You wouldn't burn clothes, destroy crops in such an economy, You would t artificially inflate prices or speculate on crypto currency etc. Those things are profit driven. Prosperity end profit aren't the same.
WEF pretty much said: capitalism is broken, so let us, the ultimate capitalists, turn the Dias because we care, trust us )
Classic WEF
"Clearly, those cronies shouldn't have such powers entrusted to them. We, however..."
seems as if they are just making people question the current system, they never really say hey now get rid of elon and get klaus in charge
@@andrasfogarasi5014 “you will own nothing and be happy” Klaus shwab
a lot of socialist doctrine coming from post secondary institutions is funded by billionaires. i cannot wrap my head around this. something is very wrong
If politicians would work and regulate in favor of the people (like they are supposed to) it would be fine. But like said in the clip, with money comes power and most politicians earn more bevore, after and ON THE SIDE of their terms... so this is that. Also people are unwilling to follow up on politics and vote for the greedy rich guys because .. I don't know... the last post or billboard was nice.
politicians have companies to appease now instead of people, so they arent protecting the people but the companies
Then put power in people's hands in the form of unions, collective bargaining, and other democratic ideals, such as workplace ownership, and voting for our landlords (like they do in some of the UK under the council housing model).
@@mdaniels6311 those are already legal in the free world.
“Sadly” they are usually infective and wasteful.
"Is capitalism actually broken?" - "although we pose this question to seem as if we're providing information for you to decide yourself we are actually telling you what we believe and presenting it as facts. Thank you for your obedience" - TedEd
Seen 'Why It's So Hard To Imagine Life After Capitalism' by Second Thought?
"This lesson was made in partnership with: World Economic Forum" 🚩🚩🚩
so?
@@SolitaryReaper666 It's like cops looking into crimes they themselves committed.
@@Whazzar no this is like a cop looking into a crime committed by someone else but the one that committed it gives them evidence of whats happening. but, this cannot be compared to a crime.
@@alanafleming8319 They >are< the capitalists. They are the people that created these problems in the first place.
@@SolitaryReaper666 quoting from wikipedia
The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by the level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises.[50] In 2011, an annual membership cost $52,000 for an individual member, $263,000 for "Industry Partner" and $527,000 for "Strategic Partner". An admission fee costs $19,000 per person.[51] In 2014, WEF raised annual fees by 20 percent, bringing the cost for "Strategic Partner" from CHF 500,000 ($523,000) to CHF 600,000 ($628,000).
...why would the world's top capitalists make a video saying capitalism has issues?
Of course it's sponsored by the world economic forum, read the title and predicted it.
"We're going to criticise the system that created our wealth, but we promise to not have any biasses, tee hee."
right? Otherwise it would be worth to make a 6min video that just says: "Yes"
I've got the same reaction, but still watched. Much less one sided video than I thought.
@Keshav Leitan what is their stance?
@@leonardneamtu_ It's very one-sided, they just managed to not make it sound one sided.
I lost faith in this video when I saw it was made in partnership with the World Economic Forum.
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
@@seelink8776 ruclips.net/video/8rAiTDQ-NVY/видео.html
It’s a good thing Milton Friedman, winner of the economic Nobel prize made a 10 hour long series explaining and debating capitalism with other major politicians and economists. It’s also free on RUclips.
Why not just link to that series or maybe mention his name if you really wanted to educate people?
As much as I know, most developed countries control the crucial infrastructure (health, education, electricity, water, etc) to some degree, to make sure everyone receive the basic need (social security net). Those hard and soft infrastructure are considered investment for the future, and productivity. Other than those, everything can be capitalized.
On the other hand, I still don't understand why US still capitalize health so much.
because you can still mostly drive on an old broken road, you cannot still live on an old broken kidney. Health care is capitalized in the US because it is not something people can actually shop around for, they have to pay whatever price is charged, or they die. Companies like that kind of arrangement.
@@maluse227 why aren't people becoming aware to what direction can society take if we are just a customer base for our own life.
they've capitalised the literal core of life.
that's why no government/corporation/industry is truly stopping toxic industrial output. because its there mates who make a chunk of cash when your ill from intoxication of pollutants.
yeah, the US is mostly good but needs universal insurance and more infrastructure investments
@@Dockhead very good point. Add to that that we crave social interaction through corporate-mediated technologies like television, cell phones, and laptops rather than lived social engagement, and we have the perfect recipe for a new serfdom.
@@Dockhead because in America we have had a solid 100 year private propaganda campaign against government action on behalf of the citizenry. We are more likely to lose what meger public support systems we have than to expand them because many people think that the reason things are bad is because we haven't gone hard enough towards fostering the will of our oligarchy.
In some countries, the few people (only like 50 extremely rich men) with the most money fuel the military. The military is their protection, controlling the country, government, media, news, and putting a stop to every rebellion before it begins. It's a very hard regime to change. Can you do a video on how dictatorships can end?
Capitalism can’t exist without protection from the state. Think about that.
So just America but with only 3?
In few words - elite betrayal
but who, why and how - that's a different difficult story
That's, as George Orwell put it in 1984, based on one of three factors that each have their own troubles.
The first is outside intervention, i.e. other governments invading you to break down your dictatorship, and is based on how much a government is pressured into saving you (by their own people), and what they'll gain(economically), balanced against what they'll lose(lives and economy) and their chances of winning/losing to begin with(army size and tactical advantages). This rarely happens because countries are either too weak to help out or too capable of manipulating their own people to avoid being pressured into helping out, but it does happen.
The second is the oppression of the people, where it's instead a factor of how much sh*t they have to put up with compared to how much sh*t they're conditioned to accept. Obviously if America suddenly did everything North Korea did, the people would probably revolt, because they haven't been conditioned to think the average life standard is so low. People are willing to put up with quite a lot as we're an adaptable species, but once you go past a certain line people end up preferring to risk death. Problem is that the longer people spend time in a certain level of poverty, the less that seems like poverty to them.
The ultimate goal of most dictatorships is to lower this expected standard as much as possible without pushing enough people off the edge to face a genuinely capable revolt. This can happen without a charismatic revolution leader, but usually happens with one because they manipulate the people into raising their expectations bar to convince them to fight back. They're like a catalyst in that they exponentially speed up the process of revolution but aren't necessarily necessary.
The third is the ruling class itself, where the dictator gets a change of heart or the greed of the few fairly powerful people they have to keep on their side(like the head of the army and media) aren't fed enough power. This is rarer because it's very easy to keep control over the only people you have to trust, and dictators have to give up very little compared to what they have that they just do it. (and they obviously almost never have a change of heart)
The fall of a dictatorship seems to usually be a mixture of these factors as well, where a revolution wins thanks to resources from outside governments or a deal made with someone like the army leader to offer more power than the dictator provides and removing the threat to the revolution the army poses. It's rarer for any one factor to grow so strong that it takes care of the dictatorship on its own, but it does also happen.
you just described Venezuela
Well that's pretty inconclusive. Thanks for that.
I was really hoping that you would answer those questions at the end.
The point is less to answer and more to let the viewer form their own opinions.
I’m really amazed by the animators’ choices for how to visually express the ideas mentioned in this video. It was really clever. I think one of the best moments is the 3:35
I'd say at 5:20 comes the best animation
Visually good. But they are wrong on their take. They talk about the "1%", but they fail to understand that the people in that 1% changes every few years as much as people on middle or lower classes changes.
People doesn't stay in the same category for long. FI as a student fit in the lower economic class as i have no wealth. For example: a medical student will fit in the lower economic class (as he has no earnings nor wealth, but he is in debt) but as he starts to work he will quickly rise to the higher class.
It reminds me of teardrop estates and Frank Leones music videos, I recommend checking them out if you like this style
@@clampchowder9569 thank you
Wow, bot accounts coming out strong in favor of the animation style on this one. I count 6 within the first two scrolls of the wheel.
"Sponsored by WEF", I am sure this will be an accurate and non-biased video 👍👍👍
Can't agree more. Would have been very surprised if we had seen anything about colonial legacies or inter-state inequality. Still glad they're transparent about it though :)
hey i was wondering why you think that ?
i see them sponsoring a lot of videos but i dont know anything about them why are they trustworthy?
It's comprised if representatives of big companies. It's as impartial as the North Korean central information bureau discussing if communism is a problem. Not saying you should disregard everything they say, they have valid points, but it's a very biased opinion of view. For example, this video speaks only about inequality within countries. However, capitalism (thanks to colonialism) created the world of today where one half got colonised and kept poor so that the other half could get very rich. That's very simplified, but proves my point that they don't show all aspects of the problem :)
@@yavorrazboinikov9396 By the way such a split is not 50/50, it's more like 95/5. We are the poor majority.
@@yavorrazboinikov9396This! As someone from a developing country, I find very questionable that they only talked about inequality in developed countries, mentioning briefly China. Also, the part about capitalism reducing inequality in England don't consider that before 1800's it was still capitalism as mercantilism is early capitalism and that in this period England was gaining a lot of money from imperialist and colonialist practices.
The third option between private and government ownership is communally owned capital by the workers and not total private ownership. Is that somewhere on the first dial?
That's the secret dial!
Democracy in the workplace!!
@@toyotaprius79 lol hello, is the intersection of Jreg/Anark/Hello Internet/jan Misali viewers really that common? Very interesting
(I also like all those channels)
As soon as i saw this video was brought by world economic forum, i lost my faith on the video.
Ted-ed never gets short of animation styles. Very insightful video.
I agree
Your hard work makes someone rich, and that someone isn't you.
Penny earned is a dollar lost.
Not true
Only system where hard work does NOT pay off is communism
Start a company!
@@il_principe It's true for a communist economy... Not biased towards anyone btw.
On inequality, it's worth remembering that whilst the wealth share amongst the top 5% or 1% may have been far higher in the past--1801 in this example--that was also a time where extreme poverty was more or less the norm. So the wealth share being lower today doesn't necessarily mean things are great, just not quite so horrific--but that's slipping down hill fast.
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
There's also the question if they were poor in a different way. They faced more vulnerability from nature's whims (basic diseases we can cure now, bad harvest that led to famine), but they had a much more mutual relationship with their community, relying on eachother's help to survive hardship. Free (non-serf) villages also had common lands that were managed by all farming villagers and accessable to all (without first needing to buy it as private property.). Not saying it was necessarily better, but probably less nerve-wrecking and isolating.
This is probably even more true for colonized country, where their pre-colonial economy was less productive, but more suited to the population and more sustainable. With colonialism and capitalism their GDP grew, but effectively they became poor because they were now dependent on the system of production their colonizer used, without being in control of that system (even after colonialism, through neo-colonialism). And the poorest among them don't even get the benefit of available modern medicine.
@@KarlSnarks what are serfs? Thank you for commenting!!
@@mikafizz1022 they're similar to slaves. People who would work for a feudal lord in exchange for food, accommodation, rent for land, as indentured servants, etc.
I think regulation of the quality of goods and services could be included in this model. Some countries have a lot of regulations regarding such things as the disposal of toxic byproducts, or the liquidity of banks, or how much staffing is needed to meet safety standards. Other countries let businesses decide these things for themselves. In the U.S., businesses have a lot of leeway. There is less regulation with little enforcement. Companies largely set their own standards, and when these get them into trouble, it gets sorted out in the courts.
The part regarding share of income is misleading. Billionaires don't earn much income, since their wealth comes primarily from the stocks they have. If share of wealth is used as the matrix instead of share of income, inequality would be even worse.
Also, they don't have to work for it, their "contribution" ends with owning stuff.
Actually, it's more complicated than that because they're several different ways to measure a person's wealth. For example, a person could have zero cash, but still be wealthy because they own millions of dollars worth stock and other assets.
yolowowz here creating dangerous oversimplifications
@@CraftyF0X Someone has to make an investment. If you work at an office it's because someone had to create a company, someone had to get the infrastructures, someone had get you the tools for your job and someone had to employ and pay you. You only have a job because "someone" created a job opportunity in the first place.
@@CraftyF0X Managing investments is actually on of the most important job in any economy.
1:30 right... consumers have have TONS of leverage in setting prices when the government ISN'T involved. Just like how ticketmaster can charge ridiculously high fees for concerts and we as consumers can change that somehow
We can, we can stop going.
@@superhond1733 not when they have a monopoly on the industry buddy
@@donovanalarcon6689 a monopoly on concerts doesnt mean we have to go to concerts
Would inequality be bad if the poorest of a given highly unequal group still have enough money to live well with some spare at the end of the day?
Also, how would it look like if there were the free market but with the invisible hand also being influenced by the government? By that I mean, having strong financial incentives towards those companies which actively and effectively take measures to reduce their impact on climate change, or that makes their products safer/healthier, so on and so forth?
This is a really complicated issue and if someone says that there is a single and simple answer I feel like they don't fully understand the problem...
These are very insightful questions and I think that most people who harp on inequality don't think about it this way. Most people would say that a highly unequal society where the poorest have mediocre healthcare, shelter and enough to eat is better than a very equal society that faces chronic food shortages, but the average real standard of living is rarely taken into account.
@@trogdor8942 Agreed. Inequality is almost useless as a variable to consider.
@@jamisojo I wouldn't say useless, but it's less important than median wage and standard of living.
In a capitalist state, even the government is for sale.
powerful quote, hits hard I love it
in a non capitalist is the same, but they trade influence over money.
it's about corruption and transparency
Yup, lobbying is one of many ways capitalists purchase their favored party to win elections.
Congrats..You just described and oversimplified evert country ever lol
Especially the government. Take a look at the revolving door between congress and corporations.
> is capitalism actually broken
> This lesson was made in partnership with World Economic Forum.
I already smelled the bad arguments from that.
Yeah , a bunch of billionaires makes money from capitalism now give me a lesson about “ How broken it is” ! Give me a break ! Totally brainwashed
Exactly
red flags
@@duckymomo7935 from the sussyness or the communists taking over society;)
@@ivyngo110 The richest capitalists are the greatest opponents of capitalism, because they know that other capitalists can push them out.
If you work 8 hours a day and still can't pay for rent and food, it's because the system you live in is broken.
Name one sucesfull communist country
@@superhond1733 u bafoon, u realise there isn't just capitalism and communism? what makes them communist? jesus christ
@@superhond1733 name a successful capitalist country
@@jaredjolivette5048 - So, if communism and capitalism doesn't work, what is the solution??? 🤷🏽♂️
@@mtalk828 That my friend is still to be found.
And I believe someone, someday would write a 'manifesto' on a new type of economic system, they will be applauded, get the Nobel prize, and slowly after their death it will become a movement until revolution occurs in one or more country(ies), the revolutionaries enforce that particular system, again greedy people find a way to use it for themselves and it results into wars and conflicts until finally we are back to a system similar to capitalism.
You know what the problem is, its about people being good, which comes from the right education and upbringing.
Communism is a poison which kills eventually but capitalism is a poison which completely destroys you slowly from the inside, but hey you don't die, you just lie on the deathbed, suffering more.
5:20 notice how the World Economic Foundation stated you will own nothing and be happy? yeah I do... so they mean to make us slaves eh?
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
"This lesson was made in partnership with the World Economic Forum" that's all I need to know about this video
Facts
Yeah. The ending is basically “everything points to contemporary capitalism being broken, but we can probably maybe repair it.”
@@TacticalAnt420 "Yes guys, let's globalize and put everything into the hands of the government...I mean these very knowledgeable and competent financial world leaders!"
@@TacticalAnt420 TED ED is right though
4:55 "it generates a huge amount of value" but most of it is going to rich people in a way that doesn't even generates more quality of life to anyone
Thats what they said in the video
I mean yes, but like the narrator said, it depends on whether that money is properly distributed by the state in form of social services or indirect/direct money transfers to less fortunate
If Elon get richer who will live better? For him will be just a bigger number in the bank. The same money could be feeding someone
And value in a capitalist sense isn't necessarily *valuable.* Capitalism measures the value of goods and services in terms of what is most profitable, not what is most necessary for society. That's how we get a lack of a affordable housing while simultaneously overproducing cheap and unnecessary goods which accumulate in warehouses unused.
@@brennanwebb1463 ye. Taking his money will not resolve the problem. But maybe another system... _The communist ghost_
Capitalism led to the deteriorating inflation. The state of the market is rather depressing. On the other hand, if you're careful, even the worst recessions present fantastic buying opportunities. The short-term purchase and sell opportunities that can come from volatility are often very good. I'm going crazy because of the market conditions; my portfolio has lost approximately $13K this month alone, and my earnings are in free fall. I'd appreciate anybody who has more knowledge and would be willing to offer me some financial guidance in the future.
You need a Financial Advisor my friend so you don't get ripped off in the market. They provide personalized advice to individuals based on their risk appetite, placing them among the best of the best. There are bad ones, but some with good track records can be very good.
@@hannahdonald9071 I agree with you totally Zoey. Yes they can be positively impactful to an individual's portfolio. I started with a trusted Investment Advisor named “Johanna Mussche”. She is verifiable and her work ethic complies with the US Investment Act of 1940. Her approach is transparent, allowing full ownership and control of my portfolio with very reasonable fees relative to my portfolio earnings.
@@champhallier8468 How can I reach this advisor? I'm seeking for a more effective investment approach. How good is this person at portfolio diversification, particularly with regard to digital assets?
You can look her name up online and write her an email on her website. She has extensive knowledge of the financial markets.
I was able to locate her webpage by searching for her name online. Her credentials are legitimate, and she has received strong references. Thanks.
What a great video in support of WEF. Basically the system is broken, so we need you to give us all the power so we can fix it. TEDed is just one of the sources they are spreading their very unbiased ideas through
when did they say that they needed to give power to the rich to fix the problem?
"You will own nothing and you will be happy"
Stakeholder capitalism
5:00 - my exact attitude to capitalism. It's a really good optimization algorithm. But I wouldn't trust it to set the function that the optimizer is supposed to optimize. So I'd keep capitalism in some capacity, but prioritize maximizing democracy over maximizing capitalism.
It's ok to be rich, but it's not ok to wield so much power that it cuts into your country's democracy.
Yes, I understand and agree with your comment about capitalism. It is a successful system for driving economic growth and innovation, but it’s not perfect and has unethical factors.
For example, Inequality of income, Capitalism can result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals, resulting in income inequality and poverty. Worker exploitation: in Capitalism, businesses prioritize profits over worker welfare, resulting in exploitation and low wages. Environmental degradation: in order to profit corporations can cause environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Monopolies: Monopolies can be a cause of capitalism, which can limit competition, have little or no consumer choice, and lead to higher prices. Lack of access to basic goods and services: For some populations, capitalism can result in a lack of basic goods and services like healthcare and education.
You are right about the fact that we should be maximizing democracy over capitalism but what do you think we should do to balance democracy and capitalism?
@@avipatel8118 (1) Probably have a solid civil society, where ordinary citizens actively partake in the actions of civic life, specifically through voluntary community associations.
(2) Have a mechanism where the general public funds political campaigns and lobbying, not just the rich. In America's past, this was accomplished by unions, and indeed, in places where unions are more powerful, the government is more responsive to the needs of lower-class people.
(3) Have the public sector offer some essential services to a decent degree of quality, though don't forbid the private sector from competing with them. Things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and education. Without these, the owners of privatized versions of these services can get away with ripping off the rest of the public and using that money to lobby in their favor. With these, the owners of these privatized versions have to actually treat us well, or else go out of business.
I agree the function is almost completely set to optimize profits, and that almost never goes hand in hand with the betterment of society. For example companies burn products instead of giving it away or selling it cheaper in order to artificially maintain their value. It is the most cost effective way to keep the image of having a high value exclusive product. Another example is when there is mention that there might be some inflation down the line, companies immediatly spike the price of their products and make inflation much worse than it has to be. These and many more such tactics can be considered optimization algorithms but they aren't optimizing anything we would consider good for society.
3:11 actually its MOST PROFITABLE not 'cheapest' hence why solar isn't the most common energy source
Just discovered TED-Ed today and I must admit that I really love those short but yet highly informative Videos. You Guys really did a great Job creating such a Format!
Have to say, the animation style for this video is crisp -- along with every TED-Ed video
The dials are a bit misleading. First dial about ownership of capital doesn't account for other forms of ownership, like co-ops. Central planning could still be one-dimensional, just add big corporations on the side of more central planning.
whats needed is democratic ownership.
the dials represent politics vs economy. one side is to completely separate politics with economy, while the other says its unseperable. but yeah, we need a new dial where workers democratically own corporations.
@@dezh81guy93 Correct me if I misunderstood, but it's seems a strange idea to consider state dictatorship political but view corporatocracy apolitical 🤔 I guess I would think the more political system would be one that allows for the most say for citizens, be it a "big" democratic state or democratically owned companies, and in that way a whole different dimension from these
@@Cr0uch1ng71g3r yes, ppl consider wealth to be apolitical because of laisser faire propaganda esp from Margaret thatcher era where she said “there is no such thing as a society, just families”. Private property is ruining society and isolating everyone… all forms of power should be political. “The poor doesn’t see themselves as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires”
these corporations are getting out of control
ruclips.net/channel/UCpEzqHYhhtfPOE5L-yXo9mg
Economy/Ecology is such a fascinating subject, parts working together to function as a whole
Take me back to the good ol' days of trading goats and pottery 😭
"This lesson was made in partnership with World Economic Forum"
I'm sure there's absolutely no biases whatsoever.
Yeah, bias against...people from other worlds? I don't understand how someone could be offended by this.
@@catdogmousecheese No, it's that the World Economic Forum is a pro-capitalist organization. So obviously it would try to make capitalism seem good.
@@totallymarc Really? Because as someone who watched the video, the conclusion I got is that yeah, capitalism is somewhat broken. If this video is supposed to be pro-capitalist propaganda then it isn't doing a good job of it.
@@totallymarc the video literally made capitalism look bad
@@totallymarc Then why does the video end by making capitalism sound bad?
@4:15 Ted talk really just tried to say capitalism saved Britain from its nobility. It just formed new nobility, the merchant class.
The merchant class has always existed, they were part of that wealth too
@@abhi5504 yeah but the nobility’s power was passed down to their children. Wasn’t long before merchants started doing that as well.
Whilst in the years following, it boomed with child labour run factories and exported food from Ireland during the Great Famine
Capitalism is better than feudalism, but that's an extremely low bar.
I think the video sort of misses how capitalism is a global system, if capitalism is "working" in one country it's usually at the expense of many more, the Netherlands might have good labour laws to limit exploitation but the goods being sold there are often produced by workers who are payed pennies in another country
ruclips.net/video/L5tFxCkhvQI/видео.html
THIS
This cuts both ways though, Norway's social safety net exists due to investments in US and other foreign companies.
"sponsored by World Economic Forum"
that's all we need to know comrades.
Firstly it isn't sponsored it is made in partnership with. These two are very different. Secondly you shouldn't judge the video by its cover. I personally find it quite insightful actually.
lol
You didn't make it to the end of the video, did you?
ah yes Mr "you'll own nothing and be happy"
@@gyurhanaziz7676 Yeah, these are very different, hahaha
@1:00 The first knob is meaningless. It doesn't matter whether a person or government or an organization owns the capital. It's just a person in a power position. What matters is who does the work and how the profit is split between all people who created/provided said product/service. Why should a small group of people decide where the profits from all people involved in production go? A worker doesn't own his own labor. And what do we call someone who does labor for someone else against their own will (where the alternative is starvation or prison)?
Consider the counter example with ancient Rome, where capital is owned by the people but slaves and plebeians do most of the work. It may be a system that works, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it or outright abolish it.
Power should be granted to people who have proven themselves worthy with knowledge and morality, not to people who prove themselves with brute strength, greed or deception. In general power should be decoupled from wealth.
Additionally we should find a way to fairly compensate workers where income would reflect expertise and work done and not just management position for most of which expertise is not even required. I'd expect most managers to get less income than the workers in an organization.
That said, even if capitalism falls and we adopt some other economic system, I think we should keep some of the good parts like a model which encourages technology adoption by workers and freedom of what to study, work and produce. Though those are things which are nice to have, they are not as important as: ecology preservation, basic need coverage and fair compensation for work done.
Here are some things I'd be glad to get rid of in the current system: reselling, unfair compensation, corruption, purposefully maintaining unemployment so labor is cheap for businesses, overproduction, destroying or throwing out existing production, any type of monopoly or oligopoly (cartels), lack of democracy in the workplace.
Landlords are a modern form of nobility.
They inherit, do nothing, wait for money to magically fall from the sky (called the tenants pockets) and complain when they have to do actual work.
What would a solution to this look like?
modern day slavery
Capitalism is a worse form of feudalism. It goes even higher than the landlords. We are all still peasants working to pay our dues (taxes) to the nobility
The problem for capitalist development is the tendency for profit rates to decline. With capitalism production is determined by a ruling class seeking to profit. So with the tendency of long term profit rates to decline the system is self undermining. It is a world system because of the need for world trade. The ability to wage war and nuclear war by capitalist nations injects further chaos into it.
“Oh this looks like an interesting video” [Made with the WEF] “actually I don’t think I’ll bother”
Well Hello there!
@Zaydan Naufal Sadly I don't know enough about the WEF to make any kind of decision..
I never doubted your judgement for a second
Whatever the system is, if it normalizes people to die of hunger or let people die without treatment due to lack of money while others are allowed to have a lot of cash which are spent on mere luxury, it must be replaced with better system. One single soul is more valuable than all rich people's money.
Luxury goods generally do not compete with basic needs. In fact it often helps, IE rich people travelling on jumbo jets to tour third world countries means there is lots of cargo space to allow food to be transported alongside the rich tourists very cheaply.
@@brulez123 money is not just paper with speculative value, money is a representation of people's effort, suffering and time spent producing the goods you buy. Lots of money spent on luxury goods means less time spent producing food, water or housing.
What do you think is more important, cheaper housing/food/healthcare for the poor or a new and bigger yacht for some rich guy?
Allowing the rich guy to build wealth of someone else's work is what's wrong with the system.
And the worse part is the government is helping the rich guy by artificially keeping an unemployment rate in the economy, so the businesses can have cheap labor.
The government can always create jobs for the unemployed at the minimum wage, if there was political will to do so.
The worker only agrees the unfavorable conditions of the work contract, because the alternative is homelessness and starvation.
@@brulez123
Luxury goods DO COMPETE with basic needs in terms of what the workers/farmers/etc. choose to produce.
When a farm is used to grow the most productive rice plant, it can feed many more people than when it's used to raise high quality beef. Many farmers, if given the opportunity, would choose to raise high quality beef for more profit because rich people pay more for luxury than poor people pay for basic needs.
It's similar in other fields like making cruise ship / boat, car, house, etc. It's also applied for comparing the average people in rich countries with poor people in poor countries because it's still true that how one side pay more for luxury than the other pay for basic needs. It's also applied to intellectual production, albeit not always, as the projects those people choose to work on are not only because of hobby and talent, but also partially because of income (this actually starts to happen from when those people choose which career to pursuit, so even though an usual 3D designer working on game wouldn't be able to design a real bridge, but if the government made building infrastructures far more profitable than making games, then some people may have become civil engineer instead of 3D designers for games).
Therefore, a socialist government would have to make sure enough relatively cheap product are made; the luxury goods are taxed while the producers of relatively cheap product are supported. On the other hand, a PURE capitalist government would rather have many hungry poor people while exporting a lot of luxury foods, effectively making more income for the country as a whole.
@@a.y.102 That's not how it works however, there are plenty of people in the world so someone enterprising notices that all those high quality beef cows is increasing the demand for hay/grass/corn and the result is that more farms are created, the increased demand results in greater supply coming online in short order. You see that in the US we now grow enough food to feed the world, and do help feed many countries with our excess grain (there's still plenty even with livestock consuming a large amount), the main problem is transportation.
@@a.y.102 our world does not have a deficit in production. Luxury goods are not dislocating basic needs. There's plenty for everyone to go around. The problem is of "distribution". You are, in a way, making deep oversimplifications.
It's terrible that a person starves in Sri Lanka while another parties in a yacht in Miami. And you'll hardly find a reason for that would sound ethical or fair. But how could you avoid it? First things that comes to mind: "distribute the wealth". That doesn't make sense. So the taxpayer in the US is supposed to feed social programs in Sri Lanka? Or should there be an international bank collecting global tax on all rich people in order to distribute to poorer regions? Who goes first on that list?
See, social issues need to be solved on a country by country basis because each nation is sovereign. And each sovereign nation MUST be self-sustainable because as a general rule it is not fair and it's a highly exploitable situation when one nation has to maintain other nations. A dictatorship like North Korea can't be funded from foreign rich people because The Rocketman would only empower himself to exploit foreign aid more and more. Therefore, while there's a dictatorship in power, no outside solution to wealth distribution can exist, only internal solutions. We could intervene militarily, though, to topple him. Are you in favor?
So, is capitalism to blame for non-self-sustainable countries being so? Almost always no. The reason is often political and historical.
But within the same country there are rich people and starving people. True. However, do you wish absolute equality of wealth distribution? I suppose no. Therefore we must admit some degree of inequality. The question is: should there be limits (upper/lower) and if so how much? In that inequality there will be surplus (luxury) for the richer and scarcity (basic needs) for the poorer. But "scarcity" here does not mean lack of basic necessities, it's just a relative term. The exact nature of the surplus (luxury) and basic goods doesn't matter for this argument. Luxury only goes so far as the rich can buy and it should be fine as long as the poor do not lack anything that matters. This equilibrium has already been achieved on "advanced" economies.
Come to think of it, almost everything produced in a service-based ("advanced") economy is a luxury good. For example, do you really need to watch another HBO Max series while John Doe skips lunch in a slum? Well, good luck converting that series into food for Joe. The level of government regulation necessary for that is beyond my imagination.
3:09 having the graph cut the trees here is so creative
3:35 is that Jeff Bezos' head?
"Capitalism is broken" - sponsored by: WEF - "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy".Claus Schwab like it.
Same people with the same ideology as always.
Under US capitalism Bill Gates owns the most land and profits off it. Under US capitalism private prisons have legalized slavery. Working class owns less while the 1% continue to own more
Inequality is the wrong measure of failure/success. Under capitalism, does the bottom 1% have increased standard of living? That’s the question that needs answering.
@@SamuelHight No it is not.
Inequality is a huge problem, because it dictates political power.
Also things aren't getting better for poor people in Africa, so it doesn't even get that right.
@@bremcurt9514 Interesting ideas, thanks for sharing. I would push back against political power being an issue by suggesting that depends on the political system of a country. A decentralised and smaller political system would work best as that limits power of any individual. If you can’t vote out the baddies then you’re stuffed no matter what else is going on.
Africa is a mess for so many reasons that it’s hard to pin it on one thing. Zimbabwe’s notorious inflation due to government printing more money is an example of another reason.
In the last 2-3 centuries, the oligopoly of richness (kings, lords, the top x%) was distributed (not voluntarily) among a bigger group of people so capitalism associated with the generation and distribution of value in the period of extra-ordinary growth (powered by "infinite" energy and natural resources). However, in the long run it tends to regenerate the oligopoly (corporations, the top 1%), particularly because/when the control of "its dials" is part of the acquired profit.
So (1) dials should be controlled by bigger groups of people (and that would require power struggles); (2) is yet to be seen if capitalism, and the international/global interactions it favors, is suitable to manage periods of limited management of resources and/or de-growth without fueling pain. It doesn't look like, but maybe touching some dials…
see my profile
The regenerative oligopoly you refer to, AKA cronyism, is enabled exactly because we gave the control of the dials to the government.
Yes It serves only the ruling class and the worker class gets overexploited in the process (it is no coincidence that depression and anxiety as well as suicide are so common
The current system definitely needs to change, but unless we find another dial I don't see how we can come up with a new system that isn't like the old ones.
Why would we not be able to create a new system that is superior to our current capitalist system?
Democracy at workplace, workers should own their labour
@@Feefa99 We have that in Germany. Also isn't perfect, but more democracy is always a good thing.
@@inzlt8142 Because creating a new system from scratch, without repeating or worsening preexisting problems, is hard.
Edit: also, the rich have built their wealth off the current system, and thus will be resistant to change.
The Change will come from within the Existing system
But, for that, we need separation of Government from Corporate, if the politics will be funded by the Corporate money, it will serve the Corporate's Interests
Just like the Separation of Government from Religion turned Religion Pretty much Docile, the same is going to happen
Also, a Non Government Authority must be Charged for Keeping an Eye over The Market
The video brought you by WEF ! Dont u mind check out the ESG score too ?
What is astonoshing to me is that we have been able to do incredible , creative things, and yet we are so fixed in the ways we live with each other: is it either communism or capitalism or something in between, and the fact that we are not able to think of any other alternative baffles me. I feel like sometimes we forget that the economic system = how we live with each other. If we named it differently: the system that dictates how we live and interact with each other we might think about it in a completely different light.
www.youtube.com/@smrtchnnl/videos
Very good video, just think that it jumps into a conclusion without enough base
Great video, liked the music. Don't know the answers to the questions at the end. Does anyone?
well, the answer is : it depends
"Sponsored by the WEF"
Yeah I'm not taking this video seriously either way if its against or for capitalism.
Cool story bro
@@justwannabehappy6735 you will eat the bugs
Okay, but the animation in this video is stellar.
I learned nothing about capitalism coming here. But the awareness about the WEF in the comments was a relief.
Animation Team!! Take a bow 🙌
Yes, lets replace it with "you'll own nothing and be happy". Thank you, World Economic Forum.
ruclips.net/video/_1jil1xi8Y4/видео.html
MORE ABOUT CAPITALISM:
watch?v=_1jil1xi8Y4
lol, that's quite a partnership. might as well ponder if the climate is actually changing in partnership with Shell and Exxon
Great video content, and damn these animations
Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
By increasing the standard of living for everyone across the world?
@@colinschmitt6571 Is it though? Can you prove specifically that capitalism caused that? What if it's simply caused by the progression of technology that would happen under any system? I think the increase in standard of living (debateable if you factor in mental health) for everyone across the world happened DESPITE living within a capitalistic system.
@@colinschmitt6571 Across the world, or across your country?
@@colinschmitt6571 by centralizing the power and bring a « new » type of aristocracy
Liberalism and capitalism just help the strongest and put the others to work, don’t even need slavery
Some super trippy music in this one, and a good video overall.
very colourful and a pleasure to watch. Thank you.
Didn’t think I’d have to watch a TedEd video advocating for trickle-down economics today, but here we are
Wonderful work as always, really love how they manage to explain concepts in such a clear and concise manner.
Personally though, I think even using the terms capitalist, communist, and socialist in modern economic discourse is a mistake.
For one thing the terms are just too nebulous and there is just too much room for debate as to whether a system or action truly qualifies as capitalist, socialist, communist, and so forth.
The second and much bigger issue in my view is because of how politically and emotionally loaded such terms are, they distract from the questions we should be asking such as “Is this a good idea?”, “Do the benefits outweigh the costs?”, “Does this make financial/economic sense?”, and so foth
This is a political question. The difference between communism and capitalism for many is life and death. How many people die yearly of hunger and preventable diseases? How many in the global south live in abject poverty? All of this is preventable and fixable, but not profitable, so nothing gets done about it.
@@stratospheric37 helping people in need is technically profitable its just in the very long term. Thinking about profits is’t bad its thinking only about short term profits that screws things up
@@theforbiddenfruit2300 you see, the people in the top want to earn money as fast as possible, that is the mindset they have to get there in the first place, so they will make short minded decisions that rakes in as much cash in as little time.
@@theforbiddenfruit2300 Profit driven organization tend to turn bad in the long run, because despite ideals of people, the structure in itself doesn't change
@@charlestonianbuilder344 yeah thats why i said technically.
Sponsored by WEF, what a surprise 🙄
With the way the world is going no economic system is stable you just have to make your personal money and invest in alternative income streams that are independent of the government should be the top priority for everyone right now. especially given the global economic crisis we are currently experiencing. Stocks, gold, silver, and virtual currencies are still attractive investments at the moment...
that's Smart! keep it up, the system favours only the smart and i think thats discriminatory I could really use the expertise of these advisrs, my port-folio has been down bad....whose the person guiding you
Corinne really seem to know her stuff. I found her website, read through her resume, educational background, qualifications and it was really impressive. She is a fiduciary who will act in my best interest. So, I booked a session with her
to answer the last question, we absolutely need to revolt
But capital is served by police and courts...
People still believing revolutions are good for anything else than deaths, more deaths on both sides, and rising a dictatorship most of a time, then again causing more deaths
You fulfill every stereo type of the “online leftist”
Hahahaah sure touch grass
there’s precedent for this the clearest version is the French Revolution. which if means if we plan to do it again, things are going to get really messy before they get better
Whether it's broken or working as intended, it sucks and we can do better
Like?
not that obvious. we still haven't seen a reasonable answer to capitalism.
How
Keep dreaming🙄🙄🙄
Unless you can develop Star Trek mater replication and perpetual energy, then there's nothing better than capitalism.
Why does this only look at whether the Government or the Wealthiest people have control?
The important thing is that the average person has control, that's what a democracy is meant to be.
Socrates told us why democracy is flawed. It's not the average people who should be making decisions, decisions should be left to the experts in said field.
@@lamcho00 True that, tradegy of the commons
Ayyy, they fully ignored libertarian leftist ideas.
"Either you get ruled by people with a red flag, or people with money, your choice."
@@berdwatcher5125 I hate that but its true to an extent the tragedy of the commons happens so damn much I hate it.
And you could easily look at history and say that the countries with capitalism "gave" more control to the average person than the socialist ones (compare the rights and freedoms in USSR and in US, or in Western and Eastern Germany)