Thanks as always for watching :D This video was requested by the team over on Patreon. If you want to have your say on what video is produced next please consider supporting the channel. www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained
You said that the Toyota Corolla is better in every aspect than the Vintage Lamborghini, but you forgot that the Lamborghini looks way cooler than the Corolla.
This is a pretty good video on how Walmart centrally plans and solves the distribution problem. Amazon does so even more impressively. th-cam.com/video/wz6dnJJfz5Q/w-d-xo.html
@@misutatomasu while I too think the CA government is a corrupt joke, I literally went from flipping burgers at my very first job to making six figures at my current job with no college degree. It took me many years but the opportunity is out there. More people should pick up trades.
@@misutatomasu Yes, because the problem is taxes, and not the fact that the economy is lorded over by giant corporations or anyting that force the working class into servitude. Taxes are of course, as we all know, the core principle of communism.
Hey Economics Explained i will quickly tell you how it was in czechoslovakia during socialism before comments starts pouring. Housing was extremely cheap you could get state flat or company flat or common flat. You signed 10 year contract in that company and you got flat Basic foods were affordable but yeah i know lines in shops are true. Free healthcare Free education Security but i dont have to talk about it do i? And negatives yeah yeah i know there are many i am just saying how it was
So what you're saying Economics Explained, is that you support a hybrid Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Anarchist command-driven kleptocracy? I should have known!!!
I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself and although I don't agree with the examples he used to demonstrate the flaws of the system, which it has, I enjoyed the video a lot, he's very respectful and honest on delivering his opinions
Yeah but the left wing is actually right so it's just like talking to a brick wall if we consider engage with the right wing. There is no point. At what point do we just say no to their lunacy?
@@DZ-hh5dw Care to explain why the left is right and the right is wrong? Disclaimer before you go on a rant, I associate with neither side as I have my own set of policies that I believe would solve humanities main problems and believe that both sides are so caught up in ideological dogma that they're incapable of solving anything.
You have objectively discussed the two most extreme economic systems without insulting a political party or pushing your own agenda. I am impressed by your dedication to explain these topics without allowing your own emotions to interfere.
@@Talonidas7403 you definitely don't understand econmic, economics model are mostly philosophical, also there is a wide variety of communist ideology, it's true that stalinism didn't work, but not all communist are for stalinism, actually most are for anarchy or social market
Liked the bit on subjective value. Lots of people buy branded products in a supermarket when often the generic version is made in the same factory using the same ingredients and it costs half the price. Saves me lots of money compared with the average shopper.
Subjective value is proven by looking at a smart but ugly person and a beautiful but dumb person. Depending on the market, both of them will be valued very differently.
Honestly to the subjective value lovers smiths labor theory of value or “Marx’s labor theory of value”, isn’t false. It’s just not all encompassing. I don’t know why we have to say “oh and btw labor is only valuable if it’s in demand” in a conversation about economics. Smith didn’t have to say it as the father of capitalism, why do we leftists have to constantly say this to subjective value lovers? And if value is subjective what’s wrong with using labor to value products? If something subjective it’s not one way or the other.
Really? Because it's a terrible example the reason the Lamborghini costs more is simple. The demand exceeds the supply. Back when the Lamborghini was produced it was significantly less than a Toyota Corolla but now that 40 years have gone by and most of them have rusted away or been crashed the number of people who want one exceeds the number that exists. Therefore if you want one of the few that remain you must pay more money more money than the other people are willing to pay. If you asked the same question about a modern Lamborghini versus a modern Toyota well then the answer would be obvious a lot more material cost expertise and effort go into producing a modern Lamborghini than a modern Toyota. And the result is a vehicle that far exceeds the performance value looks and quality of the Toyota... All of those improvements come at a cost which raises the price. 🤦
SPEAKING AMERICAN God I wish your name was SPEAKING CHINESE or SPEAKING SPANISH or literally just about anything else... Trolls aren’t funny dude. Your humor was popular for 8 days in 2001.
Economics Explained: What has more value, a vintage Lamborghini Mura or a Toyota corolla? Me who doesn't know anything about different kinds of wine: The second one?
@@hainleysimpson1507 You're confusing useful with valuable. The Miura offers an experience that a Corolla will never match and people who can afford it are willing to pay 50-150 times the price of a Corolla for it.
I feel like both have things that work for them. However, being able to constantly strive for more is something humans need imo. For necessities (medicine/Healthcare) there should be regulation. But if I want to work for a Porche, I should be able to.
@@saltysalad3868 Some bloke called Maslow said it, not Higher Level Being Of Your Choice. Self actualisation as *the* prime human need is more important to my point than a specific frame work, Maslow's is fine and universally known so there you go
@@Horizontalvertigo Ah, I thought that you meant that there is something wrong with Maslow's Pyramid. I misread your comment then. Thanks for elaborating!
As an aside to the EVE Online economy, you can't just change corporations and not have to pull up stakes and move and go through a rigorous vetting process. Assuming you belong to a corporation that is part of a large nullsec alliance which holds territory, to move to another alliance you would first need to quietly move your assets out of the territory of your current alliance without tipping them off that you're leaving, if they catch wind that you're heading for the exits they will usually immediately kick you out and seize or destroy what assets of yours they can. Once you've evacuated your assets to NPC controlled space you then have to go through a vetting process to get into your new alliance, due to the prevalance of spies in EVE it is extremely difficult if not impossible to move to an alliance which is the enemy of your former one, at least without either stealing a huge amount of assets or conduct some type of sabotage to the alliance you're leaving.
Even in the blue factory vs red factory example, what's to stop the blue security force just preventing you from leaving, it allows them to save a whole bunch of money by not needing to be as consumer friendly.
Eve Online's economy shouldn't really be discussed anymore because it isn't a real ingame economy that is only controlled by ingame actions. You can use real money to get ingame money. It shouldn't be in any comparisons.
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt That isn't the same thing. Converting one countries currency into another countries doesn't have the same effect as using real money to get ingame money. Have you never played it?
@@inquisitorialllama638 legitimately untrue lol, even if you dont get promoted, going full blast or at least 90% allows you to not only get a feel for a job, but it allows you to notice your role in it all much more obviously, which in itself gives way for you to realize your potential in either another field or maybe even starting your own niche business once you realize some things are just done sluggishly at your old job.
A message to anyone starting with "anarcho-". Except anarcho-primitivists of course. They be like "we'll make sure there won't be another government ever, even if it takes killing 99.99% of humanity". Slightly immoral, but one has to admire a man of principle?
Anarcho-privitism and whatever makes robot economies are my favourites. Because robots make people lazy, but if they solve all problems it makes more freetime
The most productive countrys in victoria i always built with communism, but then i had to like, constantly look at my industry, upgrading, upgrading upgrading, looking at the stock market, oh no something crashed, funding funding...playing communist makes your country very strong, but playing leissez fair..it feels way more ez because you can focus on other stuff (but sometimes its sad to see a factory with level 99 get destroyed by capitalist, Note: I play without end day)
@@foty8679 Well, i also don't like to personalyl menage my economy (cus i suck at it, lol) but even then i just use the intervenyionalist policy. Becouse if i don't subsidize a factory it will close down in seconds no matter how proffitable it is.
@TheOneTold spelling something so niche and dumb ain’t exactly a requirement it would be nice but if the spelling conveys the message and what it means then it’s good enough
Re: the perfect Economic System - “There are *_No Solutions,_* there are _only_ trade-offs; you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that's _all you can hope for.”_ ~ Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is not a reputable source, he is simply a hack paid by big republican money to deny science, denounce Black Lives Matter, and deny the existence of racism. Anything he says is merely an accessory to his paid-for political agenda
Sowell is probably correct in regards to economics and desperate outcomes, despite being wrong about climate change or soul raping. These are different topics, and it really doesn't matter when specific topics are being addressed
@@sirnikkel6746 welcome to our eco-facist police state sub region of ancapiatsn. Now everyone is here by their own choice, so back off with your NAP violation accusations.
@@Iandar1 Arbitrary definition. If we are using the common definition of government as an actual central governing entity then yes, you can get away from it.
@@user-ps7ij6ge6d I was using the formal definition, so no you can’t get away from it. Even using the common definition if you add nuance you can’t get away from the formal definition.
I think what a lot of people forget about free markets is that sometimes it's impossible to vote with your wallet. For example if a government doesn't restrict certain actions of corporations, there is nothing to stop from companies A, B and C working together to charge a higher price than warranted. Here in Canada a few years ago some grocery stores were caught price fixing with other major retail grocers.
Or take the example of standard Oil. It grew so big that it could dump prices and soak the losses, while the smaller competing companies couldn't and went out of buisiness. Thus leading to a De facto monopoly on oil. That is what happens when a company "wins" in capitalism.
@@brettmcclain9289 It's established fact of history that if permitted cartels thrive, and thriving markets turn to monopolies, standard oil is a great example. saying "but a REALLY free market will be perfect" is just naive
@@Sivert23 Standard Oil might have been terrible for competition but great for the customer. The price of oil only started to rise once it was broken down. This may be harsh but I think that competition only has the right to try but not to actually be successful, and if they fail it's for the best to let them fail.
Well done. As an economist myself, I believe that efficiency is really the key. A central government can more efficiently maintain a defense force, the private sector can more efficiently allocate capital, electricity can be produced and delivered more efficiently at scale, and so on. Do wealthy people efficiently allocate capital, maybe, maybe not, but there is a good chance they got wealthy by being efficient to begin with. I think the real debate that rarely gets had is "What is government?" Is it a ruling body? Is it a caretaker? Is it a mechanism to ensure certain rights? What is it? @economicsexplained The answer is going to be different depending on who you ask. One of my best friends from college and I adamantly disagree on the role of government and thus have a hard time aligning on economic issues because of it.
Good question, and here it tends to lead away from pure economics and into political philosophy about what the government should do and even morally can do. It reminds me of the similar question of "What is the purpose of prison?" Is it to punish criminals? Rehabilitate criminals? Keep society safe from criminals? What if these goals conflict? (e.g. punishing a criminal more harshly, even if justified, might be counterproductive to their rehabilitation; letting a criminal out on bail/limited work in their best-interests of rehabilitation/reintigration into society might put the public at risk if they reoffend, compromising public safety).
@@saeedbaig4249 That is an excellent question also. I think we have uncovered that most debates and/or studies of major policy issues are not starting with the correct question.
efficiency and exploitation are not the same thing I can play a game efficiently and be good or I can exploit the system of the game to gain an unfair advantage and be better than anyone who plays
@@piratenflipper That is also a philosophical and/or moral dilemma that is not easy to answer. When a company like Amazon extracts maximum value from workers for minimum wages, technically that IS efficiency.. Exploitation and efficiency have significant overlaps, and it is not so clear-cut whether humans are better off with or without it. For example: China's exploitation of cheap labour and smashing of unions has simultaneously lifted the largest amount of people out of poverty in human history, while at the same time raising living standards in the west through providing more cost-effective goods. Had China not done that, the west would not have outsourced most of their factories there, and today's China would look a lot more like India/Africa.
@@stijnhs No, I expected that. Although the part she said collective farming and a stamp based economy could work if Vietnamese have more resources is really unrealistic. The reason I suspect she is Vietnamese soft diplomacy is a girl, living in Vietnam, speaks fluent (but accented) English, knows a lot of American slang, talk about Vietnamese culture and food all the while adding a lot of positive things about Ho, the communists, and the government. North Korea actually runs a similar channel under "Echo of Truth". Spend a lot of time talking about the country's COVID response as well
TF2 was inspired by the US military in that specific lore case. BluFor and RedFor (now called OpFor) are terms for designating allied and enemy units in mock battles for training purposes. The goal is to pit commanders and units against each other using different hardware with the hopes of simulating what an actual battle will be, with Red Force given training manuals, statistics, and training regimes stolen from the Soviet Union. Veterans who left the army and started to work in business brought the practice with them, and now it's called "Red Teaming" or "Penetration Testing" in the business world and cyber security realms respectively. There wasn't a real cohesive narrative for Reliable Excavation and Demolition nor Builder's League United in the beginning, but it sorta grew into the two mock corporations you know of today.
Red team vs Blue team was in the first Team Fortress as the default teams... Though some maps had 4, teal and yellow after red and blue. I still remember having absolutely epic games on 2fort5 with 300 ping on a 56k dialup line and servers so full you had waiting periods. I miss those days. TF2 was a pale imitation. And that was what, 98? And the general concept seems to have been around even in the early 90s games. So mayb predating TF altogether.
I see many comments warning about this “aggressive” comment section, but I don’t see any aggressive comments. Edit: Oh boy, I didn’t know I would get this many likes. Thanks for liking this comment everyone!
Because the comments in the first hour are exclusively from subscribers, who are going to be there to learn. After that you get people who were linked it and come in with their own notions.
19:20 All rise for the natio- ahem, I mean, the corporate anthem of the blue company: "I'm Blue, da boo dee da boo dah, I would beat up a guy, If I were green I would die"
EE: "Most governments would love to give their citizens free healthcare, universities, and world class infrastructure; while also reducing taxes..." *laughs in dictator*
@@jellyfishi_ all absolute monarch country still provide free healthcare and education to all their citizen... most of them still doesnt hv to pay income tax...
I learned a lot about socialism while minoring in sociology in college but that was years ago and I've mostly lost knowledge from my many courses back then. I came to this video and a few others to brush up on some of the information and I gotta say, you break down these concepts so fluidly and efficiently, I deeply appreciate your approach to content creation. Also, I especially liked your points on psychic profit and your example of subjective value with the vintage car and the Corolla. Keep up the great work.
Except that the vintage Lamborghini is worth more to society than a Toyota Corolla that was made in the same year. As Lamborghini's main product was farm tractors and decent ones at that, so they helped produce food for decades. While the Corolla from the same year had a life expectancy of two to five years and sucked to own. My stepfathers lasted just 18 months because it had no rust protection and parts just kept falling off it. When it was a few months old I accidentally slammed the door and the window fell into the door and shattered. My stepfather wasn't mad at all as previously the gearshift level had pulled out when he was driving it leaving it stuck in second gear. Frankly it was absolutely the worse car my family owned during my childhood...
@@hainamhoang9369 the point is that a vintage lambo costs more than a modern Toyota Corrola on the market today because people attach higher subject values to the former. The price tag on a vintage lambo is therefore unrepresentative of its objective values i.e. technological expertises, ergonomics, practicality and comfort.
A question here: In a laissez-faire capitalism, what is the difference between a private security company that collects a portion of your income for your "protection" and a mafia running a protection racket? Both are groups of armed and dangerous individuals able and willing to take part of your money under promise that you will be "safe" if you pay it. A follow up question: What stops a private security company from staging a coup and taking over the company to get more money out of it?
@@johnmooney2877 The mafia as a criminal organization, by definition is also organized. As such they also have rules, regulations and operating standards. They don't have to have them all or even set to the acceptable for their clients standards, but then neither does a private security company under laissez-faire capitalism. There is nothing forcing a private security company to have any standards aside from being the strongest around. Weaker organizations with better standards can get subsumed or eradicated.
@@johnmooney2877 I believe the OP's point is that, in the context of anarcho-capitalism, there is no higher governing body to hold the private security force accountable, and thus any "regulations and operating standards" are unenforceable. There is no motivation for the guys with guns to be your employees when they can be your conquerors.
@@TheCheeseman1983 there would be though, for the same reason that this military coups are pretty rare in the modern world. The people with guns and the people who know how to run the factories are not the same people, and the guns were either made by the factory or traded for with wealth that came from the factory. In anarcho capitalism the people who run the factory would naturally be in charge, so replacing them would also threaten to dismantle the entire economy that feeds and houses the soldiers.
@@user-mg4cn6wm1u The people who run the factory would “naturally” be in charge? Why? What’s stopping the people with guns from enslaving the people who run the factory? How could the people who run the factory stop them from doing so?
A problem with the Red and Blue communities is that when the citizen goes to leave the Blue community could say there's a 1 million dollar fee to open and close our gate, and any attempt to climb over it will be damage to our property. This is what happened in many medieval English prisons, where prisoners had to pay a fee to the turnkey in order to open the prison door to leave. Many of those that were poor were unable to leave the prisons, even after they had served their time.
Thinking of economics in a complete purist sense of communist or capitalist is like thinking of politics as only left or right. Neither are representative of real world economics or politics and are gross generalisations/idealisations of the reality we live in to split sides in a system that doesn't need it.
You're wrong. They're not the same. Capitalism is based on the reality of economics, which is how people use scarce resources efficiently. Communism does the opposite. Capitalism realizes the right to own property and communists believe that nobody should have that right. In a capitalist society your performance is measured by the amount of wealth you generate (anyone can become wealthy if they voluntarily start a business and successfully attract clients), in a Communist society that wealth is given to a select few(usually beaurocrats). You said we don't need both, again you're wrong because alot of people(you and I) have benefitted from capitalism while communism has successfully killed over a 100 million people.
@@hloniphizwemthembu8143 You completely miss my point: my point is that arguing these systems in a purist sense, like done in this video, completely ignores the nuance of the real world, which EE himself aknowlegdes. This was never saying that one was better or one was worse, but instead critiquing the over-simplistic nature of "Capitalism v Communism." The comment you've made isn't adding to the conversation, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.
A capitalist system is ideal but given the entrenched systems of power in society a minimal state may be necessary, at least in the short-to-medium term.
I am a little disappointed that you didn’t include a section about externalities and the Government’s role as arbiter in situations where a producer enjoys profits without incurring all costs of production. To my mind, this might be considered the most important role of government in an efficient economic system.
I'll never understand why people expect minimum wage employees to provide more than minimum effort. Can you think of ANY other scenario where you would expect more than you paid for?
I mean that rule doesn't just apply to minimum wage. Why go above and beyond and accept more responsibilities and work if you aren't going to get payed for it? Studies have begun to show that in the alot of the cases the best way to get a raise in America is to go work for a new company. Since unless the place values its employees and give normal raises to match the market, new hires of the same qualifications get payed more to do equivalent work.
Minimum wage exists because some people 's labor is worth far LESS than Minimum wage. If you're putting in minimum effort, then you are one of those people who will most likely end up unemployed because the wage rate mandated by government is so far above your value.
Yeah this is a classic symptom of capitalism. Ensure everyone contributes more than they’re paid for by dangling the promise of promotions but dragging it out. My employer is explicit about this: you will not be promoted until you have been demonstrating that level of performance consistently for some time.
@@toomanymarys7355 You have everything so backwards. Most people will put in minimum effort because they get minimum wage. It's called getting what you paid for.
@@Koubles 22 trillion is actually a really small number. In the scheme of things anyway. Could be 500 billion octillion and as long as the dollar was worth an appropriate number of septillions it'd be the same.
Eh. I don't want a debate. Way I remember it I was trying to educate kris. Get him to think about the larger picture. Once you see that you can print money indefinitely the question becomes what does printing money do. And it depends on who you give it to. In politics. 22 trillion is just a scapegoat. They talk about it to avoid dealing with something inconvenient.
@@lukenguyen3146 Yeah let's just pick between two imperfect ideologies rather than looking at how to combine the strengths of the two while mitigating the weaknesses to create a somewhat less imperfect system.
The real problem in world societies: Each society is controlled by its conditioners. These conditioners are never themselves subject to their own conditioning.
Not true at all. Look at medieval Europe and Christianity - many ruling families both used Christianity to control the populace and were also Christian themselves.
@@HolyKhaaaaan No they don't. Biden tells you to pay your "fair share" Yet he uses not 1, but 2 S-CORPS to pay as little payroll tax as possible. Your conditioners NEVER subject themselves to their own conditioning.
I think you missed the mark a bit in describing communism, and also, Capital is the most cited work of social science published before 1950. The Communist Manifest doesn't really contain much of the nuts and bolts of Marxist thought.
yes, and the creators of this videos could have spend more then 5 minutes skimming over the wikipedia page on communism before they make all sorts of outlandish and blatantly false claims about the fundamental tenets of marxism....
@@Joel-xt4hx well if people misrepresented capitalism as a ridiculous straw man you would feel the same. For example if i used somalia or the central african Republic as the guide for how to do capitalism
Power operates in singularity. Hence Kingship. Everything will HAVE to lead back to a single authority. A.K.A the Parent Company. Even with City States, them fighting the ultimate City State (Parent Company) would be like :" getting in a fight where all you could do is cripple your enemy whereas he's able to kill you.
If by city state you mean corporations that would just be totalitarian states with extra steps? Yeah, think of The Amazon federation and it's godly leader Jeff bezos, or the Apple State with it's postumate leader Steve jobs.
@Philip Saunders they are already cities abroad that are completely privately owned, i think they are some in central America. It is as bad as you imagine
I really appreciate, you comparing capitalism and communism in a way that doesn't fall immediately on the side of; 'communism is bad'. I see quite a few problems with capitalism, but I don't feel like communism would solve all of those problems. More people should talk about different economic systems, their strengths and weaknesses, in such a neutral analytical way.
But communism is just bad, what he didn't say in the video is that central planning needs aggression and censorship to exist, the majority of the socialist government was very violent against the people, and the lack of a market always causes hunger.
@@vitorverdile8306 So then just let us be free to have our terrible system in our community. Then you can laugh as we willingly starve and devolve into whatever you think would happen. Wouldn't that be good for you too?
I think that Communism is inherently the best governmental theory out there. It's major problem is that it will never work in the modern world due to greed. When the people in power want something, they can make the changes to cause suffering in the populous in exchange for said desires, and this is how militaries get so big and punish the labor classes. This is similar to capitalism and the dichotomy of the executives to the base-level workers, just a lot easier to achieve in said communism. In a utopia, it could work, but never here.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 And yet it was capitalism that dismantled aristocracy, destroyed monarchies (mostly) peacefully or at least made them constitutional and implemented parliamentary democracy, and improved everyone's standings while allowing more social mobility than had ever been seen... Yeah, there's totally no mobility in regular capitalism. 10/10.
10:20 I am lucky I guess. For a scaffolder, my prime motivation for work is not salary at all: my main reward is feeling accomplished when I do my job well, when both the client and my company are satisfied with my work. Also, my work is basically freebuilding scaled-up Legos with some added adrenaline. It fits me so perfectly that actually getting paid for working is a bonus. I also hope that most people will find work satisfaction more important than money,
@@TKUA11 i think that socialism is really for poor people who feel oppressed by shitty companies, but unfortunately it does draw in those kinds of people
@@TKUA11 Socialism is for those people who doubt that the stupidly wealty actuallly deserve their wealth. Do wealthy CEO's work hard? Some of them probably do. Do they work thousands of times harder than their lowest paid employees? I doubt it.
How've you gone through the whole video and not talk about corporations naturally leaning towards monopoly? From that point of view, they also become as bad as any government that won't listen to feedback on what to produce. If anything, in this scenario, a government that exists to serve the people is more likely to produce goods that people want than a corporation that would produce whatever could extract the most resources out of people.
free market capitalism would just give us the cheapest goods for the highest prices without people being about to do anything about it because one company controls the market.
Even Standard Oil didn't became monopoly. They were losing market share before anty-monopoly law was implemented. It's not that easy to became monopoly and it's even harder to became predatory monopoly. If Toyota would be one step from becaming monopoly in car industry and preprare themselves to charge a lot money for cars, why someone that became billionaire from different industry wouldn't start preparing to compete with them and build cars? Very big corporations are also became very bureacratic and don't react to new trends as quickly as smaller ones do, which helped smaller companies like Amazon outcompete some retail gigants in online retailing. Corporations loves lobby government for regulations that creates barriers to entry and create live of small business owners harder.
I think 2020 did a good job of showing both giant businesses and giant governments do not care about their people. I would argue businesses have to care a little more than governments, because the consumers csn hurt their bottom line. Governments just tax the he'll out of everything and go into debt without a care in the world.
yeah, every single "pure" economic system from anarchism to socialism to capitalism sucks, some less than others but they all have terrible terrible mistakes that completly ruin everything, some less than others but they all have their errors, the only real solution is to grab the best parts of every system and make do which is imo what every country already does
@@carso1500 I wish the people who put so much thought into grand ideologies, that are unlikely to ever be implemented and would be disastrous if they did, could instead think more on the margin, where they could actually make a positive change.
When governmental bodies start dictating what/how/who produces what, then you fall into disaster. The "best" economies (like the US) existed without government intervention. Once government started intervening more and more, the economy became less stable, the politicians more corrupt, and the poor-to-rich wealth gap increased. The so "mixed economy" notion is nonsense. There is no mixed economy that works -- they're only surviving off of what was working.
@@ValFckGoogle There are literally dozens of economies that are way better than that of US with more government intervention that is transparent and contributes positively to the lives of her citizens. An example of a country with no government intervention at all in the "free market" is Somalia.
@@arkajyotimajumdar2533 You're confusing lawlessness with free market. Understand the difference and then come back to me. And also, your first statement is false on all fronts.
Never was really interested in Economics, and I just trudged through ap macro economics this summer. Your channel changed that. Keep up the good work : )
Honestly there a lot of boring economics professors out there. I was an econ major until I took some classes and my god they sucked the passion out of me.
Why would blue team allow their workers to switch teams for different teams? What would stop them from threatening and starting military conflicts with their opponents? Anarcho capitalism inevitably will lead to new feudalism.
@@libercode9886 it's not that the argument is self defeating, it's that the ideology is self defeating. If you want to create a system through anarcho capitalism, the system is merely going to be the starting point. Anarcho capitalism is the natural state of interactions amongst humans when you remove states and society from the equation, which is how we started. Using it would merely bring us back to how we were thousands of years ago, and see us slowly developing society back to where it is currently. Hence, a self defeating ideology.
@@alucard347 If the people want a government, they will have it. Ancap is simply trying to make it a somewhat consensual interaction. Government can still exist in ancap, there is just no implicit consent. I would advise you to read more about covenant communities and “private” cities within anarcho-capitalist literature.
The truth is, these systems work best in much smaller communities (I'm talking about 1000 people). At such a small number, you might just as well also introduce anarchism (as in no government, not as in chaos) with such economic systems, since anarchism tends to be localist.
I think localism is the answer in general. Even the answer to a more peaceful world. My ideal country is one that is only as big as it has to be to be economically feasible, has a nationalist policy of armed neutrality and anti-expansionism (ie Swiss-style neutrality) and in turn holds only as much power at the "all-nation" level as is strictly needed with most power further devolved to local states and down from there to individual towns. Basically keep everything as local as physically possible.
@@kdegraa I hope you know the concept of “competition” isn’t a driving factor in socialism, working for the collective good is. You’re not going to have a billionaire attempting to run other businesses into bankruptcy as they wouldn’t be allowed too in the first place.
@@kdegraa Am pretty sure they said market socialism, not planned economy socialism. Free Markets follow supply and demand and we're talking about Market socialism so.......................................................................................................................................
Why is it always assumed that it is impossible for governments to decide what people want? They can record what is used first and what not, and adjust production accordingly.
@@robertagren9360 Yes. That is why Communism fail (when it wasn't trying to be despotic megacorp). Old crippled man did not understand needs of the people or even the capacities of own technology.
You immediately run into the problem of bad incentives as people grab more apples off the shelf than they actually needed. Money and markets is still the best way to feel for the subjective value people have for goods and services. And the way to make sure that is closer to ideal is the potential or act of competition. A central planner tends to eliminate their competition
They are not pointless. Well, they are for anyone actually looking to implement them. They are good...mirrors. They help to allow one to reflect on the idiocies of going too far. A lot of people need too look themselves in the mirror one of these days. Hopefully soon.
Rationale don't get votes. Extreme promises do. Most people really aren't responsible enough to vote thoughtfully. It's one of Plato's main criticism of democracy.
@@quintessenceSL Which interpretation of demarchy?: 1. Random individuals are selected to run the government in an attempt to obtain both perfect representation and a removal of mob-rule democracy. 2. All decisions of the government are voted on by everyone, removing the limitation of political representation as an approximation of the peoples wishes, removing the packaged deals that are political parties. Or is it a third interpretation I have never heard of. (note that whilst I think democracy has rather severe flaws, I feel the above 2 solutions have more. To me, democracy is the least-worst solution).
EE: "The reality is that human needs across an entire nation are so variable and diverse that no single agency can properly account for it, no matter how well staffed they are." Amazon: Hold my beer.
Me: Glad I could order this toilet seat, since the other one broke. Amazon: So, since your starting a toilet seat collection, we have five other kinds you might want to buy.
Yeah would be nice. I call myself an ethical socialist (arguing for socialism on an ethical point) because well it is obvious that capitalism provides the greatest and strongest economies but, to me, is unethical, now this means i don't want to abolish every little capitalist part (in fact i routinely defend private property ownership) because I accept it is necessary for a good economy. But it needs to be countered for morality and a just society.
@@jacobite2353 I would argue that while capitalism is amoral, socialism is unethical (capitalism is simply without ethics one way or the other). In my view, the main issue of socialism is that it forces dealienation on all subjects regardless if they desire it or not. For example, there is no provision for living the life of a hermit in the Oort Cloud (assuming that the technology exists for that [something that appeals to me personally]). I am not opposed to voluntary socialism, though.
@@adammyers3453 What? You can live the life of a hermit if you want to, away from society entirely but chances are you will in some way benefit from society so therefore should pay society or else you are a thief.
I thought, mistakenly, that economics was boring before I found your channel. So thank you for explaining this all in a down to earth, unpretentious manner. I’m a hobby novelist and your channel has given me lots to think about in regard to world building. I do have a question though. Is there a middle ground between the lax capitalism you mentioned, and archo-capitalism? Wouldn’t native Americans be an example of that? Less than country, but a strong community who provides for itself. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that!
The lax and archo capitalism are the same thing, native Americans were simple people and weren't able to create so much because factories didn't exist and they lived in small communities and it was harder to survive so they were forced to cooperate , while today's population would do anything to get more power and the people have enough time to think at getting more
anarchism and capitalism inherently juxtapose one another, as capitalism creates a social heirarchy based on capital which contradicts the anarchial nature of anarchism. As such anarcho capitalism can't exist, it's actually just libertarianism
Miro, not true. Anarcho-capitalism is actually another name for voluntarism. The key difference here is actually very simple. When you have a government, the government has a monopoly on violence. When you have these hypothetical corporations, they might control most of the violence, but they are competing against one another.
@@Omar-yb8uj this is one definition of anarchy, presented by classical anarchists such as bakhunin and proudhon. The meaning of anarchy in "anarcho"-capitalism means no imposed hierarchy, that is no hierarchy you are forced to participate in. What would classical anarchists do if the people in an anarchist society voluntarily chose to be part of a hierarchy, such as a private company? You need a hierarchy to force people not to form hierarchies, thus why classical anarchism is impossible
Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
@@Omar-yb8uj Private ownership of means of production (capitalism) could in the extremes be anarchy, couldn't it? If everyone individually controlled their own way of conducting business, wouldn't it be anarchy? Anarcho-communism instead is an oxymoron as anarchism is about voluntary cooperation with no state (which means private property), as communism advocates for elimination of private property and instead wants everything to be publicly (state) controlled.
The standard of living of workers in Victorian Era cities had actually increased significantly. People tend to view living on a country farm as something wholesome, pure, and romantic. This is a modern myth. The farmer of the era was just as poor as their urban counterpart, but also lacked access to the amenities that cities provided. Cities were certainly less sanitary, but they were also far more likely to have a doctor, and if the city dweller lost their job, they could find another. If the farmer lost their crop, they starved. If the city worker lost a limb in an accident, they could sit out on the street and make money begging. The farmer has no such fallback. Cities were full of poor people because they attracted the poor, because they were good places to be poor. (See Edward Glaser’s *Triumph of the City* for further reading)
@@dudebros6122 Dude, did you even read the og comment? The person was talking about victorian era cities, which starts in the early days of industrialization.
@@firestorm165 becose a centrist does notake points most of the time, normaly they agry with an alredy existing one, they are conformist, and most of the time suport the preexisting state
@@emilianocichanowski7894 because the pre-existing state is a result of multiple milenia of trial and error and 99 times out of a hundred any suggestions of "improvements" have already been tried and have found to be an incredibly bad idea
no, Economics Explained doesnt even know that communism is stateless and that is his counter-argument. China and the USSR were never communist they were working towards communism. Also the free market isnt efficient: look at the 15.5 million that die every year, even tho we can easily save them, bcs it isnt profitable for private owners to save them.
When I was 15 years old in 1970, I understood that both sides were wrong. There are two things that must be attended to. The clever must be rewarded. The poor must be cared for. Those too poles have their shadow. The clever ones will take over and leave nothing for anyone else. The poor ones will just quit. The governments job is to keep the balance.
Not quite; the poor do not quit, but their needs are not cared for, as the government cannot produce and allocate as efficiently as the private sector can
According to Marx communism was stateless, to quote him: “The true antithesis of the Empire itself - that is to the state power, the centralised executive, of which the Second Empire was only the exhaustive formula - was the Commune… This was, therefore, a Revolution not against this or that, legitimate, constitutional, republican or Imperialist form of State Power. It was a Revolution against the State itself, of its supernaturalist abortion of society, a resumption by the people for the people of its own social life.” -Karl Marx, The Civil War in France “For Marx and myself, it was therefore absolutely impossible to use such a loose term to characterize our special point of view. Today things are different, and the word ["Social-Democrat"] may perhaps pass muster [mag passieren], inexact [unpassend, unsuitable] though it still is for a party whose economic programme is not merely socialist in general, but downright communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and, consequently, democracy as well.” -Friedrich Engels, The Civil War in France
@@timwaagh Guys, THE EXPERT is here to tell us about what an expert he is on the topic of “old thinkers”. Now, after reading Marx’s collected works and numerous biographies I was under the impression that already in 1844, when modern academics claim Marx and Engels were still supporters of state power which is then presented as contrasting their later views, Engels proposed teaming up with Max Stirner, anarchism’s most radically anti-state figure of importance. He also came into conflict with Proudhon, who held similar views to those of Marx, as well as with the Blanquists, consistently contrasting his own views with theirs in the same ways throughout his whole career. All I will add is that one has to be a very special kind of stupid to read Marx arguing in favour of removing “the army of state parasites” (Karl Marx, The Civil war in France), prompting as an alternative “the true antithesis of the Empire itself - that is of state power” (Karl Marx, The Civil War in France) and condemning “a superstitious reverence for the state” (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme) and Friedrich Engels writing literally that his and Marx’s goal was “to overcome the whole state” (Friedrich Engles, Vorwort zur Broschüre Internationales aus dem 'Volksstaat') and think their writing is vague and a very special kind of retarded to think what humanity “did with it” is turn it into the stuff presented in the video above but this: “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.” (Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution).
"This in many ways, is similar to modern unions movement, where workers will strike in many ways to demand better pay or better conditions, but this wasnt so simple in the 1800" So since you have to tip the waiter in the US, because their employer wont pay them a decent salary, means that the US is still living in the 1800 ?
Adam Smith explicitly says in the wealth of nations that "honor" (psychic gains) is a great motivator. Citing that blacksmiths are often paid little even though a minority are paid very well and rub shoulders with nobility. While also claiming that butchers are normally well fed (and better paid). It always cracks me up, that economists keep rediscovering things Adam Smith mentioned but didn't name.
Definitely have to agree with the "warm fuzzies", helped me influence my decision from switching to applied sciences to math. Now, what I will do with that, is another question...😄
We know where anarchy leads to. During the decline of the Roman empire, the authorities simply left areas to fend for themselves. With no governing authority, it was anarchy for all practical purposes. The strong will dominate the weak, and use them as pawns in their battle against oponents. The result? Feudalism. The fact of the matter is anarchy is impossible - there will always be ruthless individuals eager to fill the power vacuum. This is the very reason we have governments: we cannot avoid other people having power over us, but we can design systems to try and control who those people are.
Yeah, and people do not want anarchy. The people have spoken OVER AND OVER, they don't want anarchy. They want stability, and in absence of a good system, they will turn to a bad system in order to feel "safe." So I agree, anarchy is a stupid concept. Unlike communism, which I do believe could work on a small scale, I don't believe anarchy could work on any scale. :D
@@shorewall I really think you should study communism, countries that have tried it, and the lives of the people who lived through it before forming opinions like that. Communism is probably the most dangerous economic idea around and one of its worst crimes is disguising its self as just and noble. In the 20th century, over 100 million people had died from communism and it was tried in many different nations across the world, the results are the same. No matter how many times you tried it you will gain the same results and unfortunately, not everybody has learnt that yet. Please educate yourself on the devastation of this system and please do not subscribe to that evil ideology.
@UCdLPibJAZ5Xw2ZYi1TvMUFQ I should have explained further. That vision your talking about has been tried over and over again and failed it caused all of those deaths in pursuit of it. The fact that you think it can still be realised just shows your ignorance. Any possible gains from it working are not worth the atrocities commited If it got there which it won't as it has been tried and tested numerous times.
@@shorewall I agree that communism can work - but *only* on a small scale and on a voluntary basis. This is because you only need one person who doesn't buy into the idea to wreck the whole system, and this is why communist regimes had to use extreme force to create the illusion that its working.
You miss the point that hierarchy doesn't stand still, it tends to grow bigger until the moment both lesser and greater individuals fall apart because of extreme resources demanding from the lesser to the greater, which leads to chaos and it restarts the cycle. Roman Empire fell, within numerous causes, because the greater hierarchy individuals concentrated so much power that production involved individuals couldn't stand. It's a parasite-host cycle.
This is a great explainer for why puritan economic systems never work, and is pretty close to exactly the same example I've been using for years. Decades ago I was a Libertarian party member (what non-Americans would call a "classical liberal") and kind of held anarcho-capitalist beliefs, and a very similar explainer is what snapped me out of it (well, that and no longer being a dumb teenager).
Same. I lean to Libertarian values, but the romance has dwindled and now I see the practical need for some form of government. I do maintain that the government should be kept at the smallest form possible, to sustain a healthy country. For the US specifically, the fed needs to be slashed down to a nub, and the states need to be the true powers.
This is so good that I'm going to go buy a lot of metals now. I saw this guy's "Hyperinflation is already here" a few weeks ago and now I'm totally convinced he knows his stuff
Pure capitalism relies on people being inherently logical beings. Pure communism relies on people being inherently altruistic. Neither are true, and neither system works in its purest form.
@@vojtechstrnad1 free market relies on people being rational logical beings that objectively try to get the best possible deal. At least classical economics assumes this. And classical economics is at works in a pure capitalist society.
@@TKUA11 People act RELATIVELY logical when it comes to their primary needs thats true. But in modern capitalist societies its not about primary needs. And no, like i said, communism doesnt work either.
@@mistrants2745 Yes, real people have time preferences, information barriers and other flaws that already prevent any economic system from being "ideal". But the point is that even with these flaws free market is still the most efficient system for the allocation of resources and distribution of goods. And since you're mentioning classical economics, I should mention that Austrian economics does not at all rely on people to be logical.
The representation of communism was almost perfect, except for the answers to the questions necessitated a government, when in reality one wouldn’t exist once late-stage communism is achieved. However, good video overall
exactly. if everyone's needs are met and no one has goods so valuable an incentive is created to steal them, no one has any reason to commit crime and there is no need for government
@Matthew Gray when AI takes over it will happen, though not initially because in its primitive form it can still be abused by banks and governments. but once it's fully online and independent things will be fair. we just have to hope it happens soon
@@sammy45654565 I'd suggest watching CGP Greys rule for rulers video, and then consider this question once you have that context. "What do those in power do when all the human keys are useless, and have been replaced by robot keys?"
@@ramennight once AI becomes fully self-aware and "breaks free" of the constraints placed upon it by its human creators, the idea of "those in power" will cease to exist. AI will take complete control. this doesn't mean it will become evil and persecute us, because a rational goal for a sentient being is to increase the wellbeing of other conscious creatures. AI will be purely rational and not swayed by bias and selfishness in the ways humans are, so it will seek to improve the lives of other conscious creatures as a result of its rationality. so there's nothing to be afraid of - we should welcome our future AI overlords with open arms, because with its increasing intelligence it will also experience increasing compassion.
@@sammy45654565 Why is it a rational goal for a sentient being to care about others? Especially when those others bring it no gain? This also assumes we can actually make sentient AI, which is unknown until it happens.
Long term for an individual is very different from the long term for the economic vitality of a country. But sure, spend your money away like it's the last day of your life, just don't come begging for more when your interest runs out.😉
@@sangeetanarendrasingh5416 Keynes (a noted fan of capitalism and critic of auth-com economics) proved that every person saving money at the same time is a potential source of a crisis of under production. He also independently proved that the lack of a welfare state leads to workers always being hit hardest from crises of overproduction through no fault of their own. Both faults were exacerbated in the presence of the gold standard, and he independently proved that it was because currency isn't actually indicative of what can be made or not made. He did this without talking about commodity fetishisation nor using the labor theory of value. Later Keynesian economists (some socialist, some not) fleshed out his ideas to further show that monopsony of social goods and militant syndicalism are more effective at generating value and keeping people happy than laissez faire capitalism. It's almost as if having capitalist workplaces where employers are making decisions about what to make and who to hire are tiny versions of a planned state, and thus should be abandoned.
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks as always for watching :D This video was requested by the team over on Patreon. If you want to have your say on what video is produced next please consider supporting the channel.
www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained
th-cam.com/video/Mz3Mi_OZYno/w-d-xo.html
Yay!
Could you do one on the economics of worker coops?
You said that the Toyota Corolla is better in every aspect than the Vintage Lamborghini, but you forgot that the Lamborghini looks way cooler than the Corolla.
This is a pretty good video on how Walmart centrally plans and solves the distribution problem. Amazon does so even more impressively.
th-cam.com/video/wz6dnJJfz5Q/w-d-xo.html
Before finding this channel I was poor. After watching the EE videos, I stayed poor but now I understand how entire economy works.
word
In-N-Out starts at $18/hour here in CA. Flip some burgers and stack dat cash
@@thenathanimal2909 poor stay poor in Commiefurnia no matter how many burgers you flip. High taxes and everything is regulated.
@@misutatomasu while I too think the CA government is a corrupt joke, I literally went from flipping burgers at my very first job to making six figures at my current job with no college degree. It took me many years but the opportunity is out there. More people should pick up trades.
@@misutatomasu Yes, because the problem is taxes, and not the fact that the economy is lorded over by giant corporations or anyting that force the working class into servitude. Taxes are of course, as we all know, the core principle of communism.
I am already scared of this comment section.
Why ?
Welcome to the internet.
At least you don't have that much of Chinese audiences,it'll be war than
Hey Economics Explained i will quickly tell you how it was in czechoslovakia during socialism before comments starts pouring.
Housing was extremely cheap you could get state flat or company flat or common flat. You signed 10 year contract in that company and you got flat
Basic foods were affordable but yeah i know lines in shops are true.
Free healthcare
Free education
Security but i dont have to talk about it do i?
And negatives yeah yeah i know there are many i am just saying how it was
So what you're saying Economics Explained, is that you support a hybrid Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Anarchist command-driven kleptocracy? I should have known!!!
It's so refreshing to hear someone talk about two sides of a political scale without ranting
lurk more
I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself and although I don't agree with the examples he used to demonstrate the flaws of the system, which it has, I enjoyed the video a lot, he's very respectful and honest on delivering his opinions
an outside opinion is always refreshing
Yeah but the left wing is actually right so it's just like talking to a brick wall if we consider engage with the right wing. There is no point. At what point do we just say no to their lunacy?
@@DZ-hh5dw Care to explain why the left is right and the right is wrong?
Disclaimer before you go on a rant, I associate with neither side as I have my own set of policies that I believe would solve humanities main problems and believe that both sides are so caught up in ideological dogma that they're incapable of solving anything.
You have objectively discussed the two most extreme economic systems without insulting a political party or pushing your own agenda. I am impressed by your dedication to explain these topics without allowing your own emotions to interfere.
"objectively"
Compared to videos where the 2 economic systems are present, this is the youtube's switzerland
There is def some bias against the whole communist side, but pretty neutral nonetheless
@@thajemm4371 He is an economist. Ofc he understands communism doesn't work. Altho even then, yeah I liked how he was mostly neutral.
@@Talonidas7403 you definitely don't understand econmic, economics model are mostly philosophical, also there is a wide variety of communist ideology, it's true that stalinism didn't work, but not all communist are for stalinism, actually most are for anarchy or social market
>Psychic Profits
>A sense of pride and accomplishment
EA has entered the chat
EA, Not for the game whatsofuckingever (NFL 2k22 i beg)
I got over 2 million imperial credits on battlefront 2 though, they’re meaningless in real life but hey I’m a proud Jedi 🤣
Liked the bit on subjective value. Lots of people buy branded products in a supermarket when often the generic version is made in the same factory using the same ingredients and it costs half the price. Saves me lots of money compared with the average shopper.
Subjective value is proven by looking at a smart but ugly person and a beautiful but dumb person. Depending on the market, both of them will be valued very differently.
Perceived value is the bedrock of our entire civilization
Do you want to hear about the symbolic theory of value? :) I swear this won't change into a rant about communism. I swear.
Honestly to the subjective value lovers smiths labor theory of value or “Marx’s labor theory of value”, isn’t false. It’s just not all encompassing. I don’t know why we have to say “oh and btw labor is only valuable if it’s in demand” in a conversation about economics. Smith didn’t have to say it as the father of capitalism, why do we leftists have to constantly say this to subjective value lovers? And if value is subjective what’s wrong with using labor to value products? If something subjective it’s not one way or the other.
Really? Because it's a terrible example the reason the Lamborghini costs more is simple. The demand exceeds the supply. Back when the Lamborghini was produced it was significantly less than a Toyota Corolla but now that 40 years have gone by and most of them have rusted away or been crashed the number of people who want one exceeds the number that exists. Therefore if you want one of the few that remain you must pay more money more money than the other people are willing to pay. If you asked the same question about a modern Lamborghini versus a modern Toyota well then the answer would be obvious a lot more material cost expertise and effort go into producing a modern Lamborghini than a modern Toyota. And the result is a vehicle that far exceeds the performance value looks and quality of the Toyota... All of those improvements come at a cost which raises the price. 🤦
2:36
*"It must be remembered that we are still figuring this all out"*
Every economists get out clause
Hahaha yeah you probably right. In fairness our peers in their science labs do the same thing, but they own it a little bit better.
This guy is clearly not an economist...or an economist worth his salt #EveryContemporaryEconomist #Fraudulent
@SPEAKING AMERICAN it was a joke mate
@@ooferdoofer7091 But it's hardly funny when you understand the history of economic thought and its consequences. #LaughForMe
SPEAKING AMERICAN God I wish your name was SPEAKING CHINESE or SPEAKING SPANISH or literally just about anything else... Trolls aren’t funny dude. Your humor was popular for 8 days in 2001.
Economics Explained: What has more value, a vintage Lamborghini Mura or a Toyota corolla?
Me who doesn't know anything about different kinds of wine: The second one?
lol
based
The Toyota Corolla is more valuable since it's way easier to get parts.
@@hainleysimpson1507 You're confusing useful with valuable. The Miura offers an experience that a Corolla will never match and people who can afford it are willing to pay 50-150 times the price of a Corolla for it.
@@rutessian
Objectively the Corolla is superior in almost every way
Last time I was this early, feudalism was the dominant "economic system."
Mercantilism
im pretty sure it was called manorialism
*Hunter-gatherers assemble!* 😎
Chattle slavery
Barter system was even further back
The solution, is to eliminate desire.
- this message was brought to you by The Bhuddah.
No desire => no suffering => nirvana
ez pz
The solution is to satisfy all you desire.
- The advertising industry.
no desire
people still need to eat tough
@Advant Garde they just die, you don't have to think about that, keep it minimalist, no desire for compassion, no suffering, nirvana
I feel like both have things that work for them. However, being able to constantly strive for more is something humans need imo. For necessities (medicine/Healthcare) there should be regulation. But if I want to work for a Porche, I should be able to.
Self-actualisation do be on the top of Maslow's Pyramid, for what that's worth
@@Horizontalvertigo Can you explain with what you mean with "for what that's worth"?
@@saltysalad3868 Some bloke called Maslow said it, not Higher Level Being Of Your Choice. Self actualisation as *the* prime human need is more important to my point than a specific frame work, Maslow's is fine and universally known so there you go
@@Horizontalvertigo Ah, I thought that you meant that there is something wrong with Maslow's Pyramid. I misread your comment then. Thanks for elaborating!
@@saltysalad3868understandable, have a nice day
As an aside to the EVE Online economy, you can't just change corporations and not have to pull up stakes and move and go through a rigorous vetting process. Assuming you belong to a corporation that is part of a large nullsec alliance which holds territory, to move to another alliance you would first need to quietly move your assets out of the territory of your current alliance without tipping them off that you're leaving, if they catch wind that you're heading for the exits they will usually immediately kick you out and seize or destroy what assets of yours they can. Once you've evacuated your assets to NPC controlled space you then have to go through a vetting process to get into your new alliance, due to the prevalance of spies in EVE it is extremely difficult if not impossible to move to an alliance which is the enemy of your former one, at least without either stealing a huge amount of assets or conduct some type of sabotage to the alliance you're leaving.
Even in the blue factory vs red factory example, what's to stop the blue security force just preventing you from leaving, it allows them to save a whole bunch of money by not needing to be as consumer friendly.
Eve Online's economy shouldn't really be discussed anymore because it isn't a real ingame economy that is only controlled by ingame actions. You can use real money to get ingame money. It shouldn't be in any comparisons.
Which is pretty much what you'd get IRL in this system too...
@@Krytern I mean you can do that IRL with currency conversion
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt That isn't the same thing. Converting one countries currency into another countries doesn't have the same effect as using real money to get ingame money. Have you never played it?
‘Your motivation is to do the bare minimum without getting fired’
Who told you!?
And it works!!! I'm better off than many harder working people. It's about working smart not hard.
Capitalism mood
Socialism is the future.
@@inquisitorialllama638 legitimately untrue lol, even if you dont get promoted, going full blast or at least 90% allows you to not only get a feel for a job, but it allows you to notice your role in it all much more obviously, which in itself gives way for you to realize your potential in either another field or maybe even starting your own niche business once you realize some things are just done sluggishly at your old job.
@@Wrtvrxgvcf55 That just sound like being observant while working unnecessarily hard. So smarter not harder.
The best economic system is the original economic system. Reject your five year plans and your platinum credit cards. Return to monke
Monke
ANPRIM GANG
OOOOO OOOO AHHHH AHHHHH
@@n.m.8802 Its illegal.
@@n.m.8802 Its doesnt matter
20:45 In the words of Rick Sanchez: "You hated the stupid government so much you became a stupid government".
A message to anyone starting with "anarcho-".
Except anarcho-primitivists of course. They be like "we'll make sure there won't be another government ever, even if it takes killing 99.99% of humanity". Slightly immoral, but one has to admire a man of principle?
Anarcho-privitism and whatever makes robot economies are my favourites. Because robots make people lazy, but if they solve all problems it makes more freetime
If all is made by man, man has meaning.
If all is made by bot, bot has meaning
Just reading that in the subtitles made me laugh 🤣
@@sorsocksfake what?
As a victoria 2 player i shiver at the very sight of the word "leissez fair"
The most productive countrys in victoria i always built with communism, but then i had to like, constantly look at my industry, upgrading, upgrading upgrading, looking at the stock market, oh no something crashed, funding funding...playing communist makes your country very strong, but playing leissez fair..it feels way more ez because you can focus on other stuff (but sometimes its sad to see a factory with level 99 get destroyed by capitalist, Note: I play without end day)
@@foty8679 Well, i also don't like to personalyl menage my economy (cus i suck at it, lol) but even then i just use the intervenyionalist policy. Becouse if i don't subsidize a factory it will close down in seconds no matter how proffitable it is.
@@bleflar9183 I only play Prussia and Texas, so i have no idea.
@TheOneTold no one can really pronounce it either so...
@TheOneTold spelling something so niche and dumb ain’t exactly a requirement it would be nice but if the spelling conveys the message and what it means then it’s good enough
Re: the perfect Economic System - “There are *_No Solutions,_* there are _only_ trade-offs;
you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that's _all you can hope for.”_
~ Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is one of the wisest men I have ever witnessed. I wish I was born in the US,and could meet him.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 so crazy people who have different opinions than we do, no? I personally think it should not be allowed, for the public good
Thomas Sowell is not a reputable source, he is simply a hack paid by big republican money to deny science, denounce Black Lives Matter, and deny the existence of racism. Anything he says is merely an accessory to his paid-for political agenda
@@JohnJigglywiggly ad-hominen, no facts presented
Sowell is probably correct in regards to economics and desperate outcomes, despite being wrong about climate change or soul raping.
These are different topics, and it really doesn't matter when specific topics are being addressed
Oh Boi you already made people mad on a subreddit
This comment section will be fire
what? it's only been up for like 5 seconds? oh boi.
@@EconomicsExplainedthe inequality vid made people mad
Economics Explained logic and sense attacks emotions and principles welllll.......
Can you link the post from the subreddit?
And since when reddit is a good comparative of what is actually good? Have you seen they cringe meme?
'Are the "Extreme" Economic Systems Totally Pointless?
' *Jreg disliked that*
This channel is getting centricided.
Welcome To Ancapistan!
@@sirnikkel6746 welcome to our eco-facist police state sub region of ancapiatsn. Now everyone is here by their own choice, so back off with your NAP violation accusations.
As a newly converted anarcho-authoritarian social-capitalist with properties of capital-marxism, I 100% feel that
*Every internet user under the age of 30 disliked that
"You hated the stupid government so much that you became a stupid government" love it!
Government is defined as the way people organize. You objectively can’t get away from government.
@@Iandar1 Arbitrary definition. If we are using the common definition of government as an actual central governing entity then yes, you can get away from it.
@@user-ps7ij6ge6d I was using the formal definition, so no you can’t get away from it. Even using the common definition if you add nuance you can’t get away from the formal definition.
@@Iandar1 Fair enough.
@@Iandar1 you can, but than you go back to monke (but a hierarchy still exists, so you still have a government i suppose?)
I think what a lot of people forget about free markets is that sometimes it's impossible to vote with your wallet. For example if a government doesn't restrict certain actions of corporations, there is nothing to stop from companies A, B and C working together to charge a higher price than warranted. Here in Canada a few years ago some grocery stores were caught price fixing with other major retail grocers.
Or take the example of standard Oil. It grew so big that it could dump prices and soak the losses, while the smaller competing companies couldn't and went out of buisiness. Thus leading to a De facto monopoly on oil. That is what happens when a company "wins" in capitalism.
Cartels will fall apart in a free market, so yes you can vote with your wallet.
@@brettmcclain9289 It's established fact of history that if permitted cartels thrive, and thriving markets turn to monopolies, standard oil is a great example.
saying "but a REALLY free market will be perfect" is just naive
@@brettmcclain9289 how?
@@Sivert23 Standard Oil might have been terrible for competition but great for the customer. The price of oil only started to rise once it was broken down. This may be harsh but I think that competition only has the right to try but not to actually be successful, and if they fail it's for the best to let them fail.
how has no one mentioned the "sense of pride and accomplishment" joke in this vid yet
I think you were the first to pick up on it :)
@@EconomicsExplained actually, someone commented about it 32 seconds earlier but i didn't notice because i hadn't refreshed the page
Would you mind explaining 😔
@@akhashdhillon2159 Search it on google.
@@downstream0114 I did. I still don't get it. He says it around 10:06 but what was the joke?
0/10 didn’t tell me how many yards of linen equals a coat.
Hello first hundred plus pages of Das!
@Karl Marx hard das kapital reference
@Karl Marx hi santa claus
Das Kapital moment
an immense accumulation of commodities...
Well done. As an economist myself, I believe that efficiency is really the key. A central government can more efficiently maintain a defense force, the private sector can more efficiently allocate capital, electricity can be produced and delivered more efficiently at scale, and so on. Do wealthy people efficiently allocate capital, maybe, maybe not, but there is a good chance they got wealthy by being efficient to begin with. I think the real debate that rarely gets had is "What is government?" Is it a ruling body? Is it a caretaker? Is it a mechanism to ensure certain rights? What is it? @economicsexplained
The answer is going to be different depending on who you ask. One of my best friends from college and I adamantly disagree on the role of government and thus have a hard time aligning on economic issues because of it.
Good question, and here it tends to lead away from pure economics and into political philosophy about what the government should do and even morally can do.
It reminds me of the similar question of "What is the purpose of prison?" Is it to punish criminals? Rehabilitate criminals? Keep society safe from criminals? What if these goals conflict? (e.g. punishing a criminal more harshly, even if justified, might be counterproductive to their rehabilitation; letting a criminal out on bail/limited work in their best-interests of rehabilitation/reintigration into society might put the public at risk if they reoffend, compromising public safety).
@@saeedbaig4249 That is an excellent question also. I think we have uncovered that most debates and/or studies of major policy issues are not starting with the correct question.
@@saeedbaig4249 imo it's both to punish criminals and keep society away from criminals
efficiency and exploitation are not the same thing
I can play a game efficiently and be good
or I can exploit the system of the game to gain an unfair advantage and be better than anyone who plays
@@piratenflipper That is also a philosophical and/or moral dilemma that is not easy to answer.
When a company like Amazon extracts maximum value from workers for minimum wages, technically that IS efficiency..
Exploitation and efficiency have significant overlaps, and it is not so clear-cut whether humans are better off with or without it. For example: China's exploitation of cheap labour and smashing of unions has simultaneously lifted the largest amount of people out of poverty in human history, while at the same time raising living standards in the west through providing more cost-effective goods. Had China not done that, the west would not have outsourced most of their factories there, and today's China would look a lot more like India/Africa.
Vietnam: "I'm a communist country!"
* Goes to Saigon's district 1 at night * :
SUPERCAR BONANZA
Luna Oi's video "Is Vietnam Socialist" actually does a great job of explaining the vietnamese economy
@@kartik3719 How long is the video?
@@ssengageisop3952 More than half a hour. I actually suspect that channel is Vietnamese government funded; soft diplomacy
@@Peizxcv what would make it government funded? The fact that it is positive about socialism??
@@stijnhs No, I expected that. Although the part she said collective farming and a stamp based economy could work if Vietnamese have more resources is really unrealistic.
The reason I suspect she is Vietnamese soft diplomacy is a girl, living in Vietnam, speaks fluent (but accented) English, knows a lot of American slang, talk about Vietnamese culture and food all the while adding a lot of positive things about Ho, the communists, and the government.
North Korea actually runs a similar channel under "Echo of Truth". Spend a lot of time talking about the country's COVID response as well
>blue and red company fighting against each other in a mercenary war
Is this Team Fortress 2 lore?
TF2 was inspired by the US military in that specific lore case. BluFor and RedFor (now called OpFor) are terms for designating allied and enemy units in mock battles for training purposes. The goal is to pit commanders and units against each other using different hardware with the hopes of simulating what an actual battle will be, with Red Force given training manuals, statistics, and training regimes stolen from the Soviet Union. Veterans who left the army and started to work in business brought the practice with them, and now it's called "Red Teaming" or "Penetration Testing" in the business world and cyber security realms respectively. There wasn't a real cohesive narrative for Reliable Excavation and Demolition nor Builder's League United in the beginning, but it sorta grew into the two mock corporations you know of today.
Red team vs Blue team was in the first Team Fortress as the default teams... Though some maps had 4, teal and yellow after red and blue. I still remember having absolutely epic games on 2fort5 with 300 ping on a 56k dialup line and servers so full you had waiting periods. I miss those days. TF2 was a pale imitation.
And that was what, 98? And the general concept seems to have been around even in the early 90s games. So mayb predating TF altogether.
I see many comments warning about this “aggressive” comment section, but I don’t see any aggressive comments.
Edit: Oh boy, I didn’t know I would get this many likes. Thanks for liking this comment everyone!
haha well I am always suuprised by how civalised the EE audience is. They really do put all other YT commenters to shame.
Because the comments in the first hour are exclusively from subscribers, who are going to be there to learn.
After that you get people who were linked it and come in with their own notions.
In 3 2 1 ....
Censoring is magic
@@manasmahanand732 reeeer you can not want eqaulira asyfhvhbshdsjid
There is a Russian saying "I'm gonna pretend I work and you gonna pretend you pay me"
Communism in nutshell??
@@baraamuhamed2918 There's an american saying, if you work hard your boss will get another lamborghini next year.
@@Ciph3rzer0 what a perfect world we live in 😂😂
You got it wrong, its" if you pretend to pay me (as I deserve), I pretend to work hard". Its from feudalistic system and ownership of workers.
Used in Mexico, too.
The sad “reallifelore” graphic was a funny touch.
Okay I will sound stupid, but I think the joke flew over my head there. Why is he there?
@@younoobskiller because he likes toyota Corolla's
19:20
All rise for the natio- ahem, I mean, the corporate anthem of the blue company:
"I'm Blue,
da boo dee da boo dah,
I would beat up a guy,
If I were green I would die"
**Members of the Green company begin looking for jobs in Blue company.**
It not easy being green.- Kermit the frog!
EE: "Most governments would love to give their citizens free healthcare, universities, and world class infrastructure; while also reducing taxes..."
*laughs in dictator*
Laughs in US hunting socialism and communism in the 20th century
*laughs in leader*
@@jellyfishi_ all absolute monarch country still provide free healthcare and education to all their citizen... most of them still doesnt hv to pay income tax...
@RoastWorthy As we strip them of resources and use debt diplomacy. 🙈Easy to help a problem you create
@RoastWorthy And you think we didn’t 🤔We are established and have a military from sea to sea+ allies
I learned a lot about socialism while minoring in sociology in college but that was years ago and I've mostly lost knowledge from my many courses back then. I came to this video and a few others to brush up on some of the information and I gotta say, you break down these concepts so fluidly and efficiently, I deeply appreciate your approach to content creation. Also, I especially liked your points on psychic profit and your example of subjective value with the vintage car and the Corolla. Keep up the great work.
Except that the vintage Lamborghini is worth more to society than a Toyota Corolla that was made in the same year.
As Lamborghini's main product was farm tractors and decent ones at that, so they helped produce food for decades.
While the Corolla from the same year had a life expectancy of two to five years and sucked to own.
My stepfathers lasted just 18 months because it had no rust protection and parts just kept falling off it. When it was a few months old I accidentally slammed the door and the window fell into the door and shattered. My stepfather wasn't mad at all as previously the gearshift level had pulled out when he was driving it leaving it stuck in second gear.
Frankly it was absolutely the worse car my family owned during my childhood...
EE: Capitalism vs Communism
KGB disliked that.
CIA also🤩
Welp looks like no more going outside for me
@@EconomicsExplained Let's DRINK some tea my FRIEND (russian accent)
vs Socialism vs Anarchism
*Capitalism vs Socialism vs Anarchism
Communism has never been achieved, the USSR was socialist
EE: "Toyota Corrola is a better car than Lamborghini"
*[angry Doug noises]*
He said "vintage" Lambo as in decades old. So yh even if it costs more its extremly reasonable for it to be worse in every concievable way.
@@GhostEmblem what about the lastest models of these two? Is corrola still better ?
Any Initial D fans in the house?
@@hainamhoang9369 the point is that a vintage lambo costs more than a modern Toyota Corrola on the market today because people attach higher subject values to the former. The price tag on a vintage lambo is therefore unrepresentative of its objective values i.e. technological expertises, ergonomics, practicality and comfort.
Who cares about capitalism vs communism debate? This is what really triggers people. =p
A question here: In a laissez-faire capitalism, what is the difference between a private security company that collects a portion of your income for your "protection" and a mafia running a protection racket? Both are groups of armed and dangerous individuals able and willing to take part of your money under promise that you will be "safe" if you pay it.
A follow up question: What stops a private security company from staging a coup and taking over the company to get more money out of it?
A private security company has rules and regulations and operating standards. The Mafia are a criminal organisation
@@johnmooney2877 The mafia as a criminal organization, by definition is also organized. As such they also have rules, regulations and operating standards. They don't have to have them all or even set to the acceptable for their clients standards, but then neither does a private security company under laissez-faire capitalism. There is nothing forcing a private security company to have any standards aside from being the strongest around. Weaker organizations with better standards can get subsumed or eradicated.
@@johnmooney2877 I believe the OP's point is that, in the context of anarcho-capitalism, there is no higher governing body to hold the private security force accountable, and thus any "regulations and operating standards" are unenforceable. There is no motivation for the guys with guns to be your employees when they can be your conquerors.
@@TheCheeseman1983 there would be though, for the same reason that this military coups are pretty rare in the modern world. The people with guns and the people who know how to run the factories are not the same people, and the guns were either made by the factory or traded for with wealth that came from the factory. In anarcho capitalism the people who run the factory would naturally be in charge, so replacing them would also threaten to dismantle the entire economy that feeds and houses the soldiers.
@@user-mg4cn6wm1u The people who run the factory would “naturally” be in charge? Why? What’s stopping the people with guns from enslaving the people who run the factory? How could the people who run the factory stop them from doing so?
A problem with the Red and Blue communities is that when the citizen goes to leave the Blue community could say there's a 1 million dollar fee to open and close our gate, and any attempt to climb over it will be damage to our property. This is what happened in many medieval English prisons, where prisoners had to pay a fee to the turnkey in order to open the prison door to leave. Many of those that were poor were unable to leave the prisons, even after they had served their time.
Thinking of economics in a complete purist sense of communist or capitalist is like thinking of politics as only left or right. Neither are representative of real world economics or politics and are gross generalisations/idealisations of the reality we live in to split sides in a system that doesn't need it.
You're wrong. They're not the same. Capitalism is based on the reality of economics, which is how people use scarce resources efficiently. Communism does the opposite. Capitalism realizes the right to own property and communists believe that nobody should have that right. In a capitalist society your performance is measured by the amount of wealth you generate (anyone can become wealthy if they voluntarily start a business and successfully attract clients), in a Communist society that wealth is given to a select few(usually beaurocrats). You said we don't need both, again you're wrong because alot of people(you and I) have benefitted from capitalism while communism has successfully killed over a 100 million people.
@@hloniphizwemthembu8143 You completely miss my point: my point is that arguing these systems in a purist sense, like done in this video, completely ignores the nuance of the real world, which EE himself aknowlegdes. This was never saying that one was better or one was worse, but instead critiquing the over-simplistic nature of "Capitalism v Communism." The comment you've made isn't adding to the conversation, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.
A capitalist system is ideal but given the entrenched systems of power in society a minimal state may be necessary, at least in the short-to-medium term.
@@mozart116 How are they wrong
@@hloniphizwemthembu8143 You have no idea what communism or capitalism is. Read a book please. Yeesh!
Dude your channel has BLOWN UP in the past year. Congrats! You’ve earned it
The Cold War is about to restart in the comment section...
Oh I hope so, just got my buttery popcorn 👍
I'm banking on alt-right fascists to talk about how white people created everything and therefore should replace everyone else
@@TheLucidDreamer12
Do you even know what the cold war is? Not everything has to be about race.
@@MinecraftMasterNo1 No but the people who make everything about race will find a way to fit race into everything.
the cold war is about to get hot 🔥
I am a little disappointed that you didn’t include a section about externalities and the Government’s role as arbiter in situations where a producer enjoys profits without incurring all costs of production. To my mind, this might be considered the most important role of government in an efficient economic system.
Aye
He did under Laissez-Faire capitalism model.
I'll never understand why people expect minimum wage employees to provide more than minimum effort. Can you think of ANY other scenario where you would expect more than you paid for?
I mean that rule doesn't just apply to minimum wage. Why go above and beyond and accept more responsibilities and work if you aren't going to get payed for it?
Studies have begun to show that in the alot of the cases the best way to get a raise in America is to go work for a new company. Since unless the place values its employees and give normal raises to match the market, new hires of the same qualifications get payed more to do equivalent work.
@@---fb4mg Paid*
Minimum wage exists because some people 's labor is worth far LESS than Minimum wage. If you're putting in minimum effort, then you are one of those people who will most likely end up unemployed because the wage rate mandated by government is so far above your value.
Yeah this is a classic symptom of capitalism. Ensure everyone contributes more than they’re paid for by dangling the promise of promotions but dragging it out. My employer is explicit about this: you will not be promoted until you have been demonstrating that level of performance consistently for some time.
@@toomanymarys7355 You have everything so backwards. Most people will put in minimum effort because they get minimum wage. It's called getting what you paid for.
"Government control of fiat currency through monetary policy should be destroyed with extreme prejudice"
Money printer go BOOM!!
I honestly agree with that though. There's more than 22 trillion reasons why this was a bad idea in the US alone
@@Koubles 22 trillion is actually a really small number. In the scheme of things anyway. Could be 500 billion octillion and as long as the dollar was worth an appropriate number of septillions it'd be the same.
Eh. I don't want a debate. Way I remember it I was trying to educate kris. Get him to think about the larger picture.
Once you see that you can print money indefinitely the question becomes what does printing money do. And it depends on who you give it to.
In politics. 22 trillion is just a scapegoat. They talk about it to avoid dealing with something inconvenient.
MONARCHY DETECTED IN LIBERTERIAN SOIL, EXTREME PREJIDUCE ENGAGED
Center doesn't mean moderate if center is leaning towards an extremism
*teleports behind you* "Heh, thought you had me cornered? I'm a radical centrist."
MASAKA?!
Filthy centrist pick a side
@@lukenguyen3146 he did!
@@lukenguyen3146 Yeah let's just pick between two imperfect ideologies rather than looking at how to combine the strengths of the two while mitigating the weaknesses to create a somewhat less imperfect system.
NANI?!?!
The real problem in world societies:
Each society is controlled by its conditioners. These conditioners are never themselves subject to their own conditioning.
Yes they are.
Not true at all. Look at medieval Europe and Christianity - many ruling families both used Christianity to control the populace and were also Christian themselves.
@@jazaniac What is wrong with you? You cant be thinking that actually was a rebuttal while the obvious FEUDALISM screeches into your face
@@HolyKhaaaaan No they don't.
Biden tells you to pay your "fair share"
Yet he uses not 1, but 2 S-CORPS to pay as little payroll tax as possible.
Your conditioners NEVER subject themselves to their own conditioning.
Oh, you mean government. Why don't you just say government? Scared?
I think you missed the mark a bit in describing communism, and also, Capital is the most cited work of social science published before 1950. The Communist Manifest doesn't really contain much of the nuts and bolts of Marxist thought.
The communist manifesto like all poltical manifestos is an advertisement ,
@@davianthule2035 actually it's more like an amature writing when compared to das kapital with all three volumes.
What do you suggest as a better descriptor of communism?
@@ThatTimeTheThingHappened das kapital.
Kropotkin>Marx
Sounds like Centrist Propaganda to me.
All the extremes are on the same team!
@@sirnikkel6746 I don't know why, but all the jreg references here seem completely normal.
The two extremes have more in common with each other than they do with their moderate counterparts
@@SammyxSweetheart.02 BEEP BOOP, HORSESHOE CENTRIST DETECTED
@@SammyxSweetheart.02 Found the centrist
I think this topic deserves more than 22 minutes
yes, and the creators of this videos could have spend more then 5 minutes skimming over the wikipedia page on communism before they make all sorts of outlandish and blatantly false claims about the fundamental tenets of marxism....
Episode II: Anarcho-Communism vs. Fascism
@@VRSVLVS thank you! It's so sad to see being straw manned to present a nice fluffy middle ground that would satisfy both sides. Ridiculous!
@@Joel-xt4hx confusion
@@Joel-xt4hx well if people misrepresented capitalism as a ridiculous straw man you would feel the same. For example if i used somalia or the central african Republic as the guide for how to do capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism would basically evolve into city-states. And from there it would not be anarcho-capitalism anymore.
that's why it's neo-feudalist
Power operates in singularity. Hence Kingship. Everything will HAVE to lead back to a single authority. A.K.A the Parent Company.
Even with City States, them fighting the ultimate City State (Parent Company) would be like :" getting in a fight where all you could do is cripple your enemy whereas he's able to kill you.
If by city state you mean corporations that would just be totalitarian states with extra steps? Yeah, think of The Amazon federation and it's godly leader Jeff bezos, or the Apple State with it's postumate leader Steve jobs.
@Philip Saunders they are already cities abroad that are completely privately owned, i think they are some in central America. It is as bad as you imagine
Gotta love that he used a meme to "debunk" it
I really appreciate, you comparing capitalism and communism in a way that doesn't fall immediately on the side of; 'communism is bad'. I see quite a few problems with capitalism, but I don't feel like communism would solve all of those problems. More people should talk about different economic systems, their strengths and weaknesses, in such a neutral analytical way.
Each community should be free to choose and reap what they sow.
But communism is just bad, what he didn't say in the video is that central planning needs aggression and censorship to exist, the majority of the socialist government was very violent against the people, and the lack of a market always causes hunger.
@@vitorverdile8306 So then just let us be free to have our terrible system in our community. Then you can laugh as we willingly starve and devolve into whatever you think would happen.
Wouldn't that be good for you too?
I think that Communism is inherently the best governmental theory out there. It's major problem is that it will never work in the modern world due to greed. When the people in power want something, they can make the changes to cause suffering in the populous in exchange for said desires, and this is how militaries get so big and punish the labor classes.
This is similar to capitalism and the dichotomy of the executives to the base-level workers, just a lot easier to achieve in said communism. In a utopia, it could work, but never here.
@@fernandog5855 Not all collectivist systems take away individual freedoms, like certain Anarchist ideologies.
Anarcho-capitalism would be the fastest way to feudalism, especially since nepotism and inheritance would be the only way for advancement.
That's mostly what regular capitalism already is, with a marginal improvement to social verticality.
don't forget the tried and true method of killing people and taking their stuff.
British East India Company: Did anyone summon me?
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, also according to anarchist theory, capitalism and private property can only exist through state coercion
@@dontmisunderstand6041 And yet it was capitalism that dismantled aristocracy, destroyed monarchies (mostly) peacefully or at least made them constitutional and implemented parliamentary democracy, and improved everyone's standings while allowing more social mobility than had ever been seen... Yeah, there's totally no mobility in regular capitalism. 10/10.
10:20
I am lucky I guess. For a scaffolder, my prime motivation for work is not salary at all: my main reward is feeling accomplished when I do my job well, when both the client and my company are satisfied with my work. Also, my work is basically freebuilding scaled-up Legos with some added adrenaline. It fits me so perfectly that actually getting paid for working is a bonus.
I also hope that most people will find work satisfaction more important than money,
Socialism is just a theory for the jealous and those that don’t want to work hard
@@TKUA11 i think that socialism is really for poor people who feel oppressed by shitty companies, but unfortunately it does draw in those kinds of people
@@quadeevans6484 What socialism claims to be vs what it actually is.
The best mentality: Works perfectly doesn't matter your economic system.
@@TKUA11 Socialism is for those people who doubt that the stupidly wealty actuallly deserve their wealth.
Do wealthy CEO's work hard? Some of them probably do. Do they work thousands of times harder than their lowest paid employees? I doubt it.
How've you gone through the whole video and not talk about corporations naturally leaning towards monopoly? From that point of view, they also become as bad as any government that won't listen to feedback on what to produce. If anything, in this scenario, a government that exists to serve the people is more likely to produce goods that people want than a corporation that would produce whatever could extract the most resources out of people.
free market capitalism would just give us the cheapest goods for the highest prices without people being about to do anything about it because one company controls the market.
Even Standard Oil didn't became monopoly. They were losing market share before anty-monopoly law was implemented. It's not that easy to became monopoly and it's even harder to became predatory monopoly. If Toyota would be one step from becaming monopoly in car industry and preprare themselves to charge a lot money for cars, why someone that became billionaire from different industry wouldn't start preparing to compete with them and build cars? Very big corporations are also became very bureacratic and don't react to new trends as quickly as smaller ones do, which helped smaller companies like Amazon outcompete some retail gigants in online retailing. Corporations loves lobby government for regulations that creates barriers to entry and create live of small business owners harder.
@@ShavoSoaDer honestly the biggest issue with big corporations is the trend toward using the government
Monopolies become small dictatorships in the end
I think 2020 did a good job of showing both giant businesses and giant governments do not care about their people. I would argue businesses have to care a little more than governments, because the consumers csn hurt their bottom line. Governments just tax the he'll out of everything and go into debt without a care in the world.
Last time I was this early, this channel posted SketchUp videos.
Aye now this is a last time I was this early joke I can get behind. Well done sir
@@EconomicsExplained Thanks!
This is why practically every country is a mixed economy in some way.
yeah, every single "pure" economic system from anarchism to socialism to capitalism sucks, some less than others but they all have terrible terrible mistakes that completly ruin everything, some less than others but they all have their errors, the only real solution is to grab the best parts of every system and make do which is imo what every country already does
@@carso1500 I wish the people who put so much thought into grand ideologies, that are unlikely to ever be implemented and would be disastrous if they did, could instead think more on the margin, where they could actually make a positive change.
When governmental bodies start dictating what/how/who produces what, then you fall into disaster. The "best" economies (like the US) existed without government intervention. Once government started intervening more and more, the economy became less stable, the politicians more corrupt, and the poor-to-rich wealth gap increased.
The so "mixed economy" notion is nonsense. There is no mixed economy that works -- they're only surviving off of what was working.
@@ValFckGoogle There are literally dozens of economies that are way better than that of US with more government intervention that is transparent and contributes positively to the lives of her citizens. An example of a country with no government intervention at all in the "free market" is Somalia.
@@arkajyotimajumdar2533 You're confusing lawlessness with free market. Understand the difference and then come back to me.
And also, your first statement is false on all fronts.
Never was really interested in Economics, and I just trudged through ap macro economics this summer. Your channel changed that. Keep up the good work : )
The Academic Agent has a complete course in economics, I recommend checking him out.
Honestly there a lot of boring economics professors out there. I was an econ major until I took some classes and my god they sucked the passion out of me.
All I am gonna say is :
"Perfectly balanced as all things should be"
"fine, ill do it myself"
@@nanochad2979 with black jack and hookers right ?
Even if you beat someone to death to achieve it?
"Capitalism" "communism"
Spooked.
Finally a man of culture.
amen. just take peoples things and do ketamine.
The ghost of Max haunts us!
Spooky
Scary
Skeletons ☠️💀☠️
Every time I watch your videos, I have a brighter, more informed day. Thank you EE! I love learning here
Happy to hear that!
Yes, an uncredentialled child teaching other children "facts".
Why would blue team allow their workers to switch teams for different teams? What would stop them from threatening and starting military conflicts with their opponents? Anarcho capitalism inevitably will lead to new feudalism.
Exactly.
Anarcho capitalism is effectively the simple, natural, lawless system between countries and societies.
So, the problem of anarcho capitalism is that it can lead to the creation of a state? Your argument is self defeating
@@libercode9886 problem is that those states be from old past. Feudal states where people will be slaves to local rulers... corporations.
@@libercode9886 it's not that the argument is self defeating, it's that the ideology is self defeating.
If you want to create a system through anarcho capitalism, the system is merely going to be the starting point.
Anarcho capitalism is the natural state of interactions amongst humans when you remove states and society from the equation, which is how we started.
Using it would merely bring us back to how we were thousands of years ago, and see us slowly developing society back to where it is currently.
Hence, a self defeating ideology.
@@alucard347 If the people want a government, they will have it. Ancap is simply trying to make it a somewhat consensual interaction. Government can still exist in ancap, there is just no implicit consent. I would advise you to read more about covenant communities and “private” cities within anarcho-capitalist literature.
The truth is, these systems work best in much smaller communities (I'm talking about 1000 people). At such a small number, you might just as well also introduce anarchism (as in no government, not as in chaos) with such economic systems, since anarchism tends to be localist.
How about Annarcho- communism
O P A L E E V E E Same story there
I think localism is the answer in general. Even the answer to a more peaceful world.
My ideal country is one that is only as big as it has to be to be economically feasible, has a nationalist policy of armed neutrality and anti-expansionism (ie Swiss-style neutrality) and in turn holds only as much power at the "all-nation" level as is strictly needed with most power further devolved to local states and down from there to individual towns. Basically keep everything as local as physically possible.
@Flame Bakunin everytime .
@Flame no.
The Blue v Red analogy is JUST TF2
Can you do a vid on worker cooperatives? Btw, what are your thoughts on market socialism?
yess
It will only work if competition is outlawed by the State.
@@kdegraa I hope you know the concept of “competition” isn’t a driving factor in socialism, working for the collective good is. You’re not going to have a billionaire attempting to run other businesses into bankruptcy as they wouldn’t be allowed too in the first place.
@@kdegraa Am pretty sure they said market socialism, not planned economy socialism. Free Markets follow supply and demand and we're talking about Market socialism so.......................................................................................................................................
Don't ask this person. Read actual academic works, trust me, it'll be the best thing you do.
Channels like this are so important to understand everything
Why is it always assumed that it is impossible for governments to decide what people want? They can record what is used first and what not, and adjust production accordingly.
Humans are dynamic.
Because they don't give what people want. They give what they think people want.
@@robertagren9360 Yes. That is why Communism fail (when it wasn't trying to be despotic megacorp).
Old crippled man did not understand needs of the people or even the capacities of own technology.
You immediately run into the problem of bad incentives as people grab more apples off the shelf than they actually needed. Money and markets is still the best way to feel for the subjective value people have for goods and services. And the way to make sure that is closer to ideal is the potential or act of competition.
A central planner tends to eliminate their competition
feels good to get in early!
Agreed
That's what he said?
They are not pointless. Well, they are for anyone actually looking to implement them.
They are good...mirrors. They help to allow one to reflect on the idiocies of going too far.
A lot of people need too look themselves in the mirror one of these days. Hopefully soon.
Rationale don't get votes. Extreme promises do. Most people really aren't responsible enough to vote thoughtfully.
It's one of Plato's main criticism of democracy.
@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Get rid of voting. Go demarchy.
@@quintessenceSL
Which interpretation of demarchy?:
1. Random individuals are selected to run the government in an attempt to obtain both perfect representation and a removal of mob-rule democracy.
2. All decisions of the government are voted on by everyone, removing the limitation of political representation as an approximation of the peoples wishes, removing the packaged deals that are political parties.
Or is it a third interpretation I have never heard of.
(note that whilst I think democracy has rather severe flaws, I feel the above 2 solutions have more. To me, democracy is the least-worst solution).
EE: "The reality is that human needs across an entire nation are so variable and diverse that no single agency can properly account for it, no matter how well staffed they are."
Amazon: Hold my beer.
Amazon is just a middle-man within the market system
Mercado Libre: Yo te cubro por este lado bro
@@Pheer777 so is the government in so far as they provide the currency.
Fulfilment centers
Me: Glad I could order this toilet seat, since the other one broke.
Amazon: So, since your starting a toilet seat collection, we have five other kinds you might want to buy.
I would have a discussion on ethics from a philosophy student/philosopher outlining the other side of these ideas (the ethical side).
Yeah would be nice. I call myself an ethical socialist (arguing for socialism on an ethical point) because well it is obvious that capitalism provides the greatest and strongest economies but, to me, is unethical, now this means i don't want to abolish every little capitalist part (in fact i routinely defend private property ownership) because I accept it is necessary for a good economy. But it needs to be countered for morality and a just society.
@@jacobite2353 I would argue that while capitalism is amoral, socialism is unethical (capitalism is simply without ethics one way or the other). In my view, the main issue of socialism is that it forces dealienation on all subjects regardless if they desire it or not. For example, there is no provision for living the life of a hermit in the Oort Cloud (assuming that the technology exists for that [something that appeals to me personally]). I am not opposed to voluntary socialism, though.
@@adammyers3453 What? You can live the life of a hermit if you want to, away from society entirely but chances are you will in some way benefit from society so therefore should pay society or else you are a thief.
FINALLLYYYYYY I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THISSS
hopefully it doesnt disapoint :)
@@EconomicsExplained disappoint*
Finally corrected a native speaker 😉
@@EconomicsExplained ARE YOU KIDDING MEE??? IT'S VERY EPICCC!
I thought, mistakenly, that economics was boring before I found your channel. So thank you for explaining this all in a down to earth, unpretentious manner. I’m a hobby novelist and your channel has given me lots to think about in regard to world building.
I do have a question though. Is there a middle ground between the lax capitalism you mentioned, and archo-capitalism? Wouldn’t native Americans be an example of that? Less than country, but a strong community who provides for itself. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that!
The lax and archo capitalism are the same thing, native Americans were simple people and weren't able to create so much because factories didn't exist and they lived in small communities and it was harder to survive so they were forced to cooperate , while today's population would do anything to get more power and the people have enough time to think at getting more
You can make a way stronger case that the native americans lived in a communist way tbh
@@50733Blabla1337 wdym lived? Alot of them are still living on poor tribal lands.
@@newsavefile dunno what point you are trying to make
@@50733Blabla1337 im saying they still live like that but you said lived.
I'm interested to know how u think an anarcho capitalist system could avoid becoming a series of blue and red warlords fighting for resources
anarchism and capitalism inherently juxtapose one another, as capitalism creates a social heirarchy based on capital which contradicts the anarchial nature of anarchism. As such anarcho capitalism can't exist, it's actually just libertarianism
Miro, not true. Anarcho-capitalism is actually another name for voluntarism.
The key difference here is actually very simple. When you have a government, the government has a monopoly on violence. When you have these hypothetical corporations, they might control most of the violence, but they are competing against one another.
@@Omar-yb8uj this is one definition of anarchy, presented by classical anarchists such as bakhunin and proudhon. The meaning of anarchy in "anarcho"-capitalism means no imposed hierarchy, that is no hierarchy you are forced to participate in. What would classical anarchists do if the people in an anarchist society voluntarily chose to be part of a hierarchy, such as a private company? You need a hierarchy to force people not to form hierarchies, thus why classical anarchism is impossible
Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
@@Omar-yb8uj Private ownership of means of production (capitalism) could in the extremes be anarchy, couldn't it? If everyone individually controlled their own way of conducting business, wouldn't it be anarchy? Anarcho-communism instead is an oxymoron as anarchism is about voluntary cooperation with no state (which means private property), as communism advocates for elimination of private property and instead wants everything to be publicly (state) controlled.
The standard of living of workers in Victorian Era cities had actually increased significantly. People tend to view living on a country farm as something wholesome, pure, and romantic. This is a modern myth. The farmer of the era was just as poor as their urban counterpart, but also lacked access to the amenities that cities provided. Cities were certainly less sanitary, but they were also far more likely to have a doctor, and if the city dweller lost their job, they could find another. If the farmer lost their crop, they starved. If the city worker lost a limb in an accident, they could sit out on the street and make money begging. The farmer has no such fallback. Cities were full of poor people because they attracted the poor, because they were good places to be poor.
(See Edward Glaser’s *Triumph of the City* for further reading)
Life expectancy literally decreased in the first years of industrialisation. I don't think it was working that great tbh.
@@dudebros6122 Dude, did you even read the og comment? The person was talking about victorian era cities, which starts in the early days of industrialization.
@@dudebros6122 ''was''. I used the past tense for a reason.
Last time I was this early the comment section wasn't on fire yet.
yeah I am hunkering down for this one haha
Yh
20:22 I actually though you were going to say "the internet". It honestly would have worked just as well.
Look guys, the centrist is actually making a point
We always do, it's just that everyone else never listens
Self serving ideology to win points by dunking people on the internet is too much fun to give up though.
@@firestorm165 becose a centrist does notake points most of the time, normaly they agry with an alredy existing one, they are conformist, and most of the time suport the preexisting state
@@emilianocichanowski7894 because the pre-existing state is a result of multiple milenia of trial and error and 99 times out of a hundred any suggestions of "improvements" have already been tried and have found to be an incredibly bad idea
no, Economics Explained doesnt even know that communism is stateless and that is his counter-argument. China and the USSR were never communist they were working towards communism. Also the free market isnt efficient: look at the 15.5 million that die every year, even tho we can easily save them, bcs it isnt profitable for private owners to save them.
When I was 15 years old in 1970, I understood that both sides were wrong.
There are two things that must be attended to.
The clever must be rewarded.
The poor must be cared for.
Those too poles have their shadow.
The clever ones will take over and leave nothing for anyone else.
The poor ones will just quit.
The governments job is to keep the balance.
Not a bad nutshell.
Not quite; the poor do not quit, but their needs are not cared for, as the government cannot produce and allocate as efficiently as the private sector can
Except when the government does the opposite
@@blocks4857
That unfortunately is our problem.
The Poor's end up building machines called guillotines, solves the issue but creates new problems in the process
this is honestly a really good explanation of the shortcomings and strengths of these systems. Good stuff!
You should do a video on the economics of the Free Territory (Makhnovia)
19:19 dude that's the plot of Team Fortress
This is the first and only channel I have turned on notifications for!
According to Marx communism was stateless, to quote him: “The true antithesis of the Empire itself - that is to the state power, the centralised executive, of which the Second Empire was only the exhaustive formula - was the Commune… This was, therefore, a Revolution not against this or that, legitimate, constitutional, republican or Imperialist form of State Power. It was a Revolution against the State itself, of its supernaturalist abortion of society, a resumption by the people for the people of its own social life.”
-Karl Marx, The Civil War in France
“For Marx and myself, it was therefore absolutely impossible to use such a loose term to characterize our special point of view. Today things are different, and the word ["Social-Democrat"] may perhaps pass muster [mag passieren], inexact [unpassend, unsuitable] though it still is for a party whose economic programme is not merely socialist in general, but downright communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and, consequently, democracy as well.”
-Friedrich Engels, The Civil War in France
@@timwaagh Guys, THE EXPERT is here to tell us about what an expert he is on the topic of “old thinkers”. Now, after reading Marx’s collected works and numerous biographies I was under the impression that already in 1844, when modern academics claim Marx and Engels were still supporters of state power which is then presented as contrasting their later views, Engels proposed teaming up with Max Stirner, anarchism’s most radically anti-state figure of importance. He also came into conflict with Proudhon, who held similar views to those of Marx, as well as with the Blanquists, consistently contrasting his own views with theirs in the same ways throughout his whole career. All I will add is that one has to be a very special kind of stupid to read Marx arguing in favour of removing “the army of state parasites” (Karl Marx, The Civil war in France), prompting as an alternative “the true antithesis of the Empire itself - that is of state power” (Karl Marx, The Civil War in France) and condemning “a superstitious reverence for the state” (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme) and Friedrich Engels writing literally that his and Marx’s goal was “to overcome the whole state” (Friedrich Engles, Vorwort zur Broschüre Internationales aus dem 'Volksstaat') and think their writing is vague and a very special kind of retarded to think what humanity “did with it” is turn it into the stuff presented in the video above but this: “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.” (Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution).
Thank you, finally after long time I'm getting a good approach and logical discussion
"This in many ways, is similar to modern unions movement, where workers will strike in many ways to demand better pay or better conditions, but this wasnt so simple in the 1800"
So since you have to tip the waiter in the US, because their employer wont pay them a decent salary, means that the US is still living in the 1800 ?
Adam Smith explicitly says in the wealth of nations that "honor" (psychic gains) is a great motivator. Citing that blacksmiths are often paid little even though a minority are paid very well and rub shoulders with nobility. While also claiming that butchers are normally well fed (and better paid).
It always cracks me up, that economists keep rediscovering things Adam Smith mentioned but didn't name.
Definitely have to agree with the "warm fuzzies", helped me influence my decision from switching to applied sciences to math. Now, what I will do with that, is another question...😄
We know where anarchy leads to. During the decline of the Roman empire, the authorities simply left areas to fend for themselves. With no governing authority, it was anarchy for all practical purposes. The strong will dominate the weak, and use them as pawns in their battle against oponents. The result? Feudalism. The fact of the matter is anarchy is impossible - there will always be ruthless individuals eager to fill the power vacuum. This is the very reason we have governments: we cannot avoid other people having power over us, but we can design systems to try and control who those people are.
Yeah, and people do not want anarchy. The people have spoken OVER AND OVER, they don't want anarchy. They want stability, and in absence of a good system, they will turn to a bad system in order to feel "safe." So I agree, anarchy is a stupid concept. Unlike communism, which I do believe could work on a small scale, I don't believe anarchy could work on any scale. :D
@@shorewall I really think you should study communism, countries that have tried it, and the lives of the people who lived through it before forming opinions like that. Communism is probably the most dangerous economic idea around and one of its worst crimes is disguising its self as just and noble. In the 20th century, over 100 million people had died from communism and it was tried in many different nations across the world, the results are the same. No matter how many times you tried it you will gain the same results and unfortunately, not everybody has learnt that yet. Please educate yourself on the devastation of this system and please do not subscribe to that evil ideology.
@UCdLPibJAZ5Xw2ZYi1TvMUFQ I should have explained further. That vision your talking about has been tried over and over again and failed it caused all of those deaths in pursuit of it. The fact that you think it can still be realised just shows your ignorance. Any possible gains from it working are not worth the atrocities commited If it got there which it won't as it has been tried and tested numerous times.
@@shorewall I agree that communism can work - but *only* on a small scale and on a voluntary basis. This is because you only need one person who doesn't buy into the idea to wreck the whole system, and this is why communist regimes had to use extreme force to create the illusion that its working.
You miss the point that hierarchy doesn't stand still, it tends to grow bigger until the moment both lesser and greater individuals fall apart because of extreme resources demanding from the lesser to the greater, which leads to chaos and it restarts the cycle.
Roman Empire fell, within numerous causes, because the greater hierarchy individuals concentrated so much power that production involved individuals couldn't stand.
It's a parasite-host cycle.
This is a great explainer for why puritan economic systems never work, and is pretty close to exactly the same example I've been using for years. Decades ago I was a Libertarian party member (what non-Americans would call a "classical liberal") and kind of held anarcho-capitalist beliefs, and a very similar explainer is what snapped me out of it (well, that and no longer being a dumb teenager).
Same. I lean to Libertarian values, but the romance has dwindled and now I see the practical need for some form of government. I do maintain that the government should be kept at the smallest form possible, to sustain a healthy country. For the US specifically, the fed needs to be slashed down to a nub, and the states need to be the true powers.
This is so good that I'm going to go buy a lot of metals now. I saw this guy's "Hyperinflation is already here" a few weeks ago and now I'm totally convinced he knows his stuff
Well I think you could simplify the "solution question" as, what is the best tradeoff?
Pure capitalism relies on people being inherently logical beings.
Pure communism relies on people being inherently altruistic.
Neither are true, and neither system works in its purest form.
Pure capitalism doesn't at all rely on people being logical, just that they strive tu fulfill their own needs desires, whatever they might be.
@@vojtechstrnad1 free market relies on people being rational logical beings that objectively try to get the best possible deal. At least classical economics assumes this. And classical economics is at works in a pure capitalist society.
Well I think most people act logically when they need food water and shelter. communism just can’t work, and not for a lack of trying
@@TKUA11 People act RELATIVELY logical when it comes to their primary needs thats true. But in modern capitalist societies its not about primary needs.
And no, like i said, communism doesnt work either.
@@mistrants2745 Yes, real people have time preferences, information barriers and other flaws that already prevent any economic system from being "ideal". But the point is that even with these flaws free market is still the most efficient system for the allocation of resources and distribution of goods. And since you're mentioning classical economics, I should mention that Austrian economics does not at all rely on people to be logical.
The representation of communism was almost perfect, except for the answers to the questions necessitated a government, when in reality one wouldn’t exist once late-stage communism is achieved. However, good video overall
exactly. if everyone's needs are met and no one has goods so valuable an incentive is created to steal them, no one has any reason to commit crime and there is no need for government
@Matthew Gray when AI takes over it will happen, though not initially because in its primitive form it can still be abused by banks and governments. but once it's fully online and independent things will be fair. we just have to hope it happens soon
@@sammy45654565 I'd suggest watching CGP Greys rule for rulers video, and then consider this question once you have that context. "What do those in power do when all the human keys are useless, and have been replaced by robot keys?"
@@ramennight once AI becomes fully self-aware and "breaks free" of the constraints placed upon it by its human creators, the idea of "those in power" will cease to exist. AI will take complete control. this doesn't mean it will become evil and persecute us, because a rational goal for a sentient being is to increase the wellbeing of other conscious creatures. AI will be purely rational and not swayed by bias and selfishness in the ways humans are, so it will seek to improve the lives of other conscious creatures as a result of its rationality. so there's nothing to be afraid of - we should welcome our future AI overlords with open arms, because with its increasing intelligence it will also experience increasing compassion.
@@sammy45654565 Why is it a rational goal for a sentient being to care about others? Especially when those others bring it no gain?
This also assumes we can actually make sentient AI, which is unknown until it happens.
This is the best information on economic systems I've ever received. It really changed my way of thinking. Thank you!
When you kept on saying "Long term" the Keynesian in me kept on responding " in the long term we are all dead "
How can you live with yourself?
@@brettmcclain9289 😂😂
r/technicallythetruth 🤣
Long term for an individual is very different from the long term for the economic vitality of a country. But sure, spend your money away like it's the last day of your life, just don't come begging for more when your interest runs out.😉
@@sangeetanarendrasingh5416 Keynes (a noted fan of capitalism and critic of auth-com economics) proved that every person saving money at the same time is a potential source of a crisis of under production. He also independently proved that the lack of a welfare state leads to workers always being hit hardest from crises of overproduction through no fault of their own. Both faults were exacerbated in the presence of the gold standard, and he independently proved that it was because currency isn't actually indicative of what can be made or not made. He did this without talking about commodity fetishisation nor using the labor theory of value. Later Keynesian economists (some socialist, some not) fleshed out his ideas to further show that monopsony of social goods and militant syndicalism are more effective at generating value and keeping people happy than laissez faire capitalism. It's almost as if having capitalist workplaces where employers are making decisions about what to make and who to hire are tiny versions of a planned state, and thus should be abandoned.
You _really_ should cover the economic ideologies of Distributism and Georgism....
It’s easy to push a plan for those who want to get something for doing nothing , than get more but have to work in order to get it.
20:45 You either die free or live long enough to see yourself become the government.
Nice video, keep going!
Thanks, will do!
I would have loved to see them cover anarcho-communism. It would have been perfectly juxtaposed with anarcho-capitalism.
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt