Feels good to hear so much about my country, knowing that this raises awareness in people around the globe about what's going on in Bangladesh! Thank you for such a wonderful crash course, I'm a huge fan.
Crash course is amazing and so are the hosts. From the topics covered to content created - These videos are super helpful regardless of the times! Keep up the amazing work team! ✨💯
One of the other major issues with the apparent advantages of globalization though is that they often require the destruction of local economies first. It is kinda like burning down an orchard then showing how much more profitable sharecropping strawberries is. In many of these regions we saw decades of colonial forces taking away land (either directly or squeezing landowners till they have to sell) or destroying local resources then, after they decimated existing economies, offering all the displaced workers jobs at their companies instead. So it is solving a problem they created, but doing it in such a way that mostly benefits wealthy people far away.
I also noticed that the video didn't cover what happens to a local economy when work is outsourced. How corporations just circumvent labor laws and regulations in their country that were brought about by years and years of people unionizing and fighting for fair working conditions, undermining domestic wages. Domestic wages drop, creating a need for foreign, cheaply made products. It's a cycle that only benefit's the few on top.
+Robert Nicholls no. it raises gdp, which is not an accurate measurement of the wealth of a people by any means. When people talk about "rich countries" or "getting richer" they talk about gdp, which says exactly nothing about how well-fed and happy people are. It says nothing about how the capital and income is distributed among the population, or how much of the economy is based on real goods and production (as opposed to financial instruments etc.). Remember bhutan is one of the poorest countries of the world and yet, at the same time, one of the richest in happiness, with one of the most peaceful and equal and harmonious societies. And incidentally, it has an extremely unglobalised, agragrian economy.
+neeneko Globalisation generally destroys inefficient industries that can't compete with the worldwide competition. Such examples as the car industry in Australia dying as it is unable to compete with other countries (such as Japan and Germany's) economies of scale. Therefore only industries that are competitive thrive and a countries comparative advantage allows it to trade. The reduction of tariffs and quotas also benefit the people allowing consumers access to a wider range of cheap and affordable goods and services that wouldn't be available without globalisation and trade. Globalisation is sort of a wave effect as its up everyone, generally the rich more than the poor. This can be seen with South Korea which was regarded as a poor third world country up until the 1980s/1990s where the production of technology outsourced from Japan rose to higher standards of living, higher education, better quality of life, leading to South Korea to becoming an economic powerhouse and the developed country it is today.
All I got from this video is that nothing is perfect and nothing ever will, we kinda just have to try and do the best job and keep evolving.. life in a nutshell
From the tone of this video it feels like they've adapting the old Churchill quote to the issue; 'Globalization is the worst form of trade, except for all the others that have been tried...'
2:54 Totally agree, it's actually shocking how much this little piece of rectangle SAVED my life. I shouldn't be as smart as i am, not even close, given my circunstances, but i bunched an insane amount of knowledge and info resources thanks to this. The very fact i learned by myself shows this.eee
Please talk about the unsustainability a little longer. Especially when you call it the 'probably biggest problem with globalization'. It's the most interessting aswell in my opinion.
+millenniumdragn People have been saying it is unsustainable since it began. Thus far those have always been the shortsighted people. Meanwhile capitalism is the only force proven to bring dramatic improvement to billions of lives around the world. Maybe one day those shortsighted people will be proven right and then we will be back to where we were without capitalism, poor dirt farmers.
+Joe Lima Capitalism as it is today promotes uneconomic ie wasteful and destructive practices. It's cheaper to produce things halfway around the world because labour and raw resources are cheaper, as wasteful and exploitative practices are ignored or aren't covered by law. As destructive and exploitative practices are increasingly discouraged or covered by laws and legislation companies will have to look for alternatives as a way of competing with each other in a global economy. As we are already seeing, I believe that answer lays with automation. Robots that mine, refine, recycle, produce and transport quicker and more efficiently than human workers ever could means cheap products. But it also means less workers, so fewer people that can buy those products until a point is reached, an anomaly, the likes of which our species or any other on this planet has ever experienced. Plentiful, limitless resources and an true global efficient, renewable resource based economy.
+CasMullac Capitalism destroys jobs but it also creates jobs as well to buy those goods. Robots destroy mining jobs but create jobs that make robots and making robots is better paying than a mining job. Which increases a persons buying power.
I'm an Austrian type. A free market fan. And this video was pretty well-balanced. Showed both sides, including the sides I disagreed with. Congrats and thanks.
It might be slightly liberal leaning but it did give balanced information on both sides of the argument and left it open for the viewer to decide. It impossible to be completely unbiased but I think the did a pretty good job.
+Inorganic Vegan "Neoliberalism" in economics is right-wing economics in America. Neoliberals are actually more likely to be fans of Ayn Rand than someone who's not a neoliberal. "Liberal" in most parts of the world is more similar to the American term "libertarian" than it is to the American term "liberal".
+BlackysComments +Inorganic Vegan You both are suffering from Out Group Homogeneity. Stick your head out of your bubble for a second and realize the spectrum of ideas is far greater than the limited set you choose to isolate yourself in.
+freesk8 It's understandable that you think the video was "well balanced" because you feel satisfied with the thought that it wasn't all on your side, but a lot of people, in fact, probably the majority, won't agree with you or what's stated in the video. And this is because they "explained" without any real or critic historical vision. I mean, they evaded any significant mention of colonialism, responsible for the world's inequity. I think it's easy to enjoy the benefits of a good craddle.
This video and the conversations contained below in the comment threads are fascinating. Conversations we need to have more of with civility, and some of these here are great examples of that. The main issue I see when reading through comment threads, and it shows up here, is that it is difficult for people to admit that some of their strongly held beliefs may fail under scrutiny using information they didn't know of previously or from perspectives beyond their own. If we can dispassionately remove our convictions for a short time to undertake the world-view of another to criticise ourselves and our world views then our opinions can understandings can only be strengthened either by tearing them down in light of falsifying evidence or built up by new information.
The typical lie is that globalization ALWAYS produces a net benefit Simply not true! Globalization creates an outsourcing of jobs in developed nations for cheaper markets. This sometimes kills the ability of consumers in developed nations to purchase the very items being outsourced. Globalization also encourages exploitation and victimization in, child sweat shop labor practices, over population, and environmental catastrophe, and a variety of other social problems. Globalization also produces the consolidation of markets. For example, cheap American corn has decimated the domestic Mexican corn market. Poor farmers are driven off their land and resort to entering the U.S. illegally to find work. Their now useless land is then bought up on the cheap by speculators. Without domestic food production, a country cannot feed itself and is extremely on foreign imports that can be cut off by war or natural disasters. Illegal labor creates an enhanced distribution channel for drug traffickers. Illegal labor leads to unemployment domestically,grows the welfare system which leads to long term dependency on government programs, and creates more income stratification and social unrest. ETC... ETC...ETC. Therefore, free trade and globalization is not the panacea that it is claimed to be.
Great points. I've recently have been listening to the teaching of Milton Friedman , nobel peace prize winner im economics, on youtube to better understand Free trade. He explains everything logically. In one video he explains that basically there.
Globalization is the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. Globalization brings lower costs on good, it also brings opportunities for production of international trade. A downside to globalization is that products used for trades are produced in very low income countries with hard laborers with little to no pay.
I live in Vietnam, I've worked in a sweatshop for years, they don't call them sweatshops here, if a westerner's sweatshop closes down and 1000 people lose their jobs, people start locking the motorbikes in their bedrooms in fear of having them stolen by unemployed people with no income or savings to get by. Workers move from their hometowns to have the opportunity to work at a westerner's sweatshop. They pray for overtime. This is why every time I read an article blaming western companies for labor exploitation I can't help it but laugh.
If the money that Westerners used to pay for their clothing was used to also help give microcredits to Vietnamese and other developing countries' factories in such a way that you were employed as part of democratic cooperatives, you'd have a far higher income and by owning the actual means of production, you could with automation and tools be able to shorten your workday but yet retain the income, afford fire safety equipment like sprinklers, without much risk.
@Moskat Kanze Your right but yall need to make your own companies to do that, and how can you do that without any money to start with, it takes time and progress. If you work at the westerner's companies to earn money save it so you can make your own company.
Yeah, somehow, since the start of neoliberal policies, developed countries escape developing countries with each year. Just check out even the World Bank' GDP per capita PPP data (they're available since 1990 or later, depending on a country). You can see that within this time an average developing nation has a much lower multiplier of their score than top Western nations.
The idea that free trade is always good for developing countries is... very debatable. Trade is indeed necessary, but the "free" part of it enables big companies from abroad to pin a developing country at doing what suits them and not produce other things. For example rules that require foreign companies not only to produce in a country but also to use a certain percentage of materials produced there are a start. The biggest problem is when a developing country only produces 2 or 3 raw materials or agricultural produces but has to import every technology. In these cases a form of protectionism, if well planned and directed, can enable the country to develop a higher level industry and not remain stuck at producing only goods for foreign companies.
This time you guys did a good job. Normally, I'd bust your chops, but this time you handled the issue fairly and acknowledged the complexities of the issue. I'd like to add, that this isn't economic colonization, it's just colonization. Global companies are motivated by the same forces as the Dutch East India Company centuries ago. And back then corp justified their exploitation in the same manner: "That the people being exploited derive some small benefit" For colonial powers of the 17th and 18th century, it was Christianity. Today its work at near slave wages.
+Emperor Theodor Tronét I'm not trying to win anything. I agree with your point in the argument. I just would like people to give credit to the sources they get their information from.
Are we talking about the Congo that was a source of a genocide in the 90's where the multinationals still wanted to shake a bloody hand with butchers once the screams and the wimpers of the dying were silenced? The same companies that pour millions into the pockets of those butchers? Yeah vulture capitalism is a peach. Instead of doing the killing themselves they bankroll the murderers after the fact. Clearly kings among men.
+Rahsaan Footman Isn't "slave wage" an oxymoron. Nobody pays slaves. Current workers are able to come and go as they please. But usually they chose to come because it provide better opportunity than any other jobs in the area (and better pay, and sometimes better working conditions).
+24680kong No, "slave wage" is not an oxymoron. Indeed many wages around the world are less than the cost would be of maintaining a "slave" since there would be pressure on a slave owner to maintain a certain decent standard of living for their chattels. People "choose to come" to these jobs because the alternative is even worse; that doesn't really make it a choice. Would you call it voluntary if you "chose" to give your wallet to the mugger who had a knife at your throat? The fact that you offer a "choice" where one option is marginally less horrible than the others does not mean that it is moral to withhold truly superior options that would be well within the capacity of the global economy to support.
hi jacob and adriene, first of all congratulation to both of you and your whole team because you guys are doing wonderful job. i have enjoyed your video a lot and i have one request to make, could you please make videos on burning global economic issues like trade war etc and it's impact on various countries. i'd really be grateful to you guys.
If you are going to try to import a T shirt into the Crimea, regardless of whether you think you should or not, you're paying Commonwealth of Independent State tariffs not Ukrainain tariffs.
Can you guys please include the links of websites and such that you discuss in the videos in the description. Such as the one about the US list of child labor products in other countries. Something along the lines of what they do on the VSauce channel. Thanks
hello .i'm really happy that i have known crash course on youtube and proud of being a fan of it ... i just want to suggest because of having a lot of informations during the episode( it's what make me happy and happier every episode that i watch)... to make in the end of every episode if it is possible a summary of what we have learned by watching the episode ...thank you
Globalization and capitalism are perfect economic ideologies for countries/communities with only small and medium size business.. Everyone competes for the market share in a mostly fair environment, and the gap between the top and the bottom is not that huge.. However, once the economy starts to allow large size business, they just start to control everything (economy, politics, justice system, etc.), transforming an once sustainable economic environment into an oligarchy environment, with the top getting all the profit and benefits and the bottom just fighting to survive... The best example of this effect can be seen in US... US had a vibrant capitalist economy, following the first idea of small and medium size business, but now they are all about oligarchies and monopolies.. because of this US' economy is going backwards, middle class is disappearing, and the gap between top and bottom become so huge...
Globalization by its function is great, but the problem is not how it creates wealth to the corporations and workers, it's how this economic growth actually represents the develop of human capital and the decrease of rights exploitation. If the idea that money alone could balance a nation's social and evolutionary circumstances; the TTP would be the Earths solution to everything, right? Well, I guess that that's not how it looks like...
Does it seem to you that Adriene and Jacob really dislike each other? In this video, they are getting a little better at covering it up, but for the last few videos, whoa! Those are some extreme eye daggers whenever they have to stand beside each other! Maybe they should drop the format of having the two of them together at the start of the video. It really affects the mood of everything that follows.
Would still be nice if workers in general could get roughly the value of their work instead of being pressed into the minimum possible standard of living by corporations
This video got me thinking. Business and ethics do not go hand in hand. You can set things right but at the cost of personal financial gain, and some sections of ethics actually come into conflict with other sections such as this: If poverty and hunger were to be abolished the impact on our limited resources would be tremendous and would accelerate our demise as a species in the long term. I think we can never truly accomplish these issues as a result because there'll be a natural reaction that'll deter all our efforts. That doesn't mean must avoid solving these issues altogether for we'd be destroyed as well, our existence is marred by balance and we need to achieve it to live as harmoniously as possible.The problem is that to achieve only balance is not motivating enough for us humans to work together. I always thought that this is why people turn to religion for guidance on balance.
+Angelo Busato But... by developping new technologies and by innovating we are actually able to produce enough for everyone. There were famines when the population of the globe was not even 1 billion, today we are more than 7 billion and famines are rare. With globalization, new technologies and new ways to communicate we could easilly all live out of poverty. The information revolution will create a new world that wouldn't have been possible 10-20 or 50 years ago...
I think people will look at us in the future like we look to colonization and slavery in the past. The worst thing is how unattentive we are, right now, to those issues.We see news here and there on TV, but our indifference towards those who live far away is staggering. After all, we are the ones who are the beneficiaries. That's so sad. And I know I contribute to it everyday and I try really hard to avoid it, but it also takes others' efforts to really make some difference.
+Canyu Believeit (IhateBs) We aren't harming other by supplying them with jobs/food/taking them out of poverty, but we could be doing so much more. That's the problem, we are no where near the potential we could be to helping them. The cost of a car could feed a family in extreme poverty for years.
***** Not necessarily. Economics are very complicated, that's not a certain outcome. I don't have suggestions for the likelihood of that or other outcomes; like I said, this is complicated, and I have very little understanding what would happen. Hence why I watch Crash Course Economics.
I totally agree with your opinion, we finance this unfair system, moreover I don't think the issue is the capitalism or the globalization, it is all about how we humans make usage and handle the system
Hello +CrashCourse Team, thank you for the video! It's very informative! But can you provide us with some readings to improve our understanding and informations?
I really dislike what was said about microcredit. Randomised controlled trials have shown that "Overall, on the substantial evidence it gathered, the study found no clear impact of the provision of microcredit on poverty” (Banerjee). Similarly, Karlan and Zinman found, using RCTs "the number of business activities and employees in the treatment group (micro-debtors) decreased relative to controls, and subjective well-being declined slightly". This is all happening while microlenders earn a massive amount of money on 40% interest rates per annum, effectively preying on the world's poor. Please do more research before announcing something both ethically and practically dubious a success.
i think the terms outsourcing and offshoring are a little bit mixed up here. outsourcing does not necessarily mean that jobs are moved to developing countries, it just means that some other company is doing the job.
I'm very skeptical that our media would report on companies hurting laborers overseas or having unscrupulous business practices. In fact it seems like they have an incentive not to do that. Most consumers are in the dark about that stuff.
That is a naive statement. Yes they do use sensationalism to attract viewers. But we can see that there are many subjects that are avoided. Frauds committed on the highest scales of political power for example are systematically avoided, though they would attract a lot of attention.
buy fair trade when you can, and try to avoid slave labor linked items like many common chocolates. Low wages suck, but working for no wage doesn't help anyone out of poverty.
Has the threshold of $1.25/ day for extreme poverty changed in recent years? Because if more people are now living over this threshold, it could just mean that due to inflation, more people are earning this amount but the real money is the same for these people.
6:11 More competition for labor DO NOT result in higher wages. It's the opposite: poor people are desperate to receive any income and they will accept to work for tiny wages.
More competition for labor means more companies competing for the same pool of labor, which in principle makes them bid higher wages for the labor. What you are referring to, is more competition for jobs, which would mean more people competing for the same pool of jobs, biding higher for the jobs (by accepting lower wages). Just a respectful correction.
+Ignacio ‘Linnk’ Benavides They mentioned more competition for labour, not more competition for work. As the economy grows, new jobs get created, and so the demand for labour increases (especially in the early stages of economic development)
+Andrew Elie Not if the system allows for corporate capitalism, which allows for monopolies. They can buy out the competition and eliminate workers opportunities.
+César Gerardo González Bañuelos Wait, you just pointed out a flaw. If population increases exponentially, such as what were are observing according to statistics of the human population. Then that means there are more people competing for jobs. If technology is making jobs more and more scarce, then it will multiply the effect of competition. Banning technology is out of the question, because that also creates job deficits. If there are more people and competition, but less jobs, then wages will decrease because companies like to hire people who are willing to do more work for less pay because it's more efficient than hiring an equally skilled worker for higher wages.
I am disappointed that CrashCourse didn't mention the intersection of Globalization and Technological Unemployment... or at least I hope you cover TU in another video...
I'm disappointed you didn't mention how free trade agreements are being used to undermine democracy in developed countries. Being balanced doesn't mean giving a few arguments for either side. It means covering all the important points.
I hear a lot about people going to these developing countries and giving them material things. While I think that's great, an even better use of resources would be focusing on ensuring they have both the tools AND the knowledge to participate in a global economy so that they can stop relying on charity. So, don't just build homes for them. Give a select number of locals the supplies they need to build homes and teach those people how to build homes. You could do the same for cell towers and other infrastructure items. Maybe give the locals cell phones and computers, and then teach courses on how to program them.
How come you talk about Microcredits about being this awesome amazing thing, when Microcredits are a HIGHLY controversial subject??? You should really make an entire episode dedicated to the pros and cons of microcredits.
this was your most fair video... it will take 1000 years for it to raise a place like India to a western standard of living ...globalism is a sham overall
I am surprised the video does not talks about the example of Haiti, where opening to global market without tariff barriers imposed by IMF made things way worse. Haitian income mainly came from rise production and after opening to global market Haitian rise production could not compete with foreign producers, in the end Haitians lost their jobs and the island got poorer. Global trade if opened blindly for crucial sector can be very dangerous...
+Ray Rivera It's really not that simple for debt, as loans allow people or business that money to jumpstart they might not otherwise get. Think about how many students wouldn't be able to afford College/University without debt
How can they define poverty by how much currency you live off of? Prices fluctuate by over an order of magnitude depending on the region you are living.
In the 1970's many economists predicted the unsustainable path of capitalism. The predicted by the year 2000 there would be a sharp increase in poverty in the US and globally due to over-population. We are going to run out of oil and other resources by the 1990's and that will create a literal hell on earth. It didn't happen instead of a sharp increase in poverty there has been a sharp decrease in poverty in the developed world. Markets are more sustainable than a centrally designed plan.
So out of curiosity, how do areas of extreme poverty that produce little and consume little fit into larger theories on economics? Is there a good reason? Shouldn't free market as we understand it inherently seek to both find a way to increase spending as well as take advantage of very cheap labor? If so, how does it make sense that there can be what basically amounts to economic dead zones?
The Brexit, French riots and Trump's presidency are somewhat related. The common thread is Globalization. Especially the movement of production of goods FROM the countries that consume the goods. Balanced Trade is OK but Free Trade ends with the family wage jobs drained out of the consuming countries.
What is Globalization, and why do you think the way in which Globalization occurs today is both good and bad? Globalization is when businesses spread internationally. Globalization can be good for businesses and allow them to save money by outsourcing jobs to countries with lower wages. A way globalization can be bad is that anyone who worked for a business that outsourced its jobs now doesn't have a job. Working conditions for lower wage workers in other countries are not good.
I'm sure if you type it into youtube you will come up with something 'autism..how the brain works' and maybe look for some books online that may be useful to you to help you figure things out. I wish you well
+Nobody Who gets to have the things? No one wants to do the work if the people who don't do it get just as much. Go build me a space robot and send it off. I'll be sitting in front of the TV.
+R3Testa I don't think so, everybody knows if you want money you GTFO and go work in banking. I mean people in meaningful positions, like NASA, Microsoft Research or whatever, it doesn't really matter what the worlds TV watching paper pushers do.
+Nobody We're well on the way to that. Automation is reducing the need for work to get stuff done all the time. We could probably cut a working week down to 30 hours with current technology, and down to 20 in the near future.
As a Bangladeshi , I know how much the apparel industry contributes to our economy . Almost every poor people I know are dependent on this industry to make money .
From a marxist perspective, the developing nations are seeing their future in the developed countries. This means that they must go through all the process that developed countries went through 100 or 150 years ago. However there is a problem: the periphery and center problem. This means that developing countries face greater competition and foreign pressures when they are industriliazing, these conditions are forcing them to skip phases that developed countries went through, like using fossil fuels to power up their industries. They also face different technological and political contexts. Also they depend a lot on developed countries to industrialize themselves, since they do not have the technology required to do so. This means that developed countries always will be behind unless they use the Chinese model of modernization which is succesful from an economic perspective, but highly questionable in the moral and ethical field. (Note: the chinese model only works in countries with a huge population and access to various natural resources.)
7 years later, this is still helping so many people gain a basic understanding of complex topics. Thank you!
Feels good to hear so much about my country, knowing that this raises awareness in people around the globe about what's going on in Bangladesh! Thank you for such a wonderful crash course, I'm a huge fan.
Can I just say that this is helping my write/right a Sociology essay that I have due tomorrow?
Crash course is amazing and so are the hosts. From the topics covered to content created - These videos are super helpful regardless of the times! Keep up the amazing work team! ✨💯
This is such a great and informative video! It raised issues such as how economic advancement and environmentalism are related. Thanks Crash Course!
One of the other major issues with the apparent advantages of globalization though is that they often require the destruction of local economies first. It is kinda like burning down an orchard then showing how much more profitable sharecropping strawberries is. In many of these regions we saw decades of colonial forces taking away land (either directly or squeezing landowners till they have to sell) or destroying local resources then, after they decimated existing economies, offering all the displaced workers jobs at their companies instead. So it is solving a problem they created, but doing it in such a way that mostly benefits wealthy people far away.
I also noticed that the video didn't cover what happens to a local economy when work is outsourced. How corporations just circumvent labor laws and regulations in their country that were brought about by years and years of people unionizing and fighting for fair working conditions, undermining domestic wages. Domestic wages drop, creating a need for foreign, cheaply made products. It's a cycle that only benefit's the few on top.
+SweatyTurtle they did briefly mention it, but nowhere in enough detail as i personally think these topics of both poverty and globalization warrant.
+Robert Nicholls no. it raises gdp, which is not an accurate measurement of the wealth of a people by any means.
When people talk about "rich countries" or "getting richer" they talk about gdp, which says exactly nothing about how well-fed and happy people are. It says nothing about how the capital and income is distributed among the population, or how much of the economy is based on real goods and production (as opposed to financial instruments etc.). Remember bhutan is one of the poorest countries of the world and yet, at the same time, one of the richest in happiness, with one of the most peaceful and equal and harmonious societies. And incidentally, it has an extremely unglobalised, agragrian economy.
+neeneko Globalisation generally destroys inefficient industries that can't compete with the worldwide competition. Such examples as the car industry in Australia dying as it is unable to compete with other countries (such as Japan and Germany's) economies of scale. Therefore only industries that are competitive thrive and a countries comparative advantage allows it to trade. The reduction of tariffs and quotas also benefit the people allowing consumers access to a wider range of cheap and affordable goods and services that wouldn't be available without globalisation and trade. Globalisation is sort of a wave effect as its up everyone, generally the rich more than the poor. This can be seen with South Korea which was regarded as a poor third world country up until the 1980s/1990s where the production of technology outsourced from Japan rose to higher standards of living, higher education, better quality of life, leading to South Korea to becoming an economic powerhouse and the developed country it is today.
+neeneko Detroit and the US Rust Belt!
All I got from this video is that nothing is perfect and nothing ever will, we kinda just have to try and do the best job and keep evolving.. life in a nutshell
that was an incredibly optimistic interpretation of micro finance. Micro credits are now seen as having failed the purpose of alleviating poverty
From the tone of this video it feels like they've adapting the old Churchill quote to the issue; 'Globalization is the worst form of trade, except for all the others that have been tried...'
TheFireflyGrave best comment I've ever seen
2:54 Totally agree, it's actually shocking how much this little piece of rectangle SAVED my life. I shouldn't be as smart as i am, not even close, given my circunstances, but i bunched an insane amount of knowledge and info resources thanks to this.
The very fact i learned by myself shows this.eee
Please talk about the unsustainability a little longer. Especially when you call it the 'probably biggest problem with globalization'. It's the most interessting aswell in my opinion.
+MisteriousXeb We'll be getting into Environmental Econ soon! -stan
Unsustainablity aka capitalism.
+millenniumdragn People have been saying it is unsustainable since it began. Thus far those have always been the shortsighted people. Meanwhile capitalism is the only force proven to bring dramatic improvement to billions of lives around the world.
Maybe one day those shortsighted people will be proven right and then we will be back to where we were without capitalism, poor dirt farmers.
+Joe Lima Capitalism as it is today promotes uneconomic ie wasteful and destructive practices. It's cheaper to produce things halfway around the world because labour and raw resources are cheaper, as wasteful and exploitative practices are ignored or aren't covered by law.
As destructive and exploitative practices are increasingly discouraged or covered by laws and legislation companies will have to look for alternatives as a way of competing with each other in a global economy. As we are already seeing, I believe that answer lays with automation. Robots that mine, refine, recycle, produce and transport quicker and more efficiently than human workers ever could means cheap products. But it also means less workers, so fewer people that can buy those products until a point is reached, an anomaly, the likes of which our species or any other on this planet has ever experienced.
Plentiful, limitless resources and an true global efficient, renewable resource based economy.
+CasMullac Capitalism destroys jobs but it also creates jobs as well to buy those goods. Robots destroy mining jobs but create jobs that make robots and making robots is better paying than a mining job. Which increases a persons buying power.
I'm an Austrian type. A free market fan. And this video was pretty well-balanced. Showed both sides, including the sides I disagreed with. Congrats and thanks.
Actually, while the video was showing parts of both sides, the neo-liberalism was still strong in this one.
It might be slightly liberal leaning but it did give balanced information on both sides of the argument and left it open for the viewer to decide. It impossible to be completely unbiased but I think the did a pretty good job.
+Inorganic Vegan "Neoliberalism" in economics is right-wing economics in America. Neoliberals are actually more likely to be fans of Ayn Rand than someone who's not a neoliberal. "Liberal" in most parts of the world is more similar to the American term "libertarian" than it is to the American term "liberal".
+BlackysComments +Inorganic Vegan
You both are suffering from Out Group Homogeneity. Stick your head out of your bubble for a second and realize the spectrum of ideas is far greater than the limited set you choose to isolate yourself in.
+freesk8 It's understandable that you think the video was "well balanced" because you feel satisfied with the thought that it wasn't all on your side, but a lot of people, in fact, probably the majority, won't agree with you or what's stated in the video. And this is because they "explained" without any real or critic historical vision. I mean, they evaded any significant mention of colonialism, responsible for the world's inequity. I think it's easy to enjoy the benefits of a good craddle.
This video and the conversations contained below in the comment threads are fascinating. Conversations we need to have more of with civility, and some of these here are great examples of that.
The main issue I see when reading through comment threads, and it shows up here, is that it is difficult for people to admit that some of their strongly held beliefs may fail under scrutiny using information they didn't know of previously or from perspectives beyond their own. If we can dispassionately remove our convictions for a short time to undertake the world-view of another to criticise ourselves and our world views then our opinions can understandings can only be strengthened either by tearing them down in light of falsifying evidence or built up by new information.
Finally! A discussion of globalization's pros and cons that is objective, and not filled with nothing but the lies of free traders.
Jason James what lies?
The typical lie is that globalization ALWAYS produces a net benefit Simply not true! Globalization creates an outsourcing of jobs in developed nations for cheaper markets. This sometimes kills the ability of consumers in developed nations to purchase the very items being outsourced. Globalization also encourages exploitation and victimization in, child sweat shop labor practices, over population, and environmental catastrophe, and a variety of other social problems. Globalization also produces the consolidation of markets. For example, cheap American corn has decimated the domestic Mexican corn market. Poor farmers are driven off their land and resort to entering the U.S. illegally to find work. Their now useless land is then bought up on the cheap by speculators. Without domestic food production, a country cannot feed itself and is extremely on foreign imports that can be cut off by war or natural disasters. Illegal labor creates an enhanced distribution channel for drug traffickers. Illegal labor leads to unemployment domestically,grows the welfare system which leads to long term dependency on government programs, and creates more income stratification and social unrest. ETC... ETC...ETC. Therefore, free trade and globalization is not the panacea that it is claimed to be.
Great points. I've recently have been listening to the teaching of Milton Friedman , nobel peace prize winner im economics, on youtube to better understand Free trade. He explains everything logically. In one video he explains that basically there.
Globalization is the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. Globalization brings lower costs on good, it also brings opportunities for production of international trade. A downside to globalization is that products used for trades are produced in very low income countries with hard laborers with little to no pay.
why do people dislike this? They do a great job doing a detailed balanced summary.
I live in Vietnam, I've worked in a sweatshop for years, they don't call them sweatshops here, if a westerner's sweatshop closes down and 1000 people lose their jobs, people start locking the motorbikes in their bedrooms in fear of having them stolen by unemployed people with no income or savings to get by. Workers move from their hometowns to have the opportunity to work at a westerner's sweatshop. They pray for overtime. This is why every time I read an article blaming western companies for labor exploitation I can't help it but laugh.
If the money that Westerners used to pay for their clothing was used to also help give microcredits to Vietnamese and other developing countries' factories in such a way that you were employed as part of democratic cooperatives, you'd have a far higher income and by owning the actual means of production, you could with automation and tools be able to shorten your workday but yet retain the income, afford fire safety equipment like sprinklers, without much risk.
😜
👊/||\_
_/¯ ¯\_
Totally true
@Moskat Kanze Your right but yall need to make your own companies to do that, and how can you do that without any money to start with, it takes time and progress. If you work at the westerner's companies to earn money save it so you can make your own company.
Yeah, somehow, since the start of neoliberal policies, developed countries escape developing countries with each year. Just check out even the World Bank' GDP per capita PPP data (they're available since 1990 or later, depending on a country). You can see that within this time an average developing nation has a much lower multiplier of their score than top Western nations.
The idea that free trade is always good for developing countries is... very debatable. Trade is indeed necessary, but the "free" part of it enables big companies from abroad to pin a developing country at doing what suits them and not produce other things. For example rules that require foreign companies not only to produce in a country but also to use a certain percentage of materials produced there are a start. The biggest problem is when a developing country only produces 2 or 3 raw materials or agricultural produces but has to import every technology. In these cases a form of protectionism, if well planned and directed, can enable the country to develop a higher level industry and not remain stuck at producing only goods for foreign companies.
Now that both of the hosts have calmed down a little, they're really not too bad. This was a good episode.
This time you guys did a good job. Normally, I'd bust your chops, but this time you handled the issue fairly and acknowledged the complexities of the issue.
I'd like to add, that this isn't economic colonization, it's just colonization. Global companies are motivated by the same forces as the Dutch East India Company centuries ago. And back then corp justified their exploitation in the same manner: "That the people being exploited derive some small benefit" For colonial powers of the 17th and 18th century, it was Christianity. Today its work at near slave wages.
+Emperor Theodor Tronét sounds like you should quote or give credit to kurzgesagt channel for that.
+Emperor Theodor Tronét I'm not trying to win anything. I agree with your point in the argument. I just would like people to give credit to the sources they get their information from.
Are we talking about the Congo that was a source of a genocide in the 90's where the multinationals still wanted to shake a bloody hand with butchers once the screams and the wimpers of the dying were silenced? The same companies that pour millions into the pockets of those butchers? Yeah vulture capitalism is a peach. Instead of doing the killing themselves they bankroll the murderers after the fact. Clearly kings among men.
+Rahsaan Footman Isn't "slave wage" an oxymoron. Nobody pays slaves. Current workers are able to come and go as they please. But usually they chose to come because it provide better opportunity than any other jobs in the area (and better pay, and sometimes better working conditions).
+24680kong No, "slave wage" is not an oxymoron. Indeed many wages around the world are less than the cost would be of maintaining a "slave" since there would be pressure on a slave owner to maintain a certain decent standard of living for their chattels.
People "choose to come" to these jobs because the alternative is even worse; that doesn't really make it a choice. Would you call it voluntary if you "chose" to give your wallet to the mugger who had a knife at your throat? The fact that you offer a "choice" where one option is marginally less horrible than the others does not mean that it is moral to withhold truly superior options that would be well within the capacity of the global economy to support.
hi jacob and adriene, first of all congratulation to both of you and your whole team because you guys are doing wonderful job. i have enjoyed your video a lot and i have one request to make, could you please make videos on burning global economic issues like trade war etc and it's impact on various countries. i'd really be grateful to you guys.
Epilepsy warning at 1:12
+Jerryrig Thank you.
+Jerryrig Yeah, what's up with that?
My mom has that, and its really helpful when she's given warnings like this.
+Jerryrig Seriously, you shouldn't be looking at a computer screen in the first place if you have epilepsy.
William Brown
If no computer or potential death are your choices, I would choose no computers.
Interesting notice: The world map at 2:28 shows Crimea to be a part of Russia, not Ukraine.
+Martin Fosse haha good catch :P I wonder what ukrainers are thinking about that :P
+Martin Fosse Doesn't it also show Ireland as part of the UK?
If you are going to try to import a T shirt into the Crimea, regardless of whether you think you should or not, you're paying Commonwealth of Independent State tariffs not Ukrainain tariffs.
+Martin Fosse, Don't worry. The map of Kashmir (between India, Pakistan, and China) is also messed up.
Adriene's talking mouth in the quotes pictures is quite creepy.
+mandith ikr
Ha! Agreed
+mandith it's creative
+mandith If you are 4 years old
+mandith Your profile picture is a lot more creepier.
Can you guys please include the links of websites and such that you discuss in the videos in the description. Such as the one about the US list of child labor products in other countries. Something along the lines of what they do on the VSauce channel. Thanks
Citations you mean? Yep that would be great.
hello .i'm really happy that i have known crash course on youtube and proud of being a fan of it ... i just want to suggest because of having a lot of informations during the episode( it's what make me happy and happier every episode that i watch)... to make in the end of every episode if it is possible a summary of what we have learned by watching the episode ...thank you
Love the show guys.. I'm taking the systems from here to understand the economy in my own country
Lamprey Milt I don't understand
Globalization and capitalism are perfect economic ideologies for countries/communities with only small and medium size business.. Everyone competes for the market share in a mostly fair environment, and the gap between the top and the bottom is not that huge..
However, once the economy starts to allow large size business, they just start to control everything (economy, politics, justice system, etc.), transforming an once sustainable economic environment into an oligarchy environment, with the top getting all the profit and benefits and the bottom just fighting to survive...
The best example of this effect can be seen in US... US had a vibrant capitalist economy, following the first idea of small and medium size business, but now they are all about oligarchies and monopolies.. because of this US' economy is going backwards, middle class is disappearing, and the gap between top and bottom become so huge...
Globalization by its function is great, but the problem is not how it creates wealth to the corporations and workers, it's how this economic growth actually represents the develop of human capital and the decrease of rights exploitation. If the idea that money alone could balance a nation's social and evolutionary circumstances; the TTP would be the Earths solution to everything, right? Well, I guess that that's not how it looks like...
“poverty isn’t a lack of character it’s a lack of cash” - Rutger Bergman
Thank you for not making awkward jokes in this episode. These hosts are improving.
Does it seem to you that Adriene and Jacob really dislike each other? In this video, they are getting a little better at covering it up, but for the last few videos, whoa! Those are some extreme eye daggers whenever they have to stand beside each other! Maybe they should drop the format of having the two of them together at the start of the video. It really affects the mood of everything that follows.
Would still be nice if workers in general could get roughly the value of their work instead of being pressed into the minimum possible standard of living by corporations
Best small loan commercial I've ever seen.
there’s something wrong with an economic model where the top 8 richest people have more wealth than the bottom half. this can’t be the only way
I like how this is not centred on capitalism and also questioning the economy. Good job!
Such a good thing to watch on Thanksgiving weekend. Thank you guys!
This video got me thinking. Business and ethics do not go hand in hand. You can set things right but at the cost of personal financial gain, and some sections of ethics actually come into conflict with other sections such as this: If poverty and hunger were to be abolished the impact on our limited resources would be tremendous and would accelerate our demise as a species in the long term. I think we can never truly accomplish these issues as a result because there'll be a natural reaction that'll deter all our efforts. That doesn't mean must avoid solving these issues altogether for we'd be destroyed as well, our existence is marred by balance and we need to achieve it to live as harmoniously as possible.The problem is that to achieve only balance is not motivating enough for us humans to work together. I always thought that this is why people turn to religion for guidance on balance.
+Angelo Busato But... by developping new technologies and by innovating we are actually able to produce enough for everyone. There were famines when the population of the globe was not even 1 billion, today we are more than 7 billion and famines are rare. With globalization, new technologies and new ways to communicate we could easilly all live out of poverty. The information revolution will create a new world that wouldn't have been possible 10-20 or 50 years ago...
I think people will look at us in the future like we look to colonization and slavery in the past.
The worst thing is how unattentive we are, right now, to those issues.We see news here and there on TV, but our indifference towards those who live far away is staggering. After all, we are the ones who are the beneficiaries. That's so sad. And I know I contribute to it everyday and I try really hard to avoid it, but it also takes others' efforts to really make some difference.
True. "Voting with your wallet " is the best that we can do for now.
+Canyu Believeit (IhateBs) We aren't harming other by supplying them with jobs/food/taking them out of poverty, but we could be doing so much more. That's the problem, we are no where near the potential we could be to helping them. The cost of a car could feed a family in extreme poverty for years.
***** Not necessarily. Economics are very complicated, that's not a certain outcome. I don't have suggestions for the likelihood of that or other outcomes; like I said, this is complicated, and I have very little understanding what would happen. Hence why I watch Crash Course Economics.
I totally agree with your opinion, we finance this unfair system, moreover I don't think the issue is the capitalism or the globalization, it is all about how we humans make usage and handle the system
Thank you so much for the list mentioned in the video.
Hello +CrashCourse Team,
thank you for the video! It's very informative!
But can you provide us with some readings to improve our understanding and informations?
Very well done on such a difficult subject
I love this video! Good job, guys!
I really dislike what was said about microcredit. Randomised controlled trials have shown that "Overall, on the substantial evidence it gathered, the study found no clear impact of the provision of microcredit on poverty” (Banerjee). Similarly, Karlan and Zinman found, using RCTs "the number of business activities and employees in the treatment group (micro-debtors) decreased relative to controls, and subjective well-being declined slightly".
This is all happening while microlenders earn a massive amount of money on 40% interest rates per annum, effectively preying on the world's poor. Please do more research before announcing something both ethically and practically dubious a success.
I love learning
i think the terms outsourcing and offshoring are a little bit mixed up here. outsourcing does not necessarily mean that jobs are moved to developing countries, it just means that some other company is doing the job.
I'm very skeptical that our media would report on companies hurting laborers overseas or having unscrupulous business practices. In fact it seems like they have an incentive not to do that. Most consumers are in the dark about that stuff.
That is a naive statement. Yes they do use sensationalism to attract viewers. But we can see that there are many subjects that are avoided. Frauds committed on the highest scales of political power for example are systematically avoided, though they would attract a lot of attention.
I love the hosts!
Me too, mate. :) Especially Adriene. Heh.
I would love to hear some discussion of the transnational corporations and their accumulation of wealth and the increasing income inequality.
ayy my man clifford. he carried me through econ :)
1:11 the image flickers. Anyone have that problem?
idk if im late or not but it flickers for everyone
Glitchenyia Only a little late
Hans Rosling! I love his videos!
Gosh, so much good information. If only we could spread more financial literacy in the world.
this video is about to get me out of a hole for my exam
Highly recommend Professor Jeffery Sachs free online sustainable development course. I also bought his textbook. Really life changing.
4:12 OMG!! WHAT COULD THIS BRAND BE!!?
This was surprisingly unbiased
Wow! Thanks! That's a really comprehensive video.
There is a Barca shirt in this video. Awesome.
buy fair trade when you can, and try to avoid slave labor linked items like many common chocolates.
Low wages suck, but working for no wage doesn't help anyone out of poverty.
Very interesting and your shows help me learned new things everyday.
Would've been great to have this before my Geo Exam :(
Has the threshold of $1.25/ day for extreme poverty changed in recent years? Because if more people are now living over this threshold, it could just mean that due to inflation, more people are earning this amount but the real money is the same for these people.
Excuse me, may I quote your video and use part of it as my school project? Surely I will state the source.
1:58 I actually didn't thought that was possible, 1 in 7 is an absurd number too.
The best way to get people out of extreme poverty/poverty is free education!
Or just affordable ones, Thats the real issue right now.
I hope globalization can include fairness and regulated "based on local" . i mean country have many diffrent type paradigm and skill.
6:11 More competition for labor DO NOT result in higher wages. It's the opposite: poor people are desperate to receive any income and they will accept to work for tiny wages.
More competition for labor means more companies competing for the same pool of labor, which in principle makes them bid higher wages for the labor. What you are referring to, is more competition for jobs, which would mean more people competing for the same pool of jobs, biding higher for the jobs (by accepting lower wages).
Just a respectful correction.
what u said is half true, and it mostly applies to jobs that don't require a skill set
+Ignacio ‘Linnk’ Benavides They mentioned more competition for labour, not more competition for work. As the economy grows, new jobs get created, and so the demand for labour increases (especially in the early stages of economic development)
+Andrew Elie Not if the system allows for corporate capitalism, which allows for monopolies. They can buy out the competition and eliminate workers opportunities.
+César Gerardo González Bañuelos Wait, you just pointed out a flaw. If population increases exponentially, such as what were are observing according to statistics of the human population. Then that means there are more people competing for jobs. If technology is making jobs more and more scarce, then it will multiply the effect of competition. Banning technology is out of the question, because that also creates job deficits. If there are more people and competition, but less jobs, then wages will decrease because companies like to hire people who are willing to do more work for less pay because it's more efficient than hiring an equally skilled worker for higher wages.
I am disappointed that CrashCourse didn't mention the intersection of Globalization and Technological Unemployment... or at least I hope you cover TU in another video...
thank a lot miss Adrien and Mr Gakob
I think the arguments "against'' globalisation is more critiques of the execution of globalisation like Stiglitz.
Thanks for your videos.
Great video as usual.
One of the most interesting videos so far
I'm disappointed you didn't mention how free trade agreements are being used to undermine democracy in developed countries.
Being balanced doesn't mean giving a few arguments for either side. It means covering all the important points.
I hear a lot about people going to these developing countries and giving them material things.
While I think that's great, an even better use of resources would be focusing on ensuring they have both the tools AND the knowledge to participate in a global economy so that they can stop relying on charity. So, don't just build homes for them. Give a select number of locals the supplies they need to build homes and teach those people how to build homes. You could do the same for cell towers and other infrastructure items. Maybe give the locals cell phones and computers, and then teach courses on how to program them.
no mention of land theft? its kind of a major factor here...
How come you talk about Microcredits about being this awesome amazing thing, when Microcredits are a HIGHLY controversial subject??? You should really make an entire episode dedicated to the pros and cons of microcredits.
this was your most fair video... it will take 1000 years for it to raise a place like India to a western standard of living ...globalism is a sham overall
I am surprised the video does not talks about the example of Haiti, where opening to global market without tariff barriers imposed by IMF made things way worse. Haitian income mainly came from rise production and after opening to global market Haitian rise production could not compete with foreign producers, in the end Haitians lost their jobs and the island got poorer. Global trade if opened blindly for crucial sector can be very dangerous...
Are you also covering external cost and pigovian tax?
So what happens when the price of shoes and shirts goes up? does that mean the wages of these sweatshop workers goes up too??
Just get rid of the debt based money system and corrupt leaders
+Ray Rivera Simple as that my friend, but not so simple to execute that idea ;(
+Ray Rivera It's really not that simple for debt, as loans allow people or business that money to jumpstart they might not otherwise get.
Think about how many students wouldn't be able to afford College/University without debt
+The Highscorer (Your Daily Mighty Videos) To add to your post; starting a business with no money to be lent is a challenge.
+Ray Rivera Check out the venus project
+Andrew Elie I had not heard of the Venus Project. Understanding how the monetary system is set up is key to see how much better it could have been.
I really disagree that buying from countries/goods on the DOL list has a significant impact on those companies.
I like what you guys do.
globalisation is great as long as the countries involved are working on a level playing field.....
How can they define poverty by how much currency you live off of? Prices fluctuate by over an order of magnitude depending on the region you are living.
I think they just try to find an average and remember they do not say lower class they say poverty and poverty and squalor are very extreme
As a Bangladeshi I dont know whether to be proud or sad after watching this video
In the 1970's many economists predicted the unsustainable path of capitalism. The predicted by the year 2000 there would be a sharp increase in poverty in the US and globally due to over-population. We are going to run out of oil and other resources by the 1990's and that will create a literal hell on earth. It didn't happen instead of a sharp increase in poverty there has been a sharp decrease in poverty in the developed world. Markets are more sustainable than a centrally designed plan.
This was actually a fairly balanced video.
So out of curiosity, how do areas of extreme poverty that produce little and consume little fit into larger theories on economics? Is there a good reason? Shouldn't free market as we understand it inherently seek to both find a way to increase spending as well as take advantage of very cheap labor? If so, how does it make sense that there can be what basically amounts to economic dead zones?
The Brexit, French riots and Trump's presidency are somewhat related. The common thread is Globalization. Especially the movement of production of goods FROM the countries that consume the goods. Balanced Trade is OK but Free Trade ends with the family wage jobs drained out of the consuming countries.
Those thing are very related. There are revolts happening all over the world. But also, and surprisingly in developing countries.
thank you
you guys are the best !
What is Globalization, and why do you think the way in which Globalization occurs today is both good and bad?
Globalization is when businesses spread internationally. Globalization can be good for businesses and allow them to save money by outsourcing jobs to countries with lower wages. A way globalization can be bad is that anyone who worked for a business that outsourced its jobs now doesn't have a job. Working conditions for lower wage workers in other countries are not good.
Please make a video about autism. I am on the spectrum and I really want to know more about how my brain works.
I'm sure if you type it into youtube you will come up with something 'autism..how the brain works' and maybe look for some books online that may be useful to you to help you figure things out. I wish you well
+Jlb 1986 There are some videos, but none like what I am looking for.
+Shoshana Epstein well I hope you find what you are looking for, best wishes
Thank you for your great information!!!
Just have robots getting resources from the stars and eliminate scarcity (of physical things. Time will always be scarce.)
+Nobody Who gets to have the things? No one wants to do the work if the people who don't do it get just as much. Go build me a space robot and send it off. I'll be sitting in front of the TV.
+R3Testa Easy, everyone gets to have one. Suspend the entertainment industry until people stop being lazy and help out.
Jackboy019
LOL. "No TV" doesn't make people work, and you're punishing the productive people, too, mom.
+R3Testa I don't think so, everybody knows if you want money you GTFO and go work in banking. I mean people in meaningful positions, like NASA, Microsoft Research or whatever, it doesn't really matter what the worlds TV watching paper pushers do.
+Nobody We're well on the way to that. Automation is reducing the need for work to get stuff done all the time. We could probably cut a working week down to 30 hours with current technology, and down to 20 in the near future.
As a Bangladeshi , I know how much the apparel industry contributes to our economy . Almost every poor people I know are dependent on this industry to make money .
From a marxist perspective, the developing nations are seeing their future in the developed countries. This means that they must go through all the process that developed countries went through 100 or 150 years ago. However there is a problem: the periphery and center problem. This means that developing countries face greater competition and foreign pressures when they are industriliazing, these conditions are forcing them to skip phases that developed countries went through, like using fossil fuels to power up their industries. They also face different technological and political contexts. Also they depend a lot on developed countries to industrialize themselves, since they do not have the technology required to do so. This means that developed countries always will be behind unless they use the Chinese model of modernization which is succesful from an economic perspective, but highly questionable in the moral and ethical field. (Note: the chinese model only works in countries with a huge population and access to various natural resources.)