thank you so much for this lecture wes, such a great topic and I'm so happy to see you cover it - btw, would you ever consider doing a lecture on the bretton woods system? I've been seeing it come up again and again lately, so interesting that it was known as "the golden era of capitalism" with high taxes on the wealthy and tighter banking regulations, seems it was such a powerful force in maintaining economic stability also a lecture on edward burnays and his influence on marketing/propaganda would be incredible thx again for your vids wes, truly incredible stuff 🙌
Chaos dynamics, fractals and Topology based economic from Santa Fe Institute. Because if Morfigy can alter epigenetic networks to transmute cancer. And low power single photon emission pulse shined in head can heal pancreas or even modify tiny organisms. This means you already are capable of quite a good self defence. If you just don't go for war on your body. Hence poltiicis needs the same revision
I find it extraordinary that Calvinism ( predestination) can be regarded as a foundation for any social good. As for the very strange notions about the efficiency of private enterprise and so forth: where in history is this observed? Certainly not in the last eighty years
The premise of free trade was it would promote international co-operation and development, 2 very important things post WW2. To make free trade work of course everyone would need to play by the same rules, like not running a budget deficit to gain a market advantage (Latin America's pre WW2 development strategy which put them in debt to Wall Street) as well as setting limits on production because it would lead to a global oversupply without any (the initiation of global trade and the invention of the tractor caused a massive oversupply of agricultural products which in part led to the great recession). As a result of free trade, countries that relied on primary goods (many of which were set up that way due to colonialism) would enter a snafu: it's cheaper to import industrial goods than to make them yourself, but also you need to continue to export primary goods to afford to purchase the imports. Hence they're exposed to the volatility of the prices of primary resource exports, but to escape from it would mean conceding key imports (as well as "aid" from global finance). So to escape meant a likely decrease in QOL. Therefore you have the "it hurts, but it'll work later" model you were talking about. Government deregulates to enter global trade which initially hurts domestic QOL, but getting access to global trade eventually means the more economically efficient (in theory) imports will make up for this loss of QOL. Of course the caveat being you're stuck exporting now, there are about a million and a half steps in between, and often a Western owned/invested corporation is exporting your own resources for you with the blessing of someone they put in charge.
I’ll second that. The sound quality is great, there just isn’t enough volume. For more context on how I was listening: I wasn’t able to understand what was being said at times with the built in iPhone speakers at full volume. I had the phone on the kitchen countertop. The best volume levels allow me to wander around the kitchen and stay engaged with the audio unless I’m making noise.
What the free market guys don't get about reality is they think that everyone would compete in a free market, driving innovation. Three things: first, Marketing old shit is WAAAY more effective and risk free than innovation. Second, the big players (pharma, oil, energy, food conglomerates) would MUCH rather just build cartels and rip everyone off instead of competing for the best service and goods (which is happening anyway). Free markets just mean more unregulated cartels. Third, new players with innovations that can threaten the existing big players are either acquired or the big players use their market power with suppliers and tell them "if you make business with that company, we're going to your competitor" as it's extremely unlikely even a new innovative company doesn't somewhat rely on the existing suppliers of that market.
Exactly! Prior to the three main Utilitarian Industrio-economic philosophies of Communism/Fascism/Neo-Liberalism the mindsets of society were very different. Things were built to last and it was wuth the view of safeguarding things for future generations. This went as much for furniture as it did for the environment. There was care and craftsmanship involved in everything from barrel making to architecture, to the kitchen cupboards. The problem began with the "Domestic System" where middle-men began building more mass manufactured products between farm holdings in order to develop more elaborate products and then take a large cut of the profits. The Domestic System was the roots of the Industrial Age. Once people were coralled off the land and into workhouses the industrial and Dickensian city was born, and with it came the struggle for workers rights, the struggle to manage scales of complexity, and the economic philosophies which littered that era. Neo-Liberalism was the last Utopian attempt, but it fundamentally misunderstood the value of cultural roots, the necessity of family structure, the need for metaphysical and spiritual connection, and traditions. Once everything becomes reduced to it's material/utilitarian pleasure, and competition is seen as the only driver, then it suffices to service only the base desires and needs. Short term profit and monopolist advantage becomes the sole aim of the game. The "planned obselesence" mindset replaces the safeguarding of longevity, and marketeering is valued more than the product, the labour, or materials of production. With technocracy developing co-linearly with this neo-utilitarianism the arrival of the system we're now edging towards becomes: Technocratic Neo-Fuedalism. Under the pressure of corpocracy and everything held hostage behind only a monetary value then all of it becomes a trap. Want the family? That's a taxation cost, and a mortgage (dead pledge), want the software? Then pay the multiple subscriptions, want your bank account? You'll need a high end smartphone and internet subscriptions? Want your car suspension? Then pay the monthly access fee? Not only are people taxed to pay for increasingly privatised government services, they are also taxed for services in the private sector that are becoming increasingly essential to living life. This Saturnine trapping of basic needs behind paywalls and debt traps is the entire inversion of what the social and ethical good of civilisations is meant to be about. Usury and debt based financing, along with debased fiat currency results in the erosion of values. The empire and the good times roll, until the spoils of the good times morph into the decadent decline. Then you're back to Ceasar realising that the debt burden on the average and poor is too heavy and needs writing off, and then the knives in the back from the senate that is knee deep in the corrupt profiteering. Corpicratic syndication and technocratic-fuedalism is the end outcome. On onr polar extreme there's the CCP model which uses technology to shame and guilt people for their basic desires and behaviors, on the other extreme there's the US model which elevates the pursuit of these desires just so long as you take the "Dead Pledge" for the white picket fence dream. Sure you can have the "American Dream" just so long as you're willing to screw over your neighbour and are willing to sacrifice workers rights and a national healthcare system. In Britain we have seen this struggle repeat continually. The war between the aristocracy and the peasantry is nothing new. It was this very struggle that resulted in Charles 1st losing his head, and then the power vacuum and all "The Troubles" that Cromwell set in motion. Troubles which were exported to America and Australia and still aren't fully settled here in the UK. "Progress" steamrolls over eveything and everyone. We have more automation and more efficiency in the world today, but somehow this results in two parent households working several jobs, being propped up by tax credits and on food banks. People work more hours and more days in a week and more months in a year than a medieval peasant used to work. That's the insanity of the situation! Meanwhile Besos flies off on his rocket whilst Amazon warehouse workers go without the dignity of toilet breaks and have to urinate in plastic bottles. The Calvinist viewpoint wad that work was next to Godliness. The nazis had above the concentration camps "Arbeit Macht Frei". Then you look at the Ludlow masacre in the US or the Aberfan disaster in Wales in the UK. And you soon see the real face of progress and the cost of the "white picket fence". The real face of the world is a tyranny by authoritarianism and the boot of the company store that press-gangs people from their homes and roots into serfdom. Neo-liberalism promised the Brave New World. Given how detached and individualistic people are becoming it's hard to say it hasn't delivered on that dystopian aim. The more that the upper-middle class begins to struggle, the closer nations move towards civil wars and revolutions. Technocratic-Fuedalism is the Great Evil of our times. And we arrived here out of naivé ignorance and a faith in technology and money over community and family values. As E.O Wilson aptly said "The real problem for humanity is that we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and God-like technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and now approaching a point of crisis overall". Today's survival becomes about how well anyone can navigate administrative systems, the semiotics of propaganda, and data/information analysis rather than anything remotely akin to the ingenuity and creativity of the human spark. In essence that is the "banality of evil" at work within the utilitarian and secular models that were birthed due to the arrival of the industrial era. And rather than change course our political and corporate stooges are doubling down on the mistake. With the illusion of technology and neo-liberalism now cracking into the flawed veneer that it was, it leaves society and cultures affected reeling for answers. Post-modernism only offered absurdity in it's wake. And "now what?" Becomes the salient question.
@juankgonzalez6230 Thanks, although I'd rather down vote the bleak realisation. There was a small window during the 90s to Early 2000s where, at least in the UK and in a non-internet world that it seemed like the world was moving away from the evils that surrounded WW2 and that we were en-route to solving the big problems of poverty, war, disease. Then 9/11 "happened" and everything from there onwards has been the descent into a very distorted dystopia. I've been disgusted with our political class in the West, nations which were touting themselves as "developed" and "1st world"... They have allowed the "Great Evil" of WW2 to spread into each democracy. I genuinely wish I had solutions, but all I can see is the need for everage people around the world to refuse war and to challenge the tyranny of minority grouos of secret cabals like the WEF, and Silicone Valley, and to challenge bad ideoligies like marxism, fascism, technocracy, and religious extremism. When those of us in allegedly "developed" nations no longer know where things need to go on our own shores, or how to resolve the decadence and destabilisation created by digital technologies then the world over needs to earnestly assess whether they want to follow the direction of nations like America or China, and whether they want the forever wars that have emerged out of the combination of industrialism, digital technology, and religious territorial specialism. Even between 2010 to 2020 I still had hope that we could solve the problems of the world. But everything from 2020 onwards is indicating that we are all in for some very grim times. We need far more peace workers and lovers in the world, but all we seem to have are war mongerers and virtue signallers. Thanks for the esteem given to my analysis, but I'd give anything not to have the understanding of the world I now carry, life was much easier when all I did was drink, smoke dope, and ignore everyone's BS.
Fantastic,wasted effort just for a youtube comment, you could publish this. Well written and easy to read with lots of interesting salient points that resonate,only wish society could take heed and act earlier before they have no choice@angryherbalgerbil
Man i wish i could have gone to the class since they're in France now but i'm busy with college If you could do one during the summer at some point that'd be awesome 😊 (no pressure though)
I recall with the Calvinism talk Wes mentioned that the way he fights that philosophical tendency is to say “I am worthy”. Likewise, with Materialism he said to ask yourself “what can I get rid of that might solve my problem, rather than what can I buy”. Are there similar things we could or should ask ourselves around libertarianism, neoliberalism, or individualism? Perhaps these were discussed and I missed them but I don’t recall them being called out as specifically as Calvinism and materialism. Thanks, love the videos as always
I know what the solution to neoliberalism is. Its very simple: the solution is Georgism. A land value tax would prevent monopolization of land wealth and go a long way towards fixing the housing crisis, while giving the government large amounts of income to stimulate the economy with. A welfare state / UBI would create the equality of opportunity that free markets kinda need in order to grow and innovate. These are the things neoliberalism is missing.
to de-globalize use economic theory call SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. build one 'cell; at a time until it forms masses of small local market places. laissez faire government must SUPPORT the individual people families and ethnic groups not COMPETE with the workers to the death.
Stimulating the economy is part of the problem. Say what you will about the Austrians, but business cycle theory is more then just a theory, it’s fact. You invest in stupid things when the times are good, then the times get worse and you have to pay up… but you can’t… and on a large scale that destroys the entire phoney economy built atop it. Of course governments try and minimize the effects of that with large scale bailouts to the largest offenders (conveniently leaving the small ones for dead) but the point stands. But yeah, Georgism all the way minus the stimulus.
@@zyansheep hey there, great comment, I love to see points like this raised 🙌 Have you heard of the book utopia for realists by historian Rutger Bregman? There's a lot of incredible information on UBI studies in there, did you know nixon almost got a UBI through the Senate back in the early 70s? Truly some of the most incredible financial history I've ever heard of, so many more people deserve to know about this imo 👌👌👌 Also referenced is that quote about "nothing being as strong as an idea whose time has come". Inflation and cost of living and wealth inequality has been going crazy especially since the 2008gfc, corporate profits are breaking records year after year yet so many poor and working class people are being left behind, and don't we know that the offshore tax haven industry is getting wilder and wilder. Key financial factors here, the world deserves better imo, and as always history is the key. Hence why I would love for wes to cover the bretton woods system. Great to see more people talking about these topics 🙌
The problem with that is yachts. Billionaires and financiers will live on a fleet of yachts, so the only people paying land tax will be home owners and main Street.
I have my guesses but I’m curious which of the 5 ism’s Wes personally dislikes the most? What about which ones he dislikes the least? Individualism Calvinism Libertarianism Nihilistic Materialism Neoliberalism
Hydrocarbon is more responsible for lifting people's living standards than neoliberal ideology, in my humble opinion. Having the equivalent of half-trillion underpaid workers made from hundreds of millions of years stored solar energy is where this expansion comes from.
Did they not have access to hydrocarbons in, say, Communist China? All societies with access to hydrocarbons have had equal increase in living standards?
This is awesome. Thank you so much for sharing. I’be got a decent understanding of this issue but never heard it explained as having Calvinist roots. It brings to mind Daniel Bell and his book on capitalism- that was hugely influential for me. He talks about the roots of capitalism being in Protestantism- I’m wondering if you and he are speaking of the same phenomenon? This is the first video of yours I’ve listened to but I’m going to check out your others. I’d love to pick your brain! If you haven’t discussed BRICS I’m hoping you will at some point.
There was no social dislocation when Poland joined the EU. I was living in Poland during that time. The economic challenges occurred during the years of transition from a planned economy to a free market, which took place over a decade before EU accession. You’re mixing these events up. :) Additionally, you’re conflating what happened in the former Soviet Union, where reforms were abandoned halfway, and where the issue was corruption and people from former security sector, with the experiences of countries that implemented them fully and successfully. Economics is about what works and what is practical-there’s no room for dogmatic or ‘religious’ thinking about it.
"countries that implemented them fully and successfully" He says when the experiences of neoliberal regimes have had the same consequences in every instance.
As you describe "neoliberalism", what I'm hearing is closer to "the Washington Consensus". To be fair, in recent history, esp reagan/thatcher era, neoliberalism manifested itself in the Washington Consensus, so impact & history-wise, this is the right thing to do. However, since then, developmental economists have begun rejecting the Washington Consensus - Fukuyama, Studwell, Acemoglu, etc. The Washington consensus is easy to criticize, and your formulation of neoliberalism are both quite easy to criticize, as they're both empirically Not Optimal. However, if you instead define neoliberalism as, say, "the philosophical underpinning of the theories of mainstream economists that define economic policies under American hegemony", then already "neoliberalism" has seen the downsides of The Washington Consensus and has begun shifting away from it. I'm hammering on this because I think there's a coherent throughline and evolution of thought among modern twitter pundits that classify themselves as "neoliberals" like Matt Yglesias & Noahpinion that share the whys of The Washington Consensus (e.g. material prosperity for all, freedom for individuals to choose their paths), but has rejected the hows (free market fundamentalism, deregulation, gov't budget hawkery), and has done so within the boundaries of mainstream economic research (e.g. empirical research on industrial policy developing economies, theories around public goods provision, georgist theories on land allocation). I say all this because I think fundamentally neoliberalism's goals have not yet been achieved (Calvin's promised heaven on earth has not yet arrived), and as such there is still a role for it to play. If it continues to evolve, then perhaps the core neoliberal ideas of empowering individuals to create value & taxing/redistributing that value to provide safety for society can still address many of the problems we have today.
@@ashtangaxashtangapranayama8526the government artificially incentivising banks to lend out money for sub-prime mortgages while the money supply is being artificially inflated by a strictly enforced central-bank fiat currency system? Maybe that?
@@klosnj11 but i think the point is that the attitude towards free market and the companies/entities operating under it allows for that kind of short sightedness and lobbying to occur every time, its simply a story of profit motive over everything
@@ashtangaxashtangapranayama8526 which would have ended up in the death of those companies, making room for new fresh businesses to come in and start up in the vaccume, but instead, the GOVERNEMENT bailed out the loosers and gamblers prooving to the market that if you are big enough, you dont need to worry about risk, just go balls-to-the-wall chasing profit in any way you can and big daddy government will always fix your problems. This isnt capitalism. It hasnt been since at least 1971.
to de-globalize use economic theory call SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. build one 'cell; at a time until it forms masses of small local market places. laissez faire government must SUPPORT the individual people families and ethnic groups not COMPETE with the workers to the death.
Interesting that people who i know that are against neo liberalism are against Trump and Brexit, even though they are two of the biggest recent counters to neo liberalism.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not hold a) after victory is achieved by both (see: the cold war + any civil war ever) and b) if said enemy of your enemy is ultimately very very unwise...
I do not really understand what is so much against neoliberalism in Trump and Brexit. On a declarative level there might be few things (anti-immigration and tariffs), but in practise Trump and Brexit are in most ways even more neoliberal than the alternatives: cutting public services, regulations and taxes on the rich... All those who are against neoliberalism only voted for Trump and Brexit for ideological or emotional reasons. As the previous commentator said, they voted for the enemies of the enemies, even if they are worse than enemies.
Trump and Brexit are simply different views on who must be in charge of the services offered to neoliberal ruling class. They are against some specific policies and can slow temporarly the general trend wich works in favour of some competitors. Trump and Brexit simple serve another group within the same economical-social wordview.
When you mean materialism do you mean coveting of good or physiological materialism? Capitalism is generally a very Idealistic economic system and at least American capitalism puts a certain value of an asetic worker that worked hard for nothing and it'll eventually pay off, not a bad video just think thats interesting
Accordingly to your own definition of neo-liberalism, China is not neo-liberal, not even under Deng. The Chinese government lead by the communist party retains control of the “commanding heights of the economy”: finance, land, minerals, etc. And as you say, China has been responsible for a large part of worldwide poverty reduction. Truly neo-liberal economies lead by Thatcherite/Regeanite economics, on the other hand, are suffering major cases of deindustrialisation, reductions in life expectancy and ballooning debt burdens.
There is no ‘refugee issue’; the issue is about economic migration. Refugee is around 1 to 3% of people that migrate. This is why this channel is way less popular than it could be. People hear you cannot speak the truth about what matters to them.
Your claims about neoliberalism being inconsistent, based on the presence of government interventions, are misguided. It’s like suggesting that living in peace is inconsistent simply because wars sometimes happen, or that the principles we follow when healthy are invalid because they change during illness. Government interventions as a response to extraordinary circumstances do not undermine anything here.
"Government interventions as a response to extraordinary circumstances do not undermine anything here." So the neoliberals of the US overthrowing dozens of countries for the profits of the American capitalists were just "extraordinary circumstances"? What about the countless times the US gov have attacked their own people as a result of neoliberalism?
The alternative should be Sakoku. Close off the borders and trade except for one port. Nuclear containment and forbidding military invasions are the only global project. The idea is to reindustrialize and create an mass artisan economy that brings back direct accountability to whoever you run your shop. Edit: wrong spelling of Sakoku.
@@chaseharrison2064 SAKOKU. Sorry. A fascinating period possibly spurred on by negative reaction to Jesuits trying to christianize Japan. They cut themselves off and had a period of relative peace and prosperity, though they had some limited trade with Holland.
it’s not any countries responsibility to make sure the world poverty declines at the expense of that countries own economic growth and development if that’s the goal The NATO should require that each country contribute an equal rate of their annual GDP for this specific reason It’s criminal to put this bill on the American people
thank you so much for this lecture wes, such a great topic and I'm so happy to see you cover it - btw, would you ever consider doing a lecture on the bretton woods system? I've been seeing it come up again and again lately, so interesting that it was known as "the golden era of capitalism" with high taxes on the wealthy and tighter banking regulations, seems it was such a powerful force in maintaining economic stability
also a lecture on edward burnays and his influence on marketing/propaganda would be incredible
thx again for your vids wes, truly incredible stuff 🙌
Chaos dynamics, fractals and Topology based economic from Santa Fe Institute.
Because if Morfigy can alter epigenetic networks to transmute cancer. And low power single photon emission pulse shined in head can heal pancreas or even modify tiny organisms.
This means you already are capable of quite a good self defence. If you just don't go for war on your body.
Hence poltiicis needs the same revision
Golden Era was largely due to American Aid programs to a select few European countries more than anything to do with Bretton Woods.
I find it extraordinary that Calvinism ( predestination) can be regarded as a foundation for any social good.
As for the very strange notions about the efficiency of private enterprise and so forth: where in history is this observed? Certainly not in the last eighty years
What qre you comparing the efficiency of private enterprise to? Government run enterprise?
@@klosnj11 any corporation.
The premise of free trade was it would promote international co-operation and development, 2 very important things post WW2. To make free trade work of course everyone would need to play by the same rules, like not running a budget deficit to gain a market advantage (Latin America's pre WW2 development strategy which put them in debt to Wall Street) as well as setting limits on production because it would lead to a global oversupply without any (the initiation of global trade and the invention of the tractor caused a massive oversupply of agricultural products which in part led to the great recession).
As a result of free trade, countries that relied on primary goods (many of which were set up that way due to colonialism) would enter a snafu: it's cheaper to import industrial goods than to make them yourself, but also you need to continue to export primary goods to afford to purchase the imports. Hence they're exposed to the volatility of the prices of primary resource exports, but to escape from it would mean conceding key imports (as well as "aid" from global finance). So to escape meant a likely decrease in QOL.
Therefore you have the "it hurts, but it'll work later" model you were talking about. Government deregulates to enter global trade which initially hurts domestic QOL, but getting access to global trade eventually means the more economically efficient (in theory) imports will make up for this loss of QOL. Of course the caveat being you're stuck exporting now, there are about a million and a half steps in between, and often a Western owned/invested corporation is exporting your own resources for you with the blessing of someone they put in charge.
Mic levels are very low
Great talk and deserves better audio checks
Shut up!
I’ll second that. The sound quality is great, there just isn’t enough volume. For more context on how I was listening: I wasn’t able to understand what was being said at times with the built in iPhone speakers at full volume. I had the phone on the kitchen countertop. The best volume levels allow me to wander around the kitchen and stay engaged with the audio unless I’m making noise.
@@layoutinspector5239 yes it seems like the mic is cardioid and it’s backwards
I have my android and the audio is fine at full volume. It's just barely breaking the limits at max volume for me.
What the free market guys don't get about reality is they think that everyone would compete in a free market, driving innovation. Three things: first, Marketing old shit is WAAAY more effective and risk free than innovation. Second, the big players (pharma, oil, energy, food conglomerates) would MUCH rather just build cartels and rip everyone off instead of competing for the best service and goods (which is happening anyway). Free markets just mean more unregulated cartels. Third, new players with innovations that can threaten the existing big players are either acquired or the big players use their market power with suppliers and tell them "if you make business with that company, we're going to your competitor" as it's extremely unlikely even a new innovative company doesn't somewhat rely on the existing suppliers of that market.
Exactly!
Prior to the three main Utilitarian Industrio-economic philosophies of Communism/Fascism/Neo-Liberalism the mindsets of society were very different.
Things were built to last and it was wuth the view of safeguarding things for future generations. This went as much for furniture as it did for the environment. There was care and craftsmanship involved in everything from barrel making to architecture, to the kitchen cupboards.
The problem began with the "Domestic System" where middle-men began building more mass manufactured products between farm holdings in order to develop more elaborate products and then take a large cut of the profits. The Domestic System was the roots of the Industrial Age. Once people were coralled off the land and into workhouses the industrial and Dickensian city was born, and with it came the struggle for workers rights, the struggle to manage scales of complexity, and the economic philosophies which littered that era.
Neo-Liberalism was the last Utopian attempt, but it fundamentally misunderstood the value of cultural roots, the necessity of family structure, the need for metaphysical and spiritual connection, and traditions.
Once everything becomes reduced to it's material/utilitarian pleasure, and competition is seen as the only driver, then it suffices to service only the base desires and needs. Short term profit and monopolist advantage becomes the sole aim of the game. The "planned obselesence" mindset replaces the safeguarding of longevity, and marketeering is valued more than the product, the labour, or materials of production.
With technocracy developing co-linearly with this neo-utilitarianism the arrival of the system we're now edging towards becomes: Technocratic Neo-Fuedalism.
Under the pressure of corpocracy and everything held hostage behind only a monetary value then all of it becomes a trap. Want the family? That's a taxation cost, and a mortgage (dead pledge), want the software? Then pay the multiple subscriptions, want your bank account? You'll need a high end smartphone and internet subscriptions? Want your car suspension? Then pay the monthly access fee?
Not only are people taxed to pay for increasingly privatised government services, they are also taxed for services in the private sector that are becoming increasingly essential to living life.
This Saturnine trapping of basic needs behind paywalls and debt traps is the entire inversion of what the social and ethical good of civilisations is meant to be about.
Usury and debt based financing, along with debased fiat currency results in the erosion of values.
The empire and the good times roll, until the spoils of the good times morph into the decadent decline. Then you're back to Ceasar realising that the debt burden on the average and poor is too heavy and needs writing off, and then the knives in the back from the senate that is knee deep in the corrupt profiteering.
Corpicratic syndication and technocratic-fuedalism is the end outcome.
On onr polar extreme there's the CCP model which uses technology to shame and guilt people for their basic desires and behaviors, on the other extreme there's the US model which elevates the pursuit of these desires just so long as you take the "Dead Pledge" for the white picket fence dream. Sure you can have the "American Dream" just so long as you're willing to screw over your neighbour and are willing to sacrifice workers rights and a national healthcare system.
In Britain we have seen this struggle repeat continually. The war between the aristocracy and the peasantry is nothing new. It was this very struggle that resulted in Charles 1st losing his head, and then the power vacuum and all "The Troubles" that Cromwell set in motion. Troubles which were exported to America and Australia and still aren't fully settled here in the UK.
"Progress" steamrolls over eveything and everyone. We have more automation and more efficiency in the world today, but somehow this results in two parent households working several jobs, being propped up by tax credits and on food banks. People work more hours and more days in a week and more months in a year than a medieval peasant used to work. That's the insanity of the situation! Meanwhile Besos flies off on his rocket whilst Amazon warehouse workers go without the dignity of toilet breaks and have to urinate in plastic bottles.
The Calvinist viewpoint wad that work was next to Godliness. The nazis had above the concentration camps "Arbeit Macht Frei". Then you look at the Ludlow masacre in the US or the Aberfan disaster in Wales in the UK. And you soon see the real face of progress and the cost of the "white picket fence".
The real face of the world is a tyranny by authoritarianism and the boot of the company store that press-gangs people from their homes and roots into serfdom.
Neo-liberalism promised the Brave New World. Given how detached and individualistic people are becoming it's hard to say it hasn't delivered on that dystopian aim.
The more that the upper-middle class begins to struggle, the closer nations move towards civil wars and revolutions.
Technocratic-Fuedalism is the Great Evil of our times. And we arrived here out of naivé ignorance and a faith in technology and money over community and family values.
As E.O Wilson aptly said "The real problem for humanity is that we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and God-like technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and now approaching a point of crisis overall".
Today's survival becomes about how well anyone can navigate administrative systems, the semiotics of propaganda, and data/information analysis rather than anything remotely akin to the ingenuity and creativity of the human spark.
In essence that is the "banality of evil" at work within the utilitarian and secular models that were birthed due to the arrival of the industrial era. And rather than change course our political and corporate stooges are doubling down on the mistake.
With the illusion of technology and neo-liberalism now cracking into the flawed veneer that it was, it leaves society and cultures affected reeling for answers. Post-modernism only offered absurdity in it's wake. And "now what?" Becomes the salient question.
@@angryherbalgerbilI would give a thousand likes to this comment if I could
Brilliant!!!
@juankgonzalez6230
Thanks, although I'd rather down vote the bleak realisation.
There was a small window during the 90s to Early 2000s where, at least in the UK and in a non-internet world that it seemed like the world was moving away from the evils that surrounded WW2 and that we were en-route to solving the big problems of poverty, war, disease.
Then 9/11 "happened" and everything from there onwards has been the descent into a very distorted dystopia.
I've been disgusted with our political class in the West, nations which were touting themselves as "developed" and "1st world"... They have allowed the "Great Evil" of WW2 to spread into each democracy.
I genuinely wish I had solutions, but all I can see is the need for everage people around the world to refuse war and to challenge the tyranny of minority grouos of secret cabals like the WEF, and Silicone Valley, and to challenge bad ideoligies like marxism, fascism, technocracy, and religious extremism.
When those of us in allegedly "developed" nations no longer know where things need to go on our own shores, or how to resolve the decadence and destabilisation created by digital technologies then the world over needs to earnestly assess whether they want to follow the direction of nations like America or China, and whether they want the forever wars that have emerged out of the combination of industrialism, digital technology, and religious territorial specialism.
Even between 2010 to 2020 I still had hope that we could solve the problems of the world. But everything from 2020 onwards is indicating that we are all in for some very grim times.
We need far more peace workers and lovers in the world, but all we seem to have are war mongerers and virtue signallers.
Thanks for the esteem given to my analysis, but I'd give anything not to have the understanding of the world I now carry, life was much easier when all I did was drink, smoke dope, and ignore everyone's BS.
Fantastic,wasted effort just for a youtube comment, you could publish this. Well written and easy to read with lots of interesting salient points that resonate,only wish society could take heed and act earlier before they have no choice@angryherbalgerbil
Man i wish i could have gone to the class since they're in France now but i'm busy with college
If you could do one during the summer at some point that'd be awesome 😊 (no pressure though)
Economics 101
All theories work some of the time, no theory works all of the time.
I recall with the Calvinism talk Wes mentioned that the way he fights that philosophical tendency is to say “I am worthy”. Likewise, with Materialism he said to ask yourself “what can I get rid of that might solve my problem, rather than what can I buy”. Are there similar things we could or should ask ourselves around libertarianism, neoliberalism, or individualism? Perhaps these were discussed and I missed them but I don’t recall them being called out as specifically as Calvinism and materialism. Thanks, love the videos as always
I know what the solution to neoliberalism is. Its very simple: the solution is Georgism.
A land value tax would prevent monopolization of land wealth and go a long way towards fixing the housing crisis, while giving the government large amounts of income to stimulate the economy with.
A welfare state / UBI would create the equality of opportunity that free markets kinda need in order to grow and innovate.
These are the things neoliberalism is missing.
to de-globalize use economic theory call SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. build one 'cell; at a time until it forms masses of small local market places. laissez faire government must SUPPORT the individual people families and ethnic groups not COMPETE with the workers to the death.
Stimulating the economy is part of the problem.
Say what you will about the Austrians, but business cycle theory is more then just a theory, it’s fact.
You invest in stupid things when the times are good, then the times get worse and you have to pay up… but you can’t… and on a large scale that destroys the entire phoney economy built atop it.
Of course governments try and minimize the effects of that with large scale bailouts to the largest offenders (conveniently leaving the small ones for dead) but the point stands.
But yeah, Georgism all the way minus the stimulus.
@@zyansheep hey there, great comment, I love to see points like this raised 🙌
Have you heard of the book utopia for realists by historian Rutger Bregman?
There's a lot of incredible information on UBI studies in there, did you know nixon almost got a UBI through the Senate back in the early 70s? Truly some of the most incredible financial history I've ever heard of, so many more people deserve to know about this imo 👌👌👌
Also referenced is that quote about "nothing being as strong as an idea whose time has come". Inflation and cost of living and wealth inequality has been going crazy especially since the 2008gfc, corporate profits are breaking records year after year yet so many poor and working class people are being left behind, and don't we know that the offshore tax haven industry is getting wilder and wilder.
Key financial factors here, the world deserves better imo, and as always history is the key. Hence why I would love for wes to cover the bretton woods system. Great to see more people talking about these topics 🙌
Is Georgism supposed to be universal solution or Georgism relevant only in rich first world countries?
The problem with that is yachts.
Billionaires and financiers will live on a fleet of yachts, so the only people paying land tax will be home owners and main Street.
Ireland is perhaps one of if not the most extreme examples of this but with extremely high tax.
*income tax (but one of the lowest corporate taxes in developed world).
I have my guesses but I’m curious which of the 5 ism’s Wes personally dislikes the most? What about which ones he dislikes the least?
Individualism
Calvinism
Libertarianism
Nihilistic Materialism
Neoliberalism
A fresh take on an overly debated topic, thanks!
Hydrocarbon is more responsible for lifting people's living standards than neoliberal ideology, in my humble opinion. Having the equivalent of half-trillion underpaid workers made from hundreds of millions of years stored solar energy is where this expansion comes from.
Did they not have access to hydrocarbons in, say, Communist China? All societies with access to hydrocarbons have had equal increase in living standards?
This is awesome. Thank you so much for sharing.
I’be got a decent understanding of this issue but never heard it explained as having Calvinist roots. It brings to mind Daniel Bell and his book on capitalism- that was hugely influential for me. He talks about the roots of capitalism being in Protestantism- I’m wondering if you and he are speaking of the same phenomenon?
This is the first video of yours I’ve listened to but I’m going to check out your others. I’d love to pick your brain!
If you haven’t discussed BRICS I’m hoping you will at some point.
666th view, nice. Also, been going through your entire catalogue and loving everything. Thanks for all the hours of hot takes!
wes can you do a lecture on how youd like things to be?
Thank you
There was no social dislocation when Poland joined the EU. I was living in Poland during that time. The economic challenges occurred during the years of transition from a planned economy to a free market, which took place over a decade before EU accession. You’re mixing these events up. :)
Additionally, you’re conflating what happened in the former Soviet Union, where reforms were abandoned halfway, and where the issue was corruption and people from former security sector, with the experiences of countries that implemented them fully and successfully. Economics is about what works and what is practical-there’s no room for dogmatic or ‘religious’ thinking about it.
"countries that implemented them fully and successfully"
He says when the experiences of neoliberal regimes have had the same consequences in every instance.
As you describe "neoliberalism", what I'm hearing is closer to "the Washington Consensus". To be fair, in recent history, esp reagan/thatcher era, neoliberalism manifested itself in the Washington Consensus, so impact & history-wise, this is the right thing to do. However, since then, developmental economists have begun rejecting the Washington Consensus - Fukuyama, Studwell, Acemoglu, etc. The Washington consensus is easy to criticize, and your formulation of neoliberalism are both quite easy to criticize, as they're both empirically Not Optimal. However, if you instead define neoliberalism as, say, "the philosophical underpinning of the theories of mainstream economists that define economic policies under American hegemony", then already "neoliberalism" has seen the downsides of The Washington Consensus and has begun shifting away from it.
I'm hammering on this because I think there's a coherent throughline and evolution of thought among modern twitter pundits that classify themselves as "neoliberals" like Matt Yglesias & Noahpinion that share the whys of The Washington Consensus (e.g. material prosperity for all, freedom for individuals to choose their paths), but has rejected the hows (free market fundamentalism, deregulation, gov't budget hawkery), and has done so within the boundaries of mainstream economic research (e.g. empirical research on industrial policy developing economies, theories around public goods provision, georgist theories on land allocation).
I say all this because I think fundamentally neoliberalism's goals have not yet been achieved (Calvin's promised heaven on earth has not yet arrived), and as such there is still a role for it to play. If it continues to evolve, then perhaps the core neoliberal ideas of empowering individuals to create value & taxing/redistributing that value to provide safety for society can still address many of the problems we have today.
The love of money is the root of all ills. Didn't Calvin read that bit?
Check out Michael Hudson, i think his work should be popularized by more creators.
I don't know it's pretty strange to blame all the corruption and fraud that led to the crisis in 2008 on free market
What would it be then? "Human nature bro"
@@ashtangaxashtangapranayama8526the government artificially incentivising banks to lend out money for sub-prime mortgages while the money supply is being artificially inflated by a strictly enforced central-bank fiat currency system? Maybe that?
@@klosnj11 ok you told the truth, respect.
@@klosnj11 but i think the point is that the attitude towards free market and the companies/entities operating under it allows for that kind of short sightedness and lobbying to occur every time, its simply a story of profit motive over everything
@@ashtangaxashtangapranayama8526 which would have ended up in the death of those companies, making room for new fresh businesses to come in and start up in the vaccume, but instead, the GOVERNEMENT bailed out the loosers and gamblers prooving to the market that if you are big enough, you dont need to worry about risk, just go balls-to-the-wall chasing profit in any way you can and big daddy government will always fix your problems.
This isnt capitalism. It hasnt been since at least 1971.
to de-globalize use economic theory call SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. build one 'cell; at a time until it forms masses of small local market places. laissez faire government must SUPPORT the individual people families and ethnic groups not COMPETE with the workers to the death.
Interesting that people who i know that are against neo liberalism are against Trump and Brexit, even though they are two of the biggest recent counters to neo liberalism.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not hold a) after victory is achieved by both (see: the cold war + any civil war ever) and b) if said enemy of your enemy is ultimately very very unwise...
I do not really understand what is so much against neoliberalism in Trump and Brexit. On a declarative level there might be few things (anti-immigration and tariffs), but in practise Trump and Brexit are in most ways even more neoliberal than the alternatives: cutting public services, regulations and taxes on the rich... All those who are against neoliberalism only voted for Trump and Brexit for ideological or emotional reasons. As the previous commentator said, they voted for the enemies of the enemies, even if they are worse than enemies.
Trump and Brexit are simply different views on who must be in charge of the services offered to neoliberal ruling class. They are against some specific policies and can slow temporarly the general trend wich works in favour of some competitors. Trump and Brexit simple serve another group within the same economical-social wordview.
When you mean materialism do you mean coveting of good or physiological materialism? Capitalism is generally a very Idealistic economic system and at least American capitalism puts a certain value of an asetic worker that worked hard for nothing and it'll eventually pay off, not a bad video just think thats interesting
Gemmy channel
Accordingly to your own definition of neo-liberalism, China is not neo-liberal, not even under Deng. The Chinese government lead by the communist party retains control of the “commanding heights of the economy”: finance, land, minerals, etc. And as you say, China has been responsible for a large part of worldwide poverty reduction. Truly neo-liberal economies lead by Thatcherite/Regeanite economics, on the other hand, are suffering major cases of deindustrialisation, reductions in life expectancy and ballooning debt burdens.
There is no ‘refugee issue’; the issue is about economic migration. Refugee is around 1 to 3% of people that migrate. This is why this channel is way less popular than it could be. People hear you cannot speak the truth about what matters to them.
Tens of millions of refugees but sure, there is no refugee issue.
Your claims about neoliberalism being inconsistent, based on the presence of government interventions, are misguided. It’s like suggesting that living in peace is inconsistent simply because wars sometimes happen, or that the principles we follow when healthy are invalid because they change during illness. Government interventions as a response to extraordinary circumstances do not undermine anything here.
"Government interventions as a response to extraordinary circumstances do not undermine anything here."
So the neoliberals of the US overthrowing dozens of countries for the profits of the American capitalists were just "extraordinary circumstances"? What about the countless times the US gov have attacked their own people as a result of neoliberalism?
The alternative should be Sakoku. Close off the borders and trade except for one port.
Nuclear containment and forbidding military invasions are the only global project.
The idea is to reindustrialize and create an mass artisan economy that brings back direct accountability to whoever you run your shop.
Edit: wrong spelling of Sakoku.
Sources for reading about this? I cant find anything after a few google searches.
@@chaseharrison2064 SAKOKU. Sorry.
A fascinating period possibly spurred on by negative reaction to Jesuits trying to christianize Japan. They cut themselves off and had a period of relative peace and prosperity, though they had some limited trade with Holland.
@@krunkle5136 Thanks for the correction!
MAGA!!!!
Bot
it’s not any countries responsibility to make sure the world poverty declines at the expense of that countries own economic growth and development
if that’s the goal The NATO should require that each country contribute an equal rate of their annual GDP for this specific reason
It’s criminal to put this bill on the American people
Anybody who would attempt to dominate someone is doomed to failure. Don't imposed your doctrines to others. Life is life, it is what it is.