This is an incredibly fair and well delivered lecture. Thank you for your videos, they are extremely important and valuable contributions to the discourse and education.
At 15:30 the article being referred to is Marshall Sahlins 'The Original Affluent Society' in his collection Stone Age Economics and it is being completely misrepresented... the article argues that those societies are differentiated by their wants not by the resources at their disposal.
So much better with small film clips inserted to illistrate the points . This should be done with this whole series because as it is an incredible valuble resource.
I think the problem always arises when we try to define economics and its 'scope'; well, how about we just stop doing that? Three of the modern 'Microeconomics' textbooks that I was rushed to after watching this video, surprisingly did not start the book with a statement like "What is economics?" but rather an obvious application of "The Model". The model could be literally anything; the textbooks end up highlighting the common elements (assumptions) among these models. Model is a simple abstraction of Reality. If people are so keen to define the subject in a 'line' here is the one that I propose: "Economics is an abstraction of reality to draw conclusions".
@@JoseFerreira-ms9xi Austrian economics, from Menger to Mises, is not rooted to evidence. This includes Hayek and Friedman as well. Excellent ideological arguments, zero evidence.
Whether wants are limited or not, some people's higher wants (like wanting to own specific model of expensive, luxury car or a yacht) cannot be considered equal to someone else's needs or even basic wants (like having a decent healthcare) *like it is now.*
Wants are subjective. What someone wants is completely influenced by what they perceive they want. Someone that hasn't been influenced by commercials and marketing may not want the same things as those that are.
@@bkelsey6692 I personannly subscribe to the School of Ecological Economics. One of the central themes is that humans (both consumer and producers) lack the proper informantion to make decisions that will not lead to the eventual destruction of human civilisation.
everything is socially constructed. That's the answer to everything. Except it's not. People generally desire also for internal/individual psychological reasons, not just because evil advertisers wash their brains.
There is no need to confront psychological and social. Quite often they interact very prudently, so the one can influence the other and partially shape it. No need to paint «man vs society» from classical literature onto the modern world
Whereas an individual’s needs, and even wants, are surely finite, our system has achieved automated greed and wants. Vastly rich people cannot even experience all their wealth, let alone enjoy it. They do, however, employ money managers, whose job it is to nourish greed and thus embody the need for ever more wealth. Their employers can spend their time playing croquet as the managers grub for the « filthy lucre » of which their employers do not deign to speak.
If all people interacted kindly towards each other, would there be a need for religion, and the threat of punishment in the afterlife, to force one to think twice, before misbehaving?!
Deductions from the operation of the Mind-Body, if you know what the fundamental operator is, recognition of functional e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance bonding, then the floating point coordination of coherence-cohesion objectives via Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection Techniques to assign strategies inherent in Mathematical reasoning symbology to Economic Analysis.., budgeting, accounting, double entry book keeping etc are more comprehensible as parallel coexistence properties than the incorrect assumptions of linear-numerical doctrine. (?)
"We want something not because we need it but because someone else has it" 8:07. talk about unreasonable assumptions. Is he really trying to make the claim that all wants are socially constructed? if he is, I think that is crazy talk. Otherways he is admitting, that at least partly abundance of wants, is biological.
oh yeah, and the arguments presented to argue that scarcity is socially constructed are even worse and intentionally or ignorant to what is actually meant by scarcity. see principles of economics, carl Menger. I think its wonderful to discuss these issues but let's please not spread false or misleading information
His argument of wants being socially constructed has validity to it. We want something because we see it as having some sort of desirability/value but where does that “value” come from? The “value” of something is dictated by society and perceptions of something, so therefore, socially constructed. Things don’t naturally have some sort of intrinsic value unless we place value on it.
@@sexiangellol so a man alone on an inland has no wants? Are all wants "socialy constructed" whiout exeptcion? I do not deny in any sense that society has influence on the wants of individuals, nor have I ever encountered this claim in the writings of relevant econmoist(especially the "neoclassical" ones). My point is: the claim "we want something not because we need it but because someone else has it", I think, is nuts. The moment in which a person makes discovery, say invents glasses that fix eyesight problems, he wants them. A great deal of human invention is posible because human want things that do not exist, they want them even though nobody has them. Like I would really like to have a car that can fly. I do not to be rude! I apreciate your response!
@@jesusmariacasaltorres2488 I think if a person were to be on an island completely isolated from societal influences, that yes, they would have no wants. You don't want a car that can fly simply because it's cool or anything, but you would want it because of convenience right? Because that is valued by society. That is the reason for a lot of these technological advancements because it makes life easier, faster, and more convenient for us which is why we WANT them. I mean if you go back all the way to Neanderthals, they subsisted off of the basics: food, fire, water, and shelter.
@@jesusmariacasaltorres2488 It's less so on the individual scale of like "that person has it, so I want it" but more on a larger, societal scale where we place values on "things" both in the physical sense and in terms of characteristics such as beauty/convenience/etc. that drives us to want something because value has been placed upon it by society.
This is an incredibly fair and well delivered lecture. Thank you for your videos, they are extremely important and valuable contributions to the discourse and education.
I think of economics as "the study of production, distribution, and exchange of resources in society".
That's the definition we used in our economics courses
But what is a resource? How does one define it?
I will be stealing this definition
At 15:30 the article being referred to is Marshall Sahlins 'The Original Affluent Society' in his collection Stone Age Economics and it is being completely misrepresented... the article argues that those societies are differentiated by their wants not by the resources at their disposal.
So much better with small film clips inserted to illistrate the points . This should be done with this whole series because as it is an incredible valuble resource.
I think the problem always arises when we try to define economics and its 'scope'; well, how about we just stop doing that?
Three of the modern 'Microeconomics' textbooks that I was rushed to after watching this video, surprisingly did not start the book with a statement like "What is economics?" but rather an obvious application of "The Model". The model could be literally anything; the textbooks end up highlighting the common elements (assumptions) among these models.
Model is a simple abstraction of Reality. If people are so keen to define the subject in a 'line' here is the one that I propose: "Economics is an abstraction of reality to draw conclusions".
"Needs are satiable; wants are insatiable." -- Allyn Young
Contradicts the statement at 5:20 by Mill that the "stationary state" exists at all
Opposite theories.
@@JoseFerreira-ms9xi one with evidence, one without :)
@@GenghisVern who says? what data do support your claim on?
@@JoseFerreira-ms9xi Austrian economics, from Menger to Mises, is not rooted to evidence. This includes Hayek and Friedman as well. Excellent ideological arguments, zero evidence.
A book which explores this concept further is Giorgos Kallis's "Limits: Why Malthus was wrong and why environmentalists should care"
Whether wants are limited or not, some people's higher wants (like wanting to own specific model of expensive, luxury car or a yacht) cannot be considered equal to someone else's needs or even basic wants (like having a decent healthcare) *like it is now.*
That's a difference between wants and needs, not wants and wants
Wants are subjective. What someone wants is completely influenced by what they perceive they want. Someone that hasn't been influenced by commercials and marketing may not want the same things as those that are.
True, which is why this assumption should be mostly banished of from the economic field.
@@superduperfreakyDj human action is the most truest and instinctual form of economic theory
@@bkelsey6692 No
@@superduperfreakyDj than what would you say is the most accurate economic theory?
@@bkelsey6692 I personannly subscribe to the School of Ecological Economics. One of the central themes is that humans (both consumer and producers) lack the proper informantion to make decisions that will not lead to the eventual destruction of human civilisation.
PLEASE ANYBODY CAN EXPLAIN ME HIS IDEAS I AM NOT ABLE T0 UNDRSTAND BUT I REALLY WANT TO
Economic is teaching me how to looks at things from others perspective. I am becoming more empathetic.
everything is socially constructed. That's the answer to everything. Except it's not. People generally desire also for internal/individual psychological reasons, not just because evil advertisers wash their brains.
There is no need to confront psychological and social. Quite often they interact very prudently, so the one can influence the other and partially shape it. No need to paint «man vs society» from classical literature onto the modern world
So currently that is being teached is useless?
Nah, they still manage to get paid to do it, as do mediums, fortune tellers and priests.....
Create enough scarcity in the society, everyone becomes a criminal.
If the notion is borne out that wars artificially create scarcity, that would make them doubly culpable as criminal offences.
Whereas an individual’s needs, and even wants, are surely finite, our system has achieved automated greed and wants. Vastly rich people cannot even experience all their wealth, let alone enjoy it. They do, however, employ money managers, whose job it is to nourish greed and thus embody the need for ever more wealth. Their employers can spend their time playing croquet as the managers grub for the « filthy lucre » of which their employers do not deign to speak.
If all people interacted kindly towards each other, would there be a need for religion, and the threat of punishment in the afterlife, to force one to think twice, before misbehaving?!
the person doing the graphics and editing doesnt understand the concepts and is misrepresenting them often
Deductions from the operation of the Mind-Body, if you know what the fundamental operator is, recognition of functional e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance bonding, then the floating point coordination of coherence-cohesion objectives via Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection Techniques to assign strategies inherent in Mathematical reasoning symbology to Economic Analysis.., budgeting, accounting, double entry book keeping etc are more comprehensible as parallel coexistence properties than the incorrect assumptions of linear-numerical doctrine. (?)
Pipipi
"We want something not because we need it but because someone else has it" 8:07. talk about unreasonable assumptions. Is he really trying to make the claim that all wants are socially constructed? if he is, I think that is crazy talk. Otherways he is admitting, that at least partly abundance of wants, is biological.
oh yeah, and the arguments presented to argue that scarcity is socially constructed are even worse and intentionally or ignorant to what is actually meant by scarcity. see principles of economics, carl Menger. I think its wonderful to discuss these issues but let's please not spread false or misleading information
His argument of wants being socially constructed has validity to it. We want something because we see it as having some sort of desirability/value but where does that “value” come from? The “value” of something is dictated by society and perceptions of something, so therefore, socially constructed. Things don’t naturally have some sort of intrinsic value unless we place value on it.
@@sexiangellol so a man alone on an inland has no wants? Are all wants "socialy constructed" whiout exeptcion? I do not deny in any sense that society has influence on the wants of individuals, nor have I ever encountered this claim in the writings of relevant econmoist(especially the "neoclassical" ones). My point is: the claim "we want something not because we need it but because someone else has it", I think, is nuts. The moment in which a person makes discovery, say invents glasses that fix eyesight problems, he wants them. A great deal of human invention is posible because human want things that do not exist, they want them even though nobody has them. Like I would really like to have a car that can fly. I do not to be rude! I apreciate your response!
@@jesusmariacasaltorres2488 I think if a person were to be on an island completely isolated from societal influences, that yes, they would have no wants. You don't want a car that can fly simply because it's cool or anything, but you would want it because of convenience right? Because that is valued by society. That is the reason for a lot of these technological advancements because it makes life easier, faster, and more convenient for us which is why we WANT them. I mean if you go back all the way to Neanderthals, they subsisted off of the basics: food, fire, water, and shelter.
@@jesusmariacasaltorres2488 It's less so on the individual scale of like "that person has it, so I want it" but more on a larger, societal scale where we place values on "things" both in the physical sense and in terms of characteristics such as beauty/convenience/etc. that drives us to want something because value has been placed upon it by society.
Robbins was much misquoted and very much taken too seriously.
Economics is not even a science