It's easy put the "central planning" as a vilain in those lectures and the free market like the golden rainbow. There is plenty of positives aspects in the marxism and plenty of positives aspects in the free capitalist market. It's curious like statunitians economists always put the marxism like a terrible mistake. All the teorys need to be studied in a impacial point of view. All that said, I´m really happy for this course, it's amazing. Tks a lot MRU for bringing all this content for the world.
There is no incentive for common folk in central planning to work. People are not guided by their self interests, instead they are guided by self interests of few people who control the "central planning system" Its just slavery in new form.
@@dadinagasai2263 well, if you put in this way of thinking, average people will work hard their whole lives to only survive and "pay the bills". In the free market few people owns the riches. And we already are in the hands and interests of few companies and people. We need better distribution of the incomes, rich companies and millionaires must pay more taxes to support social projects. We can learn a lot of good things in the Marxism.
" There is plenty of positives aspects in the marxism" Uh, first, 'marxism' is a sociological/philosophical concept, not an economic one. It's about the class struggle. What you're talking about is the Marxian economics. It had its importance, indeed, but now, 150 after Das Kapital was published, it is just another page on the HET textbooks, just like The Wealth of the Nations. There's a reason why basically every single important economic scholar since the XX century rejected the Marxian approach. The first is the poor methodology, which wasn't of course Marx's fault, it was what they had on his time. The second is the fact that most of his premises are simply put, wrong, and if anything he said was right, it's already part of the mainstream.
@@dadinagasai2263 uhm, have you ever heard of stakhanov? Socialist emulation, the competition between workers to increase efficiency in exchange for material and moral rewards, was a big part of Socialist production across the eastern block.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm watching this series for a microeconomics course and, so far, it just seems like a giant advertisement for capitalism. Not to mention, there are several racist af bits mixed in to various videos.
@Kolokommouna As a mathematician, even Kantorovich noticed the difficulty of the optimal transport problem in its most simplest forms with massive assumptions, and the necessary information and kind and quality of information and the arbitrariness of how to integrate all of this to pick an optimal transport plan. The theory is there but doesn't mean what you think it means, and the gathering of the information itself needs the process to happen in the first place, which is what markets do anyway.
Weird to use oil as a POSITIVE example of how markets work well. When, you know, we're turning our planet into a desert. Maybe a planned economy would do better about incentivizing NOT digging up every last scrap of fracked oil or tar sand and shoving it into the atmosphere.
@d.m.collins1501 Desertification has restraints by climate. Also, the oil companies that inefficiently use oil are those state-ran companies in the rentier states, the oil-rich countries, because they have massive socialist policies propped up by the oil companies they have.
... increased demand for ethanol and sugar also leads to deforestation in Brazil. This ‘externality' and the huge cost to the environment and millions of people due to the effects of climate change that is accelerated as a result, do not appear anywhere. Indeed, spending to deal with the impacts will boost GPD - this is the stupidity of capitalist economics. Take another example, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, despite the huge environmental damage it caused, it actually boosted local GDP due to the spending on clean up. We need to fully cost in environmental damage and charge the oil companies among others for the damage to the climate that have caused.
Um yeah. There's already a well known concept in economics called externalities where there are social costs not incurred by the buyer or seller. Nobody says markets don't have flaws (except extreme ideologues). This channel has multiple videos on market failures like externalities and the inadequacy of markets to provide public goods. That said those are an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. When you first learn econ you learn the basics and fundamentals.
And boosting short term GDP is not really the goal. The goal is to sustainably increase long term growth and wellbeing. GDP is a good though imperfect metric for measuring economic activity and is highly correlated with other metrics of wellbeing. Labelling this as capitalistic economics is kind of absurd. It's just economics. Keynesian economics isn't socialist economics either, it's also just economics (Which the broken window fallacy you just mentioned was a criticism of). Yes a lot of ideologues weaponize aspects of economics to push their own political agenda, but this doesn't make economics less true.
@@Andy-em8xt capitalist economics in a literal meaning are economics that describe the system of capitalism, one of many forms of economics throughout the millennia In a political sense, capitalist economics are the sub-branch of the literal meaning that looks capitalism under a favourable light. This view presents economics as less of a solid science and more as a field in dialectical conflict, were opposing views clash and evolve in search of the truth. To say with out a doubt that economics are 'just true' is ridiculous under that view, since it would imply contradictory ideas being simultaneously in effect, a fallacy
Yes, indeed a problem. I'm not calling for absolute equality but the big portion of world's wealth must be owned by the majority of the population for balance flow of money.
Your description of central planning is so clearly biased. Most economies including the US, have a degree of central planning. It’s about degree, not one or the other. Less bias please.
Continue learning with practice questions: mru.io/0qn
How can people dislike this video?
So informative, they must be really angry or denying their reality
It's over-simplified and ignores the problems of growth and capitalism. Simple.
Fantastic sr
Thanks a lot .
nice video
Nice channal thx
Its very helpful
It's easy put the "central planning" as a vilain in those lectures and the free market like the golden rainbow. There is plenty of positives aspects in the marxism and plenty of positives aspects in the free capitalist market. It's curious like statunitians economists always put the marxism like a terrible mistake. All the teorys need to be studied in a impacial point of view. All that said, I´m really happy for this course, it's amazing. Tks a lot MRU for bringing all this content for the world.
There is no incentive for common folk in central planning to work.
People are not guided by their self interests, instead they are guided by self interests of few people who control the "central planning system"
Its just slavery in new form.
@@dadinagasai2263 well, if you put in this way of thinking, average people will work hard their whole lives to only survive and "pay the bills". In the free market few people owns the riches. And we already are in the hands and interests of few companies and people. We need better distribution of the incomes, rich companies and millionaires must pay more taxes to support social projects. We can learn a lot of good things in the Marxism.
" There is plenty of positives aspects in the marxism"
Uh, first, 'marxism' is a sociological/philosophical concept, not an economic one. It's about the class struggle. What you're talking about is the Marxian economics. It had its importance, indeed, but now, 150 after Das Kapital was published, it is just another page on the HET textbooks, just like The Wealth of the Nations. There's a reason why basically every single important economic scholar since the XX century rejected the Marxian approach. The first is the poor methodology, which wasn't of course Marx's fault, it was what they had on his time. The second is the fact that most of his premises are simply put, wrong, and if anything he said was right, it's already part of the mainstream.
@@dadinagasai2263 uhm, have you ever heard of stakhanov? Socialist emulation, the competition between workers to increase efficiency in exchange for material and moral rewards, was a big part of Socialist production across the eastern block.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm watching this series for a microeconomics course and, so far, it just seems like a giant advertisement for capitalism. Not to mention, there are several racist af bits mixed in to various videos.
The gentlemen kantorovich, glushkov and stakhanov would like to have a word
@Kolokommouna As a mathematician, even Kantorovich noticed the difficulty of the optimal transport problem in its most simplest forms with massive assumptions, and the necessary information and kind and quality of information and the arbitrariness of how to integrate all of this to pick an optimal transport plan. The theory is there but doesn't mean what you think it means, and the gathering of the information itself needs the process to happen in the first place, which is what markets do anyway.
2nd
1st
E
Weird to use oil as a POSITIVE example of how markets work well. When, you know, we're turning our planet into a desert. Maybe a planned economy would do better about incentivizing NOT digging up every last scrap of fracked oil or tar sand and shoving it into the atmosphere.
@d.m.collins1501 Desertification has restraints by climate. Also, the oil companies that inefficiently use oil are those state-ran companies in the rentier states, the oil-rich countries, because they have massive socialist policies propped up by the oil companies they have.
... increased demand for ethanol and sugar also leads to deforestation in Brazil. This ‘externality' and the huge cost to the environment and millions of people due to the effects of climate change that is accelerated as a result, do not appear anywhere. Indeed, spending to deal with the impacts will boost GPD - this is the stupidity of capitalist economics. Take another example, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, despite the huge environmental damage it caused, it actually boosted local GDP due to the spending on clean up. We need to fully cost in environmental damage and charge the oil companies among others for the damage to the climate that have caused.
Um yeah. There's already a well known concept in economics called externalities where there are social costs not incurred by the buyer or seller. Nobody says markets don't have flaws (except extreme ideologues). This channel has multiple videos on market failures like externalities and the inadequacy of markets to provide public goods.
That said those are an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. When you first learn econ you learn the basics and fundamentals.
And boosting short term GDP is not really the goal. The goal is to sustainably increase long term growth and wellbeing. GDP is a good though imperfect metric for measuring economic activity and is highly correlated with other metrics of wellbeing.
Labelling this as capitalistic economics is kind of absurd. It's just economics. Keynesian economics isn't socialist economics either, it's also just economics (Which the broken window fallacy you just mentioned was a criticism of).
Yes a lot of ideologues weaponize aspects of economics to push their own political agenda, but this doesn't make economics less true.
@@Andy-em8xt capitalist economics in a literal meaning are economics that describe the system of capitalism, one of many forms of economics throughout the millennia
In a political sense, capitalist economics are the sub-branch of the literal meaning that looks capitalism under a favourable light. This view presents economics as less of a solid science and more as a field in dialectical conflict, were opposing views clash and evolve in search of the truth. To say with out a doubt that economics are 'just true' is ridiculous under that view, since it would imply contradictory ideas being simultaneously in effect, a fallacy
but USSR did not go from the plow to the atomic bomb in 30 years?
Don't think the average person in the Soviet Union was engaging with atomic science.
The great economic problem: too many billionaires, but no money to keep the poor from slipping further and further behind.
Yes, indeed a problem. I'm not calling for absolute equality but the big portion of world's wealth must be owned by the majority of the population for balance flow of money.
Your description of central planning is so clearly biased. Most economies including the US, have a degree of central planning. It’s about degree, not one or the other. Less bias please.
Neoliberal economics 101!