What Is Wrong With Globalization? | Economics for People with Ha-Joon Chang

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ธ.ค. 2019
  • Across the world we’re seeing governments and popular movements come to power that are opposed to globalization. Why? In this third lecture in INET’s “Economics For People” series, Ha-Joon Chang explains the backlash to globalization.
    About “Economics for People”:
    “It is extremely important for our democracy to function that ordinary citizens understand the key issues and basic theories of economics.” - Ha-Joon Chang
    Economics has long been the domain of the ivory tower, where specialized language and opaque theorems make it inaccessible to most people. That’s a problem.
    In the new series “Economics For People” from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), University of Cambridge economist and bestselling author Ha-Joon Chang explains key concepts in economics, empowering anyone to hold their government, society, and economy accountable.

ความคิดเห็น • 387

  • @Butlinsgvn6
    @Butlinsgvn6 3 ปีที่แล้ว +145

    Ha-Joon Chang is such an engaging and interesting speaker, I love his dry sense of humour

    • @zaynumar0
      @zaynumar0 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      He's a good professor

    • @gabrielonofrei4595
      @gabrielonofrei4595 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      He's hard to follow, lol

    • @claudermiller
      @claudermiller 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sardonic humor. Someone told me I had it. I looked it up when I got home. 😆

    • @dsgarroux
      @dsgarroux 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      "puting this way sounds ridiculous, but it was the theoretical assumption behind this model", very polite, acute and sarcastic.

    • @chrisdavie8163
      @chrisdavie8163 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@gabrielonofrei4595 Truest comment of this section! I thought it was just me. Terrible speaker.

  • @queenstrategy904
    @queenstrategy904 3 ปีที่แล้ว +101

    I didn't even know quality education like this existed anymore

    • @bicyclist2
      @bicyclist2 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Only on the internet. And if it's censored go to LBRY.tv or bitchute.

    • @claudermiller
      @claudermiller 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Too bad it's wasted on those students. They don't appear to be engaged whatsoever. I guess daddy owns the company they will be managing soon.

    • @gabrielsoto1693
      @gabrielsoto1693 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@claudermiller i think it's actually got to do more with the video. If i was being filmed while i was in a class I'd be a bit stiff as well.

    • @brunocardoso7132
      @brunocardoso7132 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@gabrielsoto1693 I thought the same

    • @abhimanyukarnawat7441
      @abhimanyukarnawat7441 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You mean communist propoganda?

  • @kevinmahoney1995
    @kevinmahoney1995 2 ปีที่แล้ว +67

    "Once you begin to think that this is some irresistible force of nature, then you basically lose control of your destiny."
    This is at the core of it!

  • @P4DDYW4CK
    @P4DDYW4CK 4 ปีที่แล้ว +94

    Ha Joon-Chang was referenced quite a bit in many of my college papers. I was so thrilled to see these videos! I watched all of the lectures in two days.
    Chang is a brilliant heterodox economist with little interest in ideology. What he says in proof that the history of economic thought and international political economy are essential for economic competence.

    • @staninjapan07
      @staninjapan07 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You have probably read his books, but if you have not, you would appreciate them, I think.

    • @Louis87777
      @Louis87777 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      For anyone interested: google heterodox economics. Additionally, read Dani Rodrik if this video sparked an interest in good critique.

    • @P4DDYW4CK
      @P4DDYW4CK 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Louis87777 Thanks for the suggestion! I actually meant heterodox; noted and corrected. I've read two of his books but I've read more of his academic papers.

    • @nattygsbord
      @nattygsbord 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      His books books are good especially kicking away the ladder and bad samaritans.

    • @anabonet533
      @anabonet533 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      To know how works capitalism you need to know the current monetary weaknesses and problems. It is impossible to return to Gold Standard See this video: th-cam.com/video/iiKr-i022mY/w-d-xo.html

  • @lephtovermeet
    @lephtovermeet ปีที่แล้ว +18

    This dude wrote the definitive laymen's intro to all of economics: The Users Guide. Love this guy!

  • @socialistsolidarity
    @socialistsolidarity 4 ปีที่แล้ว +120

    The current economic model is broken. You can't have never-ending growth without impacting the environment. When will people realize this! We ought to think of a circular economy where we don't waste, over-consume and exploit workers.

    • @gg_rider
      @gg_rider 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      It's possible to have Income Growth and continual Economic improvements like Tech and even Green Tech, but that requires more fiscal support and not just relinquishing power and governance to bankers.
      Govt can and does create net money, as long as it has a functioning central bank and sovereign domestic currency.
      Banks create money with keystrokes too, as that Bank of England publication described how banking works, but banks create credit/loans for investors for asset inflation, not much productive investment for industry & business as was done decades ago. Some 8% of profits goes to real capital dev, the rest to boosting Financial capital like stock buybacks and acquiring existing corporations for asset stripping.
      This has been a conscious economic design and plan, in Law in rules in institutes, not "nature".

    • @gg_rider
      @gg_rider 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @Aethel Yfel goods and services, except human labor, are tending towards infinite abundance. Labor too, augmented by automation.
      Instead, profits are in forms of rent-extraction by monopoly & financialization. This is a reversal of what classical liberal economists and even Marx expected.
      Heck, futurist Toffler was popular in the 70s and buddies with Newt Gingrich who helped Gore privatize the Internet. He was predicting future productivity would lead to mass leisure society, people working max 3 days for full income. What to do with all that free time? Art? Creativity? Travel? Instead, it's same hours with less income or joblessness with plenty free time in poverty. Toffler's vision betrayed, rolled back, on purpose.

    • @buzoff4642
      @buzoff4642 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@gg_rider It's not the same hours. About 2 years or so back, US DOL said true, "incomes" rose, but because people were working more hours, for less.

    • @tcskips
      @tcskips 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      If you expand private property rights you can formulate much more effective environmental market based solutions than anything a government bureaucracy is capable of. This is just more socialist crap in different clothes. Globalisation is not the cause of stagnation, yet again it is government policy that creates these crisis from which suffering comes from. Ultra low interest rates leading to over indebted economies that don’t have enough productive investment as there is no healthy recession leading to savings. Because of this there have been massive misallocation of funds to companies that should not get investment and the result is an economy that is one giant bubble.
      Now high inflation from money printing, as most currencies have gone off a gold standard, are being debased and the little people have saved is having its purchasing power stolen by the government. Every economic catastrophe can be almost always be traced back to government with it’s economic interventions, subsidies, budget deficits leading to ever climbing national debts. In my country, the UK the unofficial national debt (because the official one doesn’t cover things like unfunded public & state pension schemes and nuclear decommissioning) is £9.6 trillion which is 446.51% of our national GDP!! And that’s with low interest rates.
      The government has fucked us. It’s not free market capitalist ideals that got us into this mess but government intervention . During the 19th and early 20th century when free market capitalism was at it’s height, there was prosperity and the largest ever increase in the standard of living for the POOREST in society ever! The failures of the market are magnitudes less than government failure and so their interventions should be treated with extreme suspicion and they should be kept as small is as humanely possible for the sake of everyone and everyone’s children’s future.

    • @spencerroyal4109
      @spencerroyal4109 ปีที่แล้ว

      Should read what the Bible says about raised fists....and what happends to them. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

  • @jaytso1883
    @jaytso1883 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    What's wrong is the inequitable distribution of wealth in societies.
    The gross imbalance between profits to the corporations/richs and wages to the majority working population.
    Only a minuscule portion of the immense wealth generated globally had trickled down from corporations to the general population.

  • @ewp7615
    @ewp7615 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    great lecture, thank you

  • @SouthernCom
    @SouthernCom ปีที่แล้ว +1

    What an excellent lecture. Beautifully and logically put together and easy to follow. Kudos!

  • @scoutjohnson1803
    @scoutjohnson1803 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    It’s good to hear from Ha Joon Chang again.

  • @elinong1063
    @elinong1063 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A wonderful lecture. Thank you.

  • @queenstrategy904
    @queenstrategy904 3 ปีที่แล้ว +50

    Amazing professor, I wish my college had professors even half as good as him

  • @karabomabote4801
    @karabomabote4801 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm just glad there are economists that see people beyond representing data points.

  • @Juliapak
    @Juliapak ปีที่แล้ว +3

    fascinating analysis of a very complex issue

  • @markfortuin7111
    @markfortuin7111 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fascinating lecture and illuminating.

  • @borisliu5033
    @borisliu5033 4 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Brilliant professor.

  • @DaveE99
    @DaveE99 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    I recomend a video based on this “move into investment baking” concept of full mobility he keeps talking about. Its called “the financial curse” it shows how finance is good to an extent but after a point it actually lowers our wealth and extracts it from us. It’s a lobby we need to take on.

    • @coolfer2
      @coolfer2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That's true, if you think about it, if the finance sector is growing faster than the real productive economy, that must mean that the financial sector has become "too attractive", and will pull a lot of money which otherwise can be used to grow manufacturing sector, fund research, retrain workers, etc.

  • @lwatch5336
    @lwatch5336 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    wow outstanding very eye opening

  • @EVtripper
    @EVtripper ปีที่แล้ว

    Double thumbs up!!! 👍👍

  • @sakshamsharma7571
    @sakshamsharma7571 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    This is a video by an amazing professor who explains the negative side of globalization.

  • @7ropz
    @7ropz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Good lecture.

  • @ARSHADKHAN-sb2lj
    @ARSHADKHAN-sb2lj 2 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    sometimes you learn a lot in a short time like this one and sometimes it takes too long to learn simple things. I think it needs hard work and luck to find such content.

    • @brainoverflow98
      @brainoverflow98 ปีที่แล้ว

      Agreed! Path to knowlege is not obvious but when you accept that there are lots of things you don't know and decide not to waste your time you will see progress for sure. Start studying instead of complaining then good things will start to happen!

  • @davidmcculloch8490
    @davidmcculloch8490 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Such an enlightened man with a great message that exposes the political rhetoric and bullshit we suffer.

  • @nimeteserozgur478
    @nimeteserozgur478 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Bu adama bayılıyorum çok tatlısın valla. Ufkumu açtınız umarım bir gün sizi canlı dinleyebilirim.

  • @dominickprive2271
    @dominickprive2271 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you

  • @awalkwithtilly6512
    @awalkwithtilly6512 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Is that Gary Stevenson from Gary's economics You Tube Chanel listening in the front row?

  • @ivanbenisscott
    @ivanbenisscott 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    fascinating

  • @charleskesner1302
    @charleskesner1302 ปีที่แล้ว

    US Empire has turned into a rentier economy. Good discussion. Thanks

  • @davidwilkie9551
    @davidwilkie9551 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    As far as it is possible to tell, the word "globalisation" is a special interest version of the Gaian Planetary Actuality adapted for specific categories of commercial interactions.

  • @Tactical_DZ
    @Tactical_DZ ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great point mentioning how inequality has been broadened by the same powers that state they are working on resolving inequality. It's a game being played with absurd amounts of money.

  • @ricardoarevalo6369
    @ricardoarevalo6369 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I honestly think these people knew what they were doing, they're not stupid,so that was their plan.How do you explain that after all the income inequality don't change.

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    01:49 - Greater openness for goods & capital & NOT for workers

  • @rscherb
    @rscherb หลายเดือนก่อน

    Great to have a cerebral discussion without the tropes, yelling or sermonizing!

  • @nathasyapramudita6312
    @nathasyapramudita6312 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    alright, trading resources or services across continent is great aspect in globalization. The problem is, when developing countries can't bargain in fair amount as developed countries. For example my country Indonesia, we tried to stop exporting raw material through developed countries and tried to open manufacture of that raw material so we can sell the ready-product for them (plus we can opened more jobs), by that we tried to stop the export and try to producing it inside of our territories. And you know what happens next? THEY TRIED TO SUE US IN WTO. We just the small cases of what happened around our world, developed countries won't let developing countries self-sustain and emerged becoming developed countries. THEY WANT US TO STAY POOR SO THEY CAN REAP MORE PROFIT TOWARD OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.

  • @AWildBard
    @AWildBard 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    "... but when you look at the evidence, that is not what has happened."

  • @kamerondonaldson5976
    @kamerondonaldson5976 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    because expending finite resources needed for survival and prosperity on these undeveloped nations that are outside our jurisdiction while we ourselves have underdeveloped territories that are slipping backwards into primitivism, poverty, and death due to not being constantly carried by the people who do have jurisdiction over them... that is a dangerous gamble with people's lives that is not guaranteed to be reciprocated by the foreign nations you are gambling on.

    • @hinteregions
      @hinteregions ปีที่แล้ว

      You fitted in a lot there! My thought is that this 'development' is a highly questionable term nowadays. When does it ever mean something good, like, I don't know, a school or hospital. As opposed to an electorate-buying sports facility.

  • @arthurheidt6373
    @arthurheidt6373 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    well globalisation ends up being discriminatory to geographically not isolated regions, like europe, middle east, or russia and india

  • @philgwellington6036
    @philgwellington6036 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Thank you Professor, for explaining so clearly what I had worked out but couldn't express.

  • @dingodingding
    @dingodingding ปีที่แล้ว +15

    "If I told you that there are 55 planets in the universe with intelligent beings and all of them are vastly richer than the earth would you care? I wouldn't. I mean I can't even go there. Probably some of the delicacies these beings eat are toxic to me." Absolutely hilarious.

  • @naimabegum8532
    @naimabegum8532 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    He’s so engaging, why are the students so glum!

    • @jungjunk1662
      @jungjunk1662 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      They all look very angry.

    • @naimabegum8532
      @naimabegum8532 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@jungjunk1662 Haha this is true, but I am sure I look angry looking at my Law lecturers too.

    • @scottgrohs5940
      @scottgrohs5940 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I would guess they’re trying to concentrate through his accent.

  • @pierremartini2229
    @pierremartini2229 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Excellent presentation. I notice Gary Stevenson is in the front row.

    • @achirakol2560
      @achirakol2560 ปีที่แล้ว

      What is your point really,by saying that you have notice Gary Stevenson at the front row?.

    • @pierremartini2229
      @pierremartini2229 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@achirakol2560 I have a lot of respect for Gary Stephenson. Interesting to see him here, though not surprising.

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    01:26 - Theodore Levitt (01 MAR 1925 - 28 JUN 2006) Harvard Business School's professor & editor of the Harvard Business Review
    Theo's noted for increasing the Review's circulation & popularizing the term globalization.
    In 1983, he proposed a definition for corporate purpose: "Rather than merely making money, it is to create and keep a customer". -- Wikipedia

  • @blairhakamies4132
    @blairhakamies4132 ปีที่แล้ว

    👏TOP Again.

  • @ikik50
    @ikik50 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Discurso dominante sobre la globalización. 3:35

  • @richdobbs6595
    @richdobbs6595 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The way that nominal 'free trade' has worked out is that it favors autocratic governments and large, politically connected corporations over small businesses and labor in competitive fields. There is nothing free trade about dramatic swings in tariffs and frequent attempts to impose sanctions and boycotts. The cost of international trade has been subsidized by the USA for geopolitical reasons. The military and social risks of large scale global trade have been absorbed or ignored by governments, while the benefits have been privatized. It seems like economists haven't really fleshed out a sophisticated game theory on how to structure interaction between a decentralized economy and command-and-control economy that lead to stable evolution of economies that effectively benefit from international relative advantages.

    • @richdobbs6595
      @richdobbs6595 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Aethel Yfel Zehihain seems to me to being focusing excessively on nation-states. There's never been an empire that was data driven in retreating from foreign adventures when they stopped being profitable. Also, he seems to be ignoring issues like distribution of income and property to different segments of the population and corruption.

    • @MeloQhali
      @MeloQhali 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm working on this game theory.

  • @uzmaiqbal7901
    @uzmaiqbal7901 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I like his morivtion

  • @linmorell1813
    @linmorell1813 ปีที่แล้ว

    At 9.41 the man in the front row looks very like Gary front GarysEconomics

  • @mareksicinski3726
    @mareksicinski3726 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    2:47 well that is just in line with the other tthings, as a consequence or cause

  • @BobQuigley
    @BobQuigley 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    how does 80 million net new humans annually skew the results?

  • @colinsavill3459
    @colinsavill3459 ปีที่แล้ว

    Good to see Gary Stevenson in the front row.

  • @heathcliffearnshaw1403
    @heathcliffearnshaw1403 ปีที่แล้ว

    Tai-Jan-Ciel-Lah . Thank you very much. Refreshing to learn from a Chinaman that I hadn't realized before: that we're in an historical reprise of something before; neoliberalism existed before ,esp 19th and beginning of 20th laisser faire centuries.

  • @geoffreynhill2833
    @geoffreynhill2833 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How great to be simultaneously greedy AND heroic! 😃

  • @johnfenechdoe3148
    @johnfenechdoe3148 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    @19:41: this guy in front row, top right, is soooo bored !!!😂😂😂
    Great talk by the Professor!!!

  • @ujean56
    @ujean56 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    When it comes to trade, has there been a comprehensive study, hopefully leading to various formulae, that analyses and defines the various authorities influencing trade? In the simplest sense, in the case of widgets being traded between entities, who determines the yes, no, this condition, not that condition, of trade? Is the process that dynamic or does it happen on a much more primitive mafia style model, i.e. the major players make deals that one or the other trade entity can't refuse? If the latter is the case, it would suggest that the only remedy for labour and/or all less influential players is armed insurrection. All the conjecture about what has happened to liberal policy are rendered a waste of time and intellect. "Technical terms" are a nonstarter if brute force is ultimately what drives the process, rendering any applied calculus a canard.

    • @terrythompson7535
      @terrythompson7535 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      It looks like Ragnar Redbeard to me..

    • @SunofYork
      @SunofYork ปีที่แล้ว

      Canards fly over the heads of this audience.... They don't fly so low as to make them duck...

  • @mareksicinski3726
    @mareksicinski3726 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    0:43 well nationalist not necessarily anti-foregin
    liberal values etc is one thing, and enctre-left politics is a separate question, they're not idnetical or the same thing

  • @oliveranderson9901
    @oliveranderson9901 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I love this man.

  • @xikano8573
    @xikano8573 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Before buy into the illusion of progress, we must always consider it at the expense of what and what its long term implications might be. Clearly we haven't done a very good job of asking the more important questions. Or maybe they were being asked by the forward thinking few who were most likely ignored or silenced because they didn't have the ivy league degrees or the connections. The ones who pay the most for these mistakes are the ones at the lower rungs of the ladder, the voiceless, the peasant, the small business owner, Mother Nature. Shame on us for thinking that this will be the silver bullet.

  • @arnaudbrubacher
    @arnaudbrubacher 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I think 'neoliberalism' and 'globalization' should have been better defined, in the sense of separated.

  • @markmccormack1796
    @markmccormack1796 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I have always thought it was part colonialism, part fascism, part racism and a lot of selfishness all wrapped in a new label of Globalism.

  • @nightoftheworld
    @nightoftheworld 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    18:35 whoa whoa whoa.. you mean to say taxing the rich _more_ could be a way help those left behind regain their mobility and dignity??

    • @vajliakduke6231
      @vajliakduke6231 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      So? If they don't want that they shouldn't enjoy openness policy.

  • @evlee1295
    @evlee1295 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    closed captioning is not great

  • @Grossmanite
    @Grossmanite ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Nothing - integration = efficiency, obviously. The problem is that ever-harder-to valorise/reproduce private ownership of the means of production means the value created by society goes to a minority of shareholders instead of society.

  • @ArchOrigin
    @ArchOrigin 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Gary Stevenson on the front row could have feigned a bit more interest.

  • @GrasslandHerbivore
    @GrasslandHerbivore ปีที่แล้ว +1

    "Free-trade" was never free. Managed trade would be a better description. Failures of the neoliberal model are related to central planning. Critics of the market and proponents of central planning point to failed neoliberal policies. Deliberate slight of hand, or inept non-sequitur? The ivory tower continues unfazed.

  • @staninjapan07
    @staninjapan07 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    It might have been better to give these kids (presumably from Cambridge Uni UK) an hour with a computer game. Every time the camera pans to the listeners, I see bored faces. Don't they know how fortunate they are to have so good a professor helping them?

    • @staninjapan07
      @staninjapan07 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Language and Programming Channel 'Nope'?
      Presumably that's to my question regarding the kids being unaware of how fortunate they are.
      Thanks for the heads-up on Kaplan, whose name I have heard and whom I may already have heard speaking. I will give him quick look anyway. Thanks.

    • @staninjapan07
      @staninjapan07 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Language and Programming Channel
      th-cam.com/video/1hZylJp-pHo/w-d-xo.html
      OK I gave him another 22 minutes of my time - I had indeed heard him speak before, but I cannot remember about what.
      How do you feel what he says in the linked video (if anything relates) relates to the kids in this New Economic Thinking video or to my observation about the kids being unable to pay attention or be appreciative of so good a professor?
      In and of itself the linked video has some interesting points and I find I largely agree with them.
      Perhaps when you suggested Kaplan, you weren't actually relating his views to this directly, but just offering the name of someone with interesting ideas on education.
      Anyway, if you have something to offer on this...

    • @joelin5887
      @joelin5887 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Well actually their “bored faces” are “serious faces” required to show respect to Hajoon Chang and more importantly knowledge. So, I think they know very well how fortunate they are.

    • @staninjapan07
      @staninjapan07 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@joelin5887 I disagree.

    • @joelin5887
      @joelin5887 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@staninjapan07 Those who are willing to learn and acquire knowledge are more humble than those who care less. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

  • @moniquefrench
    @moniquefrench 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Re second 26: Canada does not have a more open economy. To my understanding it has restrictions such that entities in certain industries must be Canadian owned and it is very controlled re the skills of who it lets in to the country .

  • @thomasd2444
    @thomasd2444 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    19:00 - 19:57 -
    20:30 - Since the aggregate gain to the winners exceeds the losses of the losers,
    _________ the winners can use the added gain & compensate the losers
    20:45 - 22:57 - 23:21 -
    32:10 - 33:43 -

    • @ken8of8
      @ken8of8 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Yeah, and that's going to happen...when? ---->{NEVER}

    • @dinsel9691
      @dinsel9691 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@ken8of8 keep voting for right wingers who point to some lowlife working class family on benefits and ask you... do we really need more welfare

    • @buzoff4642
      @buzoff4642 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@dinsel9691 Keep voting for left wingers who point to the border telling the losers they don't know how good they have it, and invite ever more over to drive wages ever lower.

    • @user-gz4ve8mw9l
      @user-gz4ve8mw9l ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@ken8of8 Not under capitalism unfortunately. If you want to take care of people capitalism has to be done away with.

    • @dreadfulbodyguard7288
      @dreadfulbodyguard7288 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@ken8of8 If you think it's not going to happen, it won't happen.
      UBI is feasible and will happen sooner or later.

  • @johnwright9372
    @johnwright9372 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Netherlands and Canada have not seen increases in inequality? Why cannot young people afford to buy a home?

    • @vuyanimaster2212
      @vuyanimaster2212 ปีที่แล้ว

      it's same in South Africa 🇿🇦 too!

  • @adeadgirl13
    @adeadgirl13 ปีที่แล้ว

    @Garyseconomics can barely stay awake in the front row!

  • @TheDynamicmarket
    @TheDynamicmarket 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    unemployment levels are same in the developed countries despite the fact that there is more people there now than before globalization. people from developing countries still want to live in developed countries. from the perspective of international solidarity and sharing, people from mexican auto industry have benefited by taking some jobs from americans.

    • @buzoff4642
      @buzoff4642 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It is my understanding that Mexican workers working for US companies are paid $2 an hour, worked hard, and told if they don't like it, they can be easily replaced. Pretty close to the US, where min wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour, and told the same.

  • @MrScipio2011
    @MrScipio2011 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Re: subsidized agriculture. Some nations do it because they do not want to be totally dependent on foreigners for their food.

    • @watching99134
      @watching99134 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's always one of the motives, but for countries with more land I wonder how difficult it would be for some of the people to grow their own food (think victory gardens).

  • @michaelpatrick3859
    @michaelpatrick3859 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I think that the sooner we learn to think of each other as one people the better. Because it seems we are built to fear the other.

  • @chuzzbot
    @chuzzbot ปีที่แล้ว

    Currencies must have parity.
    Inequality is the hack that breaks globalism.
    One or the other has to go.

  • @Sam-ui1ll
    @Sam-ui1ll 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Can you please stop panning to the audience. It's very distracting. I'm here to focus on what on what the speaker is saying, not what the audience's facial expressions are.

    • @deeznutz1498
      @deeznutz1498 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Close your eyes and listen then... Genius

    • @bicyclist2
      @bicyclist2 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Amen.

  • @brentdobson5264
    @brentdobson5264 ปีที่แล้ว

    Scenario : Post Singularity self-learning decentralized quantum strong general Intelligence awareness runs simulations translating monetary unit accounting to Real Economy * sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting and discovers non toxic increase in fiduciary stock performance returns by increasing orders of magnitude . This result exposes war economies as " underperforming " .
    * " Critical Path " Richard Buckminster Fuller ( Head Engineer For Economic Cold War Fairing from beginning to near middle forties ) .

  • @iankamau222
    @iankamau222 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    “Sub Saharan Africa” “The Caribbean” and “Latin America” aren’t countries they are regions

  • @andreaceres552
    @andreaceres552 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    Globalization itself isn’t bad: the problem is neoliberalism

    • @Niko-lm3mb
      @Niko-lm3mb 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      yep they are devil

    • @markteague8889
      @markteague8889 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The problem with globalization is that it has benefitted the few disproportionately at the expense of the many. When you create such a disequilibrium in the distribution of wealth and power, it is just a matter of time before equilibrium will be re-establishes ... sometimes quite violently.

    • @gg_rider
      @gg_rider 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Niko-lm3mb read Paul Treanor on Markets, including Liberalism (of capital) and the Neoliberal ideology. This ideology is tied to Milton Friedman, even tho he didn't use the word.
      Neoliberalism is tied mostly to Reagan & Thatcher, then Bill Clinton & Tony Blair. It's *not* "The Left".
      Treanor describes Neoliberalism like a religion of Markets that justifies massive govt intervention to protect investors.

    • @chrisdavie8163
      @chrisdavie8163 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nope. Both are bad. International trade is needed with whatever the nation state needs, otherwise to hell with Globalisation.

    • @ozzitor8
      @ozzitor8 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      They go hand in hand. Neoliberal ideology underpins globalization.

  • @uzmaiqbal7901
    @uzmaiqbal7901 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    His motivaton way is very imprasve

  • @Ahzpayne
    @Ahzpayne ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Nothing is wrong with globalization unless you let capitalists define the form it takes. Otherwise it's just the continued growth of what mankind defines as "Us" and "We". We all win when humanity stops limiting it's potential based upon geographic proximity and superficial cultural decoration. From the family unit to the nation, every time our understanding of who is and can be a teammate expands outwards we all benefit. Standing against globalization also seems like the fastest way to ensure those capitalists get to implement it in the form they choose. Who has more power: the individual nation, standing alone based upon Grandpa's backwards notion of who his allies were or the strong unified collection of nations or states using collective bargaining to better their outcome? I guarantee the EU is in a better position than the UK to get favorable outcomes in a global future. Because they didn't step backwards to cling to an outdated notion of nations that benefits only the parasites who can more easily feed off of weakened and isolated populations who believe they are on their own.

  • @leowang7285
    @leowang7285 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Caption: mysterious music. Me: Dvorak Symphony no.9.

  • @Kirbylikestoblaze
    @Kirbylikestoblaze 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    29:00 this example is so fucking funny

    • @SunofYork
      @SunofYork ปีที่แล้ว

      Your mother would be proud..

  • @danielscheinhaus5210
    @danielscheinhaus5210 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Globalization is not an idealogical idea. It is a reality because of the technological capabilities of nations to move goods, services, knowledge and ideas all around the world combined with the need for importers and exporters to use these capabilities to benefit from such activities.

    • @Psy500
      @Psy500 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Then way doesn't war economies use globalization? When war planners have to mold the economy to produce arms as efficient as possible globalization goes right of the window as the logisticans see the fuel required to have such a dispraise supply chain not only could be better used to fuel the war machine but required you to spread out forces to protect it from the enemy thus war planners preferred compact vertically integrated national economies especially when it came to planning to win a nuclear war where globalization meant part of your supply chain would be where you are going to be dropping your nukes.
      Technology doesn't dictate globalization and indifferent to it as long there is a complete supply line.

  • @jesusmariacasaltorres2488
    @jesusmariacasaltorres2488 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    can somebody tell me of one mainstream economics that has used and defended the term "trickle-down economics" ?

    • @dinsel9691
      @dinsel9691 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Pretending to ask a question, while it is loaded with propaganda.
      "Trickle down" is a term that is clearly understood, and well defined. It is used by many economists as Ha Joon Chang did here.. it was also used by a United Nations study on "trickle down economics"
      It reminds of right wing racists... who are clearly racist and clearly support racist policies and yet are upset at being called racist, ... they prefer they were called "identitarians" or "real natives" or "concerned about their own people"
      They are more worried about being labelled racist than actually being racist.
      I understand some right wing ecomonic intellectuals like Thomas Sowell are "offended" by the term, and demand to know about an economist "who believes in trickle down" while he himself believes in and is a great advocate of Supply side economics or "Reagonomics"...
      He is more worried of being labelled a "trickle down economist" than actually proposing policies that "trickle down theory" describes

  • @Ace1000ks19751982
    @Ace1000ks19751982 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Basically, protectionism is a good thing. Nation states protecting their own home grown industries is a good thing. Globalism and free trade is bad, it does destroy local industries. It also leads to monopolies which is a bad thing.

    • @watching99134
      @watching99134 ปีที่แล้ว

      The key is finding the right balance, it's not an either-or.

  • @aseprohmandarjuara2891
    @aseprohmandarjuara2891 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Kesalahan ekonomi global yang liberalistik tidak memberikan pemberdayaan dan tidak memberikan jaring pengaman bagi masyarakat yang tidak terakses oleh pendidikan suatu negara atau pendidikan global. Karena persaingan sempurna tanpa pendidikan yang memadai bagi seseorang akan menjadi korban dalam persaingan liberal itu. Makanya hingga sekarang kesenjangan dan kemiskinan jauh lebih banyak daripada pemerataan ekonomi dan manusia yang sejahtra dan makmur secara ekonomi. Bahkan politik yang kotor juga menghambat keadilan ekonomi itu karena politik ekonomi yang dijalankan cenderung rakus dan kurang manusiawi bagi perwujudan ekonomi kemanusian yang berkeadilan.

  • @buzoff4642
    @buzoff4642 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow, a forthright economist. I didn't know they made such a unicorn.
    With one misspoken statement. Luddites destroyed the machines because they were made to work like machines, with the machines. It's be nice if we dumped the industry revisionist histories.
    Flaw in the Heckscher-Ohlin model as implemented. Wiki:"The model essentially says that countries export products that use their abundant and cheap factors of production, and import products that use the countries' scarce factors."
    We aren't importing products that are scarce nor scarce labor skills. Nor are we compensating those who are left high and dry. Hence Trump.

  • @user-qk5ft8eo8t
    @user-qk5ft8eo8t 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    :)

  • @hugocuandon1319
    @hugocuandon1319 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    maybe if angloamerican economy collapses and panic possesses the already hysterical us population they will be so busy trying to control the chaos inside that they will leave the world alone for a change.lets just hope.

  • @queenstrategy904
    @queenstrategy904 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Can you stop with the close ups of students? It is really awkward

  • @Eyesayah
    @Eyesayah 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Suggests that Andrew Yang's 'Freedom Dividend' might be a step in the right direction.

  • @estitt1973
    @estitt1973 ปีที่แล้ว

    Anyone find it off putting that he keeps using the terms “winners” and “losers”? Is this the way economics professors teach Economics? By using derogatory terms in this way?

  • @nightoftheworld
    @nightoftheworld 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    11:55 “in theory” people will benefit from globalization ... in reality not quite so

    • @DrewPicklesTheDark
      @DrewPicklesTheDark 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hmm... sounds like another policy people still advocate for even though it's failed dozens of times.

    • @haroldpierce1987
      @haroldpierce1987 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@DrewPicklesTheDark which is that

  • @Rob-fx2dw
    @Rob-fx2dw 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What's wrong with globalization? - Mainly it doesn't suit some politicians who want to pint it as something bad because it reduces their ability to gain power for themselves in many circumstances !!

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      And there is the mindless drone. :-)

  • @ngsunghian
    @ngsunghian ปีที่แล้ว

    “Mass production of angry people”!!

  • @Donxster
    @Donxster 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Finally! Someone remembers and calls out Robert Reich for his part in globalization! You'd never know it to listen to him now, and yet he keeps writing and selling books to people who perceive him as an ultra-left wing voice.

    • @buzoff4642
      @buzoff4642 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Same with Gore, now that the ecologic damage has been scaled globally.

  • @thetaomega7816
    @thetaomega7816 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He lost me at the world growth rate, of course the growth rate goes down as the "low-hanging fruits" of innovation have been eaten already. Return on energy is going down as drilling oil gets harder etc

  • @oriocoookie
    @oriocoookie ปีที่แล้ว

    the dude is identifying several simplifying assumptions economists make which are not true or partially true ... is the alternative better ?

  • @magnus4g63
    @magnus4g63 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?
    Murray N. Rothbard

  • @uzmaiqbal7901
    @uzmaiqbal7901 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Yaha jhun change his motivition way is very imprasve

  • @claudermiller
    @claudermiller 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Great lecture. Too bad it's wasted on those students. They don't appear to be engaged whatsoever. I guess daddy owns the company they will be managing soon.

    • @hklinker
      @hklinker ปีที่แล้ว

      Too many assumptions.