Wow, after Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, Prof. Davies is perhaps the clearest explainer of the social implications of economic principles I've come across in my life. Very engaging presentation style. He has certainly gained a subscriber in me.
@@gabriell7640 Zemmour, Guevara, Fanon, Arendt, Bannon, Taylor-Green, Trotsky, Bourdieu, Auguste Comte, Durkheim and Picketti are/were all bright and witty. Most of the times people who know lots of things, and/or are bright or even genius can be and say the worst;and say and/or do the stupidest thing one might ever heard
Reading through some of the comments and replies, I see two groups of people: those who understand the principle of adding value to create wealth, and those who think the world owes them a living.
The capitalists are the people who work the least and spend the most. The workers are the people who work the most and spend the less. Both groups exist in relation to the others. That's why you can't have everyone rich at the same time.
@@johaunallen5284 Entry level workers due tend to get paid less in value for their jobs. Minimum wage has stayed relatively stagnant for over 20 years now. And while quality of life is improving at an unprecedented rate, poverty is still a thing. I for one would love to see poverty eradicated.
@@magnuskallas They are mostly losers anyway but those who have the aptitude for success will gain alot from this lecture. 15% of the population has an IQ so low it doesnt matter what you try to teach them, they will still be effectively useless.
@@TheFK8Life Never trust the mind of a person with small ears, no matter how nice they might be. Trust me, you will notice a correlation between small ears and little IQ at some point in your life ;)
@Nara Puppy The consequences are the morons who vote in leftists have to live with their policiies. They pay the ultimate price when they are broke, crime is through the roof and their leftist politiicans tell them to suck it up. Ultimately their ignorance comes back to haunt them.
How can almost 3,000 people click thumbs down on this? It's clear, it's logical, and it reflects reality; in the workplace, in interactions between people, companies, and governments! How much simpler does it have to be? As far as I'm concerned, this video should be MANDATORY VIEWING for EVERY INCOMING FRESHMAN TO COLLEGE IN AMERICA!
I understand the basis of what he's saying it just doesn't actually reflect much of reality, especially when it's easy to manipulate the value of commodities and services. Do most CEOs actually contribute more than they gain just as his example of Steve Jobs, where he basically berated engineers and his constituents to create what he wanted (envisioned) or outsourced jobs (ironic last name) to China where workers were exploited to the point people were jumping off buildings. I mean you can believe what he is saying if you think it's actually that simple but it doesn't reflect the real world and I think he knows that.
@@Watcher-hh4mu They don't make them anymore. I work as a substitute teacher in my local school district. I had an eight year old girl tell me today that she wishes I was her father. I didn't know whether to feel good about myself or burst out in tears. Not an entirely apt comparison but I think you get my point.
If he factuly uplifted you then you make up the facts that support your views in life. It is not fair. Just look around you. The owner of Amazon has almost 200 billion to his name. Yet a huge percentage of his employees rely on goverment food stamps to eat! You call that fair? This data is manipulated and its pretty easy to tell and find more accurate information if you tried.. As a educator i would hope you do so for the sake of our young minds. Goodluck.
@@minihunt4093 thank you. It's sad to see people thanking schills for a pile of poisonous ideas, too toxic to even be considered shit, at least shit is a good fertilizer.
It's is mandatory in highschool, but not every student is paying attention, maybe just getting their graduation requirements. Then we take it again at the college level.
Don't worry it's not, aside from various far right so-called universities. Only needed about 3 minutes to see it was a fallacious libertarian screed and not a very good one at that. Claims Jobs was worth 80 billion at death when it was actually 10. The gross lie isn't in this innumeracy but in the claim that he personally created that wealth which is absurd. Dumb fucks that wanna do busy exploitative scammy shit and call themselves contributing some pearl of great value will eat this up. People who can critically think maybe not so much. I didn watch past 03:17 where the St. Jobs hagiography that people like Elizabeth whosits at Theranos just love so much.
@@kyberuserid just a measly 10 billion? So he died in poverty then, huh? And how come none of the other smart phone companies succeeded, but Apple did... Jobs was by no means a saint, but we gotta give him credit for doing that. Even if it involved the labor of other people (who also got rich in the process).
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time. But if the man wont eat fish you are wasting your time and effort. The truth is like that too.
What if the man can't be taught how to fish. Half of humanity has an IQ under 86 (and African population is exploding). Practically no jobs for such people in a developed economy.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don't teach a man how to fish and you feed yourself. He's a grown man, fishing is not that hard. - Ron Swanson
The video is not bad, it just does the mistake of ending the graph right before it does not feed there narotive. 200k is not low but not suitable for the end of the spectrum anymore. Big capital can reproduce itself on the cost of others, thats why investment "earnings" need to be taxed enough to avoid a money based aristocracy. th-cam.com/video/QPKKQnijnsM/w-d-xo.html
What this graph also points out is that the 2008 crash, for the lowest parts of the economy set people back 20 years, notice the bar for 2010 in the lowest 3 categories is the same as the the 1990 bar.
Also I just realized, Thomas Malthus claimed that population was growing exponentially. That right there disproves his claim because mankind doesn't reproduce exponentially. It takes two humans to reproduce and only one actually births, so one woman having two children is replacement not exponential.
Not true. Most countries seek to achieve equality of outcome to some extent. That doesn't mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Just that the rich should not be able to deprive the poor of their opportunity to become rich.
@@gavinminion8515 Not my point, I ignore the obvious, which you cite, and point to the elephant in the room, the growing insanity on the left that ALL inequality is rooted in oppression of the lower class and that socialism is the answer.
@@stp479 You are right to say that not all inequality is rooted in oppression of the lower class (in fact , I only think a small percentage of it is). My point is that societies should be trying to provide equality of opportunity for everyone as well as methods to provide equality of outcome for everyone in that group who makes the same (right) choices. Thanks for the answer.
@@stp479 very true, and often those elephants fund these videos (mostly on the right, because the left don't have the money to fund glossy videos!). I aim to find the centre ground, but I do know that, anyone who claims they get it right all the time is certainly wrong! Cheers.
This is what an actual good teacher looks like. So interesting that you watch him in your free time. Everybody talks about how hard teachers have it and how they're heroes and on and on, but so few of them are actually any good. Good job.
Better to compare Venezuela (socialist government, major poverty increasing since they took over) to Liechtenstein (no poverty, capitalism, low taxes, limited political power)
On wondering why fewer households have freezers, it struck me: freezers are for storing foodstuffs long-term, as well as frozen "quick meals" full of preservatives (i.e. frozen TV dinners). The latter is being replaced by dining out and a desire to avoid preservatives for healthy eating, both of which are more expensive. The former is only useful as a cost saving measure in the event of famine where you fear you can't get the food you need affordably; if you believe you can, you don't really need a freezer. So interestingly, the decrease in freezer ownership may be a further indication of increased prosperity, same as the other metrics. You'd want actual surveys of households to confirm this, of course, but it's a theory that may be worth studying further.
Regarding the decline in the ownership of freezers, I wonder if an additional factor is the decline in the size of the average family over the past few decades. Back in the 1970s we had a very large freezer that stored food for our family of six along with snacks and items for when kids from school or church came over. Today I have a family of four and while I too have a freezer, it is half the size of the one my parents had.
The exact opposite of what you say is actually true: we do not need freezers to preserve food anymore because we use chemicals to preserve food instead.
When I was young, the freezer compartment of our refrigerator was the size of a shoebox, so pop bought a chest freezer for the garage. Now, my side-by-side has a freezer nearly the size of the refrigerator side (and both are probably larger than that old Kelvinator). No need for the second appliance.
@@mitoteciencia You are comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't make sense. Plunder isn't profit, it's stealing. Profit arises from a mutually beneficial transaction, voluntarily entered into by both parties. What if I said "Not all the apples are oranges, but all the oranges are apples." WTF?
They wouldn't care. They are all about government control. They don't even care about their constituents. They use the poor as their campaign mascots to be thrown into the blender with everyone else upon victory on election day.
I did plus I cared and I am amazed. How comes you do not realize the scam going on? Oh, I see! A professor! That's why he is allowed to cheat with statistics.
@Vasser Melon , I agree, there should be a more clear fault line between those two forms of government. Even according to some definitions they're not that different. E.g. Social democracy - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Social_democracy "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy." Where "mixed" is a euphemism for partly state controlled. Or: Social democracy | Britannica.com www.britannica.com › topic › social-democracy "Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. ... Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy ..." A kind of 'the road to the gulag is paved with good Welfare' type view of the term.
@@stupidtreehugger, I carefully listened to his arguments and made fun of Aquascape Dreaming in one go. He cheated so badly, you can spot it at first glance. Nasdaq Composite was roughly around at 150 in 1979. Now it is somewhere around 8000. Correct that by inflation and compare it to the wages. We are talking about a magnitude in discrepancy. Compare the change of workers productivity and its reflection in wages. How comes you don't realize the fake?
Seriously, there is no advantage to sharing this info with strangers. But his point remains, even if they arent sharing it, its uncommon for most people to have that much money just sitting around. Exceptions for things like retirement, 401k, etc.
Equality: The short kid accepts that he's short and brings two boxes without demanding the tall kids box.........better yet, they reimburse the baseball team for the entertainment value they're providing by purchasing a ticket......
@@blackSUAAAVE Then, the government comes over and chop off the taller kid's legs and breaks the middle kid's knees. So the three could now equally NOT to watch the game.
In the real world, the "boxes" on which kids are standing on are deposits for buying a mortgage. It's nice to say for the kid to bring his own boxes. Can you say to him to bring his own mortgage deposit? Not as easy a thing to say, is it?
@@MrJason005 Not as easy but no less true. The deposit I have to save to get a mortgage is larger than the whole mortgage my parents paid for their first house. That's life!
The dramatic improvement in world living conditions is also featured in a bestselling book called "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. As Prof. Davies mentions, the news and people in general tend to focus on non-representative events and stories that make people believe they are much worse off. The fact is that humanity has never had it so good. Countless luxuries of the past are now affordable to nearly everyone. While there will always be things to improve on, hopefully more people will appreciate how good we have it now.
3) "Don't confuse poverty with inequality - poverty is the problem" is a good point. Except when he takes the notion of "people are in different stages of their careers" route with it. This is a fine theoretical model, but it exists outside the context of generational wealth. So there are many people starting their careers at the bottom, but a lot of those people at the top are starting there. It isn't safe to assume that just because you start at the high end that you don't do anything but slack your whole life because you "have enough". The person who starts at the top might continue to try to improve their standing, just like any motivated person would do. In a world of finite resources, when successive generations of people start at the top and keep climbing the ladder of resource accumulation, this is where the problem arises: there simply isn't enough for the vast majority of people at the bottom who didn't start at the top or even in a high place. And that number of people contending with the desperation of scarcity, the people at the bottom, grows with each generation. It's misleading (although logistically reasonable) to treat "over $200,000" as though it were just another stationary bracket, when the fact is that it's the only category that is not a finite range of income, and to see an over [$_] category grow doesn't provide enough details about how much it grows to offer very meaningful data. Also the remark that "people say" profit = plunder is a strawman fallacy. I'm sure people say that, but they're extreme radicals, and the implicit assumption that 'reggo' people en masse assume this to be the case is polarizing and does little to lay the groundwork for a rational conversation between the overwhelming majority of Americans whose economic views are surprisingly commensurate with one another, despite all the media hype to the contrary. ...tangentially, the same goes for the people throwing shade at this channel without any concrete arguments to support their insults and assumptions. It seems like the neoliberal capitalists are still fighting the Cold War against shadows and dreams in the dead of night, and the somnambulent Gen Xers root around in the fridge and get caught in their drunk dad's post-traumatic nightterrors, wake up, yell "I hate you dad!" and scamper back up the stairs to hide. The family needs some counseling.
What percentage of, say, millionaires are from generational wealth? Wealth is net worth, not income, so let's drop the income brackets. Plenty of bums out there with high incomes. Could you please clarify your first paragraph? I want to work hard and leave something for my children. Am I wrong? Can't I? Will you try to stop me?
Of course some people will get a good start, and keep going. It might be fantastic for them, and they might be very successful and prosperous. It is the case however, that people who don't have to work particularly hard, will be less likely to do so. This can be very bad. Here's a nice quote. Difficult times create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create difficult times. Sorry for England.
No, moral is to watch the news and fact check it. You want to be informed, not ignorant. The news is only a part of that problem, but an essential one. In my view the news can only ever get better if we scrutinize it. If we don't and instead just ignore it, then unless they have some motive to get you to listen again, they won't care.
The inequality argument is valid in as much as the productivity gains have all gone to the top w/ CEO pay now well over 300X's the average worker pay. It has been hoarded by mgmt. not shared w/ employees.
How do you mean so what? Workers produced those extra goods and services and rich people LEECH of these hard workers. While they themselves (the rich) produce NOTHING. Society owes money to the workers not the rich. The rich are in fact PLUNDERING from the workers. They take the extra goods and services the workers produce and give nothing in return!
Then don't work for the rich people? Problem solved. If a group of employees are not happy with their company, they can resign. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for anyone and the rich are usually there for a good reason, smart life choices and making good investments are some of them. Plus the rich are the ones who have the resources to create jobs and the products that the other classes consume, without them you'd have to give all the money for the government to distribute... and I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a system where I can choose my boss, not be slave to a big government system.
The real world is a bit more complicated than that. People who are being underpaid by "Bad CEO" can't just quit and work for "Good CEO" because Good CEO already has enough workers to run her company. Theoretically, if all the workers quit then the bad company will start to fail and the good company can poach their clients and grow and employ all the workers that quit the bad company, but in practice that process takes years and there's no guarantee it will work at all. It's also pretty rare in the real world to know that a company is a good company to work for or how much they pay their workers. As an example, my first job was delivering pizzas. I applied at both Dominos and Pizza Hut and I was offered both jobs, but they had different pay structures. One paid an hourly rate below minimum wage but also paid a small bonus for each pizza delivered with a sliding scale depending on how far away it was from the store. The other one had no hourly rate but paid about 4x as much for each pizza delivered. At the chain with the hourly rate, if there were no pizzas to deliver you were expected to answer phones or wash the pans or do something to earn your money but at the other chain you could just sit around waiting for a delivery, earning nothing at all. At both chains you were allowed to keep any tips you received. Even after having picked one of the two choices and worked there for a year, I still wouldn't be able to tell you if I could have made more money at the other chain. Although after a year I had done enough of the internal training courses heading towards management that switching companies would have put me at the bottom rung of the ladder again which was a clear drawback, ignoring the existence of any non-compete clauses that may have been in the fine print of my contract. Although that situation isn't much different now that I have more valuable skills and more experience, two big differences are that thanks to having a better paid job I now have enough money saved up to quit before finding a new job and my seniority and skills are transferrable to any job in my industry, whereas Dominos training courses are not transferrable to Pizza Hut. Those two bits of inequality mean that advice that's applicable to me is not applicable to me of 20 years ago.
But the CEOs pay less in percentage. The old cliche "the rich pay *most* of the taxes" is misleading because the rich own most of the stuff. The top 9 people have more combined wealth than the bottom 4 *BILLION* people (let that sink in). Do you really think these 9 people worked harder than or had the same "opportunities" as the bottom 4 *BILLION* people? www.independent.co.uk/news/world/richestbillionairescombinedwealthjeffbezosbillgateswarrenbuffettmarkzuckerbergcarlosslimwealth-a8163621.html
So, about the inequality thing. The key aspect is a system must have some sort of social mobility in place, so the poor (or just starting) can move forward with better income as time progresses.
Take the first "diagram", guy provides goods and services to society, gets dollars, buys goods and services from society. Hence the money circulates and everyone willing to work gets a share. Everything works. However, what can happen here is that the amount of money society invests in said goods and services ends up being disproportionately larger than what gets circulated back. Large amounts of money don't get circulated back into the economy but instead end up stored in off-shore financial institutions for example. Individuals and groups begin to accumulate wealth to the point where their power is greater than that of any government. While at the same time they do not answer to the public in any way, shape or form like governments are supposed to, nor are they necessarily qualified to lead. Is that something that happens?
Tomislav R It seems as though you want to penalize saving. What you need to consider is that someone who saves defers the gratification from profligate spending, and someone who invests takes a risk with his capital. You can't have your cake and eat it.
RayMisuto yes but generally those two go together. Most capitalists would say that the free market is a good thing. We just shorten free market capitalist to capitalist because it’s almost universal (I don’t know anyone who isn’t both that is one, but I can’t prove they don’t exist)
Well, it depends on what "free market" means. Capitalists (as in, those who own capital and have other people work for them) want the markets to be "free" FOR them, but not for the others, especially the workers. For sure, they don't want the markets to be fair, they prefer the markets to be skewed at their advantage.
@@Simboiss - Yes, and they are very good at convincing too many that the market is fair (when it's not), and that everyone has the same chance (when they don't) to succeed. I also love how they have so many different names for money. One family can be given subsidies, property, and other resources that all but guarantees success. Another family will be given a welfare check, one that barely covers the rent (rental property that is owned by someone in the 'circle'...in effect, the welfare money handed out to the poor family comes back to them in the form of cash...and the poor people can never own the property, and will always be at the mercy of the owners), and they're told if they make a nickel more on any 'side hustles', they lose their small welfare check. Even if they go get a job, they immediately lose the welfare check. No grace period, no 'get on your feet' stretch. They retroactively take it back if they find out you've been working under the radar or behind their backs. They talk a good game on the surface, while working diligently to keep poor people poor. Low wages. Classism. The good ol boy system (isn't it fun working for a moron who only got his/her managerial job because his brother/dad/aunt/grandma owns the place? They pay you minimum wage to make this fucker look like he knows what he's doing). No potential for growth. Cost of Living NEVER stops going up. Something will have to give at some point.
@@Simboiss & blacksuave44, It is true that there are entities that try to shift the playing field to benefit them and drive out compitition. That does not mean the system is at fault! Funny how some of those people keep pushing these myths! And no one is trapped in poverty, no one is keepong you down but your own ignorant self!
@@CowboySanta Actually there is such a thing as a welfare trap, but it's the invention of socialists, not free market capitalists. By welfare trap, i mean a small salary and government benefits, which make the attaining of skills and experience required to get a job that will pay more than the small salary and benefits together much harder to attain.
He does an excellent job of explaining all these things, I love this guy, he's doing a great job of explaining what seems to be obvious but so many others have a difficult time explaining...like politicians for example.
This argument is completely correct, economically. I hear it again and again in my economics department at George Mason. One thing I think this argument forgets, however, is that money is power. I think that is why so many, increasingly across the political spectrum, view the super-billionaire class as a major threat. As well, huge inequality tugs at that nasty folly of humanity; envy. Not everyone is madly envious of the super rich, but enough people are that huge, visible inequality is likely to stir up some nasty emotions and thoughts. We can wish humanity did not have this fallen nature, but we must deal with each other as we are. Any argument that fails to address these contentions about wealth inequality will ultimately fall on deaf ears in the public square.
The problem is big government working with big business making these people very rich. I realize when government play favorites it's always at the detriment of the american people
Take all the billionaires money away it won’t fix the issues you outlined, it might make people feel good and improve people’s life’s short term but ultimately will hinder long term progress. Forcibly redistribution of wealth never works, the problem isn’t with the billionaires it’s with the career politicians and the people at the Federal Reserve
@@cherubin7th they helped companies that were going to be successful thus helping the people who decided to be customers of that company. if you want to be rich go ahead, invest but you still have to learn how to
@@NotBamOrBing well have lesser taxes and market restricctions. wealth is created every day. as the rich get richer the poor get richer. if the question is not that much personal (rich people can also live paycheck to paycheck) freeing the market helps drive competition and prices lower
I agree wholeheartedly with what was said here but I would like to point out a couple of things. First of all, if we are just looking at the number of people in the various income brackets the trend is toward more people moving toward the wealthier end of the spectrum. What the chart didn't show was the fact that there are a small number of super wealthy individuals within that highest income bracket (the highest bracket was $200,000 and up) who have more money than everyone else combined. I would say that's fine as long as everyone is trending up and poverty is trending down. But unfortunately, because of the way our campaign finance laws work, that concentration of wealth translates into a concentration of power. In other words, the super wealthy use their money to co opt the power of government to do their bidding and allow them to circumvent laws against anticompetitive practices. They have also consolidated the corporate media which they also use as a tool for controlling government. Conservatives really need to wake up to this because while we are all getting richer we are losing our freedom. I am not advocating for "tax the rich" and other socialist schemes. I am advocating for campaign finance reform plus the strengthening and enforcement of anti-monopoly laws. Because I am NOT ok with a handful of financial and political elites running the country.
Darin, your insight is accurate though I don't think it's the conservatives that need to wake up. Just like you, they are awake and they see this. It is the liberals that need to wake up and the liberal media and big tech who are considerably larger and hence more influential that need to wake up and not carry water for the elites and stop distorting the truth, which only helps the elites. That's crony capitalism where the government helps the elites and the elites line their pockets. I believe it's the liberal media that can change the balance of power if they can stop being partisan and be more neutral and truthful.
We seem to be ignoring the barrier to entry in most of these industries (since few possess the capital regardless of ability), the effect of oligopolies, and the ways in which businesses prevent competition. Oakley sunglasses is a good example. They created a product people liked, but because they wouldn't sell their company to Luxotica, who owned most of the stores they would be sold at, they refused to sell them anywhere... which harmed their ability to sell their glasses so much, that they were forced to sell out anyway... and for much less than Luxotica's original offer. Isn't competition vital to a free market? Doesn't such actions harm competition? What if I had a great idea for a pair of glasses but didn't have the capital due to working for wages? How could I get started? If I did have the capital, how could I compete against such a large corporation? Wouldn't they be able to keep me from entering the market or crush my business in the same way? As for Steve Jobs, yes, people like the phones he makes, but lets not pretend this does only good. Much of the labor is outsourced to Asia, where they work in unsafe sweatshop conditions for, at best, $1.85 an hour. At one factory, conditions were so bad and they were jumping off the roof to kill themselves so often, they had to put a giant net up around the building. You say that profit means society owes them more.... what about the workers that make all the phones, without which the business could not operate? Are they not adding value? Considering one single person made $8 billion dollars, and millions of workers can barely meet living expenses, and are so miserable they are committing mass suicide, at what point can we admit this is exploitative? Labor is an expense like anything else, and reducing the cost of labor increases profits. Is this "good?" Or, is it not some benevolent force and there is a great deal of nuance being left out of the conversation? In your example of inequality, at what point will these workers get to a point where they make $70k a year? Can't we acknowledge at a certain point low wages prevent some from accumulating capital? Why can't we admit the obvious, that there is a conflicting interest that rewards exploitation? Would you be able to tell me with a straight face that a CEO deserves 300 times more than their average employee? Are they adding 300 times more of value to society than anyone else? I agree socialism and communism are terrible ideas, and I agree capitalism is the most successful system we have ever tried. I'm FOR capitalism and free markets. However, I can admit it has a lot of problems. I can look at it realistically and not in a delusional way where I ignore all of the bad. Why do we have to treat it as if it were some type of religion that is unable to be questioned, and anyone who does is a "dirty commie" (the equivalent of a heretic)? At what point does an ideology we are defending diverge with reality? It's not that anything he said was false, but that there is a lot being left out of the conversation. What ever happened to nuance, and presenting a subject objectively, covering the good and the bad? How can we address the issues we have if we can't discuss them rationally? Anyone who just blindly accepts this without thinking is just as ignorant as those clamoring for socialism and communism. If no amount of economic inequality is naive, because it removes incentive and harms production.... isn't no limit on economic inequality every bit as naive? Isn't there a point at which consolidation of wealth erodes the consumer base the market depends upon? Sure, we live more comfortably, but we are ignoring the fact that 73% of Americans are in debt until the day they die, with the average amount left over being over $56K... doesn't this prevent most from accumulating capital? Doesn't it inevitably reach a point where consolidation harms competition, which a free market needs to function properly? If communism's failing is not accounting for an aspect of human nature, incentive, couldn't we critique our own system for not accounting for mankind's insatiable appetite for more? We live in a finite world, yet we have systems that require continuous growth to function properly.... does anyone not see the problem with this? It will last longer, and yield superior results, but it is eventually doomed to fail.
I am shocked by all other comments not even mentioning the bias on the video other than yours. The examples on the video are so blatantly sided and obvious, while going around realities such as while population increased 10 folds, production increased 100 times yet this isn't visible on those statistics. Technology makes everything faster and cheaper to produce, mass produce, without a human interaction, yet people could only afford them just slightly more in 40 years like %10 diff wtf? I love comparing mobile phones in 1998 to today :D, like as if they were a necessity back then or were really cheaper than today with or without counting inflation (they were relatively new technology). I love how it only compares income as gross value and not calculate as net value. On the other hand calculating everything just with inflation. I love how without adding rent/property prices and basic needs like food are inflated more than a damn golf ball, yet net income have increased in between as percentage.
"People on the far right" AGHHH....! Anyone with good common sense ideas is perceived as being "far right" even the likes of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman!
@@Bob-fz7pd wow! labeling...or shall we call it name calling like they do in kindergarten? I think we can be better than that.Thomas Sowell happens to hold a PhD in economics, accomplished author and columnist, a historian and senior fellow of Stanford University's Hoover institute as the late Milton Friedman was as well. What have you written? accomplished for the greater good of society? To call Sowell a white supremacist tells me you have not read his books or know of his character. To call Friedman a Nazi tells me that you do not know what it means to be a Nazi. Keep in mind, "the pot likes to call the kettle black" So this Leftist redderick you are spewing out is so typical of far left ideologs and media that I can either conclude you either dont know your history or you believe what you hear in Mainstream Media. Ask yourself, why do I believe what I believe? Have I done sufficient research on both sides to support these beliefs? Are media claims valid? I like Hillsdale college free online courses about government, economics, politics etc. and they do not accept state funding so they can teach in a non-biased thought provoking manner. Here's an article you may find interesting about Socialism and how it led to the development of Nazi Regime. www.aei.org/publication/the-rise-and-fall-of-socialism/
@@logicallily7391 ill give you the benefit of the doubt for not getting the sarcasm. But Jesus it couldnt be more obvious. My comment was in responce to ian's comment above.
I would have liked to ask, if profits are always good. Example; there was a large Rx company that recently had some major push back after raising the price of Epi-pens by some huge percent, or in the case of companies making massive profits, (Walmart, Amazon) but their employees are getting government assistance. Seems to me there is more to the story than what was told here, and I would really like to hear that talked about.
That's due to centralized banks where they keep the inflation going to push the economy. The problem is it puts the burden on lower classes much more as they deal in liquid cash while richer folks put money in assets which rise in value. If US wasn't moneyprinting like crazy. You wouldn't be dealing with this problem.
I like the way that he uses a range of $30,000 and $70,000 as if this is where our focus should be. I have gone from less then $30,000 to just over $70,000 and it makes a big difference for sure but I'm pretty sure if more then half of the wealth created want going to folks like top CEOs making grotesquely more then the people in this range the range we are looking at could be perhaps $45,000 to $90,000 with the top still being very wealthy by comparison but paying a bit better wages to the people who actually do the work and a fair share of taxes as well. I have managed people before and I understand that it is also a lot of work and takes a certain skill set to understand the financial side of things the industry at hand and how to deal effectively with people etc and the higher up in an organisation you are the more knowledge and skill is needed to a degree and am fine with these skills being rewarded extra for this. I read that in 1965 the average CEO of a large firm made 20 times the average workers pay and that to me like a fair reward heck for the largest companies where the CEOs have done exceptionally well and the workers are taken care of and there is healthy profit for stockholders then lets give them 25 times. 25 times of a healthy fair wage for the average employee. Guess what its now somewhere around 300 times for those at top companies. I don't care what kind of superstar you think you are you are not worth 300 times the average Joe and no you do not deserve a huge tax cut while the feds cry poor when it comes to maintaining social programs but somehow have endless cash for a bloated military budget. And don't try to paint me a communist because as far as I know America in the 1950s and 1960s when things were more equitable and Union representation was at an all time high was in a cold war with the commies. There are good things and bad in a free market and with social programs provided collectively through government both and arguments speaking to the extremes of the spectrum don't help society find a solid practical middle ground. I am for some degree of social democracy where any tax money collected is spent as carefully and prudently as possible on practical programs with measurable results that have maximum benefit for the money spent.
My understanding is that the market can sort out all sorts of things that people only think they can figure out. You're happy with paying CEOs 25 times what you call a healthy fair wage but these are just numbers that feel right to you. I know you are allowing higher than you really like to allow for different opinions but it is still your opinion. Milton Friedman and Thomos Sowel say that the market can make adjustments that no human being could ever make.
Decision making in a company is a huge factor that is overlooked when determining how valuable a CEO is. If companies were fully democratic...would they make the exact same decisions as one top CEO? Likely not for many reasons. Two huge reasons being most of the lower level workers probably won't be motivated to read (and they've probably already made up their decision anyways before any sort of vote many times) and the fact that there is a bell curve. Not only that, I think many people think that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the economy and that "the wealthy are hogging all of the wealth!" Let me ask you...do you think the standard of living has gone up or down between now and 60-70 years ago? Do you think wealth can be created or no? Also, I don't quite remember the US having "Medicare for all" or "free" college...even during the 50s and 60s, believe it or not. This channel also has a video that demonstrates Hauser's Law which is: "Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate. Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007." Ever since after WW2 ended...the amount of federal tax revenue collected was, on average, 17.9% of the overall US GDP. Not only that, but in the case of income taxes, corporate taxes, and estate taxes...after the government increased taxes...tax revenue fell...and not only the year after they were implemented, but year after year after year.
This is a very enlightened lecture. He is hitting the nail on the head with regards to how the western and global economy is beneficial for all. Indeed, the neoliberal movement from the 1980s is greatly underrated. Market mechanics are beautifully simple and work for the vast majority of the economy. It is the the last word in efficiency. However, it does not work for everything. We must evaluate its success on an industry by industry basis. There are some parts of society (more specifically rather than the economy) where market mechanics do not exists. Housing, healthcare, utilities are among a few where the relationship between the provider and consumer are very different. Firstly, they are basic necessities therefore there is no negotiating position for the consumer over price. We all need shelter and some may need healthcare to live. We accept any price available to us as s result. We cannot turn it down in the same way we can turn down a phone or car if we feel the product/service is not worth the money. In that situation, we the market have the power but not in one where we have no choice. I personally would go as far as to say it is immoral to capitalise on basic necessities. The market does need to be challenged but we must go about the debate appreciating the fact that the market is nothing short of brilliant for so many things. Our economies will continue to grow because of it so long as clueless brokers and bankers are regulated to some extent. Preserve what works, revise what doesn’t.
Kelly McGowan that’s a good point. Regulation is important in mediating market forces in this respect. I’d argue however that such checks are lacklustre and overly bureaucratic at best. Regulation is formulated via a compromise between the private sector and gov departments. The outcome in terms of solving problems (like the need to respond to public demand for lower prices or better quality of care in healthcare as an example) will be limited. They will always find a way to minimise the impact of regulation on profit. Whether they go about this with lobbying before, or loopholes and such afterwards. My position on the political economic spectrum is perhaps a bit strange in that I’d say I take the extremes of both sides. I personally believe both taxes and regulation are poor ways to find the centre ground. I would propose keeping 80% of the economy (depending on country) close to completely free from both. The other 20% I believe would be more fit for purpose under state ownership so long as unions do not have too many powers. I know, scary idea. History hasn’t been kind to socialism but there a couple benefits to this that I would argue. Firstly, more direct and transparent democratic accountability on price and quality of these basic necessities. Affordable prices = more disposable income which can be spent on goods and services from the private sector. Secondly, the revenue generated for the government would mean that taxes on the private sector could be at an absolute minimum if any. The rich can still be rich. I’d understand if this seems like a tall order. Don’t know if I’ve been clear either. I go to uni and I still can’t articulate my positions very well
Kelly McGowan fair enough. Can’t really argue with that. Think we will have to agree to disagree. It’s a great topic to discuss. I find people aren’t interested in economics so much these days. Thanks, my generation for your millennial identity politics lol. Good to have the discussion. Guess we’re divided on the extent to which regulations are effective. Just want to confirm I’m not the full socialist that may have presented myself to be. I see it as taking the “best” from both worlds and like I say, most of the economy should be if anything more free. I’m sure you already gathered that. Just making sure
@@kellymcgowan3547 I just want to point out that price systems, egalitarian as they are, are only effective under the neoclassical assumptions, which often do not hold. Both government intervention and private bargaining provide solutions to this. Private bargaining is preferable, but does not always solve the problem because, again, the neoclassical assumptions do not always hold.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what he's saying, it's still accurate. This is just common sense and it's a shame that it has to be taught to anyone. This video is just explaining how the economy works, and there shouldn't be anything controversial in any of this. The fact that there is shows that most people graduate high school economically illiterate and so believe the sky is falling when really in developed industrialized countries things are better than they've ever been, all the while not realizing that what we call poverty in the developed world would be considered being unimaginably rich just a century ago. One of the things this guy is saying is that instead of worrying about inequality, worry about poverty instead as there's a million ways people can be unequal besides money: looks, athletic ability, academic ability, and a million others. Look, if you are born in any western developed country, regardless of your income you are already in the 1% of income when compared to the average person in the developing world, so welcome to the club.
I learnt this simple thing about consumerism this past two years. I wrote a list of things I bought out of habit and boredom or trends. I stopped. I've become financially better off and only bought things that are an investment.
@@falyoung2784 Yeah, my laptop is 12 years old. My car is 14 years old. My music system in the house is 18 years old. I paid for it be repaired rather than buying a new one. This one of things I learnt.I don't need to constantly be buying up to date things.
God Bless You, all involved in making this money. First time I've seen any of your videos, and you all have earned my sub and notification button slap. Keep up the good work.
@BLAIR M Schirmer Oh, so you don't argue with the first myth hey? Projection is a hard concept for the lefty cult heads isn't it? Tell me, how many businesses have you ran?
And there are plenty of stories of rich families losing their wealth because the idiot kids weren't properly taught how to handle money or to leverage opportunities. Trust fund brats come to mind. If improperly educated or handled, the wealth is gone within a generation or two.
@@GravitySpec I agree with that. My point, though, was to say that rich kids have more and better opportunities than poorer ones. Hence, there isn't a situation of equal opportunities for all.
@@diedertspijkerboer I'll agree with that. Life is inherently unequal, but it also explains the trend in the bar graph in the video that shows people generally move from poor to higher stations. I think that's mostly guided by the notion that most good parents will want their children to better than they did, and so on. My parents never finished high school, but I went to college (incurred some debt) and I'm now working a pretty decent job. My goal is to start a family in the near future and give them as good of a chance I can give them to succeed. Everyone starts at differently places, but slowly everyone is reaching higher stations, provided they apart of happy families that have that same goal in mind. If they don't, then it will be a stumble and a challenge for that family, but it can be achieved.
@@martinlohstroh Right and they shouldn't be punished for that. The point I didn't quite make is that if rich people can fall into destitution because of ignorance and failure to handle the wealth they were given, then it in a way balances. If anything we should be cheering on people who are being successful because children born into those families may go on to have families and so on that raise the standard for many more families to come. The problem is people can't look past their own failures and compare themselves to someone who may be better off than them and want what they have but are unwilling to make the changes needed to achieve it. I'm actively learning (while still in debt) how to improve my situation so I can maybe climb from the lower middle class to the upper middle or even higher, but I have to make the right choices in order to get there. No government is going to provide that do me, nor would I want their help because the trade-off is always devil's bargain where you'll have to give something up in return.
A major problem with looking at household income is that people are now forced to share housing, and having both husband and wife working etc. So while the household income has increased, individually it has actually declined.
I don't think people have a problem with profit but rather with how that profit is distributed. i.e. people other than Steve Jobs helped provide iPhones but saw little of the profit from it. For example factory workers in China.
The factory workers in China saw levels of profit according to their contributions, just like everyone else involved. Could it be more fair than that? The problem people have is rooted in envy and tried rationalised in various ways. It's as simple as that.
@@pH7oslo it's patently untrue that people see a level of profit in line with their contributions. The people who see the most profit are those furthest up the chain of command and in positions of power. You're also overlooking how many industries are monopolistic or oligopolistic which greatly distorts the free market price of labour.
@@leocossham "it's patently untrue that people see a level of profit in line with their contributions." You'll have to back up that claim. My claim is that people get paid for what they do according to what someone think their work is worth to them. Since no one is forced to take a specific job, that will invariably be the result. If your job is putting stickers on an iPhone or a cheap plastic toy, you'll get paid for putting on stickers as that's what you're contributing. How much is having stickers put on something worth? If it's required by law to have said stickers it's worth what it takes to have stickers put on as they can't sell the product without them. Since millions of people are capable and potentially willing to put on stickers, it becomes a problem that's easily solved, which translates to not worth that much - even if it's a required step. What something is worth is always a negotiation, but it's only between those offering the job and those taking it - the people who don't take the job do not decide what it's worth (other than for themselves, e.g. more than the company is willing to offer). Thus the people actually accepting the job do get paid according to how they themselves value their own contributions. To them it's the option with the higher (monetary and non-monetary) profit - that's why the chose it. "The people who see the most profit are those furthest up the chain of command and in positions of power." Of course. A lot more rides on their performance. The higher up the more personal risk is taken/required as well; the workers get paid for what they do regardless. Different people seeing different levels of profit is the result of different people contributing different things - it'd be unfair if they weren't rewarded accordingly, but more importantly, the key people would not bother doing it unless properly compensated/rewarded which would remove the job opportunities for everyone else involved, as well as the products/services of course. "You're also overlooking how many industries are monopolistic or oligopolistic which greatly distorts the free market price of labour." Not really. These things don't even distort the market price of labour - the market price of their products/services perhaps, but not the labour. Say Microsoft managed to get a monopoly on OS'es. That would limit everyone to either buy Windows, do without or try to make an OS of their own. Software developers, architects etc would not be forced to work for MS though - there would be lots of other companies doing software for them to be employed by. The worth of any exchange is decided by the two parties doing the exchange - there's no right value, only the accepted value. If you want more for doing your part because you see that other people in the production chain is making more money off of this you're free to ask for it, but the company is under no obligations to give it to you - and if they find someone else who'll do the same job as you but at a lower price, then that person is obviously more valuable to them than you are and they have no incentives to keep you around. It's all about the value you provide - that's the level of profit.
Capitalism is the greatest economic engine in the history of human kind. Before capitalism their was poverty. Capitalism has lifted and continues to lift millions out of poverty.
@@BeenThinking good point, rereading I can see it's not clear. My point is that I've paid more than my fair share. I just knew too many lefties that think because you own a business, you can't own too much. (money, things etc.) It was a time when I was really becoming politically aware.
The problem with "equality of opportunity" is that it's not equal. It's can't be. Opportunity is not infinite. If the boxes in the example at 5:40 were money, opportunity would mean nothing in the end, because money is not infinite. To follow the analogy, the boxes are limited in quantity. Therefore, if there is only 3 boxes, and you can't get more, then the optimal result is to have "equity", so everyone can see the game.
Why are there so (relatively) many dislikes for this video? From Marxists? From SJW's? It's a clear, concise, and accurate presentation. I don't get the disdain, at least in the 2.7K dislikes. Cheers!
Jim Hendricks I’m pretty conservative and voted for Trump and I think I know why: statistics are not necessarily reality and this guy hides behind a wall of them. If people don’t feel the statistics meet their situation they will ignore them and if too many people do it means the methodology by which the statistics were compiled is off. One flaw that shouts out to me in this talk is his ignoring of the role of the effects of inflation. Saying that someone makes more money today than five years ago means nothing if inflation is eating up everyone’s money. He may be using the wrong statistics too. If you want to see the true inflation rate go to www.shadowstats.com.
@@princeofficial6998 It doesn’t matter if he did. The point is is that inflation is caused by the over printing of money. Wealth is not created just by increasing the currency supply but by increasing the productivity of the economy. Injecting more money into the economy just reduces the value of each dollar. Money is not an asset but a medium of exchange that gets its value from the wealth of the economy.
I'm no whining liberal/ socialist (by a long shot, believe me!) but if we are talking about inequality (and such like) and using i-phones as an example it's remiss not to factor in the inequality of the workers that make them. Foxconn in China are highly exploitative and certainly don't resemble anything 'equal.' It's the fact that Jobs got his i-phones made in this way that allowed him to make so much extra money, not that he was providing a service and goods that were 'worth' the profit. Do you see my point? Maybe I'm missing something here, and I'm honestly not getting preachy, just pointing out what I perceive to be a fact.
He did kinda mention this I can definitely see your thinking here. He mentioned it with the equality of the "suffering children." From what I'm understanding in your comment is that your talking on the equality of different countries, but the Chinese workers there are equal to each other. I guess to an extent you can say there is equal opportunity between countries as you can move your residence (usually). I guess you are getting at the concept of "globalism."
China is communist, you basically just proved his point. In an attempt to create "equality" China created mass inequality, poverty, and slave labor conditions.
@@CIMAmotor the Chinese government owns the means of production in China and has all the power. The leader doesn't even need to worry about being re-elected. You're just confused about what ultimately happens under communist rule.
@@highbrass3749 Hello mate, thanks for the reply. I think that definitions play their part when people discuss these topics. Under traditional (Marxian) Communism the people (not the state) have total ownership. This system cannot be installed but has to be reached (through Socialism) by a dialectic. Marx declared that all private property should be abolished; I personally own a flat in China, the land may be leased from the government but I am able to buy and sell at my heart’s delight. The private business sector now accounts for more than 60% of the economy and employs more than 80% of Chinese workers. It’s a bit of a mix and match really as the private sector dominates real estate, machinery and the tech industries (among others) whereas the State is more influential in banking and energy although that control is being diluted as the years go by. To conclude- here’s how the Chinese government hangs on to vestiges of Socialism: The government still owns all the land in China, which is in turn leased out to individuals and companies. By this definition, the state owns much of the means of production; quite Socialist. Here’s how it doesn’t! The Chinese government takes hardly any steps to redistributing wealth or abolishing the class system, in fact quite the opposite. In this sense it is just about the furthest thing from Socialism/ Communism or any Marxist theory imaginable. Cheers mate.
The slide at 11:15 under Myth #4 is not accurately adjusted for inflation and cost of living in that time versus now. It's representing approximately 1/4th what it should be to afford the same things now that the middle class could then. It is a flawed metric without the actual lifestyle being taken into account. Housing, automobiles, dinners out, vacations, etc. The graph is moving left so the "wealthier" classes are in fact poorer than those in that class the decades before. Talk to those making $50-75k and see if they have financial concerns or if they have debt. The middle class has in fact shrunk because those they deem as middle class cannot afford what previous generations of middle class could. They are not poor, but they are not able to make purchases or contribute to the economy in the same way. The slide showing salary inequality is essentially the same situation the class baselines are in. it is shifting and it should be accounting for it taking much much more money to be in a certain class.
@@Spectre-wd9dl that is very true. Midwest and some southern states definitely have a fairly low cost of living. But major metropolitan areas and high growth population areas don't. I'm in that range and live relatively comfortably alone here in the midwest even though I'm about $20k below the middle class income average for my state. But with rapid expansion driving up housing and cost of living expenses over the last 7 years. I was lucky to have gotten a house at the bottom of the housing market collapse. My house's value has gone up 104% since I bought it in 2011. Rent prices have almost doubled for apartments as well. The house I grew up in as a kid in Florida was $38k when my parents got it back then and it is over $300k now. Or roughly 3.5x higher than inflation would account for. Mortgage interest was about 1.5-2.5% higher than they are now, but the price for homes was more on par with what your annual salary would be so it took significantly less time to pay it off. Looking at what my parents made when we moved to my current city in 1987 I'd need to make about 60% more than what I make right now to equal what they had then. I'm living comfortably right now mainly because it is just me and a cat right now. But to afford the family home my parents bought then is 3.8x what I bought my house for in 2011. Plus they were supporting 2 kids. Again I said the the brackets for middle class aren't poor now, but there is a shifting and even though I make more than my parents both made combined at the same age I am now. They could afford and do much more than I can now. The graph the video displayed is trying to just say people are making more money without really addressing what it really means and that those that were on the low end of upper class are now upper middle class and middle class are now lower middle class. Check out www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx for little better graphs and data.
Now I love the Fountainhead as much as the next person, but: 1) @6:38 "...and hold back the people who are more." He failed to demonstrate how helping the people who are less advantaged inherently holds back the people who are more advantaged. No one put a crate on the tall kid's head to smush him down, in that analogy. 2) The premise of a distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" seems rather thin. Everyone has an equal opportunity to see vs. everyone has an equal opportunity to 'stand on flat ground' in this analogy. But the idea that the ground is flat is a false premise, to begin with. Some people are short, some are tall, but also the ground isn't flat. So the system advertised here is presenting the conditions of a true meritocracy, but if the subtext is that this metaphor in any way represents even 'pure 100% free market capitalism', it's a flawed metaphor, because this meritocracy can only exist in a vacuum - where dynastic wealth doesn't exist, where the Matthew Effect doesn't turn the ground they stand on into an exponential curve, with some tall kids and shorties at the top and most of the tall kids and shorties in the valley, spending all their days piling up on each other like rats trying to claw their way up the mountain, while the people at the top only need to, periodically, reach over and dump a vat of hot oil on them to keep the proles sliding down and writhing around on each other, chewing off each other's ears in hunger and frustration alike. And sure, he goes on to graph evidence that "the rats don't even need to bite" but that graph is incorrectly adjusted for inflation, and the inflation-adjusted graph paints a notably more munchy picture for rodentkind. I know this is an old video, but I'm very curious as to his methods of inflation adjustment. This ain't a question for the standard TH-camr, obviously, but if you have an informed opinion & math, I'd love to know about how these graphs were generated in their present state (because he said that he factored in inflation, and yet it doesn't seem that he did). At any rate, the poverty != inequality argument was the best part, and the question of whether or not all the scarcer quality goods we've traded for an abundance of cheap goods (available to everyone in such a way that even the communists ought to be proud) is another good point. I'll address in another comment because already civilized people are gonna demand TLDRs, while troglodytes will just flame this with ad hominems in the false assumption that disagreeing with some of the video's points makes me a state socialist. If you have an intelligent counterargument, let's discuss.
Yep, the flaws and omissions in the presentation stood out like a sore thumb. Given the number of "Hoorah!" comments, I'm marginally happy that at least I wasn't the only one to spot them.
Most people have debt because they don't budget and buy things they don't actually require--they "live beyond their means." This is at the individual fault of those persons. Is it cheaper to live in the south? Absolutely. Why don't more people live there? Heat, conditions, etc. They decide that it's better to live in debt than to live in wealth in slightly more arduous conditions. Nothing is preventing people from moving to cheaper areas with lower costs of living other than themselves (it is cheaper and easier to move than it ever has been). That does not mean that the "middle class" is less capable of affording amenities (on the contrary, people have way more amenities now than they used to), it simply means that humans (as a rule) are averse to hardship and many people lack the motivation to budget and live within their means. If there's a true culprit to be had here, it's easy credit and not household income/inflation. The seductive short-term lure of robbing yourself down the road (IE: taking credit/loans) for more immediate gratification is what does most people in, not the fact that they don't make enough money in the first place. I agree that the presentation lacks some nuance in that area, but that does not mean his statement is categorically wrong. It is right in essence, but it could have been strengthened by incorporating information about debt/credit misuse and a large number of people's unwillingness to move to cheaper areas (which would address your concerns about cost of living).
Yeah, people LIKE forceful deliveries. Hitler could really hold a crowd, same with Trump, but none of thee three delivered healthy truths for sustainable societies. He never mentions balloning debt, national debt, personal debt, business debt. He can point to broad statistics from generations past but doesn't extrapolate forward using stat's since say, 2008! Loud voices aren't sage words, they just engage for a neat idea, not educate for sustainable society economic planning.
You can't just look at a certain demographic, and ASSUME why they are in the position that they are in. That literally leads to racism, sexism and all kinds of discrimination. Great video
Professor, I completely agree with your argument and presentation. However, I think the folks that disagree and think profit and plunder are the same will not use iPhone example. They go to cite medicine, insurance, university and energy as examples where Profit is evil. Would you still use the same logic on those examples? For example, the necessities of life.
Yes you can, water,medicine,insurance,university, etc... They are no free, and to demant they used for free Is like the first example,people using the gov to impost a Profit ergo exploting the other people. The students are the same,they wanna the decre to make More Money but they wanna someone else to pay the bills,thats plunder.
@@alejandroalvarezvaldivia2964 our profit driven system has bloated costs for universities and medicine to the point of absurdity. medicine is not even affordable by many or barely affordable, and when you need that medicine to live, that becomes extortion. It has led our universities to bloat their administration and to do all sorts of other ridiculous shit. There needs to be something to moderate it.
@@orionar2461 Who are you going to financially penalise because some want to go to university? However you dress it up, taxation is theft. Some life advice for you and other socialists…Stop having kids you can’t afford, stop making bad economic choices and stop expecting other people to pay for your lifestyle. There, all that vital advice is for free for you. You’re welcome.
How would that change anything? The analysis applies to any good/service that needs to be produced/provided by someone before it can be consumed by them or someone else.
@Syko Politico Omar really how about this look up Tulsi Gabbard she has the same policies as Bernie dosent commet immigration fraud like omar has a back bone unlike Bernie and is not a moron who votes down the creation of jobs like AOC is
@@malblago ooooooooh wealth inequality to bad I'm not a socialist I don't care that my neighbor drives a brand new Toyota while I drive 20 Year old rusted pick-up
@@malblago Impossible to take seriously when it uses 'families' and 'households' as a statistical metric. They are not consistent economic categories. The average family and household are different over time and even between income groups. You wouldn't be surprised to find a household with 4 young professionals (aged 22-25) earned more than a household with 2 parents (aged 30) and a child , yet these could actually be the same people at different stages of their lives. Nor would you be surprised to find that household income is lower on average when people are moving out and living independently at a much younger age. Bear in mind how many young people are subsidized through the state (in the form of university loans) to move out as soon as they reach adulthood.
@@RevoltingPeasant123 Well, its entirerly up to you decide for yourself whats possible and whats impossible to take seriously. From what I understand, however, in your agrument, social mobility does exist, and people's income changes over time, which, doesn't really... I mean... I am not sure exactly how it relates to the Wikipedia article, since there you are shown income and wealth distribution in pervious years, and there are comparisons with past time periods, and see, acording to the article, the distribution of wealth and income segratates to the to the top over time...
It has always baffled me that the people that want to set the prices that people should receive for a specific good or service do not even fathom what a hard days work looks like and these same people think that a burger flipper should get the same compensation as the one that invested all the capital, time and energy into creating a business that the burger flipper can work.
Same people that complain about how much getting a tradie in to do work costs. They don't think about their costs or the years of experience they had to gain to be able to do the work.
@@elusivecamel yes, the "elitist" wanna-be academics look down on everyone that does real work, somehow they value the number of books read or degrees attained over real hands on skills......that is until a toilet overflows, sink backs up, roof leaks, tree punches a hole in the roof, etc.
World Poverty might be way down, but there's more wage slaves than ever. And you said it yourself, most ppl don't even have $50k in the bank. They might not be flat broke, but they're not even close to having any kind of financial security because the CEO is taking $10M and paying them $35k.
John Wage slavery is such an ignorant term. And don't you think that a business leader deserves a higher share of the profit given they take a higher burden of responsibility?
Got a few questions... Did Steve Jobs have that much money because he deserved it by creating amazing products, or did he take the a disproportional amount of the financial credit for the creation of said products because he had the authority and power to take it? He was not alone in the production - were his workers paid fairly for their time and skills? You can always argue that you don't HAVE to buy IThings which is true, but I can take another example, which makes this a bit more fuzzy. Eli Lilly and Company produces insulin (among other things) and its CEO made $14.5 million in 2017. One cannot live without insulin, so a type 1 diabetic needs to buy insulin no matter what, or they will die. This gives companies extreme power over a type 1 diabetic's life. The company justifies his salary because of the companies financial success under his "rule". However, the cost of insulin (many of which have been on the market for decades) has also trippled since 2002 in the US making the reason for their fincially success pretty obvious. Does our willingness to give them every penny we have, mean they *deserve* that money? I would say no, because most of us will pay whatever we can to get it, because most people don't want to die a terrible and painful death.
the equality comparison uses a faulty example. When they have equal opportunity, the more capable child (in this case the capability metric is height), then the more capable child gets more benefit. In the real world, equality of outcome makes the useless people as valuable as the capable people, which de-incentivizes capable people and stifles progress and stagnates society.
The problem with our argument is that you think the child who is taller is more capable than the child who is shorter, as it is apparent with their height advantage. In other words, you take “usefulness” as a quality that is an apparent advantage and immediately more. This is fickle and even MORE stagnating, as some of the most exceptional people in history weren’t apparently exceptional at first (Einstein, George Washington, Bill Gates, etc.) Don’t forget that the good professor himself pointed out that equality isn’t always immediate and may end up best distributed over time. Incentive for an immediate short term gain for a few could be less profitable than an incentive for a handicapped long term gain that would benefit everyone.
requiemsama no, the diagram only shows a few metrics. The benefit is emotive in that it shows that the shorter child cannot see the event, therefore they are disadvantaged. Therefore the height at which one can see, in regards to the diagram, is the benefit that should be maximized for all (the equality aspect) so that we can all be happy (in this case, the short kid gets to see too). Therefore, the height of the child is implied as being a disadvantage. But that interpretation leaves out the important part that socialists ignore, everyone is different. The whole reason the tall kid is different (is taller) is because in the world demonstrated by that diagram, the only difference between children is height. This is a gross oversimplification of reality clearly, since it only shows one unbalanced metric: height. I earn more than my wife because I am male and have biological proclivities towards things as opposed to people. this behavior is a generalization but the trend can be reliably identified in babies who haven’t been conditioned by society yet. The result of this, is I am a software engineer and earn approximately double what my wife earns, who is an aged carer. Is this earning gap unfair? should my wife ignore her desires to help people and adopt desires to deal with things instead so she can close that gap? of course not, so why do I get paid more? she did about 12 months of trade school level education to be qualified to do her job. I did 4 years of university education. I worked much harder to even be allowed to do the job I wanted to do. Any carer will tell you that aged care has a low bar for entry. If she suddenly got paid as much as me, I would quit, do a 12 month aged care course and do an average job of that while earning as much as my currently high pressure, stressful, highly paid job. It will never happen thanks to the laws of economics, the demand for carers just isn’t that high. Someone can do that job with common sense and a good work ethic. My wife could not do my job, even if I showed her exactly what I do every day. So, I argue, that the metric shown in the diagram as height, is actually the metric which relates to that individuals capability, since nothing else in that image shows that metric. Someones capability absolutely drives what they can get from a situation when in competition with other individuals (the other kids on boxes).
I was going to argue that being useless in society was ok, and is irrelevant to my point, but then I realised that is wrong. Some people can be useless. Thats fine, but if too many people are useless, society collapses. So, trying to convince a large audience that being useless is ok, how about focusing on points that are more useful to our species from a survival of civilized society perspective, such as “life isn’t fair, get over it” or, “you may be short and cant see over the fence, so maybe try to be what’s on the other side of the fence instead of crying about it”. Lessons like that are way more useful to teach than the lost parables of socialism. Now then we can really talk about the benefits of equality of outcome rofl.
requiemsama you say that people like Einstein were demonstrably useless? that’s your argument? lol, sorry dude, I read way too much into it. If you think Einstein was useless then there is no argument. Goodness me, what’s next, saying that the invention of fire was somehow oppressive?!? lol
It's amazing the level of over simplification he's showing here. 1. Profit is good > So a pharma company getting massive profit from overselling unneeded pain pills, creating US's opioid epidemi is good? Yes in some cases profit is good, in others not so much. The world is much more complicated than that. That level of generalization is of a below average elementary school student. Plunder is bad. Of course if you call it plunder, then it must be bad. Taxation isn't necessarily a plunder though. Government taxing people to pay for firefighters for example. Go study history of private firefighters in US and tell me you'd want to go back to that system where firefighters from different companies waste their time fighting each other while letting buildings burn down. 2. Equality and inequality... > Are you saying that in the first picture, the taller boy had the same opportunity than the shorter boy? Did you not see their height difference? Their body heights ARE part of their opportunities. The second picture actually depicts (closer to) equal opportunities. At least at the thing that's more essential: their abilities to watch the game. If, for example, they're working on assignment to write a report about the game, which equality of opportunity is more important to see which one can write a better report? a. equality of number of boxes b. equality of ability to see the game If you're sane, of course the answer is b. Same case for education for the poor. If you want to get the smartest people of all your population, which equal opportunity is more important? a. equality of amount of government help b. equality of ability to get education Again, if you're sane... 3. Most of us don't understand equality > Such a condescending notion, followed by widely known facts. Yes we've actually included your "surprising" facts in our understanding. And what does the scenario with phones even mean? Just because we have smartphones we're equal? How... does that make any sense? You know that there are A LOT of types of smartphones right? And A LOT of them are dirt cheap, especially if you buy them second hand. That's like saying a Bill Gates and me are equal because we both have shoes. 4 & 5. Poor are becoming rich, the world is becoming better > Again. Big whoop! This is not news, and this has nothing to do with your libertarian ideology. You know that governments all around the world have social programs right? How do you separate that from the fact that poverty is decreasing all around the world? How do you know that it's not BECAUSE of social programs?
Thomas Sowell's warned against using household income data. It doesn't take into account the number of people living in a household or the number of working individuals in a household, and these are things that change over time just as much as anything else being measured. Sowell said that if you want better data, free of any political biases, look at per capita income, not per household income. Maybe the per household income is going up, but its because giant Catholic families are deciding to live together. The quality of life hasn't necessarily changed, but the data will see an increase in per household income
not to mention, 2 people making 20k/each = 40k, whereas i person making 30k = 30k....we also see a rise in co-habitation. Also, with both parents working, there is the added cost of childcare.
Great lecture, thank you. Just one thing with the boxes and the kids.. How it is often used by certain people to show wat equality means is inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that someone GIVES one box to everyone, it means that boxes are available, but people have to take them by themselves. Equality of opportunity in that sense means that our responsibility as a society is to make sure we have enough boxes for everyone and to make sure that everyone have the means to take them by themselves, not to give them the boxes and ask nothing in return.
As a leftist i'd like to reply to his 5 "myths": 1. First of all: nobody i know says that profit=plunder, so imo he just invented an argument, which is obviously wrong and quite easy to debunk, in order to evade the topic that capitalism enables plunder, which is a big reason for the inequality we experience today. He even mentions plunder but fails to connect it to the rest of the video. 2. Similary to the first myth, he again uses a standpoint nobody really shares; no leftist i talked to wanted equal outcome for everyone. On the other hand, what i think he wants to hide in his video, everyone should agree to equality of opportunity. Every child on this planet deserves the same chance of becoming successful, and this in no way a given in todays world. 3. Obviously inequality =/= poverty, but global inequality is the main reason for poverty. We have more than enough food on earth, so that nobody has to starve, but since there is no profit in supplying poorer communities in rural areas with food, modern society just doesnt. About his rant on the GINI coefficient: the difference in income over lifetime is far, far smaller than the difference between the earning of a mayor shareholder and a worker of the same company, so the GINI coefficient does paint a somewhat picture, especially if you use it only to compare different situations. Lastly on myth 3: nobody ignores products in networth, 50k just happen to be worth a lot more than one small iphone. 4. Over the last 40 years the GINI coefficient in the US rose from about 0.35 to about 0.45, so inequality obviously increased. 5. Why has homelessnes increased since 1970 if people aren't worse of? Also: The decline of poverty in the last 30 years was almost completely driven by china and other countries who have not opened their markets for the west blindly. The number of people living in poverty in sub-sahara africa is actually rising. If you made it this far, i'd love to engage in a nice debate with everyone who wants to share their personal opinion about my views. Also, please excuse my english; it isnt my first language. Have a nice day!
1- Many leftists do in fact believe that profit is evil what he's trying to say is profit is inherently good but profit derived due to big government spawned from leftist regulation is not. Capitalism doesn't enable plunder, big government crony-capitalism enables plunder. 2-That's a clear lie (I sound a bit harsh there more likely mischaracterisation than lie), they absolutely want equality of outcome or as close to it as they can get that's why they argue for medicare for ALL, minimum wage increases, college loan subsidies and house loan subsidies to the poor. What they don't recognise is that to achieve this equality of outcome (which is impossible in the first place) means you can't have equality of opportunity. 3 - It takes time but a drop from 95 per cent to 10 percent of people living in poverty shows that there is a profit in supplying to poorer communities when markets are let free. 4 -about the GINI part you mention that was the main point of his speech that inequality isn't necessarily bad. If we have two people one earns $50,000 the other $100,000 there's a difference of $50,000. Great now lets say there wages double as productivity increases now to $100,000 and $200,000 the inequality doubled to $100,000 but no one is complaining as they can now buy twice as much stuff each. 5 - In America this is untrue in 2007 there were 647,000 people homeless and in 2018 553,000 according to department of housing and urban development. This doesn't even take into account that as populations rise the amount of people who are homeless increases due to natural increase. Therefore the percentage is a much better figure and that has clearly dropped. More to this point the places with the highest homelessness rate are the leftist cities who refuse to act like NYC which has the highest by far rate of homelessness. No one in America should be homeless the problems have much more to do with mental illness and inability to work but even so there are charities that provide homes and many times the chronic homeless refuse to live there. In summary thanks for watching a video which challenges your idea's its commendable and rare but I don't believe you really understood what he was saying evidenced by your response. This was not written to degrade you in any way either I want to be clear on that just to respond and I have to say your English is bloody good for a second language.
1. It really depends where you are at, at the spectrum of the left. I would consider myself a democratic socialist. I do believe in fact that the market can, and will, do good for society, but a) there are market distortions, like unequal information distribution, which lead to the markets being unefficient, which requires regulation from the government and b) the profit should imo go to the workers by introducing democracy in workplaces by giving them, instead of the shareholders, the choice to decide for the future of the company and the profits. I believe that uncontrolled capitalism will always move to an undemocratic system where the companys hold way too much power, due to their profits/money. 2. Again, i can only speak for myself. But for me it is quite obvious that an university professor or a ceo of a big company should earn more than most workers. The problem for most leftists however is the huge amount of unequality there is right now, with CEOs earning about 250x that of the average worker. So i`m absolutely for increasing the equality of outcome by all the means you mentioned, because they are needed to enable a equality of opportuniy, which is in no way given today. 3. The mayority of the decrease can be directly linked to worker rights. The poverty in countries which are restricting access to their markets (eg china, south korea, malaysia) are doing much better in terms of poverty than the countries opening their markets to quickly (eg latin america, subsaharan africa). 4. Doubled "inequality" by doubling everyones money would not change the gini coefficient, because it doesn't say anything absolute, but rather relative inequality. So an higher gini coefficient suggests that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting relatively poorer. 5. Homelessness as we know it today only came to life as reagan cut social spending. Of course most of the homeless are in cities, which tend to be a bit more leftist, as people and investores are buying houses/flats there. This leads to increased prices that some cant afford anymore. Thanks for engaging in a factual debate where we don't just throw slurs at our heads :) i think i understood the video quite good; i just think that it is propaganda paid for by billionaires (koch brothers) who see their large amount of profits in danger if inequality would be tackled.
@@darcykelly4856 1) There are views on this which are just as dumb as "capitalism good, socialism bad". However, most left-thinking people's issue really lies with the ability for a slim margin of people to profit from the labor of a much larger quantity of people to the extent that they gain significant unchecked influence and power. There must be a limit to the amount of power with which we reward the successful. We can't trust people with as much influence as we are giving them. Luxury is cool and all, but wealth eventually becomes absolute power, and we all know the adage about absolute power. 2) Having the same minimum outcome across the board doesn't prevent people from gaining wealth beyond that. The people who think that nobody should be able to ascend beyond the safety net are extremely rare to the point that they might as well be a boogey man (and they are a really useful boogeyman for the powerful people in 1). 3) I am able to use my eyes well enough to know that the data the video presents on this matter is based on a metric which does not represent reality. This is one of the clearest cases of using statistics to lie that I have ever witnessed. The drop also does not demonstrate what you are saying it does because the people who have been brought out of poverty also receive significant amounts of foreign aid, charity, and outside military intervention. You need to produce a hypothesis which accounts for the effect of all of these.
I also don't think people have a problem with the disparity between the top 10% and the rest of the 90%. But more of a problem with the insanely high level of inequality at the very top end. e.g. the top 7 richest individuals having as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world population.
It's pretty much because no individual should have that much unchecked power. We're fooling ourselves if we think that we aren't living with the consequences of the wanton and irresponsible decisions of the ultra-influential.
The actual problem is not inequality but that a good portion of the income distributed to those at the top is unearned, is derived because of the systems of law and taxation that favors rent-seeking over the production of goods and services. There is, in effect, a redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. Caring societies have since the second half of the 20th century implemented social programs designed to mitigate the worst consequences of the underlying systemic problems but have not come close to removing rentier privilege. A few economists have endeavored to challenge the status quo and challenge the ideological bias expressed by those on the Right and on the Left. Two who stand out are Joseph Stiglitz and Michael Hudson. However, the one economist who has for more than a half century written consistently on these issues is Mason Gaffney (emeritus professor of economics, University of California). A volume in honor of Mason Gaffney was published recently with the title "Rent Unmasked." This title essentially says all that is necessary to say. If we want a justice distribution of income and wealth the solution is to change the way government at all levels raises revenue, moving away from the taxation of wages, salaries, commerce and tangible goods, and begin to collect the rent of land and land-like assets.
You are wrong. The video clearly states that the amount of middle class income people has decreased. The people in lower class are also decreasing, albeit slightly. As for your second point, this may be true, but people like Bernie Sanders will only worsen this.
They are far from mythical. If Ayn Rand's ideas were so empowering, why then did she require the help of both Social Security and Medicare later in life?
It seems to me to be a little misleading to use household income rates to indicate that people are " richer", i would like to know how many of the households in the 70s and 80s were 1 income families compared to the 2000s+
Very good point. Data and history shows that the American family has been progressively getting smaller and smaller - especially since the early part of the 20th century. Large families used to be the norm in this country; that's no longer the case. And people in general aren't having a lot of kids (at least in First World countries). A family of six (or more) in America represents a different demographic in many areas, as opposed to a family of three (or two, in the case of a single or widowed parent with one child). But if you're a progressive, you'll fudge numbers and statistics to make things seem like they agree with your positions, trusting in the fact that most people won't go deeper into the numbers.
The labor market is... a market as well. When people decide that it is worth it to pay for daycare so that both parents can work, it is because the compensation they receive is 'worth it' to them.
This was a fantastic presentation! It seems like I argue this point to at least one socialist/neo-communist a day. I cannot believe that I have not come across this particular video until now! The powerpoint slides and graphics should make this a lot easier for people to understand, as it is often difficult to illustrate this concept to people who aren't very well-versed in government and/or socioeconomics (but that sure doesn't stop them from screeching about it 😄). I now have a new example to show the loony lefties in my debates. Thank you! There is a commune full of "Democratic Socialists" (which is a blatantly oxymoronic term in the first place) crying while watching this video right now.. 😄
It's a late response, but I don't entirely agree with what he says in the video. The person that receives all the money is not the only person that is able to distribute the product. There's way 'smarter' people behind the products than just one person, yet they are not the ones earning that kind of money. It's the boss, as it should be, because you are correct in the fact that the boss was the person who capitalized on an idea, but you're wrong in thinking that he is the only one capable of providing it as mentioned 0:36. He wouldn't even be earning anything if it wasn't for other people helping him provide/produce the product, therefore I don't see a reason why someone who did indeed do a good job capitalizing on an idea should earn so much compared to others. Don't get me wrong I don't mind people earning a lot, but you have to be a bit more critical and not just say lefties are crybabies because they are jealous people earn more than them.
@@jaro551 I have never seen one person provide a valuable service or product to the world.We stand on the shoulders of Giants. Musk can do nothing without thousands of people building and creating his products. Besos is helpless without the team, roads, postal service that is provided to him by taxpayers. This bigot who is giving the lecture is a Fascist.
@@jaro551 Yes, but the “boss” took the risk to begin with. The team behind him can choose to take a similar risk and become the boss or they can change bosses and earn more. When a person stays at a job, they are agreeing that their time/effort is worth the money being paid to him. If they refuse to change is because they are afraid to take the risk.
1st myth - I agree, the difficulty comes in defining where the line between profit and plunder lies and how much of an individuals money comes from one as opposed to the other. 2nd myth, also agree, but again, we have inequalities of both opportunity and outcome in most aspects of society. Deciding which to tackle as a priority is often the sticking point. Myth 3 - also agree, but again, though inequality does not equal poverty, there is a relationship between the two - that relationship is social mobility and is very complex so people often simplify because they have to. Myth 4 makes exactly the mistake which was described in Myth 3 - 'outcome' cannot be measured in dollars alone. Do poor people have better or worse opportunities now - and how much worse? Are the middle earning groups actually middle class? Just because the number of higher earning groups has flatlined, does that mean the quantity of money in those groups has also? Myth 5 - I agree, but what is missing here is again what happens to those at the bottom, just because there are fewer 'poor' as a percentage doesn't mean that the 'poorest' must be better off. It is a good example though of the falsity of the zero sum game approach to world economies.
This is his entire process. He takes clear and easily understood facts, builds a basis, adds an absolutely incorrect variable, or removes a needed one, without analysis, and declares a proof complete. Your take on these is on point. In the first myth, he uses a single definition of profit, and the most uncommon one, and contrasts it to the most rare and egregious form of plunder, to create a false dichotomy. In reality profit arises from position and marketing of a competitive product, as nearly no providers are unique. Plunder arises when that positioning and marketing is used to crush competitors and to demand subsidy in the form of artificial prices or subsidy. Presenting the conflict as binary and extreme is done to deify one and demonize the other. He repeats this pattern in each, presenting a political ethic, not an economic analysis. He does it with the certainty and lack of nuance & understanding that only someone seeking to deceive possess, and will certainly convince a great number of viewers who want easy answers that endorse their desires.
@@danderight2199 hope your comment will stay. I linked to a study from the IFM in 2015, which explained how inequality limits growth, but it somehow disapeared
None of these points are valid, even though you are under the mistaken impression you make sense. Plunder is using government to punish people (AKA authoritarian, AKA Bug government types, AKA you). Everyone in America has vastly 8mproved possibilities, but are held back by laziness and government indoctrination center thinking (AKA schools).
@@benstepanek2808 Your point makes no sense, though you are under the mistaken impression it does. Plunder can take many forms, but in all of them means to steal from someone. Punishment doesn't come into it. It also doesn't matter whether a system is authoritarian or not, plunder can be democratic or dictatorial. You finish with a general point on everyone in America (The USA?) having improved possibilities (over where?) I am actually sure US Citizens do have much better life chances 'in general' than many other citizens of Earth, but I am equally sure the US School system is neither indoctrinating or holding them back. Please re-read what you wrote and try to provide some evidence for your claims. All the best.
@@gavinminion8515 nope, my point makes perfect sense. The fact that you can't follow it actually says more to your lack of research than anything I stated. First, plunder means stealing something. The biggest theft in the U.S.A all involve the federal government. In all the hallmarks of a socialist variant system (in this case Fascism) large companies or coordinated groups within an industry lobby the government to make rules harming competition. Marketing and public affairs are just clever changes in name from Propaganda (the same man fathered both fields). However, marketing is not punitive or coercive and requires authority to remove choices.
@@victorhopper6774 yes, dickens never saw the conditions outside the city. Always ignored the progression from the poor rural England that once was. My favourite fairytale is the communist manifesto - very feel good.
The three kids on same sized boxes actually had unequal opportunity. The oldest kid waited much longer to see the game, and was only given the same box as the toddler who has been afforded the opportunity much earlier in life.
6:27 Not just born, physikal traits like that also come from training and work. So the people who are strong and have muscles, are like that because they spent theyr time training and working out
Or they took steroids, which is more often, and also the rich lobbying senators and paying them off to lower their taxes and sell them the treasury bonds that should be sold to citizens and not multinational corporations is the same as taki mg steroids to bulk up
@@DankBrandon420 he is rich, but only because dad gave him half a billion to start him with. and of course if you are rich, you are smart, and know how to make people happy, biggest myths in the planet (after god is good)
It’s so sad/frightening that this needs to be explained. Everything I learned about economic reality, I learned outside the public education system. The single most practical & important concept essential to success in life isn’t taught in our crappy public schools.
@@scottcardon5222 Amazon is owned by a leftist who donates to the democratic party in fact most of these rich people the left hates are their donors. I work for a conservative base company I get paid better than those at Amazon with weekends off health insurance profit sharing paid holidays. So what about Amazon lol.
@@walterkeith3711 A person who is against universal healthcare and universal preschool is not what I would call a Liberal. These are two of the main goals of the left. Yet he fights these. He would also not be fighting so hard not to give his employees even minimum health insurance.
@@scottcardon5222 well he donates to democrats so does the owner of Starbucks but believe it or not chik fil a offers health insurance and pays better too and is republican owned Christian base company. Haha leftist company are horrible to work for and they are wanting socialize health insurance because it's good for their business what scam the left gas going. Vote republican suport Christian conservatives base company's it's better for workers and the economy. Snake oil leftist hahaha
Capitalism: I need a coat but don’t have one and you have three. I’ll offer my labor in exchange for one of your coats. Socialism: I have a coat but you have three. I deserve one of your coats so we can both have two. Judeo-Christian: I have three coats and you have none. I will give you one of mine.
I’ve taken multiple Econ classes over the years, but learned more in this 18 minutes than I did in all of the others put together. Your lectures should be required prior to high school graduation and/or voter registration for everyone.
Thing is the bulk of what your saying is true in terms of a trend over the past 50 years but if you look closely this trend has not really been the case ever since the financial crash of 2008. If you ran these numbers for the past 10 years it might not paint the same picture with regards to inequality. You can't assume the trends of the past will continue today.
@@618033988749 I know he's not applying his logic to the past decade. But I get the sense you're trying to disagree with me. What are you actually trying to say?
🔥 Watch Prof. Davies' Latest Video: 7 MYTHS ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION - th-cam.com/video/q4ZMMH6LxXc/w-d-xo.html 🔥
Nah, why would I watch that after watching this shallow libertarian propaganda about society?
My new favorite quote ... "Equality does not mean we are all happy, we can all be equally unhappy together."
INEQUALITY ON THE OTHER SIDE MEANS WE CAN BE ALL UNHAPPY AND VERY FEW PRIVILEDGED AND HAPPY TO KEEP THEIR CIRCLES OF CORRUPTION
@@mitoteciencia You weren't paying attention, were you?
@@mitoteciencia You reek of envy.
@@mitotecienciaIf you are cribbing in a YT comment section, you'll obviously be unhappy
Wow, after Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, Prof. Davies is perhaps the clearest explainer of the social implications of economic principles I've come across in my life. Very engaging presentation style. He has certainly gained a subscriber in me.
Thomas Sowell is a legend sir!
Heard of Friedman in class, read his books and watched interviews, got disappointed.
@@nightcrwler1973 can you share why? He is immensely well spoken, bright and witty
@@gabriell7640 Zemmour, Guevara, Fanon, Arendt, Bannon, Taylor-Green, Trotsky, Bourdieu, Auguste Comte, Durkheim and Picketti are/were all bright and witty. Most of the times people who know lots of things, and/or are bright or even genius can be and say the worst;and say and/or do the stupidest thing one might ever heard
@@nightcrwler1973 Well you are right (and very nice examples), but I just want to know why precisely you got disappointed. I hold him in high steem.
Reading through some of the comments and replies, I see two groups of people: those who understand the principle of adding value to create wealth, and those who think the world owes them a living.
Oh, yay. Another silver spooner speaks. [eye roll]
The capitalists are the people who work the least and spend the most. The workers are the people who work the most and spend the less. Both groups exist in relation to the others. That's why you can't have everyone rich at the same time.
You need to get your f-ing eye sight checked.
@@Simboiss dude!! Stfu
@@johaunallen5284 Entry level workers due tend to get paid less in value for their jobs. Minimum wage has stayed relatively stagnant for over 20 years now. And while quality of life is improving at an unprecedented rate, poverty is still a thing. I for one would love to see poverty eradicated.
This lecture should be mandatory for high school seniors - bless you
School are filled with commie teachers
I don't think the neomarxis and social justice warriors would agree with most of it.
@@magnuskallas They are mostly losers anyway but those who have the aptitude for success will gain alot from this lecture. 15% of the population has an IQ so low it doesnt matter what you try to teach them, they will still be effectively useless.
@@TheFK8Life Never trust the mind of a person with small ears, no matter how nice they might be. Trust me, you will notice a correlation between small ears and little IQ at some point in your life ;)
@Nara Puppy The consequences are the morons who vote in leftists have to live with their policiies. They pay the ultimate price when they are broke, crime is through the roof and their leftist politiicans tell them to suck it up.
Ultimately their ignorance comes back to haunt them.
This needs to be taught in every single school in the globe
Unfortunately, there's absolutely no chance of that.
THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPT: CORRUPTION, HE DOESNT EVEN MENTION.
@@mitoteciencia Your brain’s definitely corrupted lol.
"The evening news has become a litany of all the things that aren't true about your life." LMAAAOOOOOOOO
Never has the term, "fake news," been a more apt description.
How can almost 3,000 people click thumbs down on this? It's clear, it's logical, and it reflects reality; in the workplace, in interactions between people, companies, and governments! How much simpler does it have to be? As far as I'm concerned, this video should be MANDATORY VIEWING for EVERY INCOMING FRESHMAN TO COLLEGE IN AMERICA!
Because it ignores its own assumptions, which aren't great to begin with
You can give people an argument/explanation, but you can't give them an understanding.
I understand the basis of what he's saying it just doesn't actually reflect much of reality, especially when it's easy to manipulate the value of commodities and services. Do most CEOs actually contribute more than they gain just as his example of Steve Jobs, where he basically berated engineers and his constituents to create what he wanted (envisioned) or outsourced jobs (ironic last name) to China where workers were exploited to the point people were jumping off buildings. I mean you can believe what he is saying if you think it's actually that simple but it doesn't reflect the real world and I think he knows that.
@@rustycage7491 how would they not?
It doesn’t fit their agenda or reinforce their talking points.
My mom would tell me and my siblings, "it's not equal, but it's fair"
I loved this video, it factually uplifted me.
Where do they make mothers like yours?
@@Watcher-hh4mu They don't make them anymore. I work as a substitute teacher in my local school district. I had an eight year old girl tell me today that she wishes I was her father. I didn't know whether to feel good about myself or burst out in tears. Not an entirely apt comparison but I think you get my point.
If he factuly uplifted you then you make up the facts that support your views in life. It is not fair. Just look around you. The owner of Amazon has almost 200 billion to his name. Yet a huge percentage of his employees rely on goverment food stamps to eat! You call that fair? This data is manipulated and its pretty easy to tell and find more accurate information if you tried.. As a educator i would hope you do so for the sake of our young minds. Goodluck.
It's only propaganda to rational an evil and unjust system. It is a mental, sleight of hand.
@@minihunt4093 thank you. It's sad to see people thanking schills for a pile of poisonous ideas, too toxic to even be considered shit, at least shit is a good fertilizer.
This shouldn't be taught in college...
This should be a mandatory high school course.
It's is mandatory in highschool, but not every student is paying attention, maybe just getting their graduation requirements. Then we take it again at the college level.
Start in the first grade with the Pledge of Allegiance, add a introduction to Civics in the sixth grade and continue on through grad school.
Don't worry it's not, aside from various far right so-called universities. Only needed about 3 minutes to see it was a fallacious libertarian screed and not a very good one at that. Claims Jobs was worth 80 billion at death when it was actually 10. The gross lie isn't in this innumeracy but in the claim that he personally created that wealth which is absurd. Dumb fucks that wanna do busy exploitative scammy shit and call themselves contributing some pearl of great value will eat this up.
People who can critically think maybe not so much. I didn watch past 03:17 where the St. Jobs hagiography that people like Elizabeth whosits at Theranos just love so much.
no, it is for stupid people with stupid values.
@@kyberuserid just a measly 10 billion? So he died in poverty then, huh?
And how come none of the other smart phone companies succeeded, but Apple did... Jobs was by no means a saint, but we gotta give him credit for doing that. Even if it involved the labor of other people (who also got rich in the process).
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time. But if the man wont eat fish you are wasting your time and effort. The truth is like that too.
We'll said. Pretty much the baseline for the current society. No longer, you work you eat.
Good observation.
What if the man can't be taught how to fish. Half of humanity has an IQ under 86 (and African population is exploding). Practically no jobs for such people in a developed economy.
@steve johnsrud ,
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink .
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Don't teach a man how to fish and you feed yourself. He's a grown man, fishing is not that hard. - Ron Swanson
No TedTalk video has ever provided such a valuable and logically-sound message. Bravo-Zulu!
Bravo-Zulu indeed sir
This is bs. Household definition changes every decade. Per capita never changes. This video gets an f.
The video is not bad, it just does the mistake of ending the graph right before it does not feed there narotive. 200k is not low but not suitable for the end of the spectrum anymore. Big capital can reproduce itself on the cost of others, thats why investment "earnings" need to be taxed enough to avoid a money based aristocracy. th-cam.com/video/QPKKQnijnsM/w-d-xo.html
Do you really swallow this crap?
@@jackmatthew1880 is there something amiss?
What this graph also points out is that the 2008 crash, for the lowest parts of the economy set people back 20 years, notice the bar for 2010 in the lowest 3 categories is the same as the the 1990 bar.
Agent Exeider Sad truth. Same with my wages, lower than 10 years ago.
that's what happens when you let the government regulate and subsidize the economy
You are not wrong. Maybe not 20 years but at least a decade. But that fact of life doesn't change any of the conclusions he presents.
Yup. That's what socialist, centralized economic planning, deficit spending, and class warfare driven lending policies will do to you.
Also I just realized, Thomas Malthus claimed that population was growing exponentially. That right there disproves his claim because mankind doesn't reproduce exponentially. It takes two humans to reproduce and only one actually births, so one woman having two children is replacement not exponential.
Equality of opportunity, not outcome, every country that tried the latter has been destroyed.
Not true. Most countries seek to achieve equality of outcome to some extent. That doesn't mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Just that the rich should not be able to deprive the poor of their opportunity to become rich.
@@gavinminion8515 Not my point, I ignore the obvious, which you cite, and point to the elephant in the room, the growing insanity on the left that ALL inequality is rooted in oppression of the lower class and that socialism is the answer.
@@stp479 You are right to say that not all inequality is rooted in oppression of the lower class (in fact , I only think a small percentage of it is). My point is that societies should be trying to provide equality of opportunity for everyone as well as methods to provide equality of outcome for everyone in that group who makes the same (right) choices. Thanks for the answer.
@@gavinminion8515 I agree. It's a fine line for a society and elephants always make a mess of it.
@@stp479 very true, and often those elephants fund these videos (mostly on the right, because the left don't have the money to fund glossy videos!). I aim to find the centre ground, but I do know that, anyone who claims they get it right all the time is certainly wrong! Cheers.
Equality: build a taller fence and make them buy a ticket like everyone else.
Steel Slats!
Right
🤣 no free loaders here!
Equality : free tickets but they have sit backwards so they only listen to the game
dMb dont forget that we have blind people... If they cant see, then neither should you!
This is what an actual good teacher looks like. So interesting that you watch him in your free time. Everybody talks about how hard teachers have it and how they're heroes and on and on, but so few of them are actually any good. Good job.
Aha! So we're getting fewer freezers over time. I knew that the we were spiralling down!
Better to compare Venezuela (socialist government, major poverty increasing since they took over) to Liechtenstein (no poverty, capitalism, low taxes, limited political power)
In other words, vote Jo Jorgenson 2020 :)
I've always thought freezers were the best indicator of an economys success.
@@KibyNykraft I'm libertarian, but I don't know too many Libertarians who will vote for her after her BLM support nonsense
We are getting fewer freezers but more microwaves #YoungPplAreLazy
On wondering why fewer households have freezers, it struck me: freezers are for storing foodstuffs long-term, as well as frozen "quick meals" full of preservatives (i.e. frozen TV dinners). The latter is being replaced by dining out and a desire to avoid preservatives for healthy eating, both of which are more expensive. The former is only useful as a cost saving measure in the event of famine where you fear you can't get the food you need affordably; if you believe you can, you don't really need a freezer.
So interestingly, the decrease in freezer ownership may be a further indication of increased prosperity, same as the other metrics. You'd want actual surveys of households to confirm this, of course, but it's a theory that may be worth studying further.
Regarding the decline in the ownership of freezers, I wonder if an additional factor is the decline in the size of the average family over the past few decades. Back in the 1970s we had a very large freezer that stored food for our family of six along with snacks and items for when kids from school or church came over. Today I have a family of four and while I too have a freezer, it is half the size of the one my parents had.
The exact opposite of what you say is actually true: we do not need freezers to preserve food anymore because we use chemicals to preserve food instead.
When I was young, the freezer compartment of our refrigerator was the size of a shoebox, so pop bought a chest freezer for the garage. Now, my side-by-side has a freezer nearly the size of the refrigerator side (and both are probably larger than that old Kelvinator). No need for the second appliance.
Amazing lecture, one of the most important concepts one can ever learn in one's life.
NOT ALL THE PROFITS ARE PLUNDER, BUT ALL THE PLUNDERS ARE PROFITS. SO TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION TO STOP THE MANIPULATION OF STUPID AUDIENCES.
@@mitoteciencia You are comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't make sense. Plunder isn't profit, it's stealing. Profit arises from a mutually beneficial transaction, voluntarily entered into by both parties. What if I said "Not all the apples are oranges, but all the oranges are apples." WTF?
Every "Democratic Socialist" needs to see this.
They wouldn't care. They are all about government control. They don't even care about their constituents. They use the poor as their campaign mascots to be thrown into the blender with everyone else upon victory on election day.
I did plus I cared and I am amazed. How comes you do not realize the scam going on?
Oh, I see! A professor! That's why he is allowed to cheat with statistics.
@Vasser Melon , I agree, there should be a more clear fault line between those two forms of government. Even according to some definitions they're not that different. E.g.
Social democracy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Social_democracy
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy."
Where "mixed" is a euphemism for partly state controlled. Or:
Social democracy | Britannica.com
www.britannica.com › topic › social-democracy
"Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. ... Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy ..."
A kind of 'the road to the gulag is paved with good Welfare' type view of the term.
@@unnamedchannel2202 , what did you care about, and what is the scam going on? How did he cheat with statistics?
@@stupidtreehugger, I carefully listened to his arguments and made fun of Aquascape Dreaming in one go.
He cheated so badly, you can spot it at first glance.
Nasdaq Composite was roughly around at 150 in 1979. Now it is somewhere around 8000. Correct that by inflation and compare it to the wages. We are talking about a magnitude in discrepancy. Compare the change of workers productivity and its reflection in wages. How comes you don't realize the fake?
9:27
If I had 50.000 bucks in the bank I definitely would not raise my hand.
Never ever would I do this.
Was thinking the exact same thing. I don’t need any more “friends” than I already have.
Seriously, there is no advantage to sharing this info with strangers. But his point remains, even if they arent sharing it, its uncommon for most people to have that much money just sitting around. Exceptions for things like retirement, 401k, etc.
If I sat right next to a group of beatiful cheerleaders, it might be beneficial to raise my hand, even if I didnt have the money.....
beneficial until the bubble bursts.
They make a coin in your country that brings your currency out to 3 decimal places?
Equality: The short kid accepts that he's short and brings two boxes without demanding the tall kids box.........better yet, they reimburse the baseball team for the entertainment value they're providing by purchasing a ticket......
Yeah, but the short kid comes back next week only to find that the fence is twice as high, so he needs two MORE boxes on top of that.
@@blackSUAAAVE Then, the government comes over and chop off the taller kid's legs and breaks the middle kid's knees. So the three could now equally NOT to watch the game.
Just buy a ticket.
In the real world, the "boxes" on which kids are standing on are deposits for buying a mortgage. It's nice to say for the kid to bring his own boxes. Can you say to him to bring his own mortgage deposit? Not as easy a thing to say, is it?
@@MrJason005 Not as easy but no less true. The deposit I have to save to get a mortgage is larger than the whole mortgage my parents paid for their first house.
That's life!
The dramatic improvement in world living conditions is also featured in a bestselling book called "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. As Prof. Davies mentions, the news and people in general tend to focus on non-representative events and stories that make people believe they are much worse off. The fact is that humanity has never had it so good. Countless luxuries of the past are now affordable to nearly everyone. While there will always be things to improve on, hopefully more people will appreciate how good we have it now.
We definitely are the most blessed(materially) people in history, not sure it is good for our souls though. Our luxury seems to be making us soft.
3) "Don't confuse poverty with inequality - poverty is the problem" is a good point. Except when he takes the notion of "people are in different stages of their careers" route with it. This is a fine theoretical model, but it exists outside the context of generational wealth. So there are many people starting their careers at the bottom, but a lot of those people at the top are starting there. It isn't safe to assume that just because you start at the high end that you don't do anything but slack your whole life because you "have enough". The person who starts at the top might continue to try to improve their standing, just like any motivated person would do. In a world of finite resources, when successive generations of people start at the top and keep climbing the ladder of resource accumulation, this is where the problem arises: there simply isn't enough for the vast majority of people at the bottom who didn't start at the top or even in a high place. And that number of people contending with the desperation of scarcity, the people at the bottom, grows with each generation.
It's misleading (although logistically reasonable) to treat "over $200,000" as though it were just another stationary bracket, when the fact is that it's the only category that is not a finite range of income, and to see an over [$_] category grow doesn't provide enough details about how much it grows to offer very meaningful data.
Also the remark that "people say" profit = plunder is a strawman fallacy. I'm sure people say that, but they're extreme radicals, and the implicit assumption that 'reggo' people en masse assume this to be the case is polarizing and does little to lay the groundwork for a rational conversation between the overwhelming majority of Americans whose economic views are surprisingly commensurate with one another, despite all the media hype to the contrary.
...tangentially, the same goes for the people throwing shade at this channel without any concrete arguments to support their insults and assumptions. It seems like the neoliberal capitalists are still fighting the Cold War against shadows and dreams in the dead of night, and the somnambulent Gen Xers root around in the fridge and get caught in their drunk dad's post-traumatic nightterrors, wake up, yell "I hate you dad!" and scamper back up the stairs to hide. The family needs some counseling.
What percentage of, say, millionaires are from generational wealth? Wealth is net worth, not income, so let's drop the income brackets. Plenty of bums out there with high incomes.
Could you please clarify your first paragraph? I want to work hard and leave something for my children. Am I wrong? Can't I? Will you try to stop me?
Of course some people will get a good start, and keep going. It might be fantastic for them, and they might be very successful and prosperous. It is the case however, that people who don't have to work particularly hard, will be less likely to do so. This can be very bad.
Here's a nice quote.
Difficult times create strong men.
Strong men create easy times.
Easy times create weak men.
Weak men create difficult times.
Sorry for England.
Moral: Don't watch the news.
No, moral is to watch the news and fact check it. You want to be informed, not ignorant. The news is only a part of that problem, but an essential one. In my view the news can only ever get better if we scrutinize it. If we don't and instead just ignore it, then unless they have some motive to get you to listen again, they won't care.
@@prestonhall5171 or just instead dont fully trust the news
agree
Denzel Washington said, "if you don't watch the news, you're uninformed. If you watch the news, you're misinformed."
This should be shown in schools
Edit: If it not already is
#1 0:10 Profit = Plunder
#2 5:18 Equality
#3 7:00 We Understand
#4 11:15 Middle Class
#5 13:50 Worse Off
Thanks! 👍✅
The inequality argument is valid in as much as the productivity gains have all gone to the top w/ CEO pay now well over 300X's the average worker pay. It has been hoarded by mgmt. not shared w/ employees.
How do you mean so what? Workers produced those extra goods and services and rich people LEECH of these hard workers. While they themselves (the rich) produce NOTHING. Society owes money to the workers not the rich. The rich are in fact PLUNDERING from the workers. They take the extra goods and services the workers produce and give nothing in return!
Then don't work for the rich people? Problem solved.
If a group of employees are not happy with their company, they can resign. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for anyone and the rich are usually there for a good reason, smart life choices and making good investments are some of them.
Plus the rich are the ones who have the resources to create jobs and the products that the other classes consume, without them you'd have to give all the money for the government to distribute... and I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a system where I can choose my boss, not be slave to a big government system.
The real world is a bit more complicated than that. People who are being underpaid by "Bad CEO" can't just quit and work for "Good CEO" because Good CEO already has enough workers to run her company. Theoretically, if all the workers quit then the bad company will start to fail and the good company can poach their clients and grow and employ all the workers that quit the bad company, but in practice that process takes years and there's no guarantee it will work at all.
It's also pretty rare in the real world to know that a company is a good company to work for or how much they pay their workers.
As an example, my first job was delivering pizzas. I applied at both Dominos and Pizza Hut and I was offered both jobs, but they had different pay structures. One paid an hourly rate below minimum wage but also paid a small bonus for each pizza delivered with a sliding scale depending on how far away it was from the store. The other one had no hourly rate but paid about 4x as much for each pizza delivered. At the chain with the hourly rate, if there were no pizzas to deliver you were expected to answer phones or wash the pans or do something to earn your money but at the other chain you could just sit around waiting for a delivery, earning nothing at all. At both chains you were allowed to keep any tips you received.
Even after having picked one of the two choices and worked there for a year, I still wouldn't be able to tell you if I could have made more money at the other chain. Although after a year I had done enough of the internal training courses heading towards management that switching companies would have put me at the bottom rung of the ladder again which was a clear drawback, ignoring the existence of any non-compete clauses that may have been in the fine print of my contract.
Although that situation isn't much different now that I have more valuable skills and more experience, two big differences are that thanks to having a better paid job I now have enough money saved up to quit before finding a new job and my seniority and skills are transferrable to any job in my industry, whereas Dominos training courses are not transferrable to Pizza Hut. Those two bits of inequality mean that advice that's applicable to me is not applicable to me of 20 years ago.
But the CEOs pay less in percentage. The old cliche "the rich pay *most* of the taxes" is misleading because the rich own most of the stuff. The top 9 people have more combined wealth than the bottom 4 *BILLION* people (let that sink in). Do you really think these 9 people worked harder than or had the same "opportunities" as the bottom 4 *BILLION* people?
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/richestbillionairescombinedwealthjeffbezosbillgateswarrenbuffettmarkzuckerbergcarlosslimwealth-a8163621.html
@@fahimp3 it's not about working hard.
So, about the inequality thing. The key aspect is a system must have some sort of social mobility in place, so the poor (or just starting) can move forward with better income as time progresses.
Take the first "diagram", guy provides goods and services to society, gets dollars, buys goods and services from society. Hence the money circulates and everyone willing to work gets a share. Everything works.
However, what can happen here is that the amount of money society invests in said goods and services ends up being disproportionately larger than what gets circulated back. Large amounts of money don't get circulated back into the economy but instead end up stored in off-shore financial institutions for example.
Individuals and groups begin to accumulate wealth to the point where their power is greater than that of any government. While at the same time they do not answer to the public in any way, shape or form like governments are supposed to, nor are they necessarily qualified to lead.
Is that something that happens?
Tomislav R
It seems as though you want to penalize saving. What you need to consider is that someone who saves defers the gratification from profligate spending, and someone who invests takes a risk with his capital. You can't have your cake and eat it.
The best video on capitalism I have ever seen.
RayMisuto yes but generally those two go together. Most capitalists would say that the free market is a good thing. We just shorten free market capitalist to capitalist because it’s almost universal (I don’t know anyone who isn’t both that is one, but I can’t prove they don’t exist)
Well, it depends on what "free market" means. Capitalists (as in, those who own capital and have other people work for them) want the markets to be "free" FOR them, but not for the others, especially the workers. For sure, they don't want the markets to be fair, they prefer the markets to be skewed at their advantage.
@@Simboiss - Yes, and they are very good at convincing too many that the market is fair (when it's not), and that everyone has the same chance (when they don't) to succeed.
I also love how they have so many different names for money. One family can be given subsidies, property, and other resources that all but guarantees success. Another family will be given a welfare check, one that barely covers the rent (rental property that is owned by someone in the 'circle'...in effect, the welfare money handed out to the poor family comes back to them in the form of cash...and the poor people can never own the property, and will always be at the mercy of the owners), and they're told if they make a nickel more on any 'side hustles', they lose their small welfare check.
Even if they go get a job, they immediately lose the welfare check. No grace period, no 'get on your feet' stretch. They retroactively take it back if they find out you've been working under the radar or behind their backs.
They talk a good game on the surface, while working diligently to keep poor people poor. Low wages. Classism. The good ol boy system (isn't it fun working for a moron who only got his/her managerial job because his brother/dad/aunt/grandma owns the place? They pay you minimum wage to make this fucker look like he knows what he's doing). No potential for growth. Cost of Living NEVER stops going up.
Something will have to give at some point.
@@Simboiss & blacksuave44, It is true that there are entities that try to shift the playing field to benefit them and drive out compitition. That does not mean the system is at fault!
Funny how some of those people keep pushing these myths! And no one is trapped in poverty, no one is keepong you down but your own ignorant self!
@@CowboySanta Actually there is such a thing as a welfare trap, but it's the invention of socialists, not free market capitalists. By welfare trap, i mean a small salary and government benefits, which make the attaining of skills and experience required to get a job that will pay more than the small salary and benefits together much harder to attain.
He does an excellent job of explaining all these things, I love this guy, he's doing a great job of explaining what seems to be obvious but so many others have a difficult time explaining...like politicians for example.
He is the kind of professor that would have a 2 year wait list for his class.
Most politicians understands this full well. It's the people. Most people don't care to learn because they are greedy.
This argument is completely correct, economically. I hear it again and again in my economics department at George Mason. One thing I think this argument forgets, however, is that money is power. I think that is why so many, increasingly across the political spectrum, view the super-billionaire class as a major threat. As well, huge inequality tugs at that nasty folly of humanity; envy. Not everyone is madly envious of the super rich, but enough people are that huge, visible inequality is likely to stir up some nasty emotions and thoughts. We can wish humanity did not have this fallen nature, but we must deal with each other as we are.
Any argument that fails to address these contentions about wealth inequality will ultimately fall on deaf ears in the public square.
The problem is big government working with big business making these people very rich. I realize when government play favorites it's always at the detriment of the american people
Take all the billionaires money away it won’t fix the issues you outlined, it might make people feel good and improve people’s life’s short term but ultimately will hinder long term progress. Forcibly redistribution of wealth never works, the problem isn’t with the billionaires it’s with the career politicians and the people at the Federal Reserve
Two of my friends are multimillionaires
They invested in stocks and real estate
Myself I spent my money on hot cars and hot women
Okay now I get it!
anx now tge milionares get the hot women free
So they gamed the system and got money for without doing anything.
And what about the people who live paycheque to paycheque and physically cannot save up enough to invest?
@@cherubin7th they helped companies that were going to be successful thus helping the people who decided to be customers of that company.
if you want to be rich go ahead, invest but you still have to learn how to
@@NotBamOrBing well have lesser taxes and market restricctions. wealth is created every day. as the rich get richer the poor get richer. if the question is not that much personal (rich people can also live paycheck to paycheck) freeing the market helps drive competition and prices lower
I agree wholeheartedly with what was said here but I would like to point out a couple of things. First of all, if we are just looking at the number of people in the various income brackets the trend is toward more people moving toward the wealthier end of the spectrum. What the chart didn't show was the fact that there are a small number of super wealthy individuals within that highest income bracket (the highest bracket was $200,000 and up) who have more money than everyone else combined. I would say that's fine as long as everyone is trending up and poverty is trending down. But unfortunately, because of the way our campaign finance laws work, that concentration of wealth translates into a concentration of power. In other words, the super wealthy use their money to co opt the power of government to do their bidding and allow them to circumvent laws against anticompetitive practices. They have also consolidated the corporate media which they also use as a tool for controlling government. Conservatives really need to wake up to this because while we are all getting richer we are losing our freedom. I am not advocating for "tax the rich" and other socialist schemes. I am advocating for campaign finance reform plus the strengthening and enforcement of anti-monopoly laws. Because I am NOT ok with a handful of financial and political elites running the country.
Darin, your insight is accurate though I don't think it's the conservatives that need to wake up. Just like you, they are awake and they see this. It is the liberals that need to wake up and the liberal media and big tech who are considerably larger and hence more influential that need to wake up and not carry water for the elites and stop distorting the truth, which only helps the elites. That's crony capitalism where the government helps the elites and the elites line their pockets. I believe it's the liberal media that can change the balance of power if they can stop being partisan and be more neutral and truthful.
How is this a problem for conservatives when conservatives are fighting against big government and want to limit government power?
And still the wife complains about owning a vacuum cleaner. I'm desperate!
Has she ever emptied it when it got full?
Get her a packet of pegs to go with it
well buy her a vacuum and then use it yourself sometimes. :) nothing more attractive than a partner that participates.
Is there any way to like something more than once? Finally an academic making sense!
This is a fantastic set of explanations. Thank you.
We seem to be ignoring the barrier to entry in most of these industries (since few possess the capital regardless of ability), the effect of oligopolies, and the ways in which businesses prevent competition. Oakley sunglasses is a good example. They created a product people liked, but because they wouldn't sell their company to Luxotica, who owned most of the stores they would be sold at, they refused to sell them anywhere... which harmed their ability to sell their glasses so much, that they were forced to sell out anyway... and for much less than Luxotica's original offer. Isn't competition vital to a free market? Doesn't such actions harm competition? What if I had a great idea for a pair of glasses but didn't have the capital due to working for wages? How could I get started? If I did have the capital, how could I compete against such a large corporation? Wouldn't they be able to keep me from entering the market or crush my business in the same way?
As for Steve Jobs, yes, people like the phones he makes, but lets not pretend this does only good. Much of the labor is outsourced to Asia, where they work in unsafe sweatshop conditions for, at best, $1.85 an hour. At one factory, conditions were so bad and they were jumping off the roof to kill themselves so often, they had to put a giant net up around the building. You say that profit means society owes them more.... what about the workers that make all the phones, without which the business could not operate? Are they not adding value?
Considering one single person made $8 billion dollars, and millions of workers can barely meet living expenses, and are so miserable they are committing mass suicide, at what point can we admit this is exploitative? Labor is an expense like anything else, and reducing the cost of labor increases profits. Is this "good?" Or, is it not some benevolent force and there is a great deal of nuance being left out of the conversation? In your example of inequality, at what point will these workers get to a point where they make $70k a year? Can't we acknowledge at a certain point low wages prevent some from accumulating capital? Why can't we admit the obvious, that there is a conflicting interest that rewards exploitation? Would you be able to tell me with a straight face that a CEO deserves 300 times more than their average employee? Are they adding 300 times more of value to society than anyone else?
I agree socialism and communism are terrible ideas, and I agree capitalism is the most successful system we have ever tried. I'm FOR capitalism and free markets. However, I can admit it has a lot of problems. I can look at it realistically and not in a delusional way where I ignore all of the bad. Why do we have to treat it as if it were some type of religion that is unable to be questioned, and anyone who does is a "dirty commie" (the equivalent of a heretic)? At what point does an ideology we are defending diverge with reality? It's not that anything he said was false, but that there is a lot being left out of the conversation. What ever happened to nuance, and presenting a subject objectively, covering the good and the bad? How can we address the issues we have if we can't discuss them rationally?
Anyone who just blindly accepts this without thinking is just as ignorant as those clamoring for socialism and communism. If no amount of economic inequality is naive, because it removes incentive and harms production.... isn't no limit on economic inequality every bit as naive? Isn't there a point at which consolidation of wealth erodes the consumer base the market depends upon? Sure, we live more comfortably, but we are ignoring the fact that 73% of Americans are in debt until the day they die, with the average amount left over being over $56K... doesn't this prevent most from accumulating capital? Doesn't it inevitably reach a point where consolidation harms competition, which a free market needs to function properly? If communism's failing is not accounting for an aspect of human nature, incentive, couldn't we critique our own system for not accounting for mankind's insatiable appetite for more? We live in a finite world, yet we have systems that require continuous growth to function properly.... does anyone not see the problem with this? It will last longer, and yield superior results, but it is eventually doomed to fail.
I am shocked by all other comments not even mentioning the bias on the video other than yours. The examples on the video are so blatantly sided and obvious, while going around realities such as while population increased 10 folds, production increased 100 times yet this isn't visible on those statistics. Technology makes everything faster and cheaper to produce, mass produce, without a human interaction, yet people could only afford them just slightly more in 40 years like %10 diff wtf?
I love comparing mobile phones in 1998 to today :D, like as if they were a necessity back then or were really cheaper than today with or without counting inflation (they were relatively new technology).
I love how it only compares income as gross value and not calculate as net value. On the other hand calculating everything just with inflation.
I love how without adding rent/property prices and basic needs like food are inflated more than a damn golf ball, yet net income have increased in between as percentage.
"People on the far right" AGHHH....! Anyone with good common sense ideas is perceived as being "far right" even the likes of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman!
Thomas Sowell is a white supremest and Milton Friedman is a Nazi.
Ian Paling ???
The speaker meant on the far right _of the graphic_ - not the far right of the political spectrum.
Jhc
@@Bob-fz7pd wow! labeling...or shall we call it name calling like they do in kindergarten? I think we can be better than that.Thomas Sowell happens to hold a PhD in economics, accomplished author and columnist, a historian and senior fellow of Stanford University's Hoover institute as the late Milton Friedman was as well. What have you written? accomplished for the greater good of society?
To call Sowell a white supremacist tells me you have not read his books or know of his character. To call Friedman a Nazi tells me that you do not know what it means to be a Nazi. Keep in mind, "the pot likes to call the kettle black" So this Leftist redderick you are spewing out is so typical of far left ideologs and media that I can either conclude you either dont know your history or you believe what you hear in Mainstream Media. Ask yourself, why do I believe what I believe? Have I done sufficient research on both sides to support these beliefs? Are media claims valid?
I like Hillsdale college free online courses about government, economics, politics etc. and they do not accept state funding so they can teach in a non-biased thought provoking manner. Here's an article you may find interesting about Socialism and how it led to the development of Nazi Regime.
www.aei.org/publication/the-rise-and-fall-of-socialism/
@@logicallily7391 ill give you the benefit of the doubt for not getting the sarcasm. But Jesus it couldnt be more obvious. My comment was in responce to ian's comment above.
It has been proven scientifically that the concept of "common sense" is itself a myth.
I would have liked to ask, if profits are always good. Example; there was a large Rx company that recently had some major push back after raising the price of Epi-pens by some huge percent, or in the case of companies making massive profits, (Walmart, Amazon) but their employees are getting government assistance. Seems to me there is more to the story than what was told here, and I would really like to hear that talked about.
That's due to centralized banks where they keep the inflation going to push the economy. The problem is it puts the burden on lower classes much more as they deal in liquid cash while richer folks put money in assets which rise in value.
If US wasn't moneyprinting like crazy. You wouldn't be dealing with this problem.
I like the way that he uses a range of $30,000 and $70,000 as if this is where our focus should be. I have gone from less then $30,000 to just over $70,000 and it makes a big difference for sure but I'm pretty sure if more then half of the wealth created want going to folks like top CEOs making grotesquely more then the people in this range the range we are looking at could be perhaps $45,000 to $90,000 with the top still being very wealthy by comparison but paying a bit better wages to the people who actually do the work and a fair share of taxes as well. I have managed people before and I understand that it is also a lot of work and takes a certain skill set to understand the financial side of things the industry at hand and how to deal effectively with people etc and the higher up in an organisation you are the more knowledge and skill is needed to a degree and am fine with these skills being rewarded extra for this. I read that in 1965 the average CEO of a large firm made 20 times the average workers pay and that to me like a fair reward heck for the largest companies where the CEOs have done exceptionally well and the workers are taken care of and there is healthy profit for stockholders then lets give them 25 times. 25 times of a healthy fair wage for the average employee. Guess what its now somewhere around 300 times for those at top companies. I don't care what kind of superstar you think you are you are not worth 300 times the average Joe and no you do not deserve a huge tax cut while the feds cry poor when it comes to maintaining social programs but somehow have endless cash for a bloated military budget. And don't try to paint me a communist because as far as I know America in the 1950s and 1960s when things were more equitable and Union representation was at an all time high was in a cold war with the commies. There are good things and bad in a free market and with social programs provided collectively through government both and arguments speaking to the extremes of the spectrum don't help society find a solid practical middle ground. I am for some degree of social democracy where any tax money collected is spent as carefully and prudently as possible on practical programs with measurable results that have maximum benefit for the money spent.
My understanding is that the market can sort out all sorts of things that people only think they can figure out. You're happy with paying CEOs 25 times what you call a healthy fair wage but these are just numbers that feel right to you. I know you are allowing higher than you really like to allow for different opinions but it is still your opinion. Milton Friedman and Thomos Sowel say that the market can make adjustments that no human being could ever make.
Decision making in a company is a huge factor that is overlooked when determining how valuable a CEO is. If companies were fully democratic...would they make the exact same decisions as one top CEO? Likely not for many reasons. Two huge reasons being most of the lower level workers probably won't be motivated to read (and they've probably already made up their decision anyways before any sort of vote many times) and the fact that there is a bell curve. Not only that, I think many people think that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the economy and that "the wealthy are hogging all of the wealth!" Let me ask you...do you think the standard of living has gone up or down between now and 60-70 years ago? Do you think wealth can be created or no? Also, I don't quite remember the US having "Medicare for all" or "free" college...even during the 50s and 60s, believe it or not. This channel also has a video that demonstrates Hauser's Law which is:
"Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate. Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007."
Ever since after WW2 ended...the amount of federal tax revenue collected was, on average, 17.9% of the overall US GDP. Not only that, but in the case of income taxes, corporate taxes, and estate taxes...after the government increased taxes...tax revenue fell...and not only the year after they were implemented, but year after year after year.
This is a very enlightened lecture. He is hitting the nail on the head with regards to how the western and global economy is beneficial for all. Indeed, the neoliberal movement from the 1980s is greatly underrated. Market mechanics are beautifully simple and work for the vast majority of the economy. It is the the last word in efficiency.
However, it does not work for everything. We must evaluate its success on an industry by industry basis. There are some parts of society (more specifically rather than the economy) where market mechanics do not exists. Housing, healthcare, utilities are among a few where the relationship between the provider and consumer are very different. Firstly, they are basic necessities therefore there is no negotiating position for the consumer over price. We all need shelter and some may need healthcare to live. We accept any price available to us as s result. We cannot turn it down in the same way we can turn down a phone or car if we feel the product/service is not worth the money. In that situation, we the market have the power but not in one where we have no choice. I personally would go as far as to say it is immoral to capitalise on basic necessities.
The market does need to be challenged but we must go about the debate appreciating the fact that the market is nothing short of brilliant for so many things. Our economies will continue to grow because of it so long as clueless brokers and bankers are regulated to some extent.
Preserve what works, revise what doesn’t.
@@kellymcgowan3547 And why are they government controlled?
@@kellymcgowan3547 not totally true...
Kelly McGowan that’s a good point. Regulation is important in mediating market forces in this respect. I’d argue however that such checks are lacklustre and overly bureaucratic at best. Regulation is formulated via a compromise between the private sector and gov departments. The outcome in terms of solving problems (like the need to respond to public demand for lower prices or better quality of care in healthcare as an example) will be limited.
They will always find a way to minimise the impact of regulation on profit. Whether they go about this with lobbying before, or loopholes and such afterwards.
My position on the political economic spectrum is perhaps a bit strange in that I’d say I take the extremes of both sides. I personally believe both taxes and regulation are poor ways to find the centre ground. I would propose keeping 80% of the economy (depending on country) close to completely free from both. The other 20% I believe would be more fit for purpose under state ownership so long as unions do not have too many powers. I know, scary idea. History hasn’t been kind to socialism but there a couple benefits to this that I would argue. Firstly, more direct and transparent democratic accountability on price and quality of these basic necessities. Affordable prices = more disposable income which can be spent on goods and services from the private sector. Secondly, the revenue generated for the government would mean that taxes on the private sector could be at an absolute minimum if any. The rich can still be rich.
I’d understand if this seems like a tall order. Don’t know if I’ve been clear either. I go to uni and I still can’t articulate my positions very well
Kelly McGowan fair enough. Can’t really argue with that. Think we will have to agree to disagree. It’s a great topic to discuss. I find people aren’t interested in economics so much these days. Thanks, my generation for your millennial identity politics lol. Good to have the discussion. Guess we’re divided on the extent to which regulations are effective.
Just want to confirm I’m not the full socialist that may have presented myself to be. I see it as taking the “best” from both worlds and like I say, most of the economy should be if anything more free. I’m sure you already gathered that. Just making sure
@@kellymcgowan3547 I just want to point out that price systems, egalitarian as they are, are only effective under the neoclassical assumptions, which often do not hold. Both government intervention and private bargaining provide solutions to this. Private bargaining is preferable, but does not always solve the problem because, again, the neoclassical assumptions do not always hold.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what he's saying, it's still accurate. This is just common sense and it's a shame that it has to be taught to anyone. This video is just explaining how the economy works, and there shouldn't be anything controversial in any of this. The fact that there is shows that most people graduate high school economically illiterate and so believe the sky is falling when really in developed industrialized countries things are better than they've ever been, all the while not realizing that what we call poverty in the developed world would be considered being unimaginably rich just a century ago. One of the things this guy is saying is that instead of worrying about inequality, worry about poverty instead as there's a million ways people can be unequal besides money: looks, athletic ability, academic ability, and a million others. Look, if you are born in any western developed country, regardless of your income you are already in the 1% of income when compared to the average person in the developing world, so welcome to the club.
I learnt this simple thing about consumerism this past two years. I wrote a list of things I bought out of habit and boredom or trends. I stopped. I've become financially better off and only bought things that are an investment.
good for you that you have so much disposable income! I do not!
sent from my $20 obsolete laptop
@@falyoung2784 Yeah, my laptop is 12 years old. My car is 14 years old. My music system in the house is 18 years old. I paid for it be repaired rather than buying a new one. This one of things I learnt.I don't need to constantly be buying up to date things.
God Bless You, all involved in making this money. First time I've seen any of your videos, and you all have earned my sub and notification button slap. Keep up the good work.
2000 socialists and AOC voters watched this video I see.
2153...
@@annemouse6788 They're rising!!!!
BLAIR M Schirmer do you have a valid argument or are just mad like usual?
@BLAIR M Schirmer Oh, so you don't argue with the first myth hey?
Projection is a hard concept for the lefty cult heads isn't it?
Tell me, how many businesses have you ran?
@@backwardzhatguy9953 If he had an argument he wouldn't be a leftist. ;)
Many of the rich have better opportunities because their parents were rich, well-connected, etc.
That is because the parents worked smart and hard and saved their money .
And there are plenty of stories of rich families losing their wealth because the idiot kids weren't properly taught how to handle money or to leverage opportunities. Trust fund brats come to mind. If improperly educated or handled, the wealth is gone within a generation or two.
@@GravitySpec I agree with that.
My point, though, was to say that rich kids have more and better opportunities than poorer ones.
Hence, there isn't a situation of equal opportunities for all.
@@diedertspijkerboer I'll agree with that. Life is inherently unequal, but it also explains the trend in the bar graph in the video that shows people generally move from poor to higher stations. I think that's mostly guided by the notion that most good parents will want their children to better than they did, and so on. My parents never finished high school, but I went to college (incurred some debt) and I'm now working a pretty decent job. My goal is to start a family in the near future and give them as good of a chance I can give them to succeed. Everyone starts at differently places, but slowly everyone is reaching higher stations, provided they apart of happy families that have that same goal in mind. If they don't, then it will be a stumble and a challenge for that family, but it can be achieved.
@@martinlohstroh Right and they shouldn't be punished for that. The point I didn't quite make is that if rich people can fall into destitution because of ignorance and failure to handle the wealth they were given, then it in a way balances. If anything we should be cheering on people who are being successful because children born into those families may go on to have families and so on that raise the standard for many more families to come. The problem is people can't look past their own failures and compare themselves to someone who may be better off than them and want what they have but are unwilling to make the changes needed to achieve it. I'm actively learning (while still in debt) how to improve my situation so I can maybe climb from the lower middle class to the upper middle or even higher, but I have to make the right choices in order to get there. No government is going to provide that do me, nor would I want their help because the trade-off is always devil's bargain where you'll have to give something up in return.
A major problem with looking at household income is that people are now forced to share housing, and having both husband and wife working etc. So while the household income has increased, individually it has actually declined.
You can thank equality for that ;-)
I don't think people have a problem with profit but rather with how that profit is distributed. i.e. people other than Steve Jobs helped provide iPhones but saw little of the profit from it. For example factory workers in China.
The factory workers in China saw levels of profit according to their contributions, just like everyone else involved. Could it be more fair than that?
The problem people have is rooted in envy and tried rationalised in various ways. It's as simple as that.
@@pH7oslo it's patently untrue that people see a level of profit in line with their contributions. The people who see the most profit are those furthest up the chain of command and in positions of power. You're also overlooking how many industries are monopolistic or oligopolistic which greatly distorts the free market price of labour.
@@leocossham "it's patently untrue that people see a level of profit in line with their contributions."
You'll have to back up that claim. My claim is that people get paid for what they do according to what someone think their work is worth to them. Since no one is forced to take a specific job, that will invariably be the result. If your job is putting stickers on an iPhone or a cheap plastic toy, you'll get paid for putting on stickers as that's what you're contributing. How much is having stickers put on something worth? If it's required by law to have said stickers it's worth what it takes to have stickers put on as they can't sell the product without them. Since millions of people are capable and potentially willing to put on stickers, it becomes a problem that's easily solved, which translates to not worth that much - even if it's a required step.
What something is worth is always a negotiation, but it's only between those offering the job and those taking it - the people who don't take the job do not decide what it's worth (other than for themselves, e.g. more than the company is willing to offer). Thus the people actually accepting the job do get paid according to how they themselves value their own contributions. To them it's the option with the higher (monetary and non-monetary) profit - that's why the chose it.
"The people who see the most profit are those furthest up the chain of command and in positions of power."
Of course. A lot more rides on their performance. The higher up the more personal risk is taken/required as well; the workers get paid for what they do regardless. Different people seeing different levels of profit is the result of different people contributing different things - it'd be unfair if they weren't rewarded accordingly, but more importantly, the key people would not bother doing it unless properly compensated/rewarded which would remove the job opportunities for everyone else involved, as well as the products/services of course.
"You're also overlooking how many industries are monopolistic or oligopolistic which greatly distorts the free market price of labour."
Not really. These things don't even distort the market price of labour - the market price of their products/services perhaps, but not the labour. Say Microsoft managed to get a monopoly on OS'es. That would limit everyone to either buy Windows, do without or try to make an OS of their own. Software developers, architects etc would not be forced to work for MS though - there would be lots of other companies doing software for them to be employed by.
The worth of any exchange is decided by the two parties doing the exchange - there's no right value, only the accepted value. If you want more for doing your part because you see that other people in the production chain is making more money off of this you're free to ask for it, but the company is under no obligations to give it to you - and if they find someone else who'll do the same job as you but at a lower price, then that person is obviously more valuable to them than you are and they have no incentives to keep you around. It's all about the value you provide - that's the level of profit.
And all that under “evil capitalism”
If only it was so fair
Capitalism is the greatest economic engine in the history of human kind. Before capitalism their was poverty. Capitalism has lifted and continues to lift millions out of poverty.
For years I was made to feel like I was taking from society. The amount of tax I have paid is evidence I have not. This video just reinforces it.
Reinforces that you are taking, or not taking from society?
@@BeenThinking good point, rereading I can see it's not clear. My point is that I've paid more than my fair share. I just knew too many lefties that think because you own a business, you can't own too much. (money, things etc.) It was a time when I was really becoming politically aware.
The problem with "equality of opportunity" is that it's not equal. It's can't be. Opportunity is not infinite. If the boxes in the example at 5:40 were money, opportunity would mean nothing in the end, because money is not infinite. To follow the analogy, the boxes are limited in quantity. Therefore, if there is only 3 boxes, and you can't get more, then the optimal result is to have "equity", so everyone can see the game.
Why are there so (relatively) many dislikes for this video? From Marxists? From SJW's? It's a clear, concise, and accurate presentation. I don't get the disdain, at least in the 2.7K dislikes. Cheers!
Jim Hendricks I’m pretty conservative and voted for Trump and I think I know why: statistics are not necessarily reality and this guy hides behind a wall of them. If people don’t feel the statistics meet their situation they will ignore them and if too many people do it means the methodology by which the statistics were compiled is off. One flaw that shouts out to me in this talk is his ignoring of the role of the effects of inflation. Saying that someone makes more money today than five years ago means nothing if inflation is eating up everyone’s money. He may be using the wrong statistics too. If you want to see the true inflation rate go to www.shadowstats.com.
@@januarysson5633 he clearly stated the statistics were inflation adjusted. Did you even watch the video?
@@princeofficial6998 It doesn’t matter if he did. The point is is that inflation is caused by the over printing of money. Wealth is not created just by increasing the currency supply but by increasing the productivity of the economy. Injecting more money into the economy just reduces the value of each dollar. Money is not an asset but a medium of exchange that gets its value from the wealth of the economy.
I'm no whining liberal/ socialist (by a long shot, believe me!) but if we are talking about inequality (and such like) and using i-phones as an example it's remiss not to factor in the inequality of the workers that make them. Foxconn in China are highly exploitative and certainly don't resemble anything 'equal.'
It's the fact that Jobs got his i-phones made in this way that allowed him to make so much extra money, not that he was providing a service and goods that were 'worth' the profit. Do you see my point? Maybe I'm missing something here, and I'm honestly not getting preachy, just pointing out what I perceive to be a fact.
He did kinda mention this I can definitely see your thinking here. He mentioned it with the equality of the "suffering children." From what I'm understanding in your comment is that your talking on the equality of different countries, but the Chinese workers there are equal to each other. I guess to an extent you can say there is equal opportunity between countries as you can move your residence (usually). I guess you are getting at the concept of "globalism."
China is communist, you basically just proved his point. In an attempt to create "equality" China created mass inequality, poverty, and slave labor conditions.
@@highbrass3749 There's nothing 'Communist' about China, there's barely even any Socialist policies left there.
@@CIMAmotor the Chinese government owns the means of production in China and has all the power. The leader doesn't even need to worry about being re-elected. You're just confused about what ultimately happens under communist rule.
@@highbrass3749 Hello mate, thanks for the reply. I think that definitions play their part when people discuss these topics. Under traditional (Marxian) Communism the people (not the state) have total ownership. This system cannot be installed but has to be reached (through Socialism) by a dialectic.
Marx declared that all private property should be abolished; I personally own a flat in China, the land may be leased from the government but I am able to buy and sell at my heart’s delight.
The private business sector now accounts for more than 60% of the economy and employs more than 80% of Chinese workers.
It’s a bit of a mix and match really as the private sector dominates real estate, machinery and the tech industries (among others) whereas the State is more influential in banking and energy although that control is being diluted as the years go by.
To conclude- here’s how the Chinese government hangs on to vestiges of Socialism:
The government still owns all the land in China, which is in turn leased out to individuals and companies. By this definition, the state owns much of the means of production; quite Socialist.
Here’s how it doesn’t!
The Chinese government takes hardly any steps to redistributing wealth or abolishing the class system, in fact quite the opposite. In this sense it is just about the furthest thing from Socialism/ Communism or any Marxist theory imaginable.
Cheers mate.
The slide at 11:15 under Myth #4 is not accurately adjusted for inflation and cost of living in that time versus now. It's representing approximately 1/4th what it should be to afford the same things now that the middle class could then. It is a flawed metric without the actual lifestyle being taken into account. Housing, automobiles, dinners out, vacations, etc. The graph is moving left so the "wealthier" classes are in fact poorer than those in that class the decades before.
Talk to those making $50-75k and see if they have financial concerns or if they have debt. The middle class has in fact shrunk because those they deem as middle class cannot afford what previous generations of middle class could. They are not poor, but they are not able to make purchases or contribute to the economy in the same way. The slide showing salary inequality is essentially the same situation the class baselines are in. it is shifting and it should be accounting for it taking much much more money to be in a certain class.
Depends on where you live. You can live comfortably on 30k/yr here. 50-75 and youre living like a king.
@@Spectre-wd9dl that is very true. Midwest and some southern states definitely have a fairly low cost of living. But major metropolitan areas and high growth population areas don't.
I'm in that range and live relatively comfortably alone here in the midwest even though I'm about $20k below the middle class income average for my state. But with rapid expansion driving up housing and cost of living expenses over the last 7 years. I was lucky to have gotten a house at the bottom of the housing market collapse. My house's value has gone up 104% since I bought it in 2011. Rent prices have almost doubled for apartments as well.
The house I grew up in as a kid in Florida was $38k when my parents got it back then and it is over $300k now. Or roughly 3.5x higher than inflation would account for. Mortgage interest was about 1.5-2.5% higher than they are now, but the price for homes was more on par with what your annual salary would be so it took significantly less time to pay it off.
Looking at what my parents made when we moved to my current city in 1987 I'd need to make about 60% more than what I make right now to equal what they had then. I'm living comfortably right now mainly because it is just me and a cat right now. But to afford the family home my parents bought then is 3.8x what I bought my house for in 2011. Plus they were supporting 2 kids.
Again I said the the brackets for middle class aren't poor now, but there is a shifting and even though I make more than my parents both made combined at the same age I am now. They could afford and do much more than I can now. The graph the video displayed is trying to just say people are making more money without really addressing what it really means and that those that were on the low end of upper class are now upper middle class and middle class are now lower middle class.
Check out www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx for little better graphs and data.
Now I love the Fountainhead as much as the next person, but:
1) @6:38 "...and hold back the people who are more." He failed to demonstrate how helping the people who are less advantaged inherently holds back the people who are more advantaged. No one put a crate on the tall kid's head to smush him down, in that analogy.
2) The premise of a distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" seems rather thin. Everyone has an equal opportunity to see vs. everyone has an equal opportunity to 'stand on flat ground' in this analogy. But the idea that the ground is flat is a false premise, to begin with. Some people are short, some are tall, but also the ground isn't flat. So the system advertised here is presenting the conditions of a true meritocracy, but if the subtext is that this metaphor in any way represents even 'pure 100% free market capitalism', it's a flawed metaphor, because this meritocracy can only exist in a vacuum - where dynastic wealth doesn't exist, where the Matthew Effect doesn't turn the ground they stand on into an exponential curve, with some tall kids and shorties at the top and most of the tall kids and shorties in the valley, spending all their days piling up on each other like rats trying to claw their way up the mountain, while the people at the top only need to, periodically, reach over and dump a vat of hot oil on them to keep the proles sliding down and writhing around on each other, chewing off each other's ears in hunger and frustration alike. And sure, he goes on to graph evidence that "the rats don't even need to bite" but that graph is incorrectly adjusted for inflation, and the inflation-adjusted graph paints a notably more munchy picture for rodentkind.
I know this is an old video, but I'm very curious as to his methods of inflation adjustment. This ain't a question for the standard TH-camr, obviously, but if you have an informed opinion & math, I'd love to know about how these graphs were generated in their present state (because he said that he factored in inflation, and yet it doesn't seem that he did).
At any rate, the poverty != inequality argument was the best part, and the question of whether or not all the scarcer quality goods we've traded for an abundance of cheap goods (available to everyone in such a way that even the communists ought to be proud) is another good point. I'll address in another comment because already civilized people are gonna demand TLDRs, while troglodytes will just flame this with ad hominems in the false assumption that disagreeing with some of the video's points makes me a state socialist. If you have an intelligent counterargument, let's discuss.
Yep, the flaws and omissions in the presentation stood out like a sore thumb. Given the number of "Hoorah!" comments, I'm marginally happy that at least I wasn't the only one to spot them.
Most people have debt because they don't budget and buy things they don't actually require--they "live beyond their means." This is at the individual fault of those persons. Is it cheaper to live in the south? Absolutely. Why don't more people live there? Heat, conditions, etc. They decide that it's better to live in debt than to live in wealth in slightly more arduous conditions. Nothing is preventing people from moving to cheaper areas with lower costs of living other than themselves (it is cheaper and easier to move than it ever has been).
That does not mean that the "middle class" is less capable of affording amenities (on the contrary, people have way more amenities now than they used to), it simply means that humans (as a rule) are averse to hardship and many people lack the motivation to budget and live within their means. If there's a true culprit to be had here, it's easy credit and not household income/inflation. The seductive short-term lure of robbing yourself down the road (IE: taking credit/loans) for more immediate gratification is what does most people in, not the fact that they don't make enough money in the first place.
I agree that the presentation lacks some nuance in that area, but that does not mean his statement is categorically wrong. It is right in essence, but it could have been strengthened by incorporating information about debt/credit misuse and a large number of people's unwillingness to move to cheaper areas (which would address your concerns about cost of living).
There should be a way to make every person in the USA to listen to Prof Davies
I wish I was more smarter than others.
Ryan Saunders just drink more brain juice bro
Very well done! This should be viewed by everyone! It would help our society, and our country. Thank you!!!
This is so well worded and all around beautifully presented. Thank you.
Yeah, people LIKE forceful deliveries. Hitler could really hold a crowd, same with Trump, but none of thee three delivered healthy truths for sustainable societies. He never mentions balloning debt, national debt, personal debt, business debt. He can point to broad statistics from generations past but doesn't extrapolate forward using stat's since say, 2008! Loud voices aren't sage words, they just engage for a neat idea, not educate for sustainable society economic planning.
@@bend3rbot No argument is complete without Hitler :)
You can't just look at a certain demographic, and ASSUME why they are in the position that they are in. That literally leads to racism, sexism and all kinds of discrimination.
Great video
we could assume you are a racist
Absolutely great lecture. I can see your efforts
Professor, I completely agree with your argument and presentation. However, I think the folks that disagree and think profit and plunder are the same will not use iPhone example. They go to cite medicine, insurance, university and energy as examples where Profit is evil. Would you still use the same logic on those examples? For example, the necessities of life.
Yes you can, water,medicine,insurance,university, etc... They are no free, and to demant they used for free Is like the first example,people using the gov to impost a Profit ergo exploting the other people.
The students are the same,they wanna the decre to make More Money but they wanna someone else to pay the bills,thats plunder.
@@alejandroalvarezvaldivia2964 our profit driven system has bloated costs for universities and medicine to the point of absurdity. medicine is not even affordable by many or barely affordable, and when you need that medicine to live, that becomes extortion. It has led our universities to bloat their administration and to do all sorts of other ridiculous shit. There needs to be something to moderate it.
@@orionar2461 Who are you going to financially penalise because some want to go to university? However you dress it up, taxation is theft.
Some life advice for you and other socialists…Stop having kids you can’t afford, stop making bad economic choices and stop expecting other people to pay for your lifestyle.
There, all that vital advice is for free for you. You’re welcome.
@@thehammer9599 taxation is part of living in civilization, get over it.
How would that change anything? The analysis applies to any good/service that needs to be produced/provided by someone before it can be consumed by them or someone else.
Reading the comments from socialist is like grinding my eyes on sandpaper
@Syko Politico Omar really how about this look up Tulsi Gabbard she has the same policies as Bernie dosent commet immigration fraud like omar has a back bone unlike Bernie and is not a moron who votes down the creation of jobs like AOC is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
@@malblago ooooooooh wealth inequality to bad I'm not a socialist
I don't care that my neighbor drives a brand new Toyota while I drive 20 Year old rusted pick-up
@@malblago Impossible to take seriously when it uses 'families' and 'households' as a statistical metric. They are not consistent economic categories. The average family and household are different over time and even between income groups. You wouldn't be surprised to find a household with 4 young professionals (aged 22-25) earned more than a household with 2 parents (aged 30) and a child , yet these could actually be the same people at different stages of their lives. Nor would you be surprised to find that household income is lower on average when people are moving out and living independently at a much younger age. Bear in mind how many young people are subsidized through the state (in the form of university loans) to move out as soon as they reach adulthood.
@@RevoltingPeasant123 Well, its entirerly up to you decide for yourself whats possible and whats impossible to take seriously. From what I understand, however, in your agrument, social mobility does exist, and people's income changes over time, which, doesn't really... I mean... I am not sure exactly how it relates to the Wikipedia article, since there you are shown income and wealth distribution in pervious years, and there are comparisons with past time periods, and see, acording to the article, the distribution of wealth and income segratates to the to the top over time...
It has always baffled me that the people that want to set the prices that people should receive for a specific good or service do not even fathom what a hard days work looks like and these same people think that a burger flipper should get the same compensation as the one that invested all the capital, time and energy into creating a business that the burger flipper can work.
Same people that complain about how much getting a tradie in to do work costs. They don't think about their costs or the years of experience they had to gain to be able to do the work.
@@elusivecamel yes, the "elitist" wanna-be academics look down on everyone that does real work, somehow they value the number of books read or degrees attained over real hands on skills......that is until a toilet overflows, sink backs up, roof leaks, tree punches a hole in the roof, etc.
World Poverty might be way down, but there's more wage slaves than ever. And you said it yourself, most ppl don't even have $50k in the bank. They might not be flat broke, but they're not even close to having any kind of financial security because the CEO is taking $10M and paying them $35k.
John
Wage slavery is such an ignorant term.
And don't you think that a business leader deserves a higher share of the profit given they take a higher burden of responsibility?
"Wow, you mean I need to actually PAY for this candybar before eating it? This is basically the same as slavery, TBH."
Got a few questions... Did Steve Jobs have that much money because he deserved it by creating amazing products, or did he take the a disproportional amount of the financial credit for the creation of said products because he had the authority and power to take it? He was not alone in the production - were his workers paid fairly for their time and skills? You can always argue that you don't HAVE to buy IThings which is true, but I can take another example, which makes this a bit more fuzzy.
Eli Lilly and Company produces insulin (among other things) and its CEO made $14.5 million in 2017. One cannot live without insulin, so a type 1 diabetic needs to buy insulin no matter what, or they will die. This gives companies extreme power over a type 1 diabetic's life. The company justifies his salary because of the companies financial success under his "rule". However, the cost of insulin (many of which have been on the market for decades) has also trippled since 2002 in the US making the reason for their fincially success pretty obvious. Does our willingness to give them every penny we have, mean they *deserve* that money? I would say no, because most of us will pay whatever we can to get it, because most people don't want to die a terrible and painful death.
the equality comparison uses a faulty example. When they have equal opportunity, the more capable child (in this case the capability metric is height), then the more capable child gets more benefit. In the real world, equality of outcome makes the useless people as valuable as the capable people, which de-incentivizes capable people and stifles progress and stagnates society.
The problem with our argument is that you think the child who is taller is more capable than the child who is shorter, as it is apparent with their height advantage.
In other words, you take “usefulness” as a quality that is an apparent advantage and immediately more. This is fickle and even MORE stagnating, as some of the most exceptional people in history weren’t apparently exceptional at first (Einstein, George Washington, Bill Gates, etc.)
Don’t forget that the good professor himself pointed out that equality isn’t always immediate and may end up best distributed over time. Incentive for an immediate short term gain for a few could be less profitable than an incentive for a handicapped long term gain that would benefit everyone.
requiemsama no, the diagram only shows a few metrics. The benefit is emotive in that it shows that the shorter child cannot see the event, therefore they are disadvantaged. Therefore the height at which one can see, in regards to the diagram, is the benefit that should be maximized for all (the equality aspect) so that we can all be happy (in this case, the short kid gets to see too). Therefore, the height of the child is implied as being a disadvantage. But that interpretation leaves out the important part that socialists ignore, everyone is different.
The whole reason the tall kid is different (is taller) is because in the world demonstrated by that diagram, the only difference between children is height. This is a gross oversimplification of reality clearly, since it only shows one unbalanced metric: height.
I earn more than my wife because I am male and have biological proclivities towards things as opposed to people. this behavior is a generalization but the trend can be reliably identified in babies who haven’t been conditioned by society yet. The result of this, is I am a software engineer and earn approximately double what my wife earns, who is an aged carer. Is this earning gap unfair? should my wife ignore her desires to help people and adopt desires to deal with things instead so she can close that gap? of course not, so why do I get paid more? she did about 12 months of trade school level education to be qualified to do her job. I did 4 years of university education. I worked much harder to even be allowed to do the job I wanted to do. Any carer will tell you that aged care has a low bar for entry. If she suddenly got paid as much as me, I would quit, do a 12 month aged care course and do an average job of that while earning as much as my currently high pressure, stressful, highly paid job. It will never happen thanks to the laws of economics, the demand for carers just isn’t that high. Someone can do that job with common sense and a good work ethic. My wife could not do my job, even if I showed her exactly what I do every day.
So, I argue, that the metric shown in the diagram as height, is actually the metric which relates to that individuals capability, since nothing else in that image shows that metric. Someones capability absolutely drives what they can get from a situation when in competition with other individuals (the other kids on boxes).
I was going to argue that being useless in society was ok, and is irrelevant to my point, but then I realised that is wrong. Some people can be useless. Thats fine, but if too many people are useless, society collapses. So, trying to convince a large audience that being useless is ok, how about focusing on points that are more useful to our species from a survival of civilized society perspective, such as “life isn’t fair, get over it” or, “you may be short and cant see over the fence, so maybe try to be what’s on the other side of the fence instead of crying about it”.
Lessons like that are way more useful to teach than the lost parables of socialism.
Now then we can really talk about the benefits of equality of outcome rofl.
requiemsama you say that people like Einstein were demonstrably useless? that’s your argument? lol, sorry dude, I read way too much into it. If you think Einstein was useless then there is no argument. Goodness me, what’s next, saying that the invention of fire was somehow oppressive?!? lol
Why would the tall guy even choose to stand on a box if he doesn't even need it to see?
Your video's need to be shown in every high school in America. EXCELLENT job my friend.
I believe that appliances have gotten cheaper in cost and cheaper in quality.
i agree, however not to the extent that what he says is not true. cheap air conditioning for example is good enough.
what most ignore is these items are not the same over the years. how many 16 year olds would reconize a wringer washer?
It's amazing the level of over simplification he's showing here.
1. Profit is good > So a pharma company getting massive profit from overselling unneeded pain pills, creating US's opioid epidemi is good? Yes in some cases profit is good, in others not so much. The world is much more complicated than that. That level of generalization is of a below average elementary school student.
Plunder is bad. Of course if you call it plunder, then it must be bad. Taxation isn't necessarily a plunder though. Government taxing people to pay for firefighters for example. Go study history of private firefighters in US and tell me you'd want to go back to that system where firefighters from different companies waste their time fighting each other while letting buildings burn down.
2. Equality and inequality... > Are you saying that in the first picture, the taller boy had the same opportunity than the shorter boy? Did you not see their height difference? Their body heights ARE part of their opportunities. The second picture actually depicts (closer to) equal opportunities. At least at the thing that's more essential: their abilities to watch the game. If, for example, they're working on assignment to write a report about the game, which equality of opportunity is more important to see which one can write a better report?
a. equality of number of boxes
b. equality of ability to see the game
If you're sane, of course the answer is b.
Same case for education for the poor. If you want to get the smartest people of all your population, which equal opportunity is more important?
a. equality of amount of government help
b. equality of ability to get education
Again, if you're sane...
3. Most of us don't understand equality > Such a condescending notion, followed by widely known facts. Yes we've actually included your "surprising" facts in our understanding.
And what does the scenario with phones even mean? Just because we have smartphones we're equal? How... does that make any sense? You know that there are A LOT of types of smartphones right? And A LOT of them are dirt cheap, especially if you buy them second hand. That's like saying a Bill Gates and me are equal because we both have shoes.
4 & 5. Poor are becoming rich, the world is becoming better > Again. Big whoop! This is not news, and this has nothing to do with your libertarian ideology. You know that governments all around the world have social programs right? How do you separate that from the fact that poverty is decreasing all around the world? How do you know that it's not BECAUSE of social programs?
Thomas Sowell's warned against using household income data. It doesn't take into account the number of people living in a household or the number of working individuals in a household, and these are things that change over time just as much as anything else being measured. Sowell said that if you want better data, free of any political biases, look at per capita income, not per household income. Maybe the per household income is going up, but its because giant Catholic families are deciding to live together. The quality of life hasn't necessarily changed, but the data will see an increase in per household income
not to mention, 2 people making 20k/each = 40k, whereas i person making 30k = 30k....we also see a rise in co-habitation. Also, with both parents working, there is the added cost of childcare.
Great lecture, thank you. Just one thing with the boxes and the kids.. How it is often used by certain people to show wat equality means is inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that someone GIVES one box to everyone, it means that boxes are available, but people have to take them by themselves. Equality of opportunity in that sense means that our responsibility as a society is to make sure we have enough boxes for everyone and to make sure that everyone have the means to take them by themselves, not to give them the boxes and ask nothing in return.
As a leftist i'd like to reply to his 5 "myths":
1. First of all: nobody i know says that profit=plunder, so imo he just invented an argument, which is obviously wrong and quite easy to debunk, in order to evade the topic that capitalism enables plunder, which is a big reason for the inequality we experience today. He even mentions plunder but fails to connect it to the rest of the video.
2. Similary to the first myth, he again uses a standpoint nobody really shares; no leftist i talked to wanted equal outcome for everyone. On the other hand, what i think he wants to hide in his video, everyone should agree to equality of opportunity. Every child on this planet deserves the same chance of becoming successful, and this in no way a given in todays world.
3. Obviously inequality =/= poverty, but global inequality is the main reason for poverty. We have more than enough food on earth, so that nobody has to starve, but since there is no profit in supplying poorer communities in rural areas with food, modern society just doesnt. About his rant on the GINI coefficient: the difference in income over lifetime is far, far smaller than the difference between the earning of a mayor shareholder and a worker of the same company, so the GINI coefficient does paint a somewhat picture, especially if you use it only to compare different situations. Lastly on myth 3: nobody ignores products in networth, 50k just happen to be worth a lot more than one small iphone.
4. Over the last 40 years the GINI coefficient in the US rose from about 0.35 to about 0.45, so inequality obviously increased.
5. Why has homelessnes increased since 1970 if people aren't worse of? Also: The decline of poverty in the last 30 years was almost completely driven by china and other countries who have not opened their markets for the west blindly. The number of people living in poverty in sub-sahara africa is actually rising.
If you made it this far, i'd love to engage in a nice debate with everyone who wants to share their personal opinion about my views. Also, please excuse my english; it isnt my first language.
Have a nice day!
1- Many leftists do in fact believe that profit is evil what he's trying to say is profit is inherently good but profit derived due to big government spawned from leftist regulation is not. Capitalism doesn't enable plunder, big government crony-capitalism enables plunder.
2-That's a clear lie (I sound a bit harsh there more likely mischaracterisation than lie), they absolutely want equality of outcome or as close to it as they can get that's why they argue for medicare for ALL, minimum wage increases, college loan subsidies and house loan subsidies to the poor. What they don't recognise is that to achieve this equality of outcome (which is impossible in the first place) means you can't have equality of opportunity.
3 - It takes time but a drop from 95 per cent to 10 percent of people living in poverty shows that there is a profit in supplying to poorer communities when markets are let free.
4 -about the GINI part you mention that was the main point of his speech that inequality isn't necessarily bad. If we have two people one earns $50,000 the other $100,000 there's a difference of $50,000. Great now lets say there wages double as productivity increases now to $100,000 and $200,000 the inequality doubled to $100,000 but no one is complaining as they can now buy twice as much stuff each.
5 - In America this is untrue in 2007 there were 647,000 people homeless and in 2018 553,000 according to department of housing and urban development. This doesn't even take into account that as populations rise the amount of people who are homeless increases due to natural increase. Therefore the percentage is a much better figure and that has clearly dropped. More to this point the places with the highest homelessness rate are the leftist cities who refuse to act like NYC which has the highest by far rate of homelessness. No one in America should be homeless the problems have much more to do with mental illness and inability to work but even so there are charities that provide homes and many times the chronic homeless refuse to live there.
In summary thanks for watching a video which challenges your idea's its commendable and rare but I don't believe you really understood what he was saying evidenced by your response. This was not written to degrade you in any way either I want to be clear on that just to respond and I have to say your English is bloody good for a second language.
1. It really depends where you are at, at the spectrum of the left. I would consider myself a democratic socialist. I do believe in fact that the market can, and will, do good for society, but a) there are market distortions, like unequal information distribution, which lead to the markets being unefficient, which requires regulation from the government and b) the profit should imo go to the workers by introducing democracy in workplaces by giving them, instead of the shareholders, the choice to decide for the future of the company and the profits. I believe that uncontrolled capitalism will always move to an undemocratic system where the companys hold way too much power, due to their profits/money.
2. Again, i can only speak for myself. But for me it is quite obvious that an university professor or a ceo of a big company should earn more than most workers. The problem for most leftists however is the huge amount of unequality there is right now, with CEOs earning about 250x that of the average worker. So i`m absolutely for increasing the equality of outcome by all the means you mentioned, because they are needed to enable a equality of opportuniy, which is in no way given today.
3. The mayority of the decrease can be directly linked to worker rights. The poverty in countries which are restricting access to their markets (eg china, south korea, malaysia) are doing much better in terms of poverty than the countries opening their markets to quickly (eg latin america, subsaharan africa).
4. Doubled "inequality" by doubling everyones money would not change the gini coefficient, because it doesn't say anything absolute, but rather relative inequality. So an higher gini coefficient suggests that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting relatively poorer.
5. Homelessness as we know it today only came to life as reagan cut social spending. Of course most of the homeless are in cities, which tend to be a bit more leftist, as people and investores are buying houses/flats there. This leads to increased prices that some cant afford anymore.
Thanks for engaging in a factual debate where we don't just throw slurs at our heads :) i think i understood the video quite good; i just think that it is propaganda paid for by billionaires (koch brothers) who see their large amount of profits in danger if inequality would be tackled.
@@darcykelly4856 1) There are views on this which are just as dumb as "capitalism good, socialism bad". However, most left-thinking people's issue really lies with the ability for a slim margin of people to profit from the labor of a much larger quantity of people to the extent that they gain significant unchecked influence and power. There must be a limit to the amount of power with which we reward the successful. We can't trust people with as much influence as we are giving them. Luxury is cool and all, but wealth eventually becomes absolute power, and we all know the adage about absolute power.
2) Having the same minimum outcome across the board doesn't prevent people from gaining wealth beyond that. The people who think that nobody should be able to ascend beyond the safety net are extremely rare to the point that they might as well be a boogey man (and they are a really useful boogeyman for the powerful people in 1).
3) I am able to use my eyes well enough to know that the data the video presents on this matter is based on a metric which does not represent reality. This is one of the clearest cases of using statistics to lie that I have ever witnessed. The drop also does not demonstrate what you are saying it does because the people who have been brought out of poverty also receive significant amounts of foreign aid, charity, and outside military intervention. You need to produce a hypothesis which accounts for the effect of all of these.
I also don't think people have a problem with the disparity between the top 10% and the rest of the 90%. But more of a problem with the insanely high level of inequality at the very top end. e.g. the top 7 richest individuals having as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world population.
It's pretty much because no individual should have that much unchecked power. We're fooling ourselves if we think that we aren't living with the consequences of the wanton and irresponsible decisions of the ultra-influential.
Middle Class is not the same as Median Income.
Ummm... yes it is... that's precisely what it is.... I think you meant to say that average income is not middle class.
18:07 - Best line: "Oddly, the evening news has become a litany of all the things that aren't true about your life."
The actual problem is not inequality but that a good portion of the income distributed to those at the top is unearned, is derived because of the systems of law and taxation that favors rent-seeking over the production of goods and services. There is, in effect, a redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. Caring societies have since the second half of the 20th century implemented social programs designed to mitigate the worst consequences of the underlying systemic problems but have not come close to removing rentier privilege.
A few economists have endeavored to challenge the status quo and challenge the ideological bias expressed by those on the Right and on the Left. Two who stand out are Joseph Stiglitz and Michael Hudson. However, the one economist who has for more than a half century written consistently on these issues is Mason Gaffney (emeritus professor of economics, University of California). A volume in honor of Mason Gaffney was published recently with the title "Rent Unmasked." This title essentially says all that is necessary to say. If we want a justice distribution of income and wealth the solution is to change the way government at all levels raises revenue, moving away from the taxation of wages, salaries, commerce and tangible goods, and begin to collect the rent of land and land-like assets.
Profit turns into plunder if it is based on a monopoly.
Only government can create monopolies, through taxation and regulation
The amount of people defined as having a middle class income may have increased, but what you can buy with a middle class income has DECREASED
You are wrong. The video clearly states that the amount of middle class income people has decreased. The people in lower class are also decreasing, albeit slightly. As for your second point, this may be true, but people like Bernie Sanders will only worsen this.
They are far from mythical. If Ayn Rand's ideas were so empowering, why then did she require the help of both Social Security and Medicare later in life?
This is like asking how a prohibitionist could abuse alcohol.
It seems to me to be a little misleading to use household income rates to indicate that people are " richer",
i would like to know how many of the households in the 70s and 80s were 1 income families compared
to the 2000s+
Very good point. Data and history shows that the American family has been progressively getting smaller and smaller - especially since the early part of the 20th century. Large families used to be the norm in this country; that's no longer the case. And people in general aren't having a lot of kids (at least in First World countries). A family of six (or more) in America represents a different demographic in many areas, as opposed to a family of three (or two, in the case of a single or widowed parent with one child). But if you're a progressive, you'll fudge numbers and statistics to make things seem like they agree with your positions, trusting in the fact that most people won't go deeper into the numbers.
The labor market is... a market as well. When people decide that it is worth it to pay for daycare so that both parents can work, it is because the compensation they receive is 'worth it' to them.
We can be equally miserable, true dat!! xD
This was a fantastic presentation! It seems like I argue this point to at least one socialist/neo-communist a day. I cannot believe that I have not come across this particular video until now! The powerpoint slides and graphics should make this a lot easier for people to understand, as it is often difficult to illustrate this concept to people who aren't very well-versed in government and/or socioeconomics (but that sure doesn't stop them from screeching about it 😄). I now have a new example to show the loony lefties in my debates. Thank you!
There is a commune full of "Democratic Socialists" (which is a blatantly oxymoronic term in the first place) crying while watching this video right now.. 😄
Circular reasoning...
It's a late response, but I don't entirely agree with what he says in the video. The person that receives all the money is not the only person that is able to distribute the product. There's way 'smarter' people behind the products than just one person, yet they are not the ones earning that kind of money. It's the boss, as it should be, because you are correct in the fact that the boss was the person who capitalized on an idea, but you're wrong in thinking that he is the only one capable of providing it as mentioned 0:36. He wouldn't even be earning anything if it wasn't for other people helping him provide/produce the product, therefore I don't see a reason why someone who did indeed do a good job capitalizing on an idea should earn so much compared to others. Don't get me wrong I don't mind people earning a lot, but you have to be a bit more critical and not just say lefties are crybabies because they are jealous people earn more than them.
@@jaro551 I have never seen one person provide a valuable service or product to the world.We stand on the shoulders of Giants. Musk can do nothing without thousands of people building and creating his products. Besos is helpless without the team, roads, postal service that is provided to him by taxpayers. This bigot who is giving the lecture is a Fascist.
@@jaro551 Yes, but the “boss” took the risk to begin with. The team behind him can choose to take a similar risk and become the boss or they can change bosses and earn more. When a person stays at a job, they are agreeing that their time/effort is worth the money being paid to him. If they refuse to change is because they are afraid to take the risk.
@@GoToGuy222 fascism is about the strength in people working together, something you argue this guy doesn't believe, and yet he is a fascist?
Money can't change world,
but resources can.👍👍👍
If only the system didn't have protectionism created by those that can afford to lobby government for economic favors.
Easy fix: make lobbying illegal again. And enforce it, obviously.
1st myth - I agree, the difficulty comes in defining where the line between profit and plunder lies and how much of an individuals money comes from one as opposed to the other. 2nd myth, also agree, but again, we have inequalities of both opportunity and outcome in most aspects of society. Deciding which to tackle as a priority is often the sticking point. Myth 3 - also agree, but again, though inequality does not equal poverty, there is a relationship between the two - that relationship is social mobility and is very complex so people often simplify because they have to. Myth 4 makes exactly the mistake which was described in Myth 3 - 'outcome' cannot be measured in dollars alone. Do poor people have better or worse opportunities now - and how much worse? Are the middle earning groups actually middle class? Just because the number of higher earning groups has flatlined, does that mean the quantity of money in those groups has also? Myth 5 - I agree, but what is missing here is again what happens to those at the bottom, just because there are fewer 'poor' as a percentage doesn't mean that the 'poorest' must be better off. It is a good example though of the falsity of the zero sum game approach to world economies.
This is his entire process. He takes clear and easily understood facts, builds a basis, adds an absolutely incorrect variable, or removes a needed one, without analysis, and declares a proof complete. Your take on these is on point. In the first myth, he uses a single definition of profit, and the most uncommon one, and contrasts it to the most rare and egregious form of plunder, to create a false dichotomy. In reality profit arises from position and marketing of a competitive product, as nearly no providers are unique. Plunder arises when that positioning and marketing is used to crush competitors and to demand subsidy in the form of artificial prices or subsidy. Presenting the conflict as binary and extreme is done to deify one and demonize the other.
He repeats this pattern in each, presenting a political ethic, not an economic analysis. He does it with the certainty and lack of nuance & understanding that only someone seeking to deceive possess, and will certainly convince a great number of viewers who want easy answers that endorse their desires.
@@danderight2199 hope your comment will stay. I linked to a study from the IFM in 2015, which explained how inequality limits growth, but it somehow disapeared
None of these points are valid, even though you are under the mistaken impression you make sense. Plunder is using government to punish people (AKA authoritarian, AKA Bug government types, AKA you). Everyone in America has vastly 8mproved possibilities, but are held back by laziness and government indoctrination center thinking (AKA schools).
@@benstepanek2808 Your point makes no sense, though you are under the mistaken impression it does. Plunder can take many forms, but in all of them means to steal from someone. Punishment doesn't come into it. It also doesn't matter whether a system is authoritarian or not, plunder can be democratic or dictatorial. You finish with a general point on everyone in America (The USA?) having improved possibilities (over where?) I am actually sure US Citizens do have much better life chances 'in general' than many other citizens of Earth, but I am equally sure the US School system is neither indoctrinating or holding them back. Please re-read what you wrote and try to provide some evidence for your claims. All the best.
@@gavinminion8515 nope, my point makes perfect sense. The fact that you can't follow it actually says more to your lack of research than anything I stated. First, plunder means stealing something. The biggest theft in the U.S.A all involve the federal government. In all the hallmarks of a socialist variant system (in this case Fascism) large companies or coordinated groups within an industry lobby the government to make rules harming competition. Marketing and public affairs are just clever changes in name from Propaganda (the same man fathered both fields). However, marketing is not punitive or coercive and requires authority to remove choices.
Scrooge didn't become philanthropist because a tax man came to his door, he did through the self realisation of his own greed.
feel good fairytales are nothing but that
@@victorhopper6774 yes, dickens never saw the conditions outside the city. Always ignored the progression from the poor rural England that once was. My favourite fairytale is the communist manifesto - very feel good.
The three kids on same sized boxes actually had unequal opportunity. The oldest kid waited much longer to see the game, and was only given the same box as the toddler who has been afforded the opportunity much earlier in life.
6:27
Not just born, physikal traits like that also come from training and work. So the people who are strong and have muscles, are like that because they spent theyr time training and working out
genius is 1% inspiration 99% persperation, as is physical strength.
Or they took steroids, which is more often, and also the rich lobbying senators and paying them off to lower their taxes and sell them the treasury bonds that should be sold to citizens and not multinational corporations is the same as taki mg steroids to bulk up
@@DankBrandon420 that is not muscles or strength, and riches are not smarts, they are just appearances of such.
@@michaelkahn8903 and appearing to be rich is how Trump became president
@@DankBrandon420 he is rich, but only because dad gave him half a billion to start him with. and of course if you are rich, you are smart, and know how to make people happy, biggest myths in the planet (after god is good)
It’s so sad/frightening that this needs to be explained. Everything I learned about economic reality, I learned outside the public education system. The single most practical & important concept essential to success in life isn’t taught in our crappy public schools.
Thats the education system
Tell that to the people at Amazon.
@@scottcardon5222 Amazon is owned by a leftist who donates to the democratic party in fact most of these rich people the left hates are their donors. I work for a conservative base company I get paid better than those at Amazon with weekends off health insurance profit sharing paid holidays. So what about Amazon lol.
@@walterkeith3711 A person who is against universal healthcare and universal preschool is not what I would call a Liberal. These are two of the main goals of the left. Yet he fights these. He would also not be fighting so hard not to give his employees even minimum health insurance.
@@scottcardon5222 well he donates to democrats so does the owner of Starbucks but believe it or not chik fil a offers health insurance and pays better too and is republican owned Christian base company. Haha leftist company are horrible to work for and they are wanting socialize health insurance because it's good for their business what scam the left gas going. Vote republican suport Christian conservatives base company's it's better for workers and the economy. Snake oil leftist hahaha
Fascinating to see that more people are moving to the upper classes financially.
Capitalism: I need a coat but don’t have one and you have three. I’ll offer my labor in exchange for one of your coats.
Socialism: I have a coat but you have three. I deserve one of your coats so we can both have two.
Judeo-Christian: I have three coats and you have none. I will give you one of mine.
This was very eye opening. Thank you for this.
I’ve taken multiple Econ classes over the years, but learned more in this 18 minutes than I did in all of the others put together. Your lectures should be required prior to high school graduation and/or voter registration for everyone.
Except that most of what he says is false, over simplified and designed to mislead. Which probably would rule it out for use in schools to be honest.
@@gavinminion8515 except it's not. You're just a liar.
@@gavinminion8515
Can you elaborate?
Wages in the USA have been the same since the 1980....that is the truth....
Yet living standards have gone way up since then.
Yes and living expenses
No, it isn't. Here's actual data, rather than just some baseless declaration: tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages
Thing is the bulk of what your saying is true in terms of a trend over the past 50 years but if you look closely this trend has not really been the case ever since the financial crash of 2008. If you ran these numbers for the past 10 years it might not paint the same picture with regards to inequality. You can't assume the trends of the past will continue today.
He's not. He's saying the available evidence paints a picture.
@@618033988749 I know he's not applying his logic to the past decade. But I get the sense you're trying to disagree with me. What are you actually trying to say?
I really enjoy your videos, extremely informative and eye-opening as well. Please keep them coming.
3:12 *RheeeEehe* "PrOfit Is ThEfT"
Taxes are theft , justified by a theft minded population.
Very pedagogical! One of the very few best teachers/professors I have encountered.