Pretty good overview. I'd like to add however that total economic growth/size/wealth is a dubious measure for the average or especially lower-end living standard of its citizens, and that a market economy tends to let the living standards of its citizens drift apart, leading utilitaristically to a higher loss in living standard for the lower end than it gains for the higher end of incomes. Unfortunately, any economic system attempting to fix this will have to either stabilize or replace the mechanisms behind the raw economic power that capitalism provides.
It highly depends. Usually with actual economic growth, an increase in quality of life is evident. Liberal economic policies have historically brought more people above poverty than any government subsidy. If the GINI coefficient of a country is low, that shows equality of income and a high quality of life.
@@hexcodeff6624 Well, generally you look at the average value of commodities the average person can purchase with their salary, the demographics and lifespan, access to education, healthcare and employment either public or private. Economic equality via the GINI coefficient, stability and corruption metrics, global trade etc etc. Its not an exact science but the best countries to live in will not stray away from those metrics.
Could be because of greed. Shareholders of public companies want their assets to continually increase in value, and if the economy doesn't grow, then their shares likely don't grow in value. These companies largely operate in short-term scenarios, maximizing profits by cutting down on costs (labour and benefits) while increasing their product prices. Needless to say, this is absolutely UNSUSTAINABLE, as fewer and fewer people get richer and richer while more and more people get poorer and poorer. The whole system is messed up and in my view eventually will collapse upon itself as there will no longer be enough customers wealthy enough to purchase and consume the products offered. I don't think we're that far off from this point. The entire capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.
@@frankpentangeli7945 You need to take a break from Twitter my friend, it's not good for your mental health. Most shareholders are just people with their 401k's trying to save for retirement, the wall street types are a minority. Don't come into an educational TH-cam video teaching basic economics and be all like "AcTuAllY ReDDiT TolD me CapItAlisM bAd becAUse a DeAD gerMaN guY wrotE an outDaTed bOOk 100 YearS ago"
Another inherent advantage of free market economies over more regulated markets or command economies, that is often overlooked, is the lack of need for bureaucratic regulators. If you have people whose job is fixing prices or planning production quotas or the like, those people are not directly contributing to the value of the economy by producing anything of value, and in the absence of a profit motive to make efficient decisions, are at risk of self-serving corruption or simple neglect. One is left to wonder what the Soviets might have accomplished if they didn't have all those people pushing numbers around at Gosplan all day, and instead those people were able to go do other value-adding work instead.
Free markets don't have a surplus of bureaucratic pencil pushers? What about every phone company rep, every useless customer service rep, telemarketers, every human resources department, and data entry clerks? Bureaucracy isn't some special feature of Marxist economies, it's a feature of modernity.
@@BRONCOBOMBER You may note that I didn't say free markets are without bureaucrats entirely. Such positions are not required of the economic system itself, but are instead an organic development of companies seeing the potential added value of coordinated logistics, and are motivated by profits and are therefore at least somewhat more concerned with actually adding value to the system. Certainly a fraction misuse their positions or are subject to corruption, and certainly in some sectors there are an obvious overabundance of bureaucrats, but these tend to be more common in industries that are less dependent on actually providing competitive services, for various reasons.
@@KLSYFY as is everything really you cant escape math I believe human nature or at least in context can be mathematically represented but the field of economics is more philosophical then well compared to statistics even though both can model human interaction I would honestly recommend aspiring economists who like economics for the mathematical rigor (if there is any) to just pursue statistics instead.
great and pretty unbiased video. something else to mention that not many really fully understand (even myself) is that ideologies are abstractions of how systems actually work. with the common sentiment of "communism sounds good on paper but.." being common,but it also applies to free markets too. like take a fictional example of an economically liberal person comes into power due to overregulation and decides to cut regulation to promote competition,but he is them lobbied to keep some regulations and even if he cuts massive amounts,competition is still hindered cause what was kept ended up making start-up costs too high. or how certain attempts to make services public have both made these services more or less accessible and/or high-quality depending on certain social and economic factors. this thought is probably not original,but its a thought into the void i thought would be relevant.
Read, economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth by Dr. Ludwig von Mises, Man Economy & State by Dr. Murray N. Rothbard & Hayeks, economic order. Also look into the Austrian refutation of the public goods fallacy, by Block & Hoppe, also Rothbard in the progressive era took on with many empirical examples and great theoretical work the externalities issue.
Another example of negative externalities: Not paying workers, utilities (necessary for life and all have a right to) as a commodity, slavery and indentured servitude. There is ALOT The nice thing about a universal basic income system is you can have comparatively unregulated and system to gain maximum free market advantages, while supporting everyone's basic needs utilising the free markets own guiding hand.
Not paying employees is not a negative externality, externalities refer to those external to the transaction while the employee is part of one, and has not been paid as agreed. Slavery and other unfree labor are not examples of a free market operating, as markets are built on mutual agreed transactions and slaves cannot choose another job. Even capitalist slave economies would only be said to have free markets for the products of slavery (cash crops), not free labor markets.
Yup. Unlearning economics did a whole episode about how the entire field is full of insecure manlets with a massive inferiority complex to the stem Fields which has bred a irredeemably toxic culture and a jaded disregard for anyone of a perceived lower status.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Im 8'11 can say without a doubt unlearning economics is supah based I like the vid because he was able to tie in the website ejmr into being super cucked which is really funny and the arrogance of economists wanting their field to be recognized as a field of science whilst not wanting to be scrutinized under the same processes it makes my brain dizzy.
Of course, Smith was actually mocking his own supporters, NOT saying that`s actually how the market works! He was also staunchly pro-union, and coined the Labour Theory of Value his own supporters would ultimately reject as they viewed it as "Marxist economics", a devout Protestant who nonetheless favored Separation of Church and State long before the so-called "Founding Fathers",viewed landlords as "parasites" and entrepreneurs as "amongst the most deceptive class of humans on Earth".
@@ChildofNature-hx8ev This seems like a more than slightly ridiculous altering of the facts. Adam Smith never attempted to say there was a real controlling, "invisible hand" at work. He did, however, always use it as a genuine metaphor to encapsulate the observation that people purchasing and selling and acting in their own self interest somehow improved society as a whole without any one person overseeing the whole operation. This is not him mocking anyone, and it was not said sarcastically. The labor theory of value in his discussions is most certainly an observation - that societies and peoples can in fact determine the prices of certain products and services based on how difficult those are to obtain or perform. However, by stating he both coined the term and would *support* the labor theory of value as a real economic theory is absurd in the extreme. It entirely ignores his vast, deep, and intelligent observations about how self interest amongst individuals interacts. As for his stance on the unions, to call him "staunchly pro union" is a gross simplification that misses so much context and meaning it is altogether useless. Adam Smith's quotations about things are always trimmed and measured carefully - so that one might use him to argue one side of the aisle over the other. Hear this clearly and read his words against mine - Adam Smith argued for the society's economic prosperity, and observed that self interest was a guiding principle that was naturally apart of that world. He was not pro revolution, which is a necessary component of any marxism we discuss, nor was he strictly pro union, anti union, pro monopoly or anti monopoly. His opinion most succinctly, in my own words and views, is thus: The union is a concept antithetical to the most desirable economic state for the public, but unions are themselves composed of citizens of the public. Therefore it is unconscionable to deprive them of the rights and liberties they have to form unions. The same or similar can be said about the combinations of the masters and their own desires and workings. Self interest is an unavoidable aspect of both the worker and the master, and we must respect that while establishing a system of free economic trade which can most readily and effectively provide opportunity for free trade and free participation.
Nice video, with a good, balanced view of the pros and cons. I do have a bit of a quibble with some of the disadvantages, which seem to be arguing against a capitalistic anarchy. Even the most ardent defenders of free markets (folks like Milton Friedman, or modern-day libertarians) don't argue there should be no regulations. Cheers! 🙂
Professor Dave, I think I've asked this question before on another of your insightful videos, but in a slightly different context. You didn't mention tariffs in your presentation. Tariffs aren't about imposing regulations, they are an "artificial" means of cost control and/or market adjustment. Can you think of any advantages to imposing tariffs in a free market system?
Tarifs would be covered in regulations of an economy . Given this chapter was mainly about unregulated free market I'm afraid you'll have to wait for the regulation chapter/s .
@@glennpearson9348 Well what would you call tarifs then ? They're a tax imposed by governments that weigh on free markets modifying the price equilibrium .
@@ingridschmid1709 Agreed. But a tariff isn't a regulation. It definitely regulates (or controls) pricing, but it's not the same as a regulation that is enforceable by law. Tariffs aren't laws, though I suppose they could be. In any event, while this line of discussion is interesting, it doesn't address my central question, which is (Whether they are regulations or not,) can you think of any advantages to imposing tariffs in a (otherwise) free market system?
From I have learned, tariffs are purposed to protect local businesses, not local consumers. The cost of tariffs are ultimately passed down to consumers.
Capitalists: We need a free market! We're too big to fail, and we can regulate ourselves just fine without any meddling from governments! Also capitalists: Wait, what? We're LOSING money? WE NEED TARIFFS! WE NEED BAILOUTS! What 'free' market?
Thats a major problem with Capialism currently. Common people need to play the game while the top rich and corporations get socialist bailouts while claiming “socialism bad” and refusing to let any help reach the common people
The recession in 08 was caused by the government allowing banks to make subprime loans to ppl who should never have been allowed to get a mortgage. That was as absolutely a failing of government oversight/regulation. And yes the government bailed them out bc they thought it would be better than letting the recession turn into a depression. If the government had done its job in the first place there would be no need for the bailout
3:42 David Ricardo wants to know your location. Context: David Ricardo proposed the specialization of economies and free trade between countries to maximize overral welfare. It was based on the fact that England was more efficient on industrial goods rather than agricultural goods, so the industrialist proposed that trade was oppened (at the time the corn law was in effect, to maximize exports, the government stabilished the law so imports couldn't be imported and goods could only be exported) so indusrial goods could be exchanged for agriculturual ones and have more food in the country. The result would obviously destroy all agricultural production since they couldn't compete with with international market, but that's not bug, It's a feature, It's was intended to focus on what England was good at and that was industry. Important note: the theory is entirely static and can't account for the change of specialization, in other words, South Korea and Taiwan shouldn't focus on microchips and semiconductors in some point of their history since they didn't even had the capital for It or know-how, therefore they should focus on other productions like textile. Putting like It really seens silly, but at XVIII-XIX century people didn't really knowed how technology develops, nowdays we know that It's mostly related to the number of process involved, so a semiconductor (with about, I believe, 100 steps if we counter from mining of natural resources until the final product) have a lot more "room" for a gain of productivity when compared to the extraction and export of copper (with, obviously, less steps when compared with semiconductor, specially considering that copper is an input), so we would have that the semiconductor industry have gains of profit thanks to their own gain of productivity but also thanks to gains of productivity from previous industries that goes to their inputs. David Ricardo: do what you're good at, It's fine. Raul Prebisch: get gud, bi***. The world is gonna eat all your raw materials thanks to their gains of productivity, your terms of exchange will deteriorate with time and technological development will leave your backwards economy behind.
@@daniellassander Whose wages have to be lowered to get those cheap goods though? "It's only the Chinese/Indians etc" is not a valid answer. As for high quality products? LOL, you serious? Everything breaks down so quickly now, the number of tumble dryers and dish washers i've gone through over the decades is unreal. Better and cheaper to just hang clothes out to dry. Telling people "How good they have it so you should stop complaining" is a bitch-ass deflection tactic. Standards of living are plummeting each year, hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly from lack of healthcare, sanitation, food and shelter in the developed world. If that's "the good life" to you? Then you have pretty low standards. Life was loads better 10/20 years ago. it's downwards from now on until the Neo-Liberal economics beast is tamed with regulation. "you have it because of a mostly free market." No such market exists, that you can't just get away with selling food that is poisoned is down to heavy regulation and food standard agencies. The EU has a ton of chemicals that they don't allow to be sold in their jurisdiction that is found in US Food. Not very Free Market is it?
@@daniellassander do you even know what youre talking about? Which countries are you talking about, what are their economic policies that differenciate them from a free market system, and how specifically does that not work in the ways you said? Also, do you know what imperialism is?
@@daniellassander Yeah, because American hegemony doesn't exist. Maybe let your country be at threat of destabilization by an even bigger imperial power and then, maybe, you'll reconsider where you want to live, independently of economic systems.
One of the biggest disadvantages is the fact that it *encourages not doing anything-* A lot of 'free market' proponents go out of their way to go for the free market because they can rely on repeating that everything will magically 'sort itself out' on its own so they don't have to do any of the difficult things that naturally come with running a business ethically. It's an excuse to cut corners then shift cleaning up the mess onto the system itself.
@@imdebaws3715 When he says 'not doing anything', he means for the perspective of a government or economy-controlling force. By definition, 'free', in this context, means that it has no control. It is free. You are definitionally wrong. It is hard to even be more wrong than this, but I'm sure libertarians will amaze everyone with the desperate apologetics they give, the religious zealots they are.
You missed a big BIG disadvantage of the free market being that it promotes inequality. For example, if landlords are unregulated in the rent they can charge, then they can siphon off the wealth of the poorer citizens that cannot afford bricks and mortar into the coffers of the richer property owners
That goes back to his point about competition. There should be enough landlords seeking to have affordable rent to drive rent down to an affordable price. What you’re describing is not really a disadvantage of a free market, but a disadvantage of living in a densely populated metropolitan area. There’s always cheap land further away in suburbia/rural country that is far cheaper
@@nqtural1322 Nonsense. Living standards have been going DOWN for decades. Soon your precious "free markets" will make life unbearable for so many people that the system will collapse upon itself. It is unsustainable. The freedom to get ripped off, to be poor and to starve is NOT a freedom anyone wants. In this system, when you have no money you have NO CHOICE and NO FREEDOM. Capitalism is nearing its natural conclusion. Hopefully something better will replace it, but I am not optimistic.
@@shanepaulryanalexander2934 There is not enough employment outside of densely populated metropolitan areas to sustain larger populations. That is why people gravitate to metropolitan areas in the first place. Capitalism is long on "should be" and short on "is". Adam Smith's theories are quaint but are not based on reality.
Fair competition would lead people to be both better and kinder and good for everyone because if manufacturer abuse market the second manufacturer would step in with better competitive method to challenge the dominating manufacturer
you can maintain the benefits of markets while avoiding most of the issues if allowing for more widespread worker democracy. abolish the ceo as a concept. in something called a "worker coop", workers control the business. they all vote on decisions, they all work harder because theyre all part owners, theres less room for nepotism, people dont "do the bare minimum" because theyre not paid a flat wage, they get their portion of company PROFITS. if someone isnt pulling their weight, the group can vote to fire the person. this method is known as "market socialism"
'while avoiding most of the issues if allowing for more widespread worker democracy' I would like a big fat fucking source on that lmfao. What happens if the workers are just racist lmfao. Would you want worker coops in the 1950s? 'Democracy' isnt the end all be all solution to markets you child. This is the biggest flaw with your ideology. You literally just take a market concept, paint it red with a big D on it for 'democracy' and then hey presto everything is just better there. There is no evidence large scale firms can work with 'worker democracy'
Isn't this just a board of directors? Or are you talking about every single employee voting on every single decision the company makes? Imagine managing an international brand employing millions of people under such a system.
There's nothing legally preventing you from trying right now. Or are you proposing every business be legally obligated to structure their corporation in your view?
I didn't understand how monopolies can be created in a free market, shouldn't the competition prevent it? My thinking is that monopolies are only created if there's a law that protects them, but if there's a law then there's no free market at all.
That's correct. With the government not intervening than competition can flourish. The government creates the biggest monopolies by taxation, subsidies, permits, licensing, nationalization of certain sectors, etc. The government is the biggest monopoly we have.
how can consumers solve the free market housing crisis? we need to live somewhere and everyone is charing insane prices nowadays... cant say dont rent, you have to live somewhere cant say rent somewhere else, everywhere is expensive
The 4th disadvantage is irrelevant, because a free market economy necessarily implies trust in the consumer market to recognise these traits and choose to patron their competitors, therefore putting them out of business. In a true free market economy, businesses 'cutting corners' shouldn't be a concern, because the mere threat of free market forces limiting their business capabilities, acts as an insurance policy against said mispheasance.
Nice clip. The disadvantages aren't true, though. 1. Monopolies are a problem created by governments. Monopolies normally wouldn't exist if there were zero barriers to entry by governments (rules, regulations, taxes, licenses etc.). Antitrust laws are used by crony capitalists to attack more efficient competitors. 2. Parks, schools, roads etc. can perfectly be provided by the free market and it can be controlled who uses them, especially with modern technology. What would be so horrible paying for a ticket to enter a park e.g.? You already pay for its maintenance by coercive taxation, why not by a voluntary fee? 3. Externalities can perfectly well be internalized when everything is privatized by using a tort system. If you pollute and cause damages on the property of somebody else, you can be sued, which internalizes the costs into the economic calculation of the producer. 4. This is just plain nonsense. Competition demonstrably leads to lower prices and higher quality, which is *the* reason why free markets create the most wealth. You can be sued for harmful products or harmful working conditions, which solves this problem as well.
1. Monopolies are not created by governments. There are some regulations that can make entry into the market harder, but overall nothing in an unregulated market is stopping monopolies from occuring. I would even go so far as to say that there is an incentive to create a monopoly in a free market. Why? Because the most profitable thing is not to provide the best service. It is to provide the ONLY service. And there are many examples of large companies simply eating or squashing new competitors before they can become a problem. The winner of the innitial competition typically tries to prevent future competition. To assume that monopolies would not happen in an unregulated market is simply naive. And that isn't even touching the subject of cartells. 2. There are several problems with this point and several examples that show how privatizing public goods is a bad idea. Necessities like water become far more expensive for the general population simply because of the profit incentive. All projects that tried this libertarian "utopia" idea of public goods being completely in private hands failed. Why? Simple. People either left because of the expensive not-so-public services or nobody wanted to provide these services for long because it was impossible to make real profit with them. Not to mention the huge amount of examples of deterioration after giving certain things into private hands (overlap with point 4). Not to mention that this completely disregards the well-being of people who are economically disadvantaged. 3. That is plain bullsh*t and impossible to realize. How would you quantify environmental damage and who would own these parts of the environment? Does someone own the fish in the poluted river? Does someone own the smog-filled air people breathe? And who would you sue for damage that comes from climate change? Does every single company have to pay a fee for producing greenhouse gases? Not everything can be property of a single person and not every damage is directly caused by a single person. 4. Don't make me laugh. The possibility to sue someone for a harmful product or working conditions are regulations of the free market. In a libertarian society with a completely free market, an employer would simply write some "work at your own risk" clause into the contract and done. If someone signed it... well, sucks to be them if something happens. They made the "free" choice to take that risk. And you know what? People would still work there because they need the money to survive. It wouldn't be an actual choice.
I don’t know. Public goods are vital for lots of people. For example, there’s clean air. Maybe we should pay Pepsi Coke AT&T Verizon Comcast This is All One Company by the Way Delta Alaska Southwest Incorporated for clean air. What could go wrong?
@@MommyLongerLegs First that‘s (principally) not a rivalrous good and hence not an economic good. Second, food production (something *everybody* needs) already is in private hands and it works just fine (apart from lobbying the State to gain advantages over competitors etc., the usual fascism).
@@MommyLongerLegs Yes and the air is not an economic good (seems like you skipped this part of my answer?). If it was scarce, you‘d better want it to be privatized under the profit motive. State ownership of scarce goods always leads to inefficiencies, value destructions and shortages.
technological unemployment and market monopolies will eventually make a universal basic income necessary. Andrew Yang ran for president in the u.s. and already wanted to introduce a ubi. but won't everyone be lazy with a ubi? i don't think so, because resting eventually becomes boring and depressing.
No, people will vacate to hobbies. I do know, because I saw many people very happy to get unemployment benefits. Even discussed with a quite some people who told me that they can enjoy their free time and did such and such activities. Also, there is no free lunch. This ubi will be paid by what we would call the working class, opposed to the leisure class. Also, parties wanting to keep the power will be able to close their eye on people tacking advantage of the system. We can already see that with unemployment benefits. What I am in favor is to replace ubi by basic accommodation (like capsules) and public eateries. It would cost less to the state and working people could also chose such accommodation if they desire. Maybe to save and have a better retirement. It's not crazy, there are people in Asia doing that by themselves...
Technological unemployment is basically claiming that people are made obsolete by tech, and therefore they should get paid anyway. If money is the the representation of your contribution to society, and we start giving everyone money for doing basically nothing, doesn’t that make money obsolete as well? Also, machines need to be designed, built and programmed. Do the people who are responsible for that deserve all the benefits and rewards for creating such machines, without having to share most of it unwillingly. If not, what’s their incentive to make the machines In the first place.
No, everybody would not be lazy with a UBI. That’s insanely dumb propaganda. People want to work. It’s just a fact of reality. Another fact is that people don’t want to work for 8 hours a day and still be left holding the bag. Yang’s proposal falls incredibly short of what would actually be needed to fix problems already existing.
@@programaths gotta love people bringing up the well-fare queen arguments decades after it was refuted as the obviously insane right-wing bs it has always been. People on well-fare ARE the fucking working class, you tool lmao. The VAST majority of people on well-fare work a full-time job. Your entire argument is ahistoric and unevidenced bs.
You should read Materialism and The Dialectal Method by Maurice Cornforth and then follow that up with Wage Labor and Capital, and Value Price and Profit by Karl Marx. Adam Smith and his invisible hand is a vague and unscientific analysis of the conditions of capitalism.
There's no such thing as a free market economy. What we have is facsim in the so called west which is simply corporations working hand in hand with big government. Covid reflected this. Tax evading corporates survived, whilst many tax paying independents went out of business. Context is important. Regulation is important for safety. All goods and services should be safety tested relative to the risks they present before they go to market so people can make an informed decision. They should not be rushed through and used as blackmail for liberty.
Well as a capitalist, I would never claim that free markets are perfect in every way because we assume that consumers will act in a way that makes them better off while that is not true always. Consumers buy cigarettes while knowing that it is bad for their health (same with alcohol), leading to big profitable Tobacoo companies, which isn't every good for the society and that's why we have taxes to solve them (or at least reduce the impact of them). The government can put taxes on buying cigarettes, driving cars that are not fuel efficient and bad for environment etc and it will not only incentivize consumers not to buy them and look for other options, it will also motivate the companies to innovate and reduce the impact of these products. Capitalism combined with wise government regulation is the best economic system ever, but far from perfect.
Is there any doubt that because supporting the free market is a safe bet rather than a gamble (and that it's not a gamble TO SUPPORT the free market), the wisest Americans understand that we need to advocate for non-citizens so that they TOO can be eligible for life insurance policies and all other financial planning implements, because this will make it impossible for them to believe that their Purpose can be anything other than to demonstrate the proof that the USA is, objectively, the most cutting-edge society in the world, which exemplifies Being Civilized?
Thank you for the video. Without a doubt unregulated free markets are very very dangerous. People generally do not have a very good impression about businessmen. They are considered to be extremely selfish, cunning, and money oriented with little regard to employees or consumers. I don't think it's prudent to let such a group wield enormous influence over a country's economy.
@@crestofhonor2349 so he hasn't diversified after becoming the richest man years ago? He "seems" quite intelligent lol. I'm sure if Amazon were to "collapse" tomorrow he'd still have a good chunk of money or if he hasn't already he's diversified big time expecting just that scenario. (?) Edit: looked it up on Google (which he has a nice stake in lol) & he has significant venture investments as well as positions in some sizeable companies. That said, yes...he currently owns 16% of Amazon (he's been selling off slowly) & he'd loose a large chunk of equity were it to tank tomorrow. He of course also has insanely large real estate holdings as well as a bunch of space and robotics investments that apparently are where he's heading into deep. Credit where credit due, the guy obviously knows what he's doing.
@@SemperFi_EDC_Guy Yes he gets to keep most of his money assuming he sells off his shares. That's how most of the richest people in the world are. Most of their worth isn't in liquid cash, rather it's in assets and shares in various companies. This is why their worth goes up and down so much. When the company does badly their worth goes down and when the company does better their worth goes up. Of course they still have tons of money in pocket too so that they can afford their more luxurious lifestyle. CEO's typically own a significant share of their company which is why they own it.
@@SemperFi_EDC_Guy Honestly I couldn't guess. I have no clue if someone else is going to come up to compete with Amazon and probably by then he would of quit. I'd probably say 60-100 billion
@@ProfessorDaveExplains You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways: 1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. 2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of some Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade. 1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend). 2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets. !!!
Wealth of Nation is great in telling that the sum is greater than its parts so if benefit to Nation is benefiting most citizens so good government is essential as everything else in supply and demand and some regulations needed but not over regulated
This video, which I expected to just be capitalist apologetics, was simply alright. Better than Sabine Hossenfelder's video ("captalism is good, let me explain") but it does feel like you really tried to balance it between both sides of the fence. I do appreciate that you gave an equal number of arguments to each, but it doesn't really touch on some of the more convincing anti-free market stances (worker alienation, boom and bust, etc.) and the "innovation" point is a bit wack, like sure, there is more consumer choice but really a lot of it is either too expensive for the average working-class consumer (think electric cars, etc.), or is made to solve a problem nobody needed to solve (stanley tumblers, kitchen gadgets, etc.). I mean, I like your "dunking on wackjob conspiracy theories" videos, but this is just not something I'd expect from someone like you, Dave.
Free markets never existed. For american capitalists "free" market is when american corporation can economically invade other country and buyout all their businesses. It's "free" as in free to pillage.
The only monopolies ever to have existed were governments. In fact the definition of “government” is a monopoly on the legal initiation of force in a given geographical area. Free markets do not create monopolies.
@@bane3991 Um, no. Free markets obviously create monopolies since we have a free market and there are monopolies. If there are no restrictions, monopolies easily form. I have no idea how anyone could not understand this. Also, monopoly on the legal initiation of force? That doesn't mean anything.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains The only monopolies we have are government forced such as the military, police force, fire department, justice system, etc. It's amazing you look at monopolies as bad, yet you support these institutions. Thus making your argument full of logical inconsistent holes. What free market monopolies are you referring too exactly? That doesn't have government interference? But tell me, if monopolies are bad than why do you support them at the same time? You support government monopolies but not free market monopolies? Your argument makes no logical sense. Also, the only way 1 business can dominate in a free market if they give us the best quality at the lowest price. Different products exist for different purposes. Take bread for example, there are 50 cent loafs and 7 dollar loafs, everything in between. But we have never seen this before. We only seen 1 business doing better than others. Even JDR with standard oil, he was huge. But even he had competitors but he was able to massive reduce prices to levels unheard of so even if you think he's a monopoly we all made of 100x better. "I have no idea how anyone could not understand this" I study economics that's why, which seems to be the difference between you and I. I would highly recommend you start reading books. Because if this surprises you than clearly you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have because economists such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Israel Kirsner, David Friedman, Henry Hazlit etc would completely disagree with you. But you seem to have only did a little research on 1 side and completely ignored the other side. But at least you understand the importance of a free market to some degree, I'll give you credit for that.
Speaking of, even though we know Dave will talk about ideologies, I doubt he will cover specific types of anarchism (i.e. ancom vs ancap vs more obscure ideologies)
I have a feeling that people who know jack shit about Communism (i.e. Google experts) who think they're being clever, leaving asinine comments will be presen... Oh you're here already? That was fast.
@@mix3k818 I don't want to be that person I really don't but aaaaaaaaaa they're not anarchists. Im not gatekeeping its just true. Anarchy and anarchism have histories that matter when talking about "ideologies". Rothbardist 'anarcho-capitalism' is anarchic, in the big way. Like I get the name. But its not a kind of anarchism, its a kind of... I don't know. It comes from liberalism but its distant. The wikipedia article mentions as much, that anarchism is actually its own thing, and that its more descended from liberalism. But I think the political compass ruined my li nvm they are on the same edge of a square lol im dumb
What does competition lead to? In a race there is a winner. Will the winner in the market leave his competitors alone. Of course not, he will eat them for lunch. Adaptibility: the market will respond to supply and demand, that is true. But what if the consumer doesont have money becouse he is unemployed or he was born in a poor country. What if its more profitable to sell needs for exordinate amounts and the consummer cant afford it... Freedom: 'consimers' can choose what they buy but cannot choose what is produced. How is it freedom that a rich person decides what is produced instead of the person actually producing it. Innovation: the free market discorogous innovation. How many Einsteins have been lost in sweat shops and cotton fields or in the slums and streets. The comodification of education in your country should show you this. How is parralel development of something by 2 firms innovation, how is spending millions into making oeople think they need something innovation. Choice: there is no choice if you are born (like most people) poor. Choice in products and luxuries is possible mostly in rich imperialist nations that can afford to give their people some more crums (and even still they are taking more away) The market cannot grow infinitly in a finite world. Wages in your and in most countries have been stagnant for a while. Also look up the falling rate of profit. Considering your background i can subgest you read "why socialism" by Einstein or a video on it (halim alrah) I like your videos though. I disagree here.
> What if its more profitable to sell needs for exordinate amounts and the consummer cant afford it... Somehow they are charging so much for profit and yet no one can afford it. Did you even think about this?
"Rich people decide what is produced." In a free market, how do you think they get rich? How do you think they maintain their wealth? By incurring losses and producing what consumers don't want? No, by producing for the needs of the masses
@@LordHookie Automation is taking more and more jobs, homless and unemployed people exist, the person in Bangladesh who made the devices we are communicating with cant buy these devices... Bravo, you have figured out a contradiction in capitalism. As more and more production is automated due to competition, less and less full time jobs will be available. Meaning less and less money to spend on products. I mean have you not heard of why Yang wants UBI genius.
@@ldlework Yes I did. We produce food for 10 bilion, is everyone fed? Just becouse some can afford it doesont mean all/most can. I couldnt afford to break my leg or have astma in the USA. If you need housing, food or medicine you can either go withought or go into extreme dept. Look at the housing market in the USA and even in other countries. I was going to quote from this video but I saw i would quote a lot so here is some relevent info th-cam.com/video/BJufEfWifqo/w-d-xo.html
No it isnt. Not if you structure your incentive system properly. . . There is a downside to polluting the fuck out of your environment. But corporations are closed systems, and dont have the actual "sensors" to process that information. Thereofre, thats why people propose carbon taxes, to structure busisnesses so that the environment actually becomes a factor in decisionmaking. Look at carbon credits and dodge. Look at how Tesla is making billions by selling their carbon credits. Look at how power plants are incentivized to stop polluting, because of carbon credits.
@@honkhonk8009 The problem is that carbon credits aren't working the way they're intended to. Wendover Production's newest video explains it really well, where since the benefits of saving a forest for example can't be directly or accurately calculated, selling carbon credits enables people to produce more carbon thinking they're morally abject since they spent money on carbon credits. This leads to such people/corporations actually increasing their carbon production under the false pretence that it's balanced out, leading to even more pollution. Ultimately it shows that markets can't be the solution to everything, especially problems such as these since the search/need for profit will always win out and almost always with a negative effect on the environment.
The market is good as it is due to the same people or Corporations crying free markets already own a nice percentage of the economy already, from land to homes, to entities. So they can miss me with the free market talk. They have plenty of freedom already. Our tax dollars need to be utilized more for the American tax payer
What does nationalized mean in this context? If it's being absorbed by the government and led by publically elected officials, then that sounds perfect.
I disagree. Nationalization typically causes more issues or can completely kill off said business. For example when the US tried to nationalize it’s passenger rail system the government ended up killing it off back in the 70s. This has lead to why today the vast majority of rail is privately owned by shipping companies not interested in passenger trains. Monopolies often also have a habit of using the government to prevent competition. This can be done by making things needlessly expensive by adding in pointless regulation that prices out smaller businesses from competing in the same market thus letting them keep their share of the market. They can also make things very complex to start businesses in their market by using the government to also make very complex regulations that also make people give up because of the amount of work required to even start one in the first place.
I wouldn’t trust any government with rinsing spit off the sidewalk, let alone something we all need. Have you seen gas prices? And that’s just tax. Imagine if they were running the entire system.
There is no such thing as a "free market", there is always control. The question is whether or not that controlling party will answer to you. The end goal of capitalism as an ideology is world domination by a single firm. Never, EVER forget that.
"A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal-of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a "free good") or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest)." Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed
When German Chancellor Merkel said, "we need market based democracy", you know how screwed we are. Because it should be, democracy based market, instead
@@Alkixkix Democracy is a political system, free market is a economical system. The economical system has to adjust to the political system and not otherwise. Because than what you will have is what USA is, legal corruption, where politics provide laws, that benefit the doners and not the interests of the voter.
To all the folks out there bashing capitalism... The product you're using to type your comment with is a result of this system, as is the platform you type in.
There is a difference betweeen “bashing” something and pointing out its flaws But for some reason, when the flaws or issues of Capitalism are needed to be talked about, peple like yo love to shut them down, even when Commuinsm and Socialism are not going to have anything to do with the conversation One thing about Capitalism is like many things in life, it does need balance and that mans some forms of regulation we have sene over the decades. Imagine if corporations can continue to run things like “not havin fire safety” in their building. You want to argue agaisnt regulation yet regulation created many of those safety standards that did not exist back then or weren’t created due to “costing money”
@@aceclover758 One thing's for sure... You don't know about me or what I'm "like". Furthermore, in this context, "bashing" is exactly the same as pointing out its flaws. Who made you the master linguist to determine what colloquial words mean? Of course communism and socialism come into the equation... There are only a few economic systems on our planet. I was pointing out what the proponents of systems like communism and socialism often don't point out... That capitalism leads to advancements in technology better than any other economic system. And that's just one of countless reasons capitalism is the best economic system for our time. I'll capitulate by stating that capitalism has its faults but it's better than all other systems in the history of the world.
@@KLSYFY Yes it is the best system currently implemented And now, its tipping way too much on one’s side favor Instead of a fair game for everyone which is the theory, now it’s only those with money have the loudest voice or can directly influence the game while majority are left out. It also doesn’t help like in many system, you have the sheep That’s just a small portion of it Standard of living in terms of basic necessities is high, doesnt mean majority are struggling to survive each month at a time. But the main problem is expecting infinite growth in a finite world. That is a pipe dream.
The president Ronald Reagan deregulate the air traffic control and other area and President Clinton de-military specification led to less waste military spending and more invisible soldier led to better soldier ability to survive battle heat
It doesn't works as the theory. This reminds me of the communist manifesto. While the manifesto itself seems beautiful, it do not factor in the human greed.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 you'll really never ever be able to get rid of money because unless you grow every single food item that you need and unless you're able to produce every single product that you need you are always going to be participating in trade with someone else that has something that you need. Money is just a replacement for trade of an actual item. We've been trading things for almost the entire existence of humanity which is basically using money for the entire existence of humanity. You wouldn't just be changing around your lifestyle you would kind of be not able to survive
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 no that still won't get rid of "money". You will still be trading goods and when you don't have the thing that the other person wants you're going to run into a problem. If you want wheat and the person you're getting the wheat from wants beans and you don't have beans you're not going to be able to trade. That's the exact reason why money was put in place. Money is a substitute for the item you want to trade for. Money makes it so that you can trade for anything. We will never possibly get to a point where we don't have money because you can never fully complete every trade without out money. You wouldn't have any lifestyle because you wouldn't be able to get the food that you need you would just die
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Happy Teacher Appreciation Week Dave! We all appreciate what you do! I hope your week is awesome! 👏
th-cam.com/video/H_E6_KvHH-E/w-d-xo.html
Flat earth
@CLR Spirit Astounding, that you all seem to think there's such a thing as a "free market."
Leftist indoctrination for real!
Pretty good overview. I'd like to add however that total economic growth/size/wealth is a dubious measure for the average or especially lower-end living standard of its citizens, and that a market economy tends to let the living standards of its citizens drift apart, leading utilitaristically to a higher loss in living standard for the lower end than it gains for the higher end of incomes.
Unfortunately, any economic system attempting to fix this will have to either stabilize or replace the mechanisms behind the raw economic power that capitalism provides.
It highly depends. Usually with actual economic growth, an increase in quality of life is evident. Liberal economic policies have historically brought more people above poverty than any government subsidy. If the GINI coefficient of a country is low, that shows equality of income and a high quality of life.
@@savage7882 How do you determine quality of life?
@@hexcodeff6624 Well, generally you look at the average value of commodities the average person can purchase with their salary, the demographics and lifespan, access to education, healthcare and employment either public or private. Economic equality via the GINI coefficient, stability and corruption metrics, global trade etc etc. Its not an exact science but the best countries to live in will not stray away from those metrics.
Norway seems to have a good balance of free market and regulation / public goods.
Their workforce aren't over-worked and they still have high-productivity.
@@2DRonaldo Paid leave, most workers in a union or other collective bargaining, 20$ min wage and free healthcare all help.
@@infinitemonkey917 Norway is a sign of what the West could be if we changed our systems for the better.
I live in Sweden, and I prefer it here. Sugar taxes are weird to me.
@@2DRonaldo Amazing how they have the best of both worlds, while in America we sometimes somehow have the worst of both worlds.
I would like an explanation for why an economy has to perpetually grow. Why can’t it stay the same size at a point once it’s healthy?
Could be because of greed. Shareholders of public companies want their assets to continually increase in value, and if the economy doesn't grow, then their shares likely don't grow in value. These companies largely operate in short-term scenarios, maximizing profits by cutting down on costs (labour and benefits) while increasing their product prices. Needless to say, this is absolutely UNSUSTAINABLE, as fewer and fewer people get richer and richer while more and more people get poorer and poorer. The whole system is messed up and in my view eventually will collapse upon itself as there will no longer be enough customers wealthy enough to purchase and consume the products offered. I don't think we're that far off from this point. The entire capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.
@@frankpentangeli7945 You need to take a break from Twitter my friend, it's not good for your mental health. Most shareholders are just people with their 401k's trying to save for retirement, the wall street types are a minority. Don't come into an educational TH-cam video teaching basic economics and be all like "AcTuAllY ReDDiT TolD me CapItAlisM bAd becAUse a DeAD gerMaN guY wrotE an outDaTed bOOk 100 YearS ago"
Greed.
Because the population grows
An economy can. A capitalist economy cannot
Another inherent advantage of free market economies over more regulated markets or command economies, that is often overlooked, is the lack of need for bureaucratic regulators. If you have people whose job is fixing prices or planning production quotas or the like, those people are not directly contributing to the value of the economy by producing anything of value, and in the absence of a profit motive to make efficient decisions, are at risk of self-serving corruption or simple neglect. One is left to wonder what the Soviets might have accomplished if they didn't have all those people pushing numbers around at Gosplan all day, and instead those people were able to go do other value-adding work instead.
Free markets don't have a surplus of bureaucratic pencil pushers? What about every phone company rep, every useless customer service rep, telemarketers, every human resources department, and data entry clerks? Bureaucracy isn't some special feature of Marxist economies, it's a feature of modernity.
@@BRONCOBOMBER You may note that I didn't say free markets are without bureaucrats entirely. Such positions are not required of the economic system itself, but are instead an organic development of companies seeing the potential added value of coordinated logistics, and are motivated by profits and are therefore at least somewhat more concerned with actually adding value to the system. Certainly a fraction misuse their positions or are subject to corruption, and certainly in some sectors there are an obvious overabundance of bureaucrats, but these tend to be more common in industries that are less dependent on actually providing competitive services, for various reasons.
I like how this video is referred to as a tutorial. Ah yes, just the thing I needed for my nation-building side project.
Ohh I know a few country leaders that could give a good use to this info, that is, if they actually understand it 😂
I wish the field of economics is as proof based like that of mathematics.
Economics is a mix between math and human nature. Once human nature comes into play, it's FUBAR.
@@KLSYFY as is everything really you cant escape math I believe human nature or at least in context can be mathematically represented but the field of economics is more philosophical then well compared to statistics even though both can model human interaction I would honestly recommend aspiring economists who like economics for the mathematical rigor (if there is any) to just pursue statistics instead.
Do you understand why the field isn't, though? I don't mean for that to sound mean.
@@lysergidedaydream5970 why its more philosophical then statistics yeah because its not a field of science.
it can't be
great and pretty unbiased video.
something else to mention that not many really fully understand (even myself) is that ideologies are abstractions of how systems actually work.
with the common sentiment of "communism sounds good on paper but.." being common,but it also applies to free markets too.
like take a fictional example of an economically liberal person comes into power due to overregulation and decides to cut regulation to promote competition,but he is them lobbied to keep some regulations and even if he cuts massive amounts,competition is still hindered cause what was kept ended up making start-up costs too high.
or how certain attempts to make services public have both made these services more or less accessible and/or high-quality depending on certain social and economic factors.
this thought is probably not original,but its a thought into the void i thought would be relevant.
Read, economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth by Dr. Ludwig von Mises, Man Economy & State by Dr. Murray N. Rothbard & Hayeks, economic order. Also look into the Austrian refutation of the public goods fallacy, by Block & Hoppe, also Rothbard in the progressive era took on with many empirical examples and great theoretical work the externalities issue.
Another example of negative externalities: Not paying workers, utilities (necessary for life and all have a right to) as a commodity, slavery and indentured servitude. There is ALOT
The nice thing about a universal basic income system is you can have comparatively unregulated and system to gain maximum free market advantages, while supporting everyone's basic needs utilising the free markets own guiding hand.
Not paying employees is not a negative externality, externalities refer to those external to the transaction while the employee is part of one, and has not been paid as agreed.
Slavery and other unfree labor are not examples of a free market operating, as markets are built on mutual agreed transactions and slaves cannot choose another job.
Even capitalist slave economies would only be said to have free markets for the products of slavery (cash crops), not free labor markets.
Not paying workers would be a negative externality, workers are a party in the transaction of labor for pay
That's not depending on the economic system but on how the government protects its workers.
I feel bad for Dave having to deal with the people who see the word "Economics" and have extreme meltdowns.
Yup. Unlearning economics did a whole episode about how the entire field is full of insecure manlets with a massive inferiority complex to the stem Fields which has bred a irredeemably toxic culture and a jaded disregard for anyone of a perceived lower status.
@@isidoreaerys8745 I'm 6'1'' so seems like Unlearning Economics is just projecting.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Im 8'11 can say without a doubt unlearning economics is supah based I like the vid because he was able to tie in the website ejmr into being super cucked which is really funny and the arrogance of economists wanting their field to be recognized as a field of science whilst not wanting to be scrutinized under the same processes it makes my brain dizzy.
@@chrisangel6833 It is a science, it just can't use the same epistemology as the natural sciences.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Stop please stop
No economy can grow infinitely with limited resources, neither does it have to with population decline
Good to see you mention where the whole "invisible hand" metaphor came from.
Too bad its a direct hand for a certain few
@@aceclover758 shut up
Of course, Smith was actually mocking his own supporters, NOT saying that`s actually how the market works! He was also staunchly pro-union, and coined the Labour Theory of Value his own supporters would ultimately reject as they viewed it as "Marxist economics", a devout Protestant who nonetheless favored Separation of Church and State long before the so-called "Founding Fathers",viewed landlords as "parasites" and entrepreneurs as "amongst the most deceptive class of humans on Earth".
@@ChildofNature-hx8ev This seems like a more than slightly ridiculous altering of the facts. Adam Smith never attempted to say there was a real controlling, "invisible hand" at work. He did, however, always use it as a genuine metaphor to encapsulate the observation that people purchasing and selling and acting in their own self interest somehow improved society as a whole without any one person overseeing the whole operation. This is not him mocking anyone, and it was not said sarcastically.
The labor theory of value in his discussions is most certainly an observation - that societies and peoples can in fact determine the prices of certain products and services based on how difficult those are to obtain or perform. However, by stating he both coined the term and would *support* the labor theory of value as a real economic theory is absurd in the extreme. It entirely ignores his vast, deep, and intelligent observations about how self interest amongst individuals interacts.
As for his stance on the unions, to call him "staunchly pro union" is a gross simplification that misses so much context and meaning it is altogether useless. Adam Smith's quotations about things are always trimmed and measured carefully - so that one might use him to argue one side of the aisle over the other. Hear this clearly and read his words against mine - Adam Smith argued for the society's economic prosperity, and observed that self interest was a guiding principle that was naturally apart of that world. He was not pro revolution, which is a necessary component of any marxism we discuss, nor was he strictly pro union, anti union, pro monopoly or anti monopoly.
His opinion most succinctly, in my own words and views, is thus: The union is a concept antithetical to the most desirable economic state for the public, but unions are themselves composed of citizens of the public. Therefore it is unconscionable to deprive them of the rights and liberties they have to form unions. The same or similar can be said about the combinations of the masters and their own desires and workings. Self interest is an unavoidable aspect of both the worker and the master, and we must respect that while establishing a system of free economic trade which can most readily and effectively provide opportunity for free trade and free participation.
excited to see a new professor dave video, interesting subject too.
Nice video, with a good, balanced view of the pros and cons. I do have a bit of a quibble with some of the disadvantages, which seem to be arguing against a capitalistic anarchy. Even the most ardent defenders of free markets (folks like Milton Friedman, or modern-day libertarians) don't argue there should be no regulations. Cheers! 🙂
i believe hes talking about the disadvantages of a complete free market, not the free markets we deal with today
@@aetheriox463 Fumbling Humans will continue trying to balance things generation after generation
no such thing as capitalistic anarchy, capitalism cannot survive without the bourgeois state
@@legal040 Agreed. Kind of like arguing against a strawman. 🙂
Professor Dave, I think I've asked this question before on another of your insightful videos, but in a slightly different context. You didn't mention tariffs in your presentation. Tariffs aren't about imposing regulations, they are an "artificial" means of cost control and/or market adjustment. Can you think of any advantages to imposing tariffs in a free market system?
Tarifs would be covered in regulations of an economy . Given this chapter was mainly about unregulated free market I'm afraid you'll have to wait for the regulation chapter/s .
@@ingridschmid1709 I think we're using the term "regulation" differently. Hence, my question.
@@glennpearson9348 Well what would you call tarifs then ?
They're a tax imposed by governments that weigh on free markets modifying the price equilibrium .
@@ingridschmid1709 Agreed. But a tariff isn't a regulation. It definitely regulates (or controls) pricing, but it's not the same as a regulation that is enforceable by law. Tariffs aren't laws, though I suppose they could be. In any event, while this line of discussion is interesting, it doesn't address my central question, which is (Whether they are regulations or not,) can you think of any advantages to imposing tariffs in a (otherwise) free market system?
From I have learned, tariffs are purposed to protect local businesses, not local consumers. The cost of tariffs are ultimately passed down to consumers.
Capitalists: We need a free market! We're too big to fail, and we can regulate ourselves just fine without any meddling from governments!
Also capitalists: Wait, what? We're LOSING money? WE NEED TARIFFS! WE NEED BAILOUTS!
What 'free' market?
Thats a major problem with Capialism currently.
Common people need to play the game while the top rich and corporations get socialist bailouts while claiming “socialism bad” and refusing to let any help reach the common people
@@aceclover758 nice to see daves audience being based as usual
@@chrisangel6833 sorry but what do you mean?
@@aceclover758 hehe oh I agree with ur opinion thats all im saying
The recession in 08 was caused by the government allowing banks to make subprime loans to ppl who should never have been allowed to get a mortgage. That was as absolutely a failing of government oversight/regulation. And yes the government bailed them out bc they thought it would be better than letting the recession turn into a depression. If the government had done its job in the first place there would be no need for the bailout
Wow....Thank you for explaining this Professor Dave.
3:42 David Ricardo wants to know your location.
Context: David Ricardo proposed the specialization of economies and free trade between countries to maximize overral welfare. It was based on the fact that England was more efficient on industrial goods rather than agricultural goods, so the industrialist proposed that trade was oppened (at the time the corn law was in effect, to maximize exports, the government stabilished the law so imports couldn't be imported and goods could only be exported) so indusrial goods could be exchanged for agriculturual ones and have more food in the country. The result would obviously destroy all agricultural production since they couldn't compete with with international market, but that's not bug, It's a feature, It's was intended to focus on what England was good at and that was industry.
Important note: the theory is entirely static and can't account for the change of specialization, in other words, South Korea and Taiwan shouldn't focus on microchips and semiconductors in some point of their history since they didn't even had the capital for It or know-how, therefore they should focus on other productions like textile. Putting like It really seens silly, but at XVIII-XIX century people didn't really knowed how technology develops, nowdays we know that It's mostly related to the number of process involved, so a semiconductor (with about, I believe, 100 steps if we counter from mining of natural resources until the final product) have a lot more "room" for a gain of productivity when compared to the extraction and export of copper (with, obviously, less steps when compared with semiconductor, specially considering that copper is an input), so we would have that the semiconductor industry have gains of profit thanks to their own gain of productivity but also thanks to gains of productivity from previous industries that goes to their inputs.
David Ricardo: do what you're good at, It's fine.
Raul Prebisch: get gud, bi***. The world is gonna eat all your raw materials thanks to their gains of productivity, your terms of exchange will deteriorate with time and technological development will leave your backwards economy behind.
the "freedom" to put others at risk is not a "freedom" worth protecting.
a radical sentiment in america, i know. 🙄
@@daniellassander Whose wages have to be lowered to get those cheap goods though? "It's only the Chinese/Indians etc" is not a valid answer.
As for high quality products? LOL, you serious?
Everything breaks down so quickly now, the number of tumble dryers and dish washers i've gone through over the decades is unreal. Better and cheaper to just hang clothes out to dry.
Telling people "How good they have it so you should stop complaining" is a bitch-ass deflection tactic.
Standards of living are plummeting each year, hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly from lack of healthcare, sanitation, food and shelter in the developed world. If that's "the good life" to you? Then you have pretty low standards.
Life was loads better 10/20 years ago. it's downwards from now on until the Neo-Liberal economics beast is tamed with regulation.
"you have it because of a mostly free market."
No such market exists, that you can't just get away with selling food that is poisoned is down to heavy regulation and food standard agencies.
The EU has a ton of chemicals that they don't allow to be sold in their jurisdiction that is found in US Food. Not very Free Market is it?
@@daniellassander do you even know what youre talking about? Which countries are you talking about, what are their economic policies that differenciate them from a free market system, and how specifically does that not work in the ways you said?
Also, do you know what imperialism is?
should we ban driving then?
@@daniellassander Yeah, because American hegemony doesn't exist.
Maybe let your country be at threat of destabilization by an even bigger imperial power and then, maybe, you'll reconsider where you want to live, independently of economic systems.
Freedom is dangerous. Your life is always in danger of something, you can’t have your cake and eat it too
One of the biggest disadvantages is the fact that it *encourages not doing anything-* A lot of 'free market' proponents go out of their way to go for the free market because they can rely on repeating that everything will magically 'sort itself out' on its own so they don't have to do any of the difficult things that naturally come with running a business ethically. It's an excuse to cut corners then shift cleaning up the mess onto the system itself.
Wow what a catastrophic misunderstanding of it all
@@imdebaws3715 When he says 'not doing anything', he means for the perspective of a government or economy-controlling force.
By definition, 'free', in this context, means that it has no control. It is free.
You are definitionally wrong. It is hard to even be more wrong than this, but I'm sure libertarians will amaze everyone with the desperate apologetics they give, the religious zealots they are.
You missed a big BIG disadvantage of the free market being that it promotes inequality. For example, if landlords are unregulated in the rent they can charge, then they can siphon off the wealth of the poorer citizens that cannot afford bricks and mortar into the coffers of the richer property owners
It makes the living-standard heigher for everyone. If you want to remove inequality, you have to take away choice and freedom.
That goes back to his point about competition. There should be enough landlords seeking to have affordable rent to drive rent down to an affordable price. What you’re describing is not really a disadvantage of a free market, but a disadvantage of living in a densely populated metropolitan area. There’s always cheap land further away in suburbia/rural country that is far cheaper
@@nqtural1322 Nonsense. Living standards have been going DOWN for decades. Soon your precious "free markets" will make life unbearable for so many people that the system will collapse upon itself. It is unsustainable. The freedom to get ripped off, to be poor and to starve is NOT a freedom anyone wants. In this system, when you have no money you have NO CHOICE and NO FREEDOM. Capitalism is nearing its natural conclusion. Hopefully something better will replace it, but I am not optimistic.
@@shanepaulryanalexander2934 There is not enough employment outside of densely populated metropolitan areas to sustain larger populations. That is why people gravitate to metropolitan areas in the first place. Capitalism is long on "should be" and short on "is". Adam Smith's theories are quaint but are not based on reality.
@@frankpentangeli7945 ahh yes command economies work so much better *cough cough USSR Venezuela NK*
Fair competition would lead people to be both better and kinder and good for everyone because if manufacturer abuse market the second manufacturer would step in with better competitive method to challenge the dominating manufacturer
you can maintain the benefits of markets while avoiding most of the issues if allowing for more widespread worker democracy.
abolish the ceo as a concept.
in something called a "worker coop", workers control the business. they all vote on decisions, they all work harder because theyre all part owners, theres less room for nepotism, people dont "do the bare minimum" because theyre not paid a flat wage, they get their portion of company PROFITS.
if someone isnt pulling their weight, the group can vote to fire the person.
this method is known as "market socialism"
'while avoiding most of the issues if allowing for more widespread worker democracy' I would like a big fat fucking source on that lmfao. What happens if the workers are just racist lmfao. Would you want worker coops in the 1950s? 'Democracy' isnt the end all be all solution to markets you child. This is the biggest flaw with your ideology. You literally just take a market concept, paint it red with a big D on it for 'democracy' and then hey presto everything is just better there. There is no evidence large scale firms can work with 'worker democracy'
Isn't this just a board of directors? Or are you talking about every single employee voting on every single decision the company makes? Imagine managing an international brand employing millions of people under such a system.
Likke bro your understanding of markets is infantile. Quit watching vaush videos and stop moralising economics like this
"If someone isn't pulling their weight, the group can vote to fire the person."
Or the business owner can just do it lmao
There's nothing legally preventing you from trying right now. Or are you proposing every business be legally obligated to structure their corporation in your view?
thank you very much professor Dave
I didn't understand how monopolies can be created in a free market, shouldn't the competition prevent it? My thinking is that monopolies are only created if there's a law that protects them, but if there's a law then there's no free market at all.
That's correct. With the government not intervening than competition can flourish. The government creates the biggest monopolies by taxation, subsidies, permits, licensing, nationalization of certain sectors, etc. The government is the biggest monopoly we have.
Big company buys small one before it can get big enough to rival it.
@Professor Dave Explained how far is your nearest bridge?
Thank you
Free market is a consumer-centric market, it gives total power to the consumer so all your disadvantages can be solve by consumer.
how can consumers solve the free market housing crisis? we need to live somewhere and everyone is charing insane prices nowadays...
cant say dont rent, you have to live somewhere
cant say rent somewhere else, everywhere is expensive
The 4th disadvantage is irrelevant, because a free market economy necessarily implies trust in the consumer market to recognise these traits and choose to patron their competitors, therefore putting them out of business. In a true free market economy, businesses 'cutting corners' shouldn't be a concern, because the mere threat of free market forces limiting their business capabilities, acts as an insurance policy against said mispheasance.
I read the title and thought it said free meerkats
People Like Free Stuff
A for effort
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd A for Ahem cuzinz
Nothing is truly "free." There are always trade-offs, including the cost of lost opportunity.
@@glennpearson9348 no need to answer seriously, he's joking
@@glennpearson9348 Nothing left for me But to be Sarcastic, I'm watchin it break Like Rotten Elastic
love your intro
Nice clip. The disadvantages aren't true, though.
1. Monopolies are a problem created by governments. Monopolies normally wouldn't exist if there were zero barriers to entry by governments (rules, regulations, taxes, licenses etc.). Antitrust laws are used by crony capitalists to attack more efficient competitors.
2. Parks, schools, roads etc. can perfectly be provided by the free market and it can be controlled who uses them, especially with modern technology. What would be so horrible paying for a ticket to enter a park e.g.? You already pay for its maintenance by coercive taxation, why not by a voluntary fee?
3. Externalities can perfectly well be internalized when everything is privatized by using a tort system. If you pollute and cause damages on the property of somebody else, you can be sued, which internalizes the costs into the economic calculation of the producer.
4. This is just plain nonsense. Competition demonstrably leads to lower prices and higher quality, which is *the* reason why free markets create the most wealth. You can be sued for harmful products or harmful working conditions, which solves this problem as well.
1. Monopolies are not created by governments. There are some regulations that can make entry into the market harder, but overall nothing in an unregulated market is stopping monopolies from occuring. I would even go so far as to say that there is an incentive to create a monopoly in a free market. Why? Because the most profitable thing is not to provide the best service. It is to provide the ONLY service. And there are many examples of large companies simply eating or squashing new competitors before they can become a problem. The winner of the innitial competition typically tries to prevent future competition. To assume that monopolies would not happen in an unregulated market is simply naive. And that isn't even touching the subject of cartells.
2. There are several problems with this point and several examples that show how privatizing public goods is a bad idea. Necessities like water become far more expensive for the general population simply because of the profit incentive. All projects that tried this libertarian "utopia" idea of public goods being completely in private hands failed. Why? Simple. People either left because of the expensive not-so-public services or nobody wanted to provide these services for long because it was impossible to make real profit with them. Not to mention the huge amount of examples of deterioration after giving certain things into private hands (overlap with point 4). Not to mention that this completely disregards the well-being of people who are economically disadvantaged.
3. That is plain bullsh*t and impossible to realize. How would you quantify environmental damage and who would own these parts of the environment? Does someone own the fish in the poluted river? Does someone own the smog-filled air people breathe? And who would you sue for damage that comes from climate change? Does every single company have to pay a fee for producing greenhouse gases? Not everything can be property of a single person and not every damage is directly caused by a single person.
4. Don't make me laugh. The possibility to sue someone for a harmful product or working conditions are regulations of the free market. In a libertarian society with a completely free market, an employer would simply write some "work at your own risk" clause into the contract and done. If someone signed it... well, sucks to be them if something happens. They made the "free" choice to take that risk. And you know what? People would still work there because they need the money to survive. It wouldn't be an actual choice.
I don’t know. Public goods are vital for lots of people. For example, there’s clean air. Maybe we should pay Pepsi Coke AT&T Verizon Comcast This is All One Company by the Way Delta Alaska Southwest Incorporated for clean air. What could go wrong?
@@MommyLongerLegs First that‘s (principally) not a rivalrous good and hence not an economic good. Second, food production (something *everybody* needs) already is in private hands and it works just fine (apart from lobbying the State to gain advantages over competitors etc., the usual fascism).
@@99Nafets Food requires labor, land, and water to produce. The air exists without labor. Nice one though.
@@MommyLongerLegs Yes and the air is not an economic good (seems like you skipped this part of my answer?). If it was scarce, you‘d better want it to be privatized under the profit motive. State ownership of scarce goods always leads to inefficiencies, value destructions and shortages.
technological unemployment and market monopolies will eventually make a universal basic income necessary. Andrew Yang ran for president in the u.s. and already wanted to introduce a ubi. but won't everyone be lazy with a ubi? i don't think so, because resting eventually becomes boring and depressing.
No, people will vacate to hobbies. I do know, because I saw many people very happy to get unemployment benefits.
Even discussed with a quite some people who told me that they can enjoy their free time and did such and such activities.
Also, there is no free lunch. This ubi will be paid by what we would call the working class, opposed to the leisure class.
Also, parties wanting to keep the power will be able to close their eye on people tacking advantage of the system.
We can already see that with unemployment benefits.
What I am in favor is to replace ubi by basic accommodation (like capsules) and public eateries. It would cost less to the state and working people could also chose such accommodation if they desire. Maybe to save and have a better retirement.
It's not crazy, there are people in Asia doing that by themselves...
Technological unemployment is basically claiming that people are made obsolete by tech, and therefore they should get paid anyway. If money is the the representation of your contribution to society, and we start giving everyone money for doing basically nothing, doesn’t that make money obsolete as well? Also, machines need to be designed, built and programmed. Do the people who are responsible for that deserve all the benefits and rewards for creating such machines, without having to share most of it unwillingly. If not, what’s their incentive to make the machines In the first place.
@@justinkane290 If you can pull that one, you'll be shocked by the answer 😅
No, everybody would not be lazy with a UBI. That’s insanely dumb propaganda. People want to work. It’s just a fact of reality. Another fact is that people don’t want to work for 8 hours a day and still be left holding the bag. Yang’s proposal falls incredibly short of what would actually be needed to fix problems already existing.
@@programaths gotta love people bringing up the well-fare queen arguments decades after it was refuted as the obviously insane right-wing bs it has always been.
People on well-fare ARE the fucking working class, you tool lmao. The VAST majority of people on well-fare work a full-time job. Your entire argument is ahistoric and unevidenced bs.
You should read Materialism and The Dialectal Method by Maurice Cornforth and then follow that up with Wage Labor and Capital, and Value Price and Profit by Karl Marx. Adam Smith and his invisible hand is a vague and unscientific analysis of the conditions of capitalism.
I really hope he reads marx that would be incredible
There's no such thing as a free market economy. What we have is facsim in the so called west which is simply corporations working hand in hand with big government. Covid reflected this. Tax evading corporates survived, whilst many tax paying independents went out of business. Context is important. Regulation is important for safety. All goods and services should be safety tested relative to the risks they present before they go to market so people can make an informed decision. They should not be rushed through and used as blackmail for liberty.
Nice video.
You didn't watch it yet
Is he not going to talk about the boom and bust cycles of free markets?
at some point probably
@@vloh3097 just seems like something you'd list in the major flaws of capitalism
@@LordHookie ok then you clearly have no clue what you're talking about
@@LordHookie ancaps when their economy collapses:
@@LordHookie (see previous)
Well as a capitalist, I would never claim that free markets are perfect in every way because we assume that consumers will act in a way that makes them better off while that is not true always. Consumers buy cigarettes while knowing that it is bad for their health (same with alcohol), leading to big profitable Tobacoo companies, which isn't every good for the society and that's why we have taxes to solve them (or at least reduce the impact of them).
The government can put taxes on buying cigarettes, driving cars that are not fuel efficient and bad for environment etc and it will not only incentivize consumers not to buy them and look for other options, it will also motivate the companies to innovate and reduce the impact of these products.
Capitalism combined with wise government regulation is the best economic system ever, but far from perfect.
Is there any doubt that because supporting the free market is a safe bet rather than a gamble (and that it's not a gamble TO SUPPORT the free market), the wisest Americans understand that we need to advocate for non-citizens so that they TOO can be eligible for life insurance policies and all other financial planning implements, because this will make it impossible for them to believe that their Purpose can be anything other than to demonstrate the proof that the USA is, objectively, the most cutting-edge society in the world, which exemplifies Being Civilized?
Thank you for the video. Without a doubt unregulated free markets are very very dangerous. People generally do not have a very good impression about businessmen. They are considered to be extremely selfish, cunning, and money oriented with little regard to employees or consumers. I don't think it's prudent to let such a group wield enormous influence over a country's economy.
Explain how unregulated markets are very dangerous
Please make a video on mass and charge balance please 🙏
no, i do not
Bezos lost 25 billion today. He's still insanely rich lol
Well of course. Most of his worth comes from Amazon itself. If Amazon collapsed so would his wealth
@@crestofhonor2349 so he hasn't diversified after becoming the richest man years ago? He "seems" quite intelligent lol. I'm sure if Amazon were to "collapse" tomorrow he'd still have a good chunk of money or if he hasn't already he's diversified big time expecting just that scenario. (?)
Edit: looked it up on Google (which he has a nice stake in lol) & he has significant venture investments as well as positions in some sizeable companies. That said, yes...he currently owns 16% of Amazon (he's been selling off slowly) & he'd loose a large chunk of equity were it to tank tomorrow. He of course also has insanely large real estate holdings as well as a bunch of space and robotics investments that apparently are where he's heading into deep. Credit where credit due, the guy obviously knows what he's doing.
@@SemperFi_EDC_Guy Yes he gets to keep most of his money assuming he sells off his shares. That's how most of the richest people in the world are. Most of their worth isn't in liquid cash, rather it's in assets and shares in various companies. This is why their worth goes up and down so much. When the company does badly their worth goes down and when the company does better their worth goes up. Of course they still have tons of money in pocket too so that they can afford their more luxurious lifestyle. CEO's typically own a significant share of their company which is why they own it.
@@crestofhonor2349 how much u think he's gonna end up with in 15 yrs or so? Guesstimate?
*he's actually still relatively young (50 I think)
@@SemperFi_EDC_Guy Honestly I couldn't guess. I have no clue if someone else is going to come up to compete with Amazon and probably by then he would of quit. I'd probably say 60-100 billion
Its like a chemical equilibria, everything is a balancing act.
Free candy and beer
Mr.dave, can I translate all videos to Arabic
Sure, send me srt files with subtitles and I will upload them.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
th-cam.com/video/H_E6_KvHH-E/w-d-xo.html
Flat earth
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways:
1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of some Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade.
1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend).
2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
!!!
Great video! I'm sure you have more ideas than time, but have you ever considered responding to Mormon "Heartlander" videos?
Wealth of Nation is great in telling that the sum is greater than its parts so if benefit to Nation is benefiting most citizens so good government is essential as everything else in supply and demand and some regulations needed but not over regulated
This video, which I expected to just be capitalist apologetics, was simply alright. Better than Sabine Hossenfelder's video ("captalism is good, let me explain") but it does feel like you really tried to balance it between both sides of the fence. I do appreciate that you gave an equal number of arguments to each, but it doesn't really touch on some of the more convincing anti-free market stances (worker alienation, boom and bust, etc.) and the "innovation" point is a bit wack, like sure, there is more consumer choice but really a lot of it is either too expensive for the average working-class consumer (think electric cars, etc.), or is made to solve a problem nobody needed to solve (stanley tumblers, kitchen gadgets, etc.).
I mean, I like your "dunking on wackjob conspiracy theories" videos, but this is just not something I'd expect from someone like you, Dave.
This is high school level economics content.
you didn't talk about all of the disadvantages of it
Except for the part where I totally did do that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains there are a few more disadvantages you didn't cover aside from that great video lmao
@@kiwi_2_official no.
I'm new to this, so I'm understanding that farmers (along with landlords and chemicals) have a high influence on inflation?
Free markets never existed.
For american capitalists "free" market is when american corporation can economically invade other country and buyout all their businesses. It's "free" as in free to pillage.
The only monopolies ever to have existed were governments. In fact the definition of “government” is a monopoly on the legal initiation of force in a given geographical area. Free markets do not create monopolies.
Wow, that's profoundly wrong. You should watch this economics series.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsExplain how it is wrong. He's factually correct.
@@bane3991 Um, no. Free markets obviously create monopolies since we have a free market and there are monopolies. If there are no restrictions, monopolies easily form. I have no idea how anyone could not understand this. Also, monopoly on the legal initiation of force? That doesn't mean anything.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains The only monopolies we have are government forced such as the military, police force, fire department, justice system, etc. It's amazing you look at monopolies as bad, yet you support these institutions. Thus making your argument full of logical inconsistent holes. What free market monopolies are you referring too exactly? That doesn't have government interference? But tell me, if monopolies are bad than why do you support them at the same time? You support government monopolies but not free market monopolies? Your argument makes no logical sense.
Also, the only way 1 business can dominate in a free market if they give us the best quality at the lowest price. Different products exist for different purposes. Take bread for example, there are 50 cent loafs and 7 dollar loafs, everything in between. But we have never seen this before. We only seen 1 business doing better than others. Even JDR with standard oil, he was huge. But even he had competitors but he was able to massive reduce prices to levels unheard of so even if you think he's a monopoly we all made of 100x better.
"I have no idea how anyone could not understand this" I study economics that's why, which seems to be the difference between you and I. I would highly recommend you start reading books. Because if this surprises you than clearly you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have because economists such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Israel Kirsner, David Friedman, Henry Hazlit etc would completely disagree with you. But you seem to have only did a little research on 1 side and completely ignored the other side.
But at least you understand the importance of a free market to some degree, I'll give you credit for that.
@@bane3991 waffle
I have a feeling that some communists and ancaps, who are economically illiterate, will be present in this comment section
Speaking of, even though we know Dave will talk about ideologies, I doubt he will cover specific types of anarchism (i.e. ancom vs ancap vs more obscure ideologies)
AnPrim gang. holla!
I have a feeling that people who know jack shit about Communism (i.e. Google experts) who think they're being clever, leaving asinine comments will be presen... Oh you're here already? That was fast.
not to mention the enlightened centrists, eh
@@mix3k818 I don't want to be that person
I really don't
but aaaaaaaaaa
they're not anarchists. Im not gatekeeping its just true. Anarchy and anarchism have histories that matter when talking about "ideologies". Rothbardist 'anarcho-capitalism' is anarchic, in the big way. Like I get the name. But its not a kind of anarchism, its a kind of... I don't know. It comes from liberalism but its distant. The wikipedia article mentions as much, that anarchism is actually its own thing, and that its more descended from liberalism. But I think the political compass ruined my li
nvm they are on the same edge of a square lol im dumb
What does competition lead to? In a race there is a winner. Will the winner in the market leave his competitors alone. Of course not, he will eat them for lunch.
Adaptibility: the market will respond to supply and demand, that is true. But what if the consumer doesont have money becouse he is unemployed or he was born in a poor country. What if its more profitable to sell needs for exordinate amounts and the consummer cant afford it...
Freedom: 'consimers' can choose what they buy but cannot choose what is produced. How is it freedom that a rich person decides what is produced instead of the person actually producing it.
Innovation: the free market discorogous innovation. How many Einsteins have been lost in sweat shops and cotton fields or in the slums and streets. The comodification of education in your country should show you this. How is parralel development of something by 2 firms innovation, how is spending millions into making oeople think they need something innovation.
Choice: there is no choice if you are born (like most people) poor. Choice in products and luxuries is possible mostly in rich imperialist nations that can afford to give their people some more crums (and even still they are taking more away)
The market cannot grow infinitly in a finite world. Wages in your and in most countries have been stagnant for a while. Also look up the falling rate of profit.
Considering your background i can subgest you read "why socialism" by Einstein or a video on it (halim alrah)
I like your videos though. I disagree here.
The "rate of profit to fall" is an assertion by Marx that has still not been demonstrated.
> What if its more profitable to sell needs for exordinate amounts and the consummer cant afford it...
Somehow they are charging so much for profit and yet no one can afford it. Did you even think about this?
"Rich people decide what is produced."
In a free market, how do you think they get rich? How do you think they maintain their wealth? By incurring losses and producing what consumers don't want? No, by producing for the needs of the masses
@@LordHookie Automation is taking more and more jobs, homless and unemployed people exist, the person in Bangladesh who made the devices we are communicating with cant buy these devices... Bravo, you have figured out a contradiction in capitalism. As more and more production is automated due to competition, less and less full time jobs will be available. Meaning less and less money to spend on products. I mean have you not heard of why Yang wants UBI genius.
@@ldlework Yes I did. We produce food for 10 bilion, is everyone fed? Just becouse some can afford it doesont mean all/most can. I couldnt afford to break my leg or have astma in the USA. If you need housing, food or medicine you can either go withought or go into extreme dept. Look at the housing market in the USA and even in other countries.
I was going to quote from this video but I saw i would quote a lot so here is some relevent info th-cam.com/video/BJufEfWifqo/w-d-xo.html
Greed , not just self interest is the drive of capitalist victims...
Teach the world how to revolt and "free markets " will die forever.
If you don't like the free market move to a country that don't have it. Here's some examples:
1. China
2. Venezuela
3. North Korea
Go to Venezuela
@@nqtural1322 No country has a free market economy
But we know exponential growth is disastrous for the environment…
No it isnt. Not if you structure your incentive system properly. . .
There is a downside to polluting the fuck out of your environment. But corporations are closed systems, and dont have the actual "sensors" to process that information.
Thereofre, thats why people propose carbon taxes, to structure busisnesses so that the environment actually becomes a factor in decisionmaking.
Look at carbon credits and dodge. Look at how Tesla is making billions by selling their carbon credits. Look at how power plants are incentivized to stop polluting, because of carbon credits.
@@honkhonk8009 The problem is that carbon credits aren't working the way they're intended to. Wendover Production's newest video explains it really well, where since the benefits of saving a forest for example can't be directly or accurately calculated, selling carbon credits enables people to produce more carbon thinking they're morally abject since they spent money on carbon credits. This leads to such people/corporations actually increasing their carbon production under the false pretence that it's balanced out, leading to even more pollution. Ultimately it shows that markets can't be the solution to everything, especially problems such as these since the search/need for profit will always win out and almost always with a negative effect on the environment.
If free markets are so good why has there never been a free market
Because governments exist, but to be more specific, the separation of money and state did not exist pre 2008.
You're welcome.
Does social economy based on free market?
Whatever the case keep governments out of our lives
really appreciate this objective analysis of the free market.
If roads are a public service unable to prevent persons from use of them then explain tolls!?
Does every road have a toll or do the vast majority of roads not have a toll?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains no, but it proves they can be monetized
Certainly they can be. But typically are not.
first
Yes
1 min :>
The market is good as it is due to the same people or
Corporations crying free markets already own a nice percentage of the economy already, from land to homes, to entities. So they can miss me with the free market talk. They have plenty of freedom already. Our tax dollars need to be utilized more for the American tax payer
Hmmm... you think we have free markets?.... interesting... what kind of market do you live in?... 🤣
Imo politically, monopolies should be nationalized. Also, oligarchies that are colluding should also be nationalized.
What does nationalized mean in this context? If it's being absorbed by the government and led by publically elected officials, then that sounds perfect.
Agreed, monopolies and anything else that people need to live or otherwise need to function normally (food, transportation, healthcare, housing, etc.)
I disagree. Nationalization typically causes more issues or can completely kill off said business. For example when the US tried to nationalize it’s passenger rail system the government ended up killing it off back in the 70s. This has lead to why today the vast majority of rail is privately owned by shipping companies not interested in passenger trains. Monopolies often also have a habit of using the government to prevent competition. This can be done by making things needlessly expensive by adding in pointless regulation that prices out smaller businesses from competing in the same market thus letting them keep their share of the market. They can also make things very complex to start businesses in their market by using the government to also make very complex regulations that also make people give up because of the amount of work required to even start one in the first place.
I wouldn’t trust any government with rinsing spit off the sidewalk, let alone something we all need.
Have you seen gas prices? And that’s just tax.
Imagine if they were running the entire system.
@@jbirdmax the gas industry is run by corporations, not the government.
There is no such thing as a "free market", there is always control. The question is whether or not that controlling party will answer to you.
The end goal of capitalism as an ideology is world domination by a single firm. Never, EVER forget that.
"A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal-of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a "free good") or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest)." Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed
Sounds like a psychopath…
Austrian Out! Take your heterodox economics to the same place Marxists belong.
Oy vey 👃👀👀 Sounds awfully familiar. Almost like I've read that in some historical document.
In that statement, substitute "collective ownership of the means of production" for "private property", and you have a nice slogan for Stalinism.
@@dalstein3708 Stalin lovers in 2022. Crazy
When German Chancellor Merkel said, "we need market based democracy", you know how screwed we are. Because it should be, democracy based market, instead
A democracy based market, you mean where each person gets to "vote with their dollar"?
@@Alkixkix Democracy is a political system, free market is a economical system. The economical system has to adjust to the political system and not otherwise. Because than what you will have is what USA is, legal corruption, where politics provide laws, that benefit the doners and not the interests of the voter.
👏👍
To all the folks out there bashing capitalism... The product you're using to type your comment with is a result of this system, as is the platform you type in.
Gotta white knight capitalism because poor baby capitalism cant stand up for itself.
There is a difference betweeen “bashing” something and pointing out its flaws
But for some reason, when the flaws or issues of Capitalism are needed to be talked about, peple like yo love to shut them down, even when Commuinsm and Socialism are not going to have anything to do with the conversation
One thing about Capitalism is like many things in life, it does need balance and that mans some forms of regulation we have sene over the decades.
Imagine if corporations can continue to run things like “not havin fire safety” in their building.
You want to argue agaisnt regulation yet regulation created many of those safety standards that did not exist back then or weren’t created due to “costing money”
@@aceclover758 One thing's for sure... You don't know about me or what I'm "like". Furthermore, in this context, "bashing" is exactly the same as pointing out its flaws. Who made you the master linguist to determine what colloquial words mean?
Of course communism and socialism come into the equation... There are only a few economic systems on our planet. I was pointing out what the proponents of systems like communism and socialism often don't point out... That capitalism leads to advancements in technology better than any other economic system. And that's just one of countless reasons capitalism is the best economic system for our time.
I'll capitulate by stating that capitalism has its faults but it's better than all other systems in the history of the world.
@@KLSYFY Yes it is the best system currently implemented
And now, its tipping way too much on one’s side favor
Instead of a fair game for everyone which is the theory, now it’s only those with money have the loudest voice or can directly influence the game while majority are left out. It also doesn’t help like in many system, you have the sheep
That’s just a small portion of it
Standard of living in terms of basic necessities is high, doesnt mean majority are struggling to survive each month at a time.
But the main problem is expecting infinite growth in a finite world. That is a pipe dream.
@@aceclover758 I agree with you about everything.
In my case defending free markets is not a matter of utility but of morality.
The president Ronald Reagan deregulate the air traffic control and other area and President Clinton de-military specification led to less waste military spending and more invisible soldier led to better soldier ability to survive battle heat
It doesn't works as the theory. This reminds me of the communist manifesto. While the manifesto itself seems beautiful, it do not factor in the human greed.
Utilities are available through microgrids, which eliminate the Need for GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that unnaturally create utility monopolies.
If we only had a way to get rid of money.
BitCoin almost achieved this.
Bitcoin is just a different form of money
You cannot get rid of money without regressing to a subsistence lifestyle.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 you'll really never ever be able to get rid of money because unless you grow every single food item that you need and unless you're able to produce every single product that you need you are always going to be participating in trade with someone else that has something that you need. Money is just a replacement for trade of an actual item. We've been trading things for almost the entire existence of humanity which is basically using money for the entire existence of humanity. You wouldn't just be changing around your lifestyle you would kind of be not able to survive
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite hence the only way of getting rid of money is by going back to a subsistence lifestyle.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 no that still won't get rid of "money". You will still be trading goods and when you don't have the thing that the other person wants you're going to run into a problem. If you want wheat and the person you're getting the wheat from wants beans and you don't have beans you're not going to be able to trade. That's the exact reason why money was put in place. Money is a substitute for the item you want to trade for. Money makes it so that you can trade for anything. We will never possibly get to a point where we don't have money because you can never fully complete every trade without out money.
You wouldn't have any lifestyle because you wouldn't be able to get the food that you need you would just die