Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- In this Economics Made Easy video, Professor Bryan Caplan talks about the amazing economic gains of the past 100 years and even the past decade, and yet people are still under the impression that things are just getting worse. He calls this "Pessimistic Bias," and argues that it affects the policies people vote for.
► LearnLiberty.org
► / learnliberty
► google.com/+Lea...
► / learnliberty
► / learnliberty
Boy, the pessimists in this comment section.
Well, true. But most people commenting on TH-cam are trying to do that. Hell, I've done it myself on occasion, with little success.
Income increased 7% from 2001 to 2011. Meanwhile, in 2011 $1 was worth $0.79 in 2001 dollars. So we have a 7% increase in income, and a 21% decrease in the value of the dollar. How is that not stagnation or a decline?
*Real* income (which is income adjusted for inflation) increased 7%.
1:55, regarding the US economy: "*Real* income per person rose by a relatively grim 7% from 2001 to 2011, but that's not stagnation and certainly not decline."
Connor Miles I didn't pick that decade, the video did.
***** Yeah, turns out he's even wrong about THAT.
www.multpl.com/us-real-income-per-capita
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_income.png
www.multpl.com/us-median-real-income
Income by EVERY measure is down over that time period, not up, even when adjusted for inflation.
Ah, you're right. Real *GDP* per capita increased 7%, not real income. www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita
Surely human's natural inclination to moan about absolutely everything is the reason why we've come so far? The wooden stick's working just fine, why put a bit of flint on it? "CAUSE IT TAKES 80 STABS TO KILL A MAMMOTH WITH A STICK, do you know how tiring that is?" So voila, flint spearheads, if we were complacent as a species, we'd be in a different place, look at chameleons, they're pretty smug with their superpowers, but they'll never invent Flowbee.
True, the unease with which people view the world has been a great asset, but also a great liability, insofar as it, at best, makes people uneasy when by rights they ought to be dancing in the street, and ,at worst, given rise to lethal populist movements like Fascism and Communism. So it is a double-edged sword. In retrospect, it is usually pretty easy to separate the good from the bad, even if they were motivated by the same primal unease. The trick is knowing ahead of time.
It's worth having moments of gratitude while fighting the modern world's problems, yes. It could be worse, but it could also be better. Just have to be aware how how MUCH worse it can be, which you learn from history...and how much better it could be, which you learn from art.
+Tanner Jacobi Thanks for the uplifting perspective.
Love the TH-cam gag. Great video!!
You seem to be forgetting the part where almost none of that 7% real-income increase actually reaches the common plebs.
Well over 80% of that 7% was reserved for people who never felt the impact of the crash in the first place.
Right. Economists love to ignore that point. Perhaps they're not speaking to you and I?
Nominal wages for the common plebe have been going DOWN for at least 30 years now. Very amazing and exciting eh?
TheFinnmacool
Is that Households, or Individuals?
Cause there is a big difference.
Plebs...like those types at Occupy Wall Street, all heavily armed with Sony handycams, Iphones, Ipads, Urban Outfitter apparel, and of course, lots and lots of drums and bongos?
I'll never ceased to be amused to be told (online) by self-identified "poor" that they "heard on the Daily Show that the 1% blah blah blah eat babies or something." For them to tell me this, they require; power, TV, Cable, a computer or smart phone, and an internet connection or data plan. Implicit with that is a roof, a floor, reasonably solid walls, indoor plumbing and, in all probability, a kitchen. Add all of that together, and you not only have wealth beyond the richest Roman Emperors, Persian Kings and Egyptian Pharaohs, but even beyond the richest industrialists of the early 20th century, many of whom never communicated faster than a paper telegram, much less have a plastic box, slimmer than a pack of cigarettes, that was a phone, a library, a calculator, a TV, a radio, a juke box, an address book, a restaurant guide, an alarm clock, a game system, an instant post office, a camera, a Dictaphone, a map and a note pad, all for the cost less than 1 month's average rent.
Just 30 years ago, the DynaTac cell phone cost over $9000 in today's dollars, and didn't perform 1% of what a 5 year old smart phone can do.
Smart Phones are just one example; there are more media and entertainment outlets, many of them for free, than ever before. There are more food options available for even the most modest of incomes. When I was a kid, there was cheap chicken Ramen. Now there is chicken, beef, shrimp, kimchi and spicy versions of all of the above. Depending on the area, that is a decupling (Ten Fold, it's a word, I had to look it up) of options of Ramen alone, maybe more depending on brands. Delivery and ordering services are far better than ever before, so those who are sick or injured, living remotely or just shy can more easily get the things they need.
"Low level" employees might complain today about flipping burgers and standing around stocking shelves in retail all day, but the low level jobs 100 or even just 50 years ago were far more dangerous and strenuous. Think stocking shelves and working the register at Hot Topic is difficult, imagine operating a drill press for 40 years, metal filings and grease everywhere.
Of course, that won't stop them from complaining, but I bet they'll do it on their favorite free social media site. In other words, the 1st world "poor" can afford to bitch.
I know the amount was adjusted but you can't say that we are better off today than we were 200 years ago. The point that I'm trying to make is that in the past, people were not over-ambitious and did not look for material goods to bring meaning and happiness into their lives. They did not seek a college education or to buy a lot of toys to play with. As long as their basic needs of food and having a place to live were met, they were satisfied. Not saying the past was a utopia, but I just hate it when people say that today we are better off because we have more technology and money. It's funny how economist always seem to measure happiness and the value of a person/country by how much they consume and produce. It's disgusting in my view
Yeah treatment for diseases, eating well and heating is so overrated.
***** actually they still use leeches sometimes. There's a guy in Western Australia that farms them for medical supply houses. Gets $45 each for them.
But I agree with your point, things have been improving exponentially since the stone age. And we're, I think, at the interesting part where the curve starts to get really steep
Like the video says the percent of people not getting their basic needs met is way down. So even if you don't care about technology we are still better off.
Clearly this YOLO has never heard of peak oil, peak credit and climate change - but yeah if you only look at the surface without understanding what the progress of past 100 years was based on things look pretty rosy. And surely the best is yet to come… for the 0.01% wealthiest individuals on the planet
Optimistic outlook is a good thing, but EVERYTHING is relative and forward progress is a human trait ... progress is a good thing !
check the CO2 in the atmosphere, thanks for the new "products".
If you look at the GDP growth with a proper inflation calculation, not a government manipulated one designed to welch on pension obligations, you find one quarter of anemic growth since the second quarter of 2000, a massive contraction of the GDP.
www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts
The message of this video is relevant if not accurate. It's relevant because governments are justifying certain disagreeable policies by selling them as the only solutions to exaggerated or even nonexistent problems. For instance, the 2014 Commonwealth Budget (Australia) contains disagreeable cost-cutting measures that the Liberal government has justified by painting an excessively pessimistic picture of massive public debt and budget deficits. In fact the real picture of the economy hardly justifies those measures.
I guess what I mean is, our problem-solving energies need to be focused on the real problems (homelessness, domestic violence, adult illiteracy, indigenous disadvantage, etc.). Governments try to focus our attention on artificial problems to satisfy their ideological and power appetites. That's why the video is relevant. Don't let seemingly big problems distract us from the actual problems.
In 1900, the Federal Reserve Note didn't exist - how do the "less than $1,000" vs "$8,000" compare in terms of purchasing power of 1 USD??
If income increases by 7% and inflation increases by 7% what actually happened to your income? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "something"
Going by the writings of thousands of years, people in general always seem to believe that things are getting worse, but they're almost always getting better. They also seem to constantly wish for some "wonderful" end of the world scenario. Especially in the form of religious eschatology. Humanity seems to define itself with self loathing and death wishes.
I agree, take music. Imagine telling someone in 1970 someday they could listen to, and watch, a performance of any song they ever heard on a website called TH-cam. no need for records. Consider this: We can literally listen to more Mozart, than Mozart. An iPhone replaces an orchestra. All the people who say music sucks today now have now access to any music from any time period (excluding the future) than the people who created it themselves. But everyone talks about it as if the songs are lost forever, mostly just to feel smarter than those who they deem "shallow" enough to enjoy pop. Whether or not pop is any good is irrelevant when given the choice whether or not to listen to it. Just one example.
Thanks for the sources!
The average lifespan was less than 50 years but if you made it to age 21 you could expect to live well into your sixties, even hundreds of years ago. The high mortality rates bring down the average.
Everything is awesome...so, nobody needs your think tank's policies prescriptions?
The pessimistic bias sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy.
Remove fractional reserve banking and endless creation of fiat money and then you will see the world really experience a Renaissance.
If this is supposed to explain why liberals think we need to do something about our hard times, I don't think pessimistic bias is that reason. I think the reason is more along the lines of economic inequality (comparing present day people to other present day people), which means we really are in hard times compared to what we could/should be achieving. Make work bias explains their problem better.
I get his point. And he is right about technological developments. I have access to things beyond the imagination of my ancestors.
Even with that taken into account... I disagree. Which may just prove his point, but I will persist in doing so anyways.
>"Amazingly sunny"
Massive drought, large loss of land to rising seas, and food shortages will be commonplace due to global warming within 30 years. And it will only get worse from there. Antibiotics will cease to be effective, and people will lose appendages from what were once easily-treated infections. The average lifespan of 70 years this man touts will quickly return to the 50 years of before.
Our infrastructure will deteriorate, (hell, it already has) and many will die before the political will *finally* exists to level the playing field for the working poor.
This is the legacy I get to leave my descendants, as a millenial. Amazingly sunny, indeed.
7% growth in real wages over 10 years isn't stagnation... but that's because this guy factors in the growth in incomes of the 1%. The bottom 80% have suffered from declining real wages in America. The result ignored by his averaging out of outliers is the largest income inequality in America since the gilded age.
All that is aside from the social issues that have come about from our money-worshipping ways. I can barely even interact with people my own age, because every day is a fight to pay the bills. I can hardly afford to try to court someone. It would mean skipping meals, or being late on rent.
Begrudgingly, I accept your point, Mister who has earned more than 95+% of humanity alive today. You're right. I should be happy with the future I've been given. But... I cannot be, if I am to strive to continue to grow upon what you would describe as the amazing things we already have.
Perhaps pessimistic bias is what spurs economic bias?
Excellent
Go overseas and have a look at all your trash thats being dumped there, miles and miles of it, and the people working tirelessly to sort through those never-ending waste fields. Doesn't look to me like they are enjoying it much. For sure they remember a different time, of peace, forests, laughter, plenty of good food…. now it's all gone, replaced by mountains of stinking rotting trash….
I love this dude.
Something else that wasn't around in 1900 was the FED, IMF, BIS & the Bilderberg Group. Some optimism---NOT.
What economic progress was made between 400ad and 1400ad?
While the world has made huge gains in the last century thanks completely to the combination of the scientific method and a free market.
That is no predictor that the world will continue to make gains.
Especially since their are now only vestiges of the free market in the western world.
I would argue that the first world has been in decline economically for decades, and the growth of the world economy has been due to the rise in the third world, notably China and India.
Thought I should let you know that the source for the income at :58 404'ed
Here's an idea that this video completely ignores: maybe there are things in life that matter more than material wealth and the economy? Things that are being destroyed today in the name of economic progress, like privacy, our collective mental health, or the health of our planet's ecosystems?
Maybe not though, maybe material wealth is the most important thing for humans to value.
+Alexis Martinez We understand and appreciate your sentiment, Alexis.
Wealth and economic prosperity are merely tools or means--albeit important ones. They matter not as ends but because they enable us as individuals to unleash our unique potentials, to improve our lives in the ways each of us sees fit.
With increased prosperity people can have enough to feed themselves and secure their communities. With increased wealth individuals can experiment and create new technologies which alleviate human suffering. Through these technologies, knowledge and education are more readily available than ever before (consider how many people carry nearly infinite access to information via the smartphones in their pockets)--this gives people powerful tools for living flourishing lives. This gives each of us greater access to art, literature, healthcare, and other opportunities wherein people can explore various human values and create meaningful lives for themselves.
Humanity has come a long way, but the future holds even more incredible possibilities--possibilities that will not be realized without economic freedom.
--The Learn Liberty team
Since you're such strong proponents of economic freedom, I'd like to bring up the recent case of Martin Shkreli, the 32-year-old chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals. When Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the 62-year-old drug called Daraprim in August 2015, the company immediately raised the price of one pill from $13.50 to $750. Although this was defended as being necessary to develop newer, better drugs, Shkreli mocked his "haters" on social media and failed to respond to questions regarding what specifically constituted the major price increase, i.e. what added effects would justify the price increase that could not be produced far cheaper using inexpensive combinations of medicines.
It's not exactly "shocking news" to most observant people that wealth inequality continues to expand, despite technological improvements. Economic opportunities continue to shrink or switch to part-time / contract roles. Automation looms, and new technology has produced the incredible Google self-driving car, which threatens tens if not hundreds of millions of reliable jobs in the next 5-10 years.
Isn't total economic freedom just anarchy? To what extent are you willing to allow governments to intervene or manage economies?
+Alexis Martinez Of course you can find examples of things getting less affordable but the all the important trends are positive. Infant mortality is falling, life is getting longer and healthier, stuff is getting more affordable, art and music are getting better and cheaper.
J Oliver Ehh, again, I think you will find that enlightenment is not solely produced by wealth. But then again, we'll see. As for art and music getting better, that's garbage. They're as good as they've always been.
+Alexis Martinez First, in a true free market, Shkreli would not be able to purchase the rights to anything. Patents wouldn't exists and are, on the whole, toxic for the economy. There is little evidence to suggest they actually foster innovation, and, instead, often times do more to stifle it.
On the subject of art, I think there has been a proliferation of art over the last century that is unprecidented in history. Why? Mostly because of medium availability. Movies weren't possible 100+ years ago, photos were not possible 200+ years ago. The pallet of hand draw art forms has expanded immensely where we have people doing abstract art, which has existed for centuries, to people who create scenes so real, they trick the eye to thinking they are actually real, 3D objects. And you can find them on a sidewalk, and enjoy them for free. The music industry is massive in comparison to the options you had 100 years ago. There are more genres of music being produced every day now than than the entire history of the world starting 100 years ago. There are more artists now than ever before in history.
To say they're as good now as they have always been is to just pretend history didn't exist. Technology reduces the amount of time we have to work in our lives and simultaneously opens our lives to new possibilities for enriching our lives. If you want to travel to China today, you can do so in a day, safely, and economically. 200 years ago, that same trip would be almost a year long, carry a real prospect of death, and cost you a fortune. You couldn't just go see The Forbidden City, or the Potala Palace and return home to your family three weeks later, you had to commit a significant portion of your life to see and appreciate other people's creations. If that isn't enriching your life, I don't know what you are talking about.
I guess this guy has never heard of a normalcy bias.
It doesn't deliver any central point. Lack of substance.
Average income is $8,000/year!?
Jeffrey Fung I think he means worldwide.
I want a Basic Income and let the machines do the work.
+Thor Mentha Buy VIG, PID and VB over time.
Productivity and technology have vastly improved, and we reap extensive benefits.
But you still need a place to live and sufficient education to work a job (whatever that requires in your era). Hasn't the cost of both those things increased much faster than income for all but the top few percent?
Our poor can afford electronics because electronics are cheap now. This is a very good thing. But you can't live in a phone.
+Ethan Sterling Not really, if we lived in homes like our grand parents with the SQ feet per person of their time and linoleum floors and heating/cooling system and were educated like they were it would not cost much. NOTE: today most education is free it is diplomas (signals) that costs. Also housing is costlier than it should/could be due to too many counties have slow growth policies.
Don't worry, be happy and stop questioning capitalism.
Obama's *FCC* must have talked with Learn Liberty. I received a letter in the mail saying he's trying to shut down *Talk Radio* & asking for donations...LOL
Is that Milton Friedman's Adam Smith tie?
Indeed it is. Good eye.
The average person didn't live for less than fifty years. The average lifespan of everyone was so low because of the high rate of infant mortality. If you made it past infancy, then you generally lived a long life.
Love this vid :)
Pessimistic bias -- so, Zero Hedge: the Bias?
People are becoming conscious of other people's problems. We may not even know it yet, but we feel bad if we know that not everyone is doing fine. I think the world is leaning heavily toward socialisation, create more equality and opportunity, make things better for everyone, battle social issues together.
And if that's the case, then there really is good reason for hope!
yes, but most of that growth over the past 100 years is due to fiat currency and deficit spending--- aka, everyone maxing out their credit cards!
High inflation and a major correction in the DOW will just be little bumps on the overall uptrend... Hmm. What about the trend over the last decade for less economic freedom and more government spying in the US? What about the massive government debt globally? I guess in the long term we are all dead... So the short term is kind of important to We the Living.
"What about the trend over the last decade for less economic freedom and more government spying in the US? " Not nearly as bad as during and right after WW2. Poverty isn't nearly as bad as during the Great Depression. So if Grandma and Grandpa could get through that, I'm sure people today can get through Obamanomics.
WOW dude! You haven't been paying attention to the news or done any analysis on the economy. Look at home prices and their relationship to mortgage rates for the last 30 years (direct relationship). Look at where the mortgage rates are today as low as possible after years if printing money to get them low. The economy is dependent on home prices rising which is not possible for much longer. Look at home prices in relation to household income. Easy to do analysis with public information.
Just because it could be worse, or was, does not mean it should not be better. this argument is futile, 'everything is amazing' applies to every generation who had it better. 'my grandparents didnt even have this amazing outhouse we're so lucky we dont have to shit in the bucket inside the kitcchen anymore!' wanting more and better is why we create it.
$17.5 trillion debt and growing is not "pessimism bias". It is going to take an awful lot of years of austerity to pay that off, and Americans have already indicated, they are not willing to do it. Moreover, all that rosey "the world is richer than before" stuff may be true, but it is not because of the US. The econommic growth in China and India in the last couple decades is what has been pulling up the world per capita GDP figures. The tens (if not hundreds) of millions in China and India who are better off today can really make the global numbers look good. But it says nothing about the US. And, as Milton Friedman observed in the 1990s as he looked at the economic growth of the "Asian Tigers" - the people in those countries may have enjoyed economic freedom but the had no civil freedoms. That is where the US is headed. If the US turns around economically and manages to pay off its debt, and deal with its trillions in unfunded liabilities the people may be better off economically, but they will have little or no personal freedom. Economic well being, maybe, but at what cost?
Seriously stop it with these videos. 1/3 of America is now in or about to reach poverty level income. Jobless rates are over 25% and this statistic is kept hidden through selective book keeping (if you don't collect benefits congrats job or no you are not jobless). Inflation is reaching higher and higher heights as corporations post larger and larger profits.
This is not a healthy economy. This is a sick and dying economy. There is no positive spin on this!
It's really easy to spout this kind of nonsense when you have a stable, well-paying job. We still have widespread societal problems that cause immense amounts of suffering and death, tens of thousands of people dying annually from preventable causes due to lack of healthcare, private prisons helping push our incarceration rate through the roof, low minimum wage forcing workers to keep running on a financial treadmill without saving up money, etc. Bad news should get more attention than good news, while we still have problems of this magnitude.
Our problems were of an even greater magnitude as little as 20 years ago, that's the point. We should recognize that things are improving and resist, in our impatience, radical changes which might jeopardize future progress.
The guy on this video didn't even touch base on inflation compared to income increases, and I am expected to take him seriously. Also, if "Everything's Amazing", then how come unlimited money printing is not possible in a limited world?
All the numbers he uses are inflation adjusted. He's already account for inflation and removed if from the comparison.
I wanna hear it from the video, not just someone else who watched it. He never said anything about inflation adjustment when he showed the 7% increase, and I want to see the comparison of gains vs losses(like inflation) so I know I'm getting the full story.
I'd guess he didn't mention inflation adjustment just for time reasons, but I don't know. If you click on the annotation with his source it leads to a graph that is clearly inflation adjusted (measuring everything in 2011 dollars).
Its nice that his source compared the inflation to the increase, but as far as other losses (wage cuts, taxes, etc.) I do not know. So with that being typed, we probably will not know how much comparison to other losses have been done, so we can't get the full story on this front. Also, I wanna know how much of that increase is going to the poor and middle class who need it.
This video is giving false hope and does not take into account the cost of living during the 1900's compared to today. In the 1900's people did not need to make much money because everything was cheaper than it is today. The only reason why its hard for us to distinguish the poor and the rich on the street is because even when you are poor, you have still been trained to go out and buy expensive clothes and toys to play with.
Yeh, computers were so much cheaper 100 years ago right!?
TheAragorn22 I'm not talking about computers. Computers are still a very young invention. I'm talking about things you needed, not desired. Another issue that I have with this video is the fact that the person says that today we have longer lives than in the past. Just because we have longer lives today doesn't mean that they are better. If life is so great today, why are so many people on anti depression pills and many other drugs?
the money is inflation adjusted obviously. 1000 dollars all that time ago would be an extremely large sum of money today. it is clear that as a whole we are all better off than we were a few hundred years ago. the main reason for this is not left wing policies about helping the poor, but regulated free markets (yes, oxymoron but you get the point) that ACTUALLY help the poor.
bigbobabc123 I know the amount was adjusted but you can't say that we are better off today than we were 200 years ago. The point that I'm trying to make is that in the past, people were not over-ambitious and did not look for material goods to bring meaning and happiness into their lives. They did not seek a college education or to buy a lot of toys to play with. As long as their basic needs of food and having a place to live were met, they were satisfied. Not saying the past was a utopia, but I just hate it when people say that today we are better off because we have more technology and money. It's funny how economist always seem to measure happiness and the value of a person/country by how much they consume and produce. It's disgusting in my view
TheAragorn22
Lame.
Isn't your title kind of a Louis CK ripoff?
Geez........
Thank you China!
So what if real income went up by 7%. Inflation went up a lot more than that. The American economy is in decline. You can't print money for forever.
Real income is nominal income adjusted for inflation.
No wonder he's so frickin happy - this is the most simplistic and child-like view of nearly every concept known to man.
If income increases by 7% and inflation increases by 7% what actually happened to your income? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "something"