Interesting concepts. All of my greatest business decisions have been motivated by meeting the needs of others. That makes the financial rewards so much sweeter.
@Rohan Dahiya Pluta i am not sure what my expertise has to do with anything. But to answer your question, I studied economics on university level and I have had several quite advanced jobs within finance to understand pretty well what it is about.
It doesn’t matter this isn’t a study it’s something that doesn’t need much explaining because it’s happened over history ,and there is much evidence of sexism in economics
We need to run a world economy that has a "good" index, where countries that help others to develop are the ones that receive laureates, that way there might just be enough dinner for everyone
You make the same error of economics every naive person does. You assume its a zero-sum game. Its ALWAYS the same assumption. But in 1800 there were only a billion people on earth and almost everyon was poor (and compared to today everyone was dirt poor).. In THAT situtation in 1800 somebody with more money had two choices... 1. Invest in yourself 2. Invest in others...I bet you think the first alternative feels wrong but IF they had chosen the first alternative they wouldnt be able to grow the economy and thus everyone would still be dirt poor.... Without FIRST creating a surplus you empty out your reserves. Then you and everyone else starve. Thats real economics - But that doesnt interest you OR the person in the video because it doesnt feel good, it isnt exciting and it never really interested you in the first place. Its actually cold, and hard, and unpleasant and full of selfish people who you have to thank for the economy 200 years later being multiple times more.
@@TheCultureCommentary it is not 1800 now it is theoretically possible to feed everyone, further economical development is much less important right know.
Maybe we should see the hihiking economic theory in which the body is a borrowed vessel to cross the river and would it be wise not to make the vessel any thinner to too much fatter because we have to return the vessel after we cross the river at the end of life.
Economics is the science of choice. If Adam Smiths mother chose to cook his dinner so her own offspring have success surviving and excelling academically, then that in itself is self interest. You can only argue that she was selfless if she was cooking dinner for everyone in the country and not selflishly just her own family.
I agree with you, however I think that even that type of self interest is ignored by the model. I think that economic theory believes we do not think about anybody but ourselves, excluding even our family.
S KA have you studied economics to the extent that you can make that assertion? I don’t think you are correct. Look at the number of economists receiving the Nobel price with different views. K does not include that in her speech. She is riding the feministic wave.
Oh, a Swedish journalist is speaking on TedX Youth about how economics ... forgot about women. This should be interesting. 0:57 Ah, reading the minds of others. A feminist specialty. Guess what? Two can play at that game. You're telling us why HE said something. You must think we're idiots or misandrists or both. One anecdote = big sexism problem in the field of economics. Economics itself is, apparently, sexist. Tell me, do you feel SAFE in Sweden? Do you feel safe walking around at night? Now ask your grandmother if SHE felt safe walking around at night and, if not, was it due to rapists or b/c of something like wolves? But whatever, keep pushing your ideology. It's obviously doing so much good for Sweden. I go to work every day without having someone at home to mind the house. Lots of people do. Married AND single both have examples of having no one at home. Hell, even with KIDS there are latch key kids who come home and there's no adults there. Maybe some siblings. Maybe nobody. 5:15 Choice. Have you heard of it? If you think it's real, there you go. If you do NOT think it's real, there you go. Sigh... say what you mean. You're putting a 'proper wage' on unpaid household labor. Say what you really want: women to be paid for their choice to stay home. Explain where the money comes from. Explain what happens when everyone ELSE is suddenly making half or less what they WERE making b/c we're now paying women (and some few men) for work that was previously unpaid. You're the economist, right? 9:04 The world's economy is not run by children under 5. It's a cheap way of insulting the people who DO, arguably, control the economy. Now, I can't stand rich people. That's pretty much where I'm at but even I know that the people who run the economy are not children. 9:54 You SAY that "we" have been taught that certain things are male and certain things are female. Why is it that YOU are pushing gender roles and you're the feminist and I am an anti-feminist and I don't think these things are 'male' or 'female' but, rather, whatever a man does is male (be it fixing a car or wearing a dress) and whatever a woman does is female (be it fixing a car or wearing a dress)? 9:54-10:02 I do believe that the foremost characteristic of this 'economic cartoon person' is that this ECP is self interested, willing to work for money but not inclined to work any harder than ECP has to and not wanting to spend ECP's money frivolously. I mean, again, I'm no economist but I'd bet my left testicle that any economics book doesn't spend the first couple of chapters dwelling on how muscular and hairy the ECP is, on how much the ECP scratches his balls and likes cowboy movies and whatever. That you think this is not because you're an economist but because you're a FEMINIST. It's just pure ideological bias. 11:27 Yeah, it's almost as if, to create a "science" about super complicated, messy human activities, they had to simplify things. Wow.
I don't know what she's complaining about to be honest. Sweden is as socialist as they come. Maybe she wants to push a bit towards the C word if you know what I mean
manuforever143 True. And it's always 'all of society" that has to change. There's never any "buy up some land and try their ideas out" that goes along with it. Eh. I'm guilty of that myself though. I'm an MRA and I've yet to buy a few square miles of land and see what equal rights for men would create. Then again, I don't know if the MRM has that kind of money at it's disposal. I certainly don't. I'd like to see it tested though.
+zorro baggins the funny thing is, is how much this lady and others like her have to manipulate and twist the meaning of things to get their point across. She tries so hard to find something sexist about Adam Smith and his economic theories and she fails miserably. We see that of course because we keep our emotions in check and actually think about what she's saying but I'll be damned, some people eat this stuff right up cuz it gets em right in the feels
Please tell us more about how you'd like to be compensated monetarily for the work that you do outside of any market? And that doesn't matter if you're male or female. Also, the whole reason the "economic man" was created was to find simplicity and patterns in the economic system. If you'd like to create a theory that takes into account everyone's feelings and emotions, and irrational decisions, be my guest. You won't succeed
***** Alright, if childcare is to be counted as a public good, how will we pay for it? How much will we pay? How will we determined how the compensation is to be distributed? Do better housewives get compensated more than bad ones? How much will someone be paid to be a housewife? Will it depend on how many children they have? How much work they do? How much will our taxes increase? Since you're talking about a huge new public expense here, how do you see it all working out? Since I'm vastly ignorant, I'm going to rely on your immense knowledge on the subject
Excellent questions!.... those are the ones who smart economists have to answer. The fact that you do not have an answer for those ones does not mean they are not influencing how the society works and are a big component of why economic theory fails most of the times
+John Manoochehri Well your sentiment is understood. I'm telling you right now, whether we are capable of paying for it is besides the point. The logistics of it, which you are unable to elaborate on, are what's important here. The kind of policy is so prime for abuse and misuse that no policy would be able to control it.
Poor women, men always forgetting about them, what a shame, and yes that's probably the source of the whole problem with economic theory indeed. Irony face
I don't understand the point she is trying to make. Is she insinuating that economics has room for aspects traditionally seen as female? That there is room for emotion or grace towards people? Or is it more veiled "man bad" policy, barely hidden behind a veneer of calling ideal economics written by men childish and cruel? I actually don't know what she is suggesting, is she suggesting people should be paid for their good graces? As I learned economics, it is not that there is no room for these aspects, but that these are less efficient than ideal - they work less well on average. Not that they don't happen.
She is Beautiful Woman, But She Does NOT Know What She is Talking About, What She is Talking About is Mostly Either False Or NON Sense Or Simply NOT True : Obvious To Men.. Almost ALL Feminists including Almost ALL Excessively Emotional People Do NOT Think Rationally Or Think irrationally is WHY ALL Past Nations And Economies Were Ruined Or Eventually Ruined By People Who Lack Basic Common Sense Or Lack Of Reasoning Skills. And, Lot Of Men ALSO Do NOT Think Rationally is WHY You R Forced To Pay Property Tax, And Also Forced To Pay Car insurance [ Property Tax ] And Tax To Work { Higher Education } And Then There is inheritance Tax : Extra $ Given To Government Which Gives That $ To the Super Rich People in Form OF $ Laundering is Legal For Super Rich, But NOT For Poor People
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting concepts. All of my greatest business decisions have been motivated by meeting the needs of others. That makes the financial rewards so much sweeter.
Recommended Read: Pregnant Then Screwed: The Truth About the Motherhood Penalty and How to Fix It | Joeli Brearley
I really appreciated this video. I always found Adam Smith's core idea absurdly reductive in a way that's offensive to the capacity of human nature.
What flavor were the lead paint chips growing up?
"in a way that's offensive to the capacity of human nature."
Wrong, the problem is the reality of human nature is offensive to YOUR fantasy.
I always found the core idea of physics of a perfect sphere offensive to the capacity of earth to have mountains.
what books from adam smith did you read?
Great ted talk! I applaud you!
Liliana Ibanez why is it great? She is no economist. It is like a non virologist talking about virology. Kinda silly. Katrine is riding the bandwagon.
@Rohan Dahiya Pluta i am not sure what my expertise has to do with anything. But to answer your question, I studied economics on university level and I have had several quite advanced jobs within finance to understand pretty well what it is about.
@Rohan Dahiya Pluta yes I did
It doesn’t matter this isn’t a study it’s something that doesn’t need much explaining because it’s happened over history ,and there is much evidence of sexism in economics
@@johreh stick to finance bro, this isnt for your small brain
We need to run a world economy that has a "good" index, where countries that help others to develop are the ones that receive laureates, that way there might just be enough dinner for everyone
You make the same error of economics every naive person does. You assume its a zero-sum game. Its ALWAYS the same assumption. But in 1800 there were only a billion people on earth and almost everyon was poor (and compared to today everyone was dirt poor).. In THAT situtation in 1800 somebody with more money had two choices... 1. Invest in yourself 2. Invest in others...I bet you think the first alternative feels wrong but IF they had chosen the first alternative they wouldnt be able to grow the economy and thus everyone would still be dirt poor.... Without FIRST creating a surplus you empty out your reserves. Then you and everyone else starve.
Thats real economics - But that doesnt interest you OR the person in the video because it doesnt feel good, it isnt exciting and it never really interested you in the first place. Its actually cold, and hard, and unpleasant and full of selfish people who you have to thank for the economy 200 years later being multiple times more.
@@TheCultureCommentary it is not 1800 now it is theoretically possible to feed everyone, further economical development is much less important right know.
@@TheCultureCommentary it IS a zero sum game :))
Such an eye opener!!
i don't think i would care or have love for anything if the results of those actions where always a bad or neutral feeling
There is no Nobel prize in economics. Get your facts in order.
Yes there is. Go back to your Andrew Tate podcasts and DeSantis rally videos and incel forums.
Jeesus. I demand you fix that TH-cam thumbnail image.
What was the answer of Adam Smith
Incredible Ted talk. Amusing really. Thank you.
Maybe we should see the hihiking economic theory in which the body is a borrowed vessel to cross the river and would it be wise not to make the vessel any thinner to too much fatter because we have to return the vessel after we cross the river at the end of life.
Economics is the science of choice. If Adam Smiths mother chose to cook his dinner so her own offspring have success surviving and excelling academically, then that in itself is self interest. You can only argue that she was selfless if she was cooking dinner for everyone in the country and not selflishly just her own family.
Oh my goodness! How small-minded are you? I hope you find a meaning to life
I agree with you, however I think that even that type of self interest is ignored by the model. I think that economic theory believes we do not think about anybody but ourselves, excluding even our family.
S KA have you studied economics to the extent that you can make that assertion? I don’t think you are correct. Look at the number of economists receiving the Nobel price with different views. K does not include that in her speech. She is riding the feministic wave.
wright answer. these woman have no knowledge of econimics.
@@johreh yes. right replay
Oh, a Swedish journalist is speaking on TedX Youth about how economics ... forgot about women. This should be interesting.
0:57
Ah, reading the minds of others. A feminist specialty. Guess what? Two can play at that game. You're telling us why HE said something. You must think we're idiots or misandrists or both.
One anecdote = big sexism problem in the field of economics. Economics itself is, apparently, sexist.
Tell me, do you feel SAFE in Sweden? Do you feel safe walking around at night? Now ask your grandmother if SHE felt safe walking around at night and, if not, was it due to rapists or b/c of something like wolves? But whatever, keep pushing your ideology. It's obviously doing so much good for Sweden.
I go to work every day without having someone at home to mind the house. Lots of people do. Married AND single both have examples of having no one at home. Hell, even with KIDS there are latch key kids who come home and there's no adults there. Maybe some siblings. Maybe nobody.
5:15
Choice. Have you heard of it? If you think it's real, there you go. If you do NOT think it's real, there you go.
Sigh... say what you mean. You're putting a 'proper wage' on unpaid household labor. Say what you really want: women to be paid for their choice to stay home. Explain where the money comes from. Explain what happens when everyone ELSE is suddenly making half or less what they WERE making b/c we're now paying women (and some few men) for work that was previously unpaid. You're the economist, right?
9:04
The world's economy is not run by children under 5. It's a cheap way of insulting the people who DO, arguably, control the economy. Now, I can't stand rich people. That's pretty much where I'm at but even I know that the people who run the economy are not children.
9:54
You SAY that "we" have been taught that certain things are male and certain things are female. Why is it that YOU are pushing gender roles and you're the feminist and I am an anti-feminist and I don't think these things are 'male' or 'female' but, rather, whatever a man does is male (be it fixing a car or wearing a dress) and whatever a woman does is female (be it fixing a car or wearing a dress)?
9:54-10:02
I do believe that the foremost characteristic of this 'economic cartoon person' is that this ECP is self interested, willing to work for money but not inclined to work any harder than ECP has to and not wanting to spend ECP's money frivolously. I mean, again, I'm no economist but I'd bet my left testicle that any economics book doesn't spend the first couple of chapters dwelling on how muscular and hairy the ECP is, on how much the ECP scratches his balls and likes cowboy movies and whatever. That you think this is not because you're an economist but because you're a FEMINIST. It's just pure ideological bias.
11:27
Yeah, it's almost as if, to create a "science" about super complicated, messy human activities, they had to simplify things. Wow.
I don't know what she's complaining about to be honest. Sweden is as socialist as they come. Maybe she wants to push a bit towards the C word if you know what I mean
manuforever143
Maybe. But then again... that band, Pussy Riot seems to think they have something to complain about in Russia. Odd.
+zorro baggins you know the thing about those wingers. They are never satisfied with the way things are. Always something to "change"
manuforever143
True. And it's always 'all of society" that has to change. There's never any "buy up some land and try their ideas out" that goes along with it. Eh. I'm guilty of that myself though. I'm an MRA and I've yet to buy a few square miles of land and see what equal rights for men would create. Then again, I don't know if the MRM has that kind of money at it's disposal. I certainly don't. I'd like to see it tested though.
+zorro baggins the funny thing is, is how much this lady and others like her have to manipulate and twist the meaning of things to get their point across. She tries so hard to find something sexist about Adam Smith and his economic theories and she fails miserably. We see that of course because we keep our emotions in check and actually think about what she's saying but I'll be damned, some people eat this stuff right up cuz it gets em right in the feels
Please tell us more about how you'd like to be compensated monetarily for the work that you do outside of any market? And that doesn't matter if you're male or female. Also, the whole reason the "economic man" was created was to find simplicity and patterns in the economic system. If you'd like to create a theory that takes into account everyone's feelings and emotions, and irrational decisions, be my guest. You won't succeed
***** Alright, if childcare is to be counted as a public good, how will we pay for it? How much will we pay? How will we determined how the compensation is to be distributed? Do better housewives get compensated more than bad ones? How much will someone be paid to be a housewife? Will it depend on how many children they have? How much work they do? How much will our taxes increase? Since you're talking about a huge new public expense here, how do you see it all working out? Since I'm vastly ignorant, I'm going to rely on your immense knowledge on the subject
Excellent questions!.... those are the ones who smart economists have to answer. The fact that you do not have an answer for those ones does not mean they are not influencing how the society works and are a big component of why economic theory fails most of the times
+John Manoochehri Well your sentiment is understood. I'm telling you right now, whether we are capable of paying for it is besides the point. The logistics of it, which you are unable to elaborate on, are what's important here. The kind of policy is so prime for abuse and misuse that no policy would be able to control it.
At what point in this talk does she express the need for domestic and reproductive labour to be monetarily compensated?
give the lady a break she broke silence for a cause, 1000s of years none spoke for women
Poor women, men always forgetting about them, what a shame, and yes that's probably the source of the whole problem with economic theory indeed. Irony face
Suggest you dump irony and do some basic research - you might learn something about reality
lmao
@@mauriceneville860 Bro ,real irony is that the people like to blame something/someone rather than doing some research.
"poor women, man forgetting about them self" bro, no body forgets them self
@@mauriceneville860 He won't. His conservatism won't allow it.
Wuhuu brilliant. Congrats
I don't understand the point she is trying to make. Is she insinuating that economics has room for aspects traditionally seen as female? That there is room for emotion or grace towards people? Or is it more veiled "man bad" policy, barely hidden behind a veneer of calling ideal economics written by men childish and cruel?
I actually don't know what she is suggesting, is she suggesting people should be paid for their good graces?
As I learned economics, it is not that there is no room for these aspects, but that these are less efficient than ideal - they work less well on average. Not that they don't happen.
What a pretty woman ... she's a little obsessed with sexism ... but I guess she is Swedish !
Comment about her body, not caring about she is saying... Do you want to prove her point any further?
No woman wants you. Just say that and go to therapy.
Watch some video of Milton Fridman, hope you could understand some economics
Friedman was a cultist and not an economist.
@@mdaniels6311 why not? his theory MV=PY is recognized by universits all over the world. Do your research than comment
Sexism isn’t the problem. Ageism of women is the problem.
Ageism of men is OK???
@@prokremelskidezolati1426
Bring up cases for your argument, then we can talk about it.
She is Beautiful Woman, But She Does NOT Know What She is Talking About, What She is Talking About is Mostly Either False Or NON Sense Or Simply NOT True : Obvious To Men.. Almost ALL Feminists including Almost ALL Excessively Emotional People Do NOT Think Rationally Or Think irrationally is WHY ALL Past Nations And Economies Were Ruined Or Eventually Ruined By People Who Lack Basic Common Sense Or Lack Of Reasoning Skills. And, Lot Of Men ALSO Do NOT Think Rationally is WHY You R Forced To Pay Property Tax, And Also Forced To Pay Car insurance [ Property Tax ] And Tax To Work { Higher Education } And Then There is inheritance Tax : Extra $ Given To Government Which Gives That $ To the Super Rich People in Form OF $ Laundering is Legal For Super Rich, But NOT For Poor People