ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ส.ค. 2023
- For decades, the free market was lauded for fostering enterprise and pulling millions of people out of poverty. Today, as younger generations struggle to achieve the prosperity of their parents, there’s an increasing debate about the pitfalls of a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality. In this episode of Business Beyond, we examine the growth in big government around the world, looking at the impact of US President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, and how climate change, the Covid-19 health emergency and the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine are shifting attitudes towards the government’s role in society. Featuring expert analysis from former WTO Chief Pascal Lamy, historian and author Jacob Soll, Rakeen Mabud of Groundwork Collaborative, economist Jakob Hafele and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute Felicia Wong.
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#freemarket #economics #nationalism
![ตรงที่เดิม - ฝน พรสุดา [ต้นฉบับ :เบส ขวางหวัน]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c5YnbGEztI8/mqdefault.jpg)
Europeans are complaining about being too free? I don't think they understand just how protectionist the EU is
Not anymore...the EU had the highest trade deficit of 432 Billion Euros in 2022. France alone was 200 Billion Euros which puts it fourth on the world ranking.
@@thethrawnscotsman5260funny, that number is from 2021? Because 5 days ago they just announced this:
"The trade balance between the European Union and the rest of the world has returned to surplus after six consecutive quarters of deficit.
The shift took place in the second quarter of this year when the bloc registered a modest surplus of €1 billion, according to a new report released by Eurostat"
You cherrypicked one of the worse year in EU trade relation with the world when oil prices is peaked. The EU trade nothing ( monopoly money) for billions of metric tons of goods and products, what do you want? Should everyone just starve to death? What do you suggest we do?
@@thethrawnscotsman5260most of that is with other EU countries
Without protectionism, we'd have American corporations turning Europe into a hellhole, grabbing our national parks and turning them into fossil fuel.
The free market was always a lie. In North America governments regularly bailed out massive corporations to the tune of billions of dollars.
As a private citizen I'm *supposed* to keep three months of living expenses as a fallback. During the pandemic most businesses failed after a week or two, and were summarily bailed out.
There is no free market it's brutal individuality for the common citizen. and endless free money for big business.
If it was a free market all these big players would've had consequences for their failure at risk management and planning.
I don't know enough about Korean economy to counter your claims but with the amount of corruption, and the fact that big business in Korea infiltrated government, I have my suspicions that they are a good model for government intervention in the market.
I have suspicions on that...
Samsung runs South Korea in my personal opinion but I am sure there are other companies that are in on it.
@@mrdwets8952 That's exactly what I'm getting at. As a North American I'm going ... "eeeh I dont' like that?" but I can't say it's bad.
free market is a funny thought experiment that exists in our dreams.
in truth, how will you have any market and private property without the state to "legitimate" these things by protecting them by allocating manpower for these things?
@@user-mo9gt6rd2i That's nice. The issue isn't the *owner* of the company it's how the companies behave. German, Chinese, American, Korean they are all evil.
companies only seek profit.
Government bailing out corporations, which are themselves government created entities, is no part of a free market system. Free markets are called free because they are suppose to be free from government manipulation.
Free Markets do exist. But only in early stages of a new industry. after time, big fish eat little fish competition eventually weeds out the weaker companies/businesses leaving a ever closer monopolistic/oligarchial system of power consolidation in the market, which self destructs the free market.
What happens is greedy people trick poor people into thinking the government will protect them from their greed and convince the people to vote for policies that seemingly are suppose to help the poor, but in fact only enriches the elite. This is called socialism.
Even then it's not a free market. When Britian, France, Germany, USA and Japan began their industrialisation, they had very protectionist policies and subsidies to their industry in order to grow it.
But when they developed and monopolized their market, they started expanding into new markets (age of imperialism) wich lasts to this day, although in a bit different form.
withdraw marxists! Spit your lies elsewhere.
@@suddenly_radical4558sounds like a weak excuse to mention imperialism. You argue against them no matter the scenario.
@@HiHo-zh4rd Not really. Not at all, in fact. While Imperialism wasn't created by industrialisation, industrialisation in the West enabled and encouraged the rise of extremely aggressive imperialism (it's actually called "New Imperialism" by historians and political scientists), because the industrialised nations not only needed markets, but also resources to feed their industries.
I honestly do not believe that countries like US, Britain... practice free market at least not the way it was meant to be otherwise there wouldn't have been all that bailout for companies when they fail. The people now realize this which is why they are turning against it. Its also very dangerous to let the fate of an entire economy be decided by greedy CEOs or stock market gamblers.
Protectionism will last until the state can't be afford it. Ming dynasty was a perfect example of protectionism that took a long time to go wrong...
Very good overview, thank you.
If I had to choose 1 point to spend a couple more minutes on, it is the wealth decline of the majority and the policies that contributed. This is important to understand so it can be tackled as soon as possible. Workers that receive incomes that keep pase, have renewed abilities to build personal wealth, and those better incomes and wealth pay taxes to our governments for the state support being discussed. Defunding workers, corporations avoiding taxes, which reduces public funding through less tax being paid, and these propper wage increases are staying with the corporations as their income to pay dividends to those already wealthy. The systems that tried to protect us all, like in covid, and build our roads and hospitals and schools, has been shortcut and defunded.
Workers pay the most taxes. Since the corporations don't pay, won't pay, to prioritise paying shareholders, pay the people who are doing the work, who pay the most in taxes. This will only increase social stability.
Economic nationalism means self sufficiency. Germany has no ability for self sufficiency.
But they do get free ice-cream.
If there is a will, there would be a solution. Self-sufficient needs government intervention to help out industries that would be more profit if produce in other countries.
If any European country can do it, my bet is on Germany.
@@cinpeace353
Investment abroad has no help for domestic employment. Industries moving to abroad makes industrial hollowing-out.
@@bigwombat7286
Without cheap oil and gas from Russia,Germany loses its golden age .
Practice protectionism locally, push free market in foreign lands
The only reason free market is taking a step back it's just because the new geopolitical landscape doesn't allow a full dominion over other countries
When your enemies start threatening people, you tend to keep your important supply chains close to home. Nothing to do with “allowing full dominion” over anything lmfao
That's actually well put
The buyers of commodities usually prioritized price, then quality and maybe last the location of production. Hence free market, nothing “allowing full dominion” .
Absolutely. Conservative and neo-Liberal Americans wont be happy reading this
@@jakeroper1096Then why have soo many western countries pushed free market on Asia and latin America at gun point?
If I can compete, you must free your market! If not, American first!
Slimy troll
government has roles to play. but it has to be balanced and limited
False
Basically the Chinese system
@@banjoowo4001 chinese govenrment massively overreach into every private sectors
@@banjoowo4001 You think balanced and limited is the china system 🤣 youre outta your mind
Europe and the west as a whole hasn't been looking after their own interests properly for a long time. The biggest example of this is of course allowing western companies to shift production to China and elsewhere in Asia without any sanctions. Before the globalization kicked in, most of the west had various ways to protect their economy and manufacturing which prevented such things.
Then came the corporate lobbyists whom were sadly able to convince people in power all over the west, that lowering the customs barriers and moving production after cheap labor was a great idea.. and the rest is history.
yeah, I am pretty sure you are willing to work in the clothes factory for 10 hrs and get 20 dollars everyday. You should know your comfortable life is based on the hard-working asian workers, stop talking like a fool.
Globalization accelerated after the fall of USSR. There would probably be restraints to Globalization if USSR still exists.
I thought they were going to take the direction that's it's not really a free market anymore because majority of industries are dominated by a few large multinational corporations. There isn't real competition anymore and many large corporations cooperate more than they compete to ensure they both maximize their profits and retain their market share. And it's very difficult to start a small business today and be able to compete with these larger corporations. And by the time you get big enough to be a marginal threat they buy you out, which hurts the consumer. Outside of inflation, this is another reason prices are so high because who else are you going to buy from?
European demographics are horrible. What's unfair with the United States taking advantage of its geography, demographics and independence in a time that globalization is decaying due to demographics. The United States is looking out for Its interests. I'm sure most others will do the same. It is already happening. What we've known since Breton Woods is dying and a new, unknown age is coming upon us.
Can Singapore's economy be considered free market when most major Singaporean companies are owned by the state? In fact, China's economy was initially modeled after Singapore's.
China is also not a centrally planned economy. The private sector makes up 40% of the economy, and most of the state enterprises are also required to compete in the market.
Freedom does not exist it is a chimera !
The "free market" isn't dead per se, but the corrupt treasonous greedy executives that sold out domestic interests to problematic/adversarial countries has always been ill fated. Better cooperation with allies, more prudence with others, and don't strengthen problematic/adversarial countries. Increased accountability is demanded. Markets can still grow amid such limitations.
define "free market"
I think it's good to see it finally changing. Because its obvious to anyone over 40 who's seen the changes in society over that time, that the average person hasn't done well out of it. It's not that difficult to have a balance, rather than any particular end having its own way. You need a happy, healthy and prosperous middle class. It's why the 50's and 60's were such boom years.
Who cares about the below whatever middle class is right
50s and 60s were boom years because the world was destroyed
successfully burning fossil fuels. That's all.
Nothing is free in a market, except maybe the water fountain, if they have one. What we want is Free Enterprise. That gives everyone the freedom to create. That is a much more substantial thing that can benefit everybody, and not just the profiteers of the world. Big business has stifled creativity and that is dragging mankind down. Witness global warming, where enterprising individuals are stymied in their efforts to help save our way of life.
Europeans are constantly grumbling why US is giving incentives to this and that industry while they have closed their eyes to the trillions of dollars of subsidies that the Chinese government gave to its industries for 4+ decades and it still does, at the same time, Europeans still insist on appeasing China. Hypocrisy at its highest level.
All we have a bit of hypocrisy, it's just human breed being human breed.
China is a better ally than the usa.
Unlike the US, China never sold us the idea of free market…they never claimed they were a free market or a democracy.
And don’t forget the fact that EU engages in it own protectionism through massive subsidies and non trade and trade barriers it puts against non members. Hypocrisy, really. They only cry foul when they perceive that other countries protectionism hurts EU interest.
Big economic problems do not call for big government interventions, but big die-off's.
Thats how we got the Great Depression though.
Big economic problems require mass Government Spending and guidelines to help keep the gears of the economy running temporarily before they could start running itself.
Government incentives also helps grow new sectors like Green Energy, helping to bing in not just Public Money, but also Privet Money.
@@lostonearth7856I agree with public incentives, but no the government spending alone did not get the US out of the depression, it was the destruction of all the competition (Europe) that gave the US the time to take over most the worlds industry before the competition started to bounce back.
There is definitely a larger nationalism focus in the last few years. However, the central framing of this is incorrect. We didn't have a completely free market before 2020, and now have an interventionist market. All that's changed is where the interventions are targeted, and which classes get the most support.
From 1980 to 2020, we subsidized oil and gas, we allowed monopolies to form based on acquisitions and new technology, and we intervened to support banks and finance and cut taxes to the ultra rich and allow them to hide their money in offshore banks.
We're just focusing now on green tech and trying to get at least some money to flow to the middle and lower classes, because the previous Reagan-voodoo economics didn't trickle down, and was never intended to
Not bad, but after the Farming Lobbies, O&G have a big gun in DC circles. Oil and Gas have been getting subsidies since back when many of them still had visible coal mining operations. And it only got worse during and then after WW2, when most of the US producing wells were only producing a fraction of their prewar rates- due to massive overproduction to supply eight out of every ten gallons of fuel, lubricants and other petrochemical based war needs- which includes explosive agents as well. It took till well past the turn into the 21st Century to see US production back at the top- and billions of dollars to get it there. Considering the profits Big Oil has made all though this, I will not be saddened in the least to see them lose their subsidized ride. And here is the real kicker; every quarter since WW2 that a Democrat was in the WH, Big Oil has been more profitable than when the "other guys" are. A statistical fact, not a guess or "TV gleaned" factoid. And don't even open the door to Big Oil and their responsibility for the modern ME disaster we have today. A better argument for government reigning in greedy, self promoting business people has never existed. Big Oil was paying ME nations less for the crude than what they paid in taxes on all of the finished products up until OPEC took a hand at the table. OPEC came into existence just because of those rapacious business people.
Offshore manufacturing and the cost drops, but you don't have a job. Bring it home, and the cost of the product rises. You have a job, but don't make enough to buy the products made domestically. Either way you're screwed.
We aren't in supply and demand economies for a while now, electronics are made for 2-4 years and are artificialy agning, house markets are taken hostile by large corporations, same as many other aspects of economy, squezing as much as they can from what was once middle class.
The government tries to have no regulation while simultaneously minimize the effects of the boom-bust cycle. Regulations on financial institutions (Such as Glass Steagall) were reduced or removed, and the resulting implosions were monetized by the federal government and federal reserve. The free market was abandoned for artificially low interest rates in 2008 and the path back to anything that resembles a free market will be painful. There are massive amounts of debt that will eventually have to be repaid. The choices are default, inflation, austerity, or some combination of all three.
Sadly sir I fear that you are right. We really screwed up in 2008.
We cant really call the current global system a "free market" economy anymore, when most important industries are concentrated on 2 to 5 gigantic conglomerates and much of the infrastructure in developed countries is divided between an equally low number of private providers (network infrastructure and housing in the US, Australia and Germany for example). The profit motive driving these corporations along with this concentration of capital leads naturally to lower innovation (especially in older industries) as investing in innovation, especially fundamental, bears inherent risk and disruptive startups are simply absorbed, which is perhaps most visible in the tech sector.
Addtionally theres considerable state intervention in every market, which is supposed to keep a balance between a functioning, ideally free, market and social stability and public interest. However its quite obvious how much political influence these huge corporate actors (as well as the wealthy individuals owning them) are wielding, a trend which will most likely keep accelerating as capital becomes more and more concentrated (wealth inequality in the west today is comparable to pre-1914 levels as per Piketty). This phenomenon is both detrimental to the interests of the general population as their social and economical security is increasingly under threat, as well as the ideal of a free, innovative, dynamic and efficient market economy, which requires competition, a consumer base being able to make informed choices and effective governance able to regulate the economic sphere according to these maximes.
The US has a massive disenfranchised lower class, an increasingly strained middle class being forced to fund the state and an upper class, which seeks to free itself of social and financial obligations with increasing radicality by means of influencing or outright controlling the government, which threatens the lackluster social security provided to the lower class as well as the precarious economic situation of the middle class, which is understandably questioning a system of governance, which it is forced to uphold yet which doesnt represent its interests adequately (or even at all).
We see the same trends in Europe even though the lower classes, and to a lesser extent, the middle classes generally have more access to more generous welfare. The primary driver of authoritarian popularity are not the poor, but the aching lower middle classes. Should this trend continue we will likely see the lower classes join this trend of political radicalization en masse and drive the nations back into identitarian authoritarianism.
In my opinion theres really no other way to effectively combat this development, which, if left unchecked, WILL end liberal democracy in favour of authoritarian forms of governance, than to force the wealthy to bear their fair share of the societal finanical burdens, eliminate subversive and undue capital influence on governance and, in my opinion, ensure that wealth and economic opportuntiy are more equally shared and distributed before heavy-handed, inefficient and politically fickle redistribution efforts by the state.
Well put. Your warning will be ignored by the American type conservative (usually from Upper Middle class to Upper class background).
Let not forget the advent of A.I. it will have a dramatic effect on employment in all spheres of employment mainly in the middle class. Doctors lawyers and skilled technicians will have their work life disrupted by machines which will do a better job. The money men in the top 1% will take an even bigger chunk of the national wealth. Of course with the right policies everyone could benefit, but politics is run by the money men who are not going to work against their own best interests and never have.
Smart 💯👍🏽
As long as it is beneficial to the decision makers, they'll be the advocate of free markets. The same with competition. As long as your companies are winning the "competition" it is good, after they are beaten then competition is no longer as supported.
Media in 2580: "Is capitalism dead?"
Free market = greed.
Best thing government can do to bring down inflation is change the tax code for residential sector. Wallstreet buying up houses to rent is killing the next generation americans. Estimated by 2030, 40% of single family houses will be owned by wallstreet to rent. Middle class is disappearing thanks to them controlling the prices to an extreme.
One massively important thing DW & most experts here didn't take to account is the time frame from which they are taking their stands.
Maybe the bars are higher in the chart for state intervention, zoom out a little then you see it has killed great empires for millenia in the past!!!
Isn't the South Korean government beholden to Samsung and a handful of other dominant companies?
The way this video was framed demonstrates just how enormously successful neoliberalism was at changing the ideological superstructure of the European political economy, basically wiping away the memory of the massive state intervention that existed under the post-war era of social democracy in western and central Europe. When the US is an example of broad-based state intervention, you know that Europe has lost the plot when it comes to its own economic history before the EU existed and began imposing neoliberal austerity measures in the form of limits to national deficits, reductions in state budgets and state workforces, alongside the Eurozone’s power in forcing the sort of low-inflation obsessed currency policies that Germany and the Netherlands have had for decades (vs the higher inflation model that Italy and France had that used currency devaluations whenever debts became too large, thus making their exports competitive again and fixing currency crises) and guaranteed freedom of capital. Europeans should read about the economic history they had before neoliberalism and learn from their own history.
Nov 3 2022..185 member states sign on to UN resolution condemning the US and it’s economic embargo of Cuba..Two countries abstain, Ukraine and Brazil. Two countries vote no, Israel and the United States.
Countries can do business with Cuba, its only US companies that aren't allowed to. US never stopped sending food and medical supplies to Cuba. So what excuse do other countries have for not doing business with Cuba?
This video omits a lot of information. For starters, the US already amended the IRA to include foreign EV vehicles eligible for the tax credits, if sold on lease. You could also mention how the EU is extremely protectionist in their agricultural policy, and their own vehicle industry.
We in the EU ask the same as the US does, except we dont require US companies to manucfafcture batteries in the EU or to mine ingredients in the EU, so no, EU is more liberal than the US. Well, of course now it will be reciprocated, which will hit hard Tesla and Panasonic.
There really wasn't a free market to begin with...
This sounds like an ad for nationalism 😂
Excellent piece 👍🏻
Economies (countries) will look our for their best interests. U.S. can't afford to leave everything up to China and Europe's aging population.
Well, I guess now is the perfect time for Ha-Joon Chang to say "I told you so"! There's no such thing as a free market!
Some markets are still more free than others..
Concise information, by eloquent speakers. Appreciated.
beautiful business piece,informative. good work!
In a completely free market, it's survival of the fittest, which means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer until they starve. So government intervention is needed. But not all intervention is automatically good, and too much of it will cripple the market to the point where it cannot function any more. At the moment, government interventions are concentrating on attracting investors with lots of money, which means that, again, only the rich profit, while most of the population does not see any benefit.
Do you mean common prosperity?
Not true at all. Without "too big to fail" hundreds of fortune 500 companies would exist anymore. Government is keeping commerce stagnant.
The West lost the competition.
The reason this is all is happening is because of corporate greed and the fallacy that corporations will help the country and not hoard all of the wealth for themselves
There was never a “free market”
The US relied on govt spending to goose the economy for 23 consecutive years, a whole generation of budget deficits leading to today 32T$ govt debt, and over 1.2T a year of debt service just for 2023. Interfer with the markets to avoid recession has perils.
India paid huge price because of that as east India Company, we learn our lesson in 200yrs. That why India is protectionist.
India’s economy is pretty bad tho
9:00 what technology competition?? What groundbreaking tech IP does the EU produce?
You need a mix of free market and protectionism, that’s the way to go.
Chinese characteristic socialism market...
lol
Thank. you so very much for the insightful coverage. Love your new format :)
Going from less free market economics to more government intervention and economic nationalism is a global tendency and a historic trend trying to be in equilibrium and to avoid extremisms.
thank you, please continue
"There were some rumblings about this but ultimately nothing happened" is the America's whole shtick
The US market has become more national protective over the years. Meanwhile the EU had been signing one free trade agreement after another. Just not with the US - because they are too protective and think they can dictate the rules.
The biggest problem is the Stock Market it is where all the wealth is funeled through banks, insurance companies, and investment firms, their greed is insaitable and their loyalty is to that greed.
Free market should only be applied nationally, not internationally, in my
Opinion.
free market =/= free trade to most Americans. The free market usually means a domestic business environment with a low tax burden, low regulatory burden, few price controls, few restrictions on how business is done. Free trade is how easy it is to trade goods and services across borders.
Americans largely still like a free market (with the exception of the democratic socialist movement in the democrat party) but are now skeptical of free trade as many of costs of globalization (off shoring jobs and profits, industrial capacity decay, intellectual property theft) have become more apparent and many of the promises have failed to appear (spread of democracy, world peace, universal mutual benefit).
Economic nationalism is never going to be the solution. To quote Peter Jaihan, the only continents that can grow in isolationism are the United States and India. Economic nationalism is the tip of the iceberg, and the real cause is Chinese nationalism, which has destroyed global supply chains. They have the ability to oversupply every industry and destroy all manufacturing by offering unrealistically low prices. Because they believe they can easily manipulate free markets, and because they see capitalism as a weakness of the free democratic world, China and Russia will continue to do this.
The big change in recent years have been the overt and advanced negative industry astroturfing. Supercharged by the advent of online social media. Advertising also became hyper advanced. Civilian brains are being farmed. For profit and political influence to make more profit. And worse - Primed in the end for outright malignant external influence which not only influence people's participation int he market, but even politics through the same new social media channels.
very nice video :)
Free markets do not exist now. Why, 1 reason is mergers and acquisitions. Every industry is owned by just a few companies. Most stuff consumers in the states buy comes from just 8 companies. those 8 own hundreds or even thousands of others.
Korea received a lot of money from Western countries through the IMF etc to rebuild. This money was directed into this major corporations.
You should bring on Peter Ziehan
i am elated that we are going back to a more NORMAL economy. Small govt is a lie
12:55 South Korea balanced it right? A country with a birth rate below 1 got a balance right? Are you for real?
The funny thing is that South korea is the highest population density country amomg OECD. The actual figure is more than twice that of germany.
It's the West against the rest
9:25 these car companies have announced major investments in North america.
Companies flee its shores to a veil of US subsidicies.
10:30 the bloc opted for more market intervention, allowing member states to subsidize making solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, and carbon capture mechanisms.
13:40 give away free hands-off.
14:15 the traditional free market idea is that, state money in and private money out. but now we see different case - in semiconductor. state money and private money both in.
14:45 inflection point 轉折點
15:50 as Ukraine war is raging and climate change posing an existential threat to the world. Chances are we will be seeing a whole lot more government intervention.
Inflation exploded because government expenditures exploded, which the video “accidentally” left out
Ontario has invested 13Billion dollars into a VW battery plant. If we saw dividends on that investment, I would be for it but VW will keep the profits of course. Sure it is a way to upsell out vast mineral wealth here in Canada but I really rather that that money was going into trains rather than electric cars. Blimps too, I also want to see us invest more into hydrogen blimps for better access to our vast lands
Yes. For countries levying sanctions at their own cost. The rest of the countries are doing very well with free trade.
The way they did that was open access to the US market - ie they were export led.
All the productivity benefits we have gained from better technology has gone into more inefficent housing. Zoning laws restricting housing supply and driving prices up is robbing us of all our other producivity gains. Houses use to be build by peasents out of scraps essentially for free, theres no reason for houses to cost so much other than laws heavily restricting them
Rich people need reeling in for sure
Who ignore the past will inevitably repeat its mistakes...in fact in 1930s with the new deal , America welcomed the state intervention. But in 1980s with Ronald Reagan, America welcomed the reduction of state intervention in economy. Now the cycle is closed its loop...
Billionairez should be illegal
why is rhe video of The decline of supermarkets - A sector in crisis private?
what is economic nationalism? what is free market?
It is very expensive to produce everything you need. it just eliminates efficiency.
There's a balance, too much reliance on the outside for things and you will have to bend the knee, politically.
Activities administered by the State when they are not subject to competition gradually lose their productivity, whether that of investments or that of human resources.
State action should therefore consist of a set of regulations which adds a parameter to the calculations of speculators and strategists but does not distort the free play of competition on the markets. If State intervention is highly desirable, the State must not replace private actors in production and finance.
Somewhat false
@@stevenhenry5267 what is false (or what is partially true ?)
Nothing more ironic than hearing EU country news organizations talk about protectionism lol.
Subsedies proves hugely benificial... Yes, if you ignore the debt it creates... -.-
Hard to call a Singapore a free market there are tons of regulations and a lot of them and far from liberal.
Could someone please tell Mr. Pascal Lamy, the expert, that it is neither Americans, nor Europeans who are fighting in Ukraine. It is actually the Ukrainians who are doing the fighting. The Americans and the Europeans are merely providing the tools. Thank you DW editors. 9:55
Who has the most tariffs.
The EU.
Inflation reduction act is main source of Inflation. Therefore still in 2023 there is so much inflation.
the free market fairytale , yeah .
The fear 😂.
11:08 - talking about China but showing picture of Petronas Twins Towers in KL. Seems the team editing this video dont know the difference between Malaysia and China
Great compilation of facts..... thanks DW!
It's not dead. It's the beginning.
The moral of the story" the west should learn from china on how the state should have some control over major industries"
Wrong. Horrible takeaway. China is a 💩 show.
@@Rjsjrjsjrjsj Very bad take. China is going to be superpower coming up.
Good !
I don't understand? Why would the government write a check for $400 billion and watch it go to Germany and the others? Heck, that would be cruel to the US.
This guy is talking about Somalia and no state. Nobody in their right mind is advocating for that. The government has basic responsibilities in setting the rules for the game. But when it starts picking winners and losers through massive subsidization, that's where things go very wrong.
Free market? More like international anarchy and lack of effective global governance
Alternative System/Solution:
TH-cam video: "Global Declaration of Declaration - Fight the Power"
Free market is a good theory if nothing goes wrong. Much like how capitalism is great if everyone alive are perfect people.
It's basically the same for government intervention - too much of it and you get dictatorships, but too little the country will just dissolve.
Free market? ~60 countries are sanctioned unilaterally by the US outside of UNSC procedure.
Its time to wake up and start looking within for once going forward Africa....enough is enough
South Korea's system is not one we should be looking up to. Many hard working locals are struggling to get by there.
True, but maybe we can analyze their results and pick the parts from there that might be actually working and implementable here.
Video topic is good, but it is very surprising to see DW answer this question with more investment on green energy... Green energy is good, but it is not relevant topic with free market...
Let your winners run. Big government is never the answer.