It p*sses me off that millions of people will spend hundreds of hours a year watching wild conspiracy videos on YT made by incompetent hacks, while these absolutely brilliant videos can hardly break 10.000 views in more than a decade. Sometimes we disgust me.
It is certainly true that under existing socio-political arrangements and institutions (i.e., our systems of law and taxation), having children later in early adulthood and having fewer children is a key component to household living standards. The reason for this is straightforward: access to nature, to land, is monopolized. Another factor is that when people began to settle in one place, rules for access and control over nature had to be established. These rules eventually were altered by hierarchical privilege, creating rentier elites who claimed what others produced without producing anything in exchange. Eventually, with the appearance of empires, the impact of rentier privilege was exacerbated by demands for tribute and then by absentee landlordism (as occurred in Ireland while under English domination).
@@kreek22 Please clarify what about the first paragraph is incorrect. There are strong economic advantages for most people for delaying the start of a family. Housing is a major household expenditure. Housing is expensive because of the land component. And, the land component is expensive because the ownership of land is highly concentrated. As for the second paragraph, in what sense is the case overstated?
@@nthperson "The reason for this is straightforward: access to nature, to land, is monopolized." This is not correct. This is, even granting your questionable use of the term monopolized, only one reason, not "the" reason. I also don't consider access to land "monopolized." It is false to claim that "rentier elites" produce nothing. Those who fall asleep at their business are out-competed by those who are alert. You seem to think landowners are not businessmen. That's a mistake. They don't contribute to economic growth in the long run, but then very few do. In fact, only those who contribute to technological advance count in that game. That means lawyers, most doctors, most tradesmen, salesmen, most farmers, politicians, etc.--are all out of the one game that counts in the long run. Also: the land business is only one major source of wealth.
@@kreek22 Here are the statistics regarding the ownership of land in the United States: (a) 50% of the land area is owned by government -- federal, state and local; (b) of the remaining 50% just 2% is owned by households as the location for a residential property; (c) the remainder is owned by very wealthy individuals, corporate interests, religious organizations and other entities; (d) several wealthy individuals (e.g., Ted Turner) have land holdings equal in size to the state of Delaware, and these land holdings are growing each year. When we look at the concentration of land wealth rather than simply land area, what we see is huge holdings of commercial properties in the nation's cities and huge holdings of lands that yield natural resources. As Adam Smith wrote, the owner of land gains income and wealth even when sleeping. Ownership produces nothing. One must put land to use in order to earn income. If I have enough well-located land to lease to others, I charge them ground rent paid out of what they produce. I am able to live quite comfortably without producing anything myself or performing any useful service.
@@nthperson "I am able to live quite comfortably without producing anything myself or performing any useful service." One could say this of anyone with substantial wealth, in whatever form, including stocks, bonds, private business ownership, and land. I know a guy with a wholly owned medium sized business which is managed for him by a hired, well paid manager. He did build the business himself, but now he is idle and collects ~$1 million/year in profits. But back to land. As I mentioned before, land owners compete with each other; those landowners who sleep fall behind those who work. Also, in our time, much more so than in the times of the great Smith or the land-mad George, there is international competition among some types of landowners (holders of agricultural and mining resources, for example). This limits profit potential. What matters in the last accounting is how the distribution of wealth affects the rate of economic growth. With land distribution, growth should not be (and has not been) impaired for so long as the private holders of land have the incentive to extract maximum value from their holdings. From this perspective, government holdings of land in America are probably excessive. By the way, are you acquainted with the recent discussion of Georgism over at astralcodexten? I believe four substantial essays were posted.
I can see why economists often fail to predict anything, when the focus is on creating arbitrary models in retrospective analysis. Most claims attributed to the models are leaving out infinite amount of alternative factors from the equation. Economics does admit it's a simplification of reality. I get the model has logic and it's a start, but I'm not impressed by the reasoning. Maybe it's just economics in general.
There is something which exists besides retrospective analysis? All fall prey to retrospection and prediction through tacit acceptance of the uniformity of nature. You act as if there is such a thing as a model not leaving out infinite complexity - that is an issue with mathematics, not economics. Yes, math must assume all variables are constant while looking to see if the one they are focusing on changes.
It p*sses me off that millions of people will spend hundreds of hours a year watching wild conspiracy videos on YT made by incompetent hacks, while these absolutely brilliant videos can hardly break 10.000 views in more than a decade. Sometimes we disgust me.
Thank you!! Your videos really helped me :)
@11:50
Someone can give me information about a book about this findings in Paraguay hunter and gatherer, please?
Ache Life History, by Hill and Hurtado.
Back in the day you knew when you were close to a big city by the smell.
It is certainly true that under existing socio-political arrangements and institutions (i.e., our systems of law and taxation), having children later in early adulthood and having fewer children is a key component to household living standards. The reason for this is straightforward: access to nature, to land, is monopolized.
Another factor is that when people began to settle in one place, rules for access and control over nature had to be established. These rules eventually were altered by hierarchical privilege, creating rentier elites who claimed what others produced without producing anything in exchange. Eventually, with the appearance of empires, the impact of rentier privilege was exacerbated by demands for tribute and then by absentee landlordism (as occurred in Ireland while under English domination).
Your first paragraph is incorrect. Your second paragraph overstates your case.
@@kreek22 Please clarify what about the first paragraph is incorrect. There are strong economic advantages for most people for delaying the start of a family. Housing is a major household expenditure. Housing is expensive because of the land component. And, the land component is expensive because the ownership of land is highly concentrated.
As for the second paragraph, in what sense is the case overstated?
@@nthperson
"The reason for this is straightforward: access to nature, to land, is monopolized." This is not correct. This is, even granting your questionable use of the term monopolized, only one reason, not "the" reason. I also don't consider access to land "monopolized."
It is false to claim that "rentier elites" produce nothing. Those who fall asleep at their business are out-competed by those who are alert. You seem to think landowners are not businessmen. That's a mistake. They don't contribute to economic growth in the long run, but then very few do. In fact, only those who contribute to technological advance count in that game. That means lawyers, most doctors, most tradesmen, salesmen, most farmers, politicians, etc.--are all out of the one game that counts in the long run. Also: the land business is only one major source of wealth.
@@kreek22 Here are the statistics regarding the ownership of land in the United States: (a) 50% of the land area is owned by government -- federal, state and local; (b) of the remaining 50% just 2% is owned by households as the location for a residential property; (c) the remainder is owned by very wealthy individuals, corporate interests, religious organizations and other entities; (d) several wealthy individuals (e.g., Ted Turner) have land holdings equal in size to the state of Delaware, and these land holdings are growing each year.
When we look at the concentration of land wealth rather than simply land area, what we see is huge holdings of commercial properties in the nation's cities and huge holdings of lands that yield natural resources.
As Adam Smith wrote, the owner of land gains income and wealth even when sleeping. Ownership produces nothing. One must put land to use in order to earn income. If I have enough well-located land to lease to others, I charge them ground rent paid out of what they produce. I am able to live quite comfortably without producing anything myself or performing any useful service.
@@nthperson "I am able to live quite comfortably without producing anything myself or performing any useful service." One could say this of anyone with substantial wealth, in whatever form, including stocks, bonds, private business ownership, and land. I know a guy with a wholly owned medium sized business which is managed for him by a hired, well paid manager. He did build the business himself, but now he is idle and collects ~$1 million/year in profits. But back to land. As I mentioned before, land owners compete with each other; those landowners who sleep fall behind those who work. Also, in our time, much more so than in the times of the great Smith or the land-mad George, there is international competition among some types of landowners (holders of agricultural and mining resources, for example). This limits profit potential.
What matters in the last accounting is how the distribution of wealth affects the rate of economic growth. With land distribution, growth should not be (and has not been) impaired for so long as the private holders of land have the incentive to extract maximum value from their holdings. From this perspective, government holdings of land in America are probably excessive.
By the way, are you acquainted with the recent discussion of Georgism over at astralcodexten? I believe four substantial essays were posted.
What is the next lecture?
Looks like Dr. Clark broke the first and second rules of Club Fight.
1800 sanitatary pracitises of English are much like those in 3rd world countries. i am a living witness to that :D
am i the only one who started clapping when he was done?? o.O
A good war raised real wages back in the day. A good war would raise them today and maybe does. Dismal.
the translation was very poor
I can see why economists often fail to predict anything, when the focus is on creating arbitrary models in retrospective analysis. Most claims attributed to the models are leaving out infinite amount of alternative factors from the equation. Economics does admit it's a simplification of reality. I get the model has logic and it's a start, but I'm not impressed by the reasoning. Maybe it's just economics in general.
There is something which exists besides retrospective analysis? All fall prey to retrospection and prediction through tacit acceptance of the uniformity of nature.
You act as if there is such a thing as a model not leaving out infinite complexity - that is an issue with mathematics, not economics. Yes, math must assume all variables are constant while looking to see if the one they are focusing on changes.
@@Hegeleze Socrates there you are. I just found this lecturer pretentious.
@@Bnelen Pretentious? Ok, fair enough. ;)