Main outtakes of the lesson : 1. Central planning is not efficient 2. Two types of efficiency: a) Productive Efficiency- The idea that products are made at lowest costs. b) Allocative Efficiency- State of economy in which production represents consumer's preference. 3. Central planners are less likely to be allocatively efficient because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want. 4. Price Signals tells you what consumers are willing to by at higher prices. 5. Price gouging: When sellers sells essential items (e.g water, food etc) at much higher price than reasonable. 6. Below-Cost Pricing: This is also called Predatory Pricing. It's when a business drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss. Competitors that can't sustain such low prices will be forced out of the market giving the surviving businesses more market share and ability to raise prices. 7. I'm Batman!!
"There's tons of examples that corporate greed, inequality and disregard for the environment that make people wonder if markets are evil. And they are! Thanks for watching!"
+josh mcgee Martin Shkreli monopolises a pill, makes it at low cost and prices it at hundreds of dollars. They're lifesaving, uninsured pills. There is no room for Martin Shkreli in a fair society. But there is plenty of room for him in the free market.
+Nawid N. I am all for free markets but when it comes to health it's unsafe for everyone to let that go unregulated. I also think that there needs to be a Basic Income safety net so that while there can still be risk in playing the free market, a loss in the game doesn't result in death.
+Nawid N., now Martin Shkreli's miracle has been replaced by another one, he's out of a job, and has been under arrest for fraud. Trust me there's plenty of room for him in a prison cell.
I’m a mathematician from Spain. I just finished my undergrad studies and I’m currently starting a master’s degree in finantial mathematics. This crash course economics has helped me a lot in understanding the basic concepts i need for my master. Thank you so much, it’s all very clear and easy to digest.
YES! DEAR GOD YES! Although linguistics isn't nearly as mainstream or as popular as things like history or economics, so they probably won't do it. But if they did...you can be sure they would be getting some Patreon support from me.
4:32-4:37=I think u misspoke. U said "Competition between businesses keep prices and quality up". I think u meant 2 say "Competition between businesses keep prices down and quality up".
*Main outtakes of this lesson* 1) MARKETS a. Free market economies - supply and demand determine what gets produced. b. Centrally planned economies - government agencies decide what gets produced. 2) EFFICIENCY a. Productive efficiency - the idea that products are being made at their lowest possible cost, so no resources are wasted. b. Allocative efficiency - state of the economy in which production represents consumer preferences. *Central markets are less likely to be allocatively efficiency because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want.* 3) PRICE SIGNALS a. Price gouging - when sellers raise prices for essential items to a much higher level than is considered reasonable. b. Below-cost pricing or predatory pricing - a business can drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss. c. Invisible hand by Adam Smith - a metaphor for how, in a free market economy, self-interested individuals operate through a system of mutual interdependence to promote the general benefit of society at large. *Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims.* Capitalism, with its system of price signals, is basically crowdfunding.
i read that Rockefeller once said (while being cheeky to the interviewer), "It's strange that the price I charge for oil is both so high I'm gouging consumers and so low I'm driving out competition - if they would just tell me what to charge it would be a lot easier."
Friendly reminder that the "millions of families living in poverty" aren't just in far off countries. They're everywhere, even in "developed" nations like the United States and Europe.
Make a video about what a healthcare system could look like with a true FREE market... Price gouging, Insurance exclusion, and refusal to treat. Another real life free market problem that is never mentioned in the United States in any Econ class I've ever taken
Also you could talk about what could happen in free markets when businesses collude with each other and the consumers are unaware. Like for instance if a corporation creates two companies like OtterBox and LifeProof and they both make the same products and pretend to compete while being partnered with Apple. This allows them to basically completely control the iPhone case market. Also by being partnered with Apple they make the case so only Apple brand chargers will fit, thus eliminating true competition from the Apple charger market for anyone who owns one of those two brands of cases. Again brilliant business strategy but not what is intended in a competition based economy
+Levi Howell You can just take a look at what the healthcare system looked like in America before government wage and price controls led to fringe benefits like health insurance being provided by employers. Prior to that, healthcare was only regulated by the FDA for safety, not efficacy. You'll find the environment was very competitive and people were not refused treatment.
+Levi Howell This is really a stretch, I think. For one, I've had iPhone cases that are from none of those companies. If you go to Amazon, you can find many cases from different manufacturers. Secondly, buy an Android phone from any one of a dozen different companies. Or buy a Windows phone. Or forego the whole lot and buy a dumb phone like a few of my friends have. What you describe with Apple is precisely one of the reasons I now have an Android phone. This is a very well-functioning market.
The big problem with privatised health care is that it's very hard to make choices with good knowledge. It's a very complicated service you're buying that most people won't fully understand and by the time you're unhappy with your current provider, you might already be dead. It's also an issue in that it incentivises companies not to sell because some customers will just cost too much money. It kind of boils down to whether we want to take care of people even if it's inefficient to do so. Privatised health care is more efficient but the efficiency comes in part from the fact that if your treatments are more expensive than the money you make, you've got to go. A lot of people would not support this ruthless efficiency and say it's morally right to keep people alive even if it does cost more than its worth.
all leftist criticisms of the free market about to unfalsifiable claims. if the price goes up its price gouging, if the price goes down its predatory pricing, if the price stays the same its collusion. so no matter what evidence there is the market is always guilty of a crime just for existing.
The bit about Walmart leaving Germany fascinated me. From what I looked up, the answer about how this happened may be more complicated. www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/why-did-walmart-leave-ger_b_940542.html
Money is amazing. What we do with it, the information it can carry, the lives it saves cannot be done in any other way yet experienced. Never give (except to show that you care for a person) and never take, always buy and sell. Let everything be a transaction in appreciation of work and goods of your fellow man.
+Vaibhav Gupta I noticed watching Milton Friedman vids that he is very fond of deflecting awkward questions with jokes and witty anecdotes that don't really answer, but the audience go crazy for them.
Crash Course should do a series on Advertising, Public Relations and Propaganda. It would help explain why people buy what they don't need and believe some crazy things about markets, government and capitalism.
+DatHam It wouldn't work with the style of videos they make. Crash Course focuses on teaching people about things not teaching them how to do things. Sure they could teach about the history of programming, types of programming and practices of programming but if they tried to teach programming they would need to change the style of their channel as it takes way longer to teach something and the majority of the crash course audience would grow bored.
+DatHam It wouldn't work. Programming is actually extremely easy to learn; there's really only five concepts to it. The tough part of it is logic, and being able to train your brain to solve logic problems quickly. That's not something a video series like Crash Course can do.
Some key insights I found interesting in this video: Walmart being the quickest to respond in hurricanes and doing it responsibly actually benefitted them, and not only in reputation, that's neat.
Thanks for that, "The ideal gift in terms of efficiency is cash!" I have once regretted how much money I would have spent on myself instead of wasting them on gifts! Because right after gifting people they didn't/they 'consumed' less of them.
So glad you talked about price gouging and predatory pricing. Although I disagree with you're "no effect" analysis. Walmarts soul strategy is to move into a community and begin predatory pricing. They continue this for 1-2 years until they have pushed out the "mom and pop" stores then begin pricing gouging on items only they now carry. They create an effective price gouging market thru using predatory pricing to drive out competition... Brilliant businesses strategy but it is one that takes advantage of the "free market" economy
"Can't force you to buy their stuff." They can if they're the only place in town, you're strapped for cash, or you only have a few minutes a day to shop.
USSR market research: "Okay would you like Russia to make more military, or make more music." "I um, well, if it's not too much to ask, I would actually like more music." "Ah, so you think that Russia government spend too much money on keeping country safe, and not enough money make country fun?" "...Da?" "GUARDS, SEIZE HIM!"
Markets, Efficiency, and Price Signals - Free Market economy - supply and demand determine what gets produced - Centrally Planned economy - government agencies determine what gets produced - Everyone who wants a job has a job and production aims to meet an idealised version of society’s collective goals - Less ideal for consumers and inefficient - Productive efficiency - the idea that products are being made at the lowest possible cost - No wasted resources and raw materials, workers, and machines are being used to their utmost potential - In a free market a business owner has an incentive not to be wasteful because they want to maximise profit - Allocative efficiency - state of the economy in which production represents consumer preferences - Scarce resources are being allocated to the things we value - Central planners are less likely to be allocatively efficient because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want - Done through market research and prices - Price signals - If people are paying relatively high prices it tells businesses society wants more of that product - Tell producers what to make and to distribute them to people who value them the most - Joel Waldfogel argued gift giving is inefficient - From macroeconomic point of view, holiday shopping boosts consumer spending GDP and employment but if too many people are purchasing items that the end consumers don’t value, then resources are being wasted - The ideal gift in terms of efficiency is cash - Price gouging - when sellers raise prices for essential items to a much higher level than is considered reasonable (food, water, petrol) - Argued to exploit costumers and is often combatted with laws - Economists argue laws decrease efficiency and make the problem worse, claiming allowing prices to increase in times of crisis encourages others outside the disaster zone to haul in and sell essential goods - Higher prices for essential goods such as batteries mean that people who don’t need them won’t buy them, increasing availability - Desire to earn profit may also keep these prices down - Loss of consumer satisfaction may mean a loss of business - Why businesses such as Walmart have an emergency operation centre and an in-house meteorologist (profitable + good public relations move) - Below-Cost Pricing/Predatory pricing - The idea that business can drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss - Competitors that cannot sustain such low-prices are forced out of the market, giving the surviving businesses market share and ability to raise prices - Business will eventually need to raise their prices above market price to account for losses - In the short run, consumers would have to pay more and other businesses will enter the market by being attracted to these higher prices - No guarantee predatory pricing is worth it in the long run - Predatory pricing lawsuits are common but rarely successful in the US - Theoretically, in a free market, producers cannot make themselves better off without making consumers better off - Adaptation and competition keeps prices and quality up (invisible hand) - Although the US may seem like a free-market economy, everything is regulated from FDA regulations to government involvement in education - Public economics analyses this very thing - Soviet Union - central planners focused on producing heavy equipment and military hardware - shortages of consumer goods like soap, sugar, and economics - Capitalism (in regards to its focus on prices rather than fairness) is often characterised as the opposite of altruism but both can coexist through social conscious companies - Capitalism, with its system of price signals, is basically crowd funding - We collectively choose what we want and how we want it made when money is spent - A market based society still has shared social goals but they do not come from a central planner
Theses videos always make me think. Sometimes they even make me enjoy the foot work to find out more about the topics. Hopefully this will open up more discussion on the things we do daily without realizing it's effect on our world and society. Also Germany has a lot of good things going for them, like the U.S.A. Accepting that markets will be what we let them be is a powerful notion. No matter what any of us think about these things, keep your mind open and do the foot work. You can't take anything for granted.
I so wish there was a Crash Course series on World Geography. I have used the U.S. History, World History, and Government ones. Will be teaching Econ in the spring semester that starts next week, but my poor geography students feel left out!
9:32 That building used to be a Staples. I used to work in a store with a similar store front. Doing further research suggests that it is now a Harbor Freight. Address is 14345 Firestone Blvd.
Just so everyone is aware: Welfare or whatever you would call government enforced redistribution of money is NOT the same as a government owning the means of production in the same vain as communism. Money is not a good or service, outside from its incredibly small utility as a small piece of paper or cylinder of metal. Money is a medium through which goods and services are claimed. Right now the current method of capitalism combined with the current market conditions has allowed the top 1% of wage earners to amass 40% of the wealth and growing. If the government sets up welfare schemes and methods of taxation that brought that 1% wealth accumulation down to 20% (where it was in 1950 when market conditions were a bit more favorable to the laborer) then that doesn't mean that markets have to be less efficient. That just means that there are new signals in the market that say: "Spend fewer resources on making high luxury goods like yachts and super cars, and spend more resources on making mid luxury goods and basic goods for poorer people." Because the thing that signals those changes is money. The market will continue to make things just as efficiently as ever, because people still want the best things at the cheapest prices. But in order to have a claim on those things in the first place, you need money.
+TheRepublicOfUngeria Redistribution on wealth does generate a distortion in the market. If the taxes in a country are too high, the companies and wealthy people will move their business to other countries. And also, what is the problem with them having 40% of the wealth ? They didn't stole this money from anybody, they created all this wealth.
+Rick Apocalypse People don't singlehandedly create wealth. They rely on the work of others to make their contribution valuable. Also, often wealth does come from stealing from others. When companies get Congress to extend the copyright on old works, they are stealing people's cultural heritage. When companies abuse patents or engage in anticompetitive practices to shut down lower cost or higher quality competitors, they are stealing from their customers. When the rich lobby the Federal Reserve to slow the economy down when wages start to rise, they steal from workers.
+Rick Apocalypse Well when it comes to the redistribution of wealth, that is actually a very healthy habit. If you are interested in what the results would be if we did not do that there are a lot of interesting studies, but a very interesting and accessible model of this can probably be found in your local board game shop. Monopoly.
rjr81 But the contribution of a CEO is much more important than the contribution of a single employee. The proof of this is supply and demmand. Wages are determined by supply and demmand, the same way prices are. So if the wage of an executive is much more higher than the wage of a secretary, that means his contribution on the creation of wealth, is much more valuable than the her's. So he gets a larger piece of the wealth created by the company.
About gift giving causing inefficiencies, I've definitely seen items that I wouldn't buy for myself because of price, but that I would totally get as a present for someone else without viewing price as a problem. I'm willing to spend more on an item if it's a gift for someone else and *meant* to be special than if it's just for me.
man if only there was some sort of system in place to allow people to act collectively and enforce rules on society like some sort of 'governing' agency a 'government' if you will
Sorta, but he was selling the drug to individual people for cheap if they needed it, it was only if the drug was being paid for by health insurance companies he would ramp up the price. Kinda like a middle finger to health insurance companies, as they're the only ones that lose out of this.
I am currently taking an in-depth course into economics. I like these simply because they scratch the surface for a general overview and are entertaining. Would you like to offer sources that you used to learn about the topic?
Tevo77777 problem is not that it's a beginner guide, it's a biased beginner guide. It focuses on capitalism too much and not enough on how the economy actually works.
Has someone with more knowledge than me properly thought about the ramifications of data-driven central planning? Since big data is here we actually have the computer power to crunch the numbers on what every individual wants and needs. If someone knows a great article. I'd love to read it.
the problem with saying "well if consumers don't like how a company does something they shouldn't buy from them" is that this solution assumes that people will be individually willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for long-term collective interest. History proves time and time again that hoping and encouraging people to make better decisions doesn't work. People still buy at these places because it's cheap and convenient, and in most people this takes precedence over any moral feelings they have, and the average person is unlikely to look at the long-term effects their actions have on the group when buying groceries. Grocery shopping, driving, and work ethic are all things that prove that when an action is consistent, routine, and each individual input is fairly small people don't stop to think about their actions, they act on impulse. Systematic, structural solutions, however, have proven effective
Im not sure if this series is organized right. The 18th video started talking about Mirco-economics and in this one, they abruptly jumped to other topics, part of which was covered earlier. A table of contents would be so helpful.
The "feel good, vote with your dollar!" message falls flat in a world where it is much more efficient for a company to lie and mislead us rather than actually have good practices. Time and time again, from lead to cigaretts to climate change to Volkswagon, short term gains and the ability to leverage capital to cut your losses has made a system driven by personal interest hurt the collective good in the long run.
3:42 Bring this up next time you have participate in one of those mandatory office secret santas, and tell your santa to just give you the envelope with the cash.
I find it insane when bourgeois argue that a government monopoly on something will make it inefficient and be impossible to run, yet one that evolves from the marketplace would somehow be infallible and perform perfectly, or at the very least, better than one answerable to the people equally and not proportionately to its shareholders. #FullyAutomatedLuxuryGaySpaceCommunism
hi! I'd like to test if you guys actually answer questions :) can you please talk about competing companies agreeing to keep the price of certain product at certain price? is there any law against it?
The problem of choosing where to buy products and services based on conscience is that we often receive manipulated or not sufficient information. On the other hand, the problem is just the opposite: we have too much infomation about a huge number of products and services and it can be really hard for a consumer to constantly analyze the information, the good and bad practices and the reliability of the sources.
The fake ending was the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on any Crash Course series. It was so unexpected.
+Nick Zamora Well, most hilarious with one exception.... the Mongols.
well, no spoiler alert? 😭 bit it was great.
+Nick Zamora TOTALLY!!!
Snigdha Kucharlapati Who reads the comments before they watch the video?
Exactly. I scroll through the comments sometimes, but in this case, I was on PC and this was the top comment, so.
Great message at the end. "Be the change you want to see in the world".
+Rick Apocalypse Nah, I think I'll just keep complaining on Twitter. I'm sure that will change the world. Eventually. Maybe.
+Miranox well it can. If enough people are angry about a certain corporation's practice, it is possible that the bad PR will make them change.
Krombopulos Michael
You should check out John Oliver's episode about fashion to see how corporations "change".
Main outtakes of the lesson
:
1. Central planning is not efficient
2. Two types of efficiency:
a) Productive Efficiency- The idea that products are made at lowest costs.
b) Allocative Efficiency- State of economy in which production represents consumer's preference.
3. Central planners are less likely to be allocatively efficient because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want.
4. Price Signals tells you what consumers are willing to by at higher prices.
5. Price gouging: When sellers sells essential items (e.g water, food etc) at much higher price than reasonable.
6. Below-Cost Pricing: This is also called Predatory Pricing. It's when a business drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss. Competitors that can't sustain such low prices will be forced out of the market giving the surviving businesses more market share and ability to raise prices.
7. I'm Batman!!
why so serious ? :P
Hi Batman !
thanks
thank you :0
"There's tons of examples that corporate greed, inequality and disregard for the environment that make people wonder if markets are evil. And they are! Thanks for watching!"
+josh mcgee I had to back up the video and watch that part twice lol! He nailed it.
+josh mcgee Martin Shkreli monopolises a pill, makes it at low cost and prices it at hundreds of dollars. They're lifesaving, uninsured pills. There is no room for Martin Shkreli in a fair society. But there is plenty of room for him in the free market.
+Nawid N. I am all for free markets but when it comes to health it's unsafe for everyone to let that go unregulated. I also think that there needs to be a Basic Income safety net so that while there can still be risk in playing the free market, a loss in the game doesn't result in death.
+Nawid N., now Martin Shkreli's miracle has been replaced by another one, he's out of a job, and has been under arrest for fraud. Trust me there's plenty of room for him in a prison cell.
+Jacob Collier Don't you mean, "there is plenty of room for him in a prison shower"?
I’m a mathematician from Spain. I just finished my undergrad studies and I’m currently starting a master’s degree in finantial mathematics. This crash course economics has helped me a lot in understanding the basic concepts i need for my master. Thank you so much, it’s all very clear and easy to digest.
I wish that you would eventually do a series on Language and linguistics (Grammar).
+Robert Eklund Seconding! This sounds cool!
+Robert Eklund agrEEEEEED
YES! DEAR GOD YES!
Although linguistics isn't nearly as mainstream or as popular as things like history or economics, so they probably won't do it. But if they did...you can be sure they would be getting some Patreon support from me.
+Robert Eklund YESSS, I really need this
There is a MARKET out there for a Maths Crash Course that YOU need to enter!
haha great comment imo
Sully Flynn and a computer science one!
Aidan Fitzgerald they listened to you
4:32-4:37=I think u misspoke. U said "Competition between businesses keep prices and quality up". I think u meant 2 say "Competition between businesses keep prices down and quality up".
ah, depends if it's real competition and they act fairly. Otherwise that's accurate.
Yep i too think she made a mistake
This is cool and all, but what I really need is some CrashCourse: Calculus
+WrathOfMega Khan Academy mate
***** Really? It worked quite well for me, and english aint even my final form. I mean, native language. What would you suggest?
+WrathOfMega I wish they would've made this econ series more math intensive -- calculus is fundamental for modern economics
+WrathOfMega John Greene should work with PatrickJMT for this, just a thought.
+664bomber Agreed!
I'm watching this on my iPad in skinny jeans...
Ruth Less skinny jeans aren't on the way out, people who can wear them are 😂
hahaha
Others "Where'd yo get your degree?"
Me " TH-cam"
*Main outtakes of this lesson*
1) MARKETS
a. Free market economies - supply and demand determine what gets produced.
b. Centrally planned economies - government agencies decide what gets produced.
2) EFFICIENCY
a. Productive efficiency - the idea that products are being made at their lowest possible cost, so no resources are wasted.
b. Allocative efficiency - state of the economy in which production represents consumer preferences.
*Central markets are less likely to be allocatively efficiency because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want.*
3) PRICE SIGNALS
a. Price gouging - when sellers raise prices for essential items to a much higher level than is considered reasonable.
b. Below-cost pricing or predatory pricing - a business can drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss.
c. Invisible hand by Adam Smith - a metaphor for how, in a free market economy, self-interested individuals operate through a system of mutual interdependence to promote the general benefit of society at large.
*Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims.*
Capitalism, with its system of price signals, is basically crowdfunding.
i read that Rockefeller once said (while being cheeky to the interviewer), "It's strange that the price I charge for oil is both so high I'm gouging consumers and so low I'm driving out competition - if they would just tell me what to charge it would be a lot easier."
6:23 "Oh this crucial medication/equipment is too expensive for me to buy. It's cool. Guess I'll just die, then."
Friendly reminder that the "millions of families living in poverty" aren't just in far off countries. They're everywhere, even in "developed" nations like the United States and Europe.
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. That false ending was fantastic.
Make a video about what a healthcare system could look like with a true FREE market... Price gouging, Insurance exclusion, and refusal to treat. Another real life free market problem that is never mentioned in the United States in any Econ class I've ever taken
Also you could talk about what could happen in free markets when businesses collude with each other and the consumers are unaware. Like for instance if a corporation creates two companies like OtterBox and LifeProof and they both make the same products and pretend to compete while being partnered with Apple. This allows them to basically completely control the iPhone case market. Also by being partnered with Apple they make the case so only Apple brand chargers will fit, thus eliminating true competition from the Apple charger market for anyone who owns one of those two brands of cases. Again brilliant business strategy but not what is intended in a competition based economy
+Levi Howell You can just take a look at what the healthcare system looked like in America before government wage and price controls led to fringe benefits like health insurance being provided by employers. Prior to that, healthcare was only regulated by the FDA for safety, not efficacy. You'll find the environment was very competitive and people were not refused treatment.
+Levi Howell This is really a stretch, I think. For one, I've had iPhone cases that are from none of those companies. If you go to Amazon, you can find many cases from different manufacturers. Secondly, buy an Android phone from any one of a dozen different companies. Or buy a Windows phone. Or forego the whole lot and buy a dumb phone like a few of my friends have.
What you describe with Apple is precisely one of the reasons I now have an Android phone. This is a very well-functioning market.
The big problem with privatised health care is that it's very hard to make choices with good knowledge. It's a very complicated service you're buying that most people won't fully understand and by the time you're unhappy with your current provider, you might already be dead. It's also an issue in that it incentivises companies not to sell because some customers will just cost too much money.
It kind of boils down to whether we want to take care of people even if it's inefficient to do so. Privatised health care is more efficient but the efficiency comes in part from the fact that if your treatments are more expensive than the money you make, you've got to go. A lot of people would not support this ruthless efficiency and say it's morally right to keep people alive even if it does cost more than its worth.
all leftist criticisms of the free market about to unfalsifiable claims. if the price goes up its price gouging, if the price goes down its predatory pricing, if the price stays the same its collusion. so no matter what evidence there is the market is always guilty of a crime just for existing.
The bit about Walmart leaving Germany fascinated me. From what I looked up, the answer about how this happened may be more complicated.
www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/why-did-walmart-leave-ger_b_940542.html
You guys just covered an entire chapter of my finance exam. Thanks!
Didn't expect it to be as socially conscious! Great work!
Money is amazing. What we do with it, the information it can carry, the lives it saves cannot be done in any other way yet experienced. Never give (except to show that you care for a person) and never take, always buy and sell. Let everything be a transaction in appreciation of work and goods of your fellow man.
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman
That doesn't sound like a bad thing really. If they could sell all of that sand in 5 years that would be a hell of a job.
+Naveen I'm pretty sure there is a shortage of sand
+Naveen such vague statements belong to religions, don't make economics a religion.
I hear they buy a lot of sand from Australia, so I guess they'd just start buying more?
+Vaibhav Gupta I noticed watching Milton Friedman vids that he is very fond of deflecting awkward questions with jokes and witty anecdotes that don't really answer, but the audience go crazy for them.
that fake ending was the second best thing Ive seen oml
Crash Course should do a series on Advertising, Public Relations and Propaganda. It would help explain why people buy what they don't need and believe some crazy things about markets, government and capitalism.
you should do a programming series
that would be great
+DatHam It wouldn't work with the style of videos they make. Crash Course focuses on teaching people about things not teaching them how to do things. Sure they could teach about the history of programming, types of programming and practices of programming but if they tried to teach programming they would need to change the style of their channel as it takes way longer to teach something and the majority of the crash course audience would grow bored.
For that you should go to the new Boston or something else like that
+DatHam It wouldn't work. Programming is actually extremely easy to learn; there's really only five concepts to it. The tough part of it is logic, and being able to train your brain to solve logic problems quickly. That's not something a video series like Crash Course can do.
yes
yes it would
What a time to be alive, folks. They have Computer Science CC now.
9:04 that really made me think the video was over
Some key insights I found interesting in this video: Walmart being the quickest to respond in hurricanes and doing it responsibly actually benefitted them, and not only in reputation, that's neat.
The fake Mark Cuban snapped at 8:50 lmfao
Thanks for that, "The ideal gift in terms of efficiency is cash!"
I have once regretted how much money I would have spent on myself instead of wasting them on gifts! Because right after gifting people they didn't/they 'consumed' less of them.
So glad you talked about price gouging and predatory pricing. Although I disagree with you're "no effect" analysis.
Walmarts soul strategy is to move into a community and begin predatory pricing. They continue this for 1-2 years until they have pushed out the "mom and pop" stores then begin pricing gouging on items only they now carry. They create an effective price gouging market thru using predatory pricing to drive out competition... Brilliant businesses strategy but it is one that takes advantage of the "free market" economy
"Can't force you to buy their stuff."
They can if they're the only place in town, you're strapped for cash, or you only have a few minutes a day to shop.
USSR market research:
"Okay would you like Russia to make more military, or make more music."
"I um, well, if it's not too much to ask, I would actually like more music."
"Ah, so you think that Russia government spend too much money on keeping country safe, and not enough money make country fun?"
"...Da?"
"GUARDS, SEIZE HIM!"
To the gulag with you !
You guys are my favorite crash course show
Markets, Efficiency, and Price Signals
- Free Market economy - supply and demand determine what gets produced
- Centrally Planned economy - government agencies determine what gets produced
- Everyone who wants a job has a job and production aims to meet an idealised version of society’s collective goals
- Less ideal for consumers and inefficient
- Productive efficiency - the idea that products are being made at the lowest possible cost
- No wasted resources and raw materials, workers, and machines are being used to their utmost potential
- In a free market a business owner has an incentive not to be wasteful because they want to maximise profit
- Allocative efficiency - state of the economy in which production represents consumer preferences
- Scarce resources are being allocated to the things we value
- Central planners are less likely to be allocatively efficient because they have a harder time getting feedback about what people want
- Done through market research and prices
- Price signals
- If people are paying relatively high prices it tells businesses society wants more of that product
- Tell producers what to make and to distribute them to people who value them the most
- Joel Waldfogel argued gift giving is inefficient
- From macroeconomic point of view, holiday shopping boosts consumer spending GDP and employment but if too many people are purchasing items that the end consumers don’t value, then resources are being wasted
- The ideal gift in terms of efficiency is cash
- Price gouging - when sellers raise prices for essential items to a much higher level than is considered reasonable (food, water, petrol)
- Argued to exploit costumers and is often combatted with laws
- Economists argue laws decrease efficiency and make the problem worse, claiming allowing prices to increase in times of crisis encourages others outside the disaster zone to haul in and sell essential goods
- Higher prices for essential goods such as batteries mean that people who don’t need them won’t buy them, increasing availability
- Desire to earn profit may also keep these prices down
- Loss of consumer satisfaction may mean a loss of business
- Why businesses such as Walmart have an emergency operation centre and an in-house meteorologist (profitable + good public relations move)
- Below-Cost Pricing/Predatory pricing
- The idea that business can drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss
- Competitors that cannot sustain such low-prices are forced out of the market, giving the surviving businesses market share and ability to raise prices
- Business will eventually need to raise their prices above market price to account for losses
- In the short run, consumers would have to pay more and other businesses will enter the market by being attracted to these higher prices
- No guarantee predatory pricing is worth it in the long run
- Predatory pricing lawsuits are common but rarely successful in the US
- Theoretically, in a free market, producers cannot make themselves better off without making consumers better off
- Adaptation and competition keeps prices and quality up (invisible hand)
- Although the US may seem like a free-market economy, everything is regulated from FDA regulations to government involvement in education
- Public economics analyses this very thing
- Soviet Union - central planners focused on producing heavy equipment and military hardware - shortages of consumer goods like soap, sugar, and economics
- Capitalism (in regards to its focus on prices rather than fairness) is often characterised as the opposite of altruism but both can coexist through social conscious companies
- Capitalism, with its system of price signals, is basically crowd funding
- We collectively choose what we want and how we want it made when money is spent
- A market based society still has shared social goals but they do not come from a central planner
This kind of lectures are much better than the ones available on Internet and they have to go search for it and collated.
Quiet comprehensive.
The Internet should understand not me to go search for.
Yay! More economics!
Said no student ever
I honestly think economics is the most boring crash course subject.
+TheAXXELLALAN well it's my personal favorite
@@joiscott182
Agreed
Crash Course you should do a math series.
+Luckybawdy In the mean time, you should check out PatrickJMT if you want help with math concepts.
Jensaw101 lol NAH
+Luckybawdy I'm still waiting for Philosophy, to be honest. They said that it's coming up.
+Luckybawdy dont know about all of his stuff, but from what Ive seen he is OK. (Differential calculus mainly)
+Nawid N. Philosophy would be great.
Theses videos always make me think. Sometimes they even make me enjoy the foot work to find out more about the topics. Hopefully this will open up more discussion on the things we do daily without realizing it's effect on our world and society. Also Germany has a lot of good things going for them, like the U.S.A. Accepting that markets will be what we let them be is a powerful notion. No matter what any of us think about these things, keep your mind open and do the foot work. You can't take anything for granted.
多謝！
I've been waiting for this video for soooooo long! Please don't stop making this economics videos
did anybody else notice that one person in the thought bubble had a hot line bling sweater?
"Despite its scientific pretensions, economics still remains more of an art than a science."
I so wish there was a Crash Course series on World Geography. I have used the U.S. History, World History, and Government ones. Will be teaching Econ in the spring semester that starts next week, but my poor geography students feel left out!
I watched the previous video in 1.5X speed before bed, the next morning ( today) I couldn't say goodmorning without stumbling over my words!
I’d just like too take a minute too say... Primeval was a really good and underrated show, 10/10 would recommend.
9:32 That building used to be a Staples. I used to work in a store with a similar store front. Doing further research suggests that it is now a Harbor Freight. Address is 14345 Firestone Blvd.
Just so everyone is aware: Welfare or whatever you would call government enforced redistribution of money is NOT the same as a government owning the means of production in the same vain as communism. Money is not a good or service, outside from its incredibly small utility as a small piece of paper or cylinder of metal. Money is a medium through which goods and services are claimed. Right now the current method of capitalism combined with the current market conditions has allowed the top 1% of wage earners to amass 40% of the wealth and growing. If the government sets up welfare schemes and methods of taxation that brought that 1% wealth accumulation down to 20% (where it was in 1950 when market conditions were a bit more favorable to the laborer) then that doesn't mean that markets have to be less efficient. That just means that there are new signals in the market that say: "Spend fewer resources on making high luxury goods like yachts and super cars, and spend more resources on making mid luxury goods and basic goods for poorer people." Because the thing that signals those changes is money. The market will continue to make things just as efficiently as ever, because people still want the best things at the cheapest prices. But in order to have a claim on those things in the first place, you need money.
All that and you didn't mention the Fed
+TheRepublicOfUngeria Redistribution on wealth does generate a distortion in the market. If the taxes in a country are too high, the companies and wealthy people will move their business to other countries. And also, what is the problem with them having 40% of the wealth ? They didn't stole this money from anybody, they created all this wealth.
+Rick Apocalypse People don't singlehandedly create wealth. They rely on the work of others to make their contribution valuable.
Also, often wealth does come from stealing from others. When companies get Congress to extend the copyright on old works, they are stealing people's cultural heritage. When companies abuse patents or engage in anticompetitive practices to shut down lower cost or higher quality competitors, they are stealing from their customers. When the rich lobby the Federal Reserve to slow the economy down when wages start to rise, they steal from workers.
+Rick Apocalypse Well when it comes to the redistribution of wealth, that is actually a very healthy habit. If you are interested in what the results would be if we did not do that there are a lot of interesting studies, but a very interesting and accessible model of this can probably be found in your local board game shop. Monopoly.
rjr81 But the contribution of a CEO is much more important than the contribution of a single employee. The proof of this is supply and demmand. Wages are determined by supply and demmand, the same way prices are. So if the wage of an executive is much more higher than the wage of a secretary, that means his contribution on the creation of wealth, is much more valuable than the her's. So he gets a larger piece of the wealth created by the company.
3:02 when you’re watching on a tablet and also wearing skinny jeans… 🥲
About gift giving causing inefficiencies, I've definitely seen items that I wouldn't buy for myself because of price, but that I would totally get as a present for someone else without viewing price as a problem. I'm willing to spend more on an item if it's a gift for someone else and *meant* to be special than if it's just for me.
man if only there was some sort of system in place to allow people to act collectively and enforce rules on society
like some sort of 'governing' agency
a 'government' if you will
There is and it runs a bigger deficit annually than any corporation on earth :)
the fake ending had me freaked out because I still had two questions left ony worksheet 😂😂😅😅
I love the end message. Vote with your money.
Loved every episode of econ video, made me joined patreon and support it
Hahaha, that fake ending! I almost choked on my tea from laughing.
LOOOOOOOOOL that fake ending got me.
Price gouging #MartinShkreli
+Pepijn Vink I heard that a competitor is selling the same drug for one dollar per bottle.
MARTIN SHKRELI BTFO
+Pepijn Vink #Apu Hahasapeemapetilon
Sorta, but he was selling the drug to individual people for cheap if they needed it, it was only if the drug was being paid for by health insurance companies he would ramp up the price. Kinda like a middle finger to health insurance companies, as they're the only ones that lose out of this.
Yay! Been waiting for a new episode!! I am loving this series. Economics is a topic that I find fascinating (^_^)
I hope you get info from other sources then because these guys don't do a very good job
I am currently taking an in-depth course into economics. I like these simply because they scratch the surface for a general overview and are entertaining. Would you like to offer sources that you used to learn about the topic?
+orayole
Oh no, this "Crash Course" provides quick and dirty information.
How dare they provide a beginners guide!
Tevo77777
problem is not that it's a beginner guide, it's a biased beginner guide. It focuses on capitalism too much and not enough on how the economy actually works.
orayole
Capitalism is how the system works.
i like that these videos are fairly unbiased thanks
Cool Professor Jacob Clifford got me at the ending 😂
WHAT?! where's the silver AC/DC buckle?! I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!
I'm watching this on a tablet rn, you kinda creeped me out 😂
+Snigdha Kucharlapati Are you also wearing skinny jeans? :)
+Josh E (Hal 3K) I am O.O
Love all the hidden jokes in the animations.
I am in love with this class as well as Adriene hill.. :D
When they put up the end, I actually thought it was ending at first
Who needs youtube videos when clearly the comment section contains far more reliable information
at 4:32 i think you forgot a word. you should've said "competition keeps prices *low* and quality up"
Has someone with more knowledge than me properly thought about the ramifications of data-driven central planning? Since big data is here we actually have the computer power to crunch the numbers on what every individual wants and needs. If someone knows a great article. I'd love to read it.
I loved the early finish! mwua ha ha! lol ... good video!
3:19 hey Crash Course, nice quote from Linus Tech Tips!!
finally someone, who explains the personal responsibility problem in capitalism correctly...
yey CC is back
Omigod the fake ending made me so mad!! Hilarious! WIN
so helpful!
This helped me a lot in my courses
the problem with saying "well if consumers don't like how a company does something they shouldn't buy from them" is that this solution assumes that people will be individually willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for long-term collective interest. History proves time and time again that hoping and encouraging people to make better decisions doesn't work. People still buy at these places because it's cheap and convenient, and in most people this takes precedence over any moral feelings they have, and the average person is unlikely to look at the long-term effects their actions have on the group when buying groceries. Grocery shopping, driving, and work ethic are all things that prove that when an action is consistent, routine, and each individual input is fairly small people don't stop to think about their actions, they act on impulse. Systematic, structural solutions, however, have proven effective
LOL he got me at the end
4:32: "Competition between businesses keeps prices and quality up." I suspect you only meant half of that. :)
the hotline bling sweater!!
very nice explanation. .thanks
Was anyone else actually watching this on a tablet and wearing skinny jeans besides me???
I love Crash Course :)
Listen! Just be honest! Don't hate! Only support what you like to see!
Im not sure if this series is organized right. The 18th video started talking about Mirco-economics and in this one, they abruptly jumped to other topics, part of which was covered earlier. A table of contents would be so helpful.
9:26 Is that in Montréal??
The "feel good, vote with your dollar!" message falls flat in a world where it is much more efficient for a company to lie and mislead us rather than actually have good practices. Time and time again, from lead to cigaretts to climate change to Volkswagon, short term gains and the ability to leverage capital to cut your losses has made a system driven by personal interest hurt the collective good in the long run.
3:42 Bring this up next time you have participate in one of those mandatory office secret santas, and tell your santa to just give you the envelope with the cash.
I find it insane when bourgeois argue that a government monopoly on something will make it inefficient and be impossible to run, yet one that evolves from the marketplace would somehow be infallible and perform perfectly, or at the very least, better than one answerable to the people equally and not proportionately to its shareholders.
#FullyAutomatedLuxuryGaySpaceCommunism
3:56 Golden Rule to reduce resource waste:
Don't buy what you don't need.
'I love Rat Excrement'
- Adriene Hill 2015
I watched this in skinny jeans :)
I love economics
9:40: Amazon being referenced?
"Theoretically an ideal gift is cash" except almost everyone rejects.
hi! I'd like to test if you guys actually answer questions :) can you please talk about competing companies agreeing to keep the price of certain product at certain price? is there any law against it?
Only took like 3 years for that intro to be true... I miss skinny jeans.
The problem of choosing where to buy products and services based on conscience is that we often receive manipulated or not sufficient information. On the other hand, the problem is just the opposite: we have too much infomation about a huge number of products and services and it can be really hard for a consumer to constantly analyze the information, the good and bad practices and the reliability of the sources.
Central Planning , Product Efficency , Allocate Efficency , Price Signals , Public Economics , Price Goughing , Below Cost Pricing/Predatory Pricing .
love this youtube channel for its educational information. 💕👌👏
Jokes on you for watching me i am not wearing skinny jeans i am naked!
**WhisperScream** AhhhMyGaashh you have a tiny slot machine!