The problem with the “government is the issue” economic argument is that their solution is completely counterproductive. Government has grown to accommodate capitalism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing capital. Rather than looking at the economy as something separate from the government, where government interference corrupts what would be a completely self-regulating system, you have to recognize that the government is a part of the economy. It grows and shrinks with the economy. Your economy can either sustain an internal battle between government and capital, where in the end everybody loses. Or your economy can try to find a healthy balance between government and capital. The “more capital, less government” utopia is not sustainable, and neither is the “more government, less capital” utopia.
And one thing he dosent mention is meaning in life. There must certainly be a connection between economics and how we as humans create meaning in our lives.
Very interesting, meanwhile the social commitment of psychology "kick the ladder" of science and the profession. Maintaining its institutional monoholes and oligarchies...
36:09 "Basically markets are run according to one dollar one vote rule and democracies are run according to one person one vote rule. So if you say that you want to constrain politics, it basically implies that you want to give more power to people with more money."
Counter-intuitively, when you don't constrain politics and let the state expand, people with more money get more power. Lobbyists and the ruling elites. When freeing the markets, you allow those with least 'votes' to gain more, more easily unlike now. Money, whether in a big-government state or a small-government state will always be 'votes'. People like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates will be better off in a bigger-government state than small since they can lobby for more government regulation to stifle their smaller competitors. Is that what you want? Or a freer economy where the smallest of businesses can undercut these behemoths (even if locally, or in this internet age potentially globally)?
@@killaryhlinton8853 Full of holes. The smallest of businesses won't exist. They will have been put out of business by the larger giants. They can't even buy a plot of land to open their lemonade stand because Mr. Billionaire already bought the whole town. We have a corrupt government because we allow politicians to be bought. Your solution is to shrink government and expand the free-market. Wrong solution. Instead, remove money out of politics so the leaders can't be bought. Put an education standard to make sure idiots who are ignorant of science can't run for office. Don't believe me? Go buy the board game called Monopoly and invite some friends over to play. Sooner or later, after enough times around the board, I promise you that there will be one player who owns everything and several other players who are bankrupt and own nothing. Is that what you want? Capitalism is fantastic in the short term and self-destructive in the long term. The big fish will always swallow up the smaller fish until there is only one whale left. The only solution to keep the game going is to severely tax the top 1% to reduce the wealth gap and send that money to the bottom in the form of government jobs.
@@0trynewthings0 If you think the real world is anything like a monopoly game, I'm afraid you haven't been educated in economics. Also, what is that thing that gives out cash called in monopoly? Oh yes, that's the welfare state in the real world. "Take the money out of politics". What a good idea. Well, why do you think it hasn't happened yet? Because politicians love their money and their cronies. They will never regulate themselves by banning themselves from receiving "donations" be it in the open or under the table if it's 'banned'. "Put an education standard so that ignorant idiots can't run for office". Again, if you think self-regulation in the free-market isn't going to work, what makes you think politicians will participate in self-regulation. A state is just a war machine enforcing laws made by the ruling elite - politicians and the big corporations who buy them (aka lobbyists), who want politicians to make regulation so that smaller businesses and medium-sized businesses can't compete with them, put hurdles in their way so those large corporations can establish a monopoly (pun not intended). You don't seem to realise that the state itself is acting like a corporation that is so inefficient that it has to force its "customers" to pay for its poor, inefficient services, and whilst doing that it plunders its own population and to avoid revolts needs to provide welfare and other services, paid for by forced "customers". It also uses the divide and rule approach by separating us into the 'rich' and the 'poor' and since democracy is a majority rule, they use the 'rich' as a scapegoat to win votes from the majority (who aren't rich). It's like two wolves and a sheep 'voting'' on what's for dinner. That's democracy for you. They split the population and put the poorer folks against the rich to make them hate the rich who provide jobs and fund innovation. People don't seem to realise that the state is that one abusive monopoly you all so fear will come to existence. Open your eyes, that monopoly is right in front of you. Forcing you to pay for their services because they can't compete, maintain a monopoly on violence, force their competitors (other businesses) to pay them money and forces its population to act according to laws it creates. Imagine Amazon becoming so large it takes over a territory, forces local businesses and individuals to pay a percentage of their income, and if they refuse, they'll put into an amazon-run prison, if you defend yourself and refuse from being caged, you'll be clubbed, defend yourself then and you could be shot dead. Amazon then tries to regulate your behaviour and shopping pattern through regulation and subsidies. Amazon will spy on you, your phone, laptop and etc. Amazon will use the money it extorted from you to go and kill people in the middle east. Now imagine if people got sick of Amazon being so abusive so Amazon creates a shadow, unelected dictatorship capable of even more power than previously, and controls whoever the locals happen to 'elect'. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's your state! Also, your arguments are incredibly weak, you say my solution is wrong but fail to mention why you only mention another theoretical solution. That's like saying x is not 3. Therefore y is 3. It's like how about some proof?
@@killaryhlinton8853 "I'm afraid you haven't been educated in economics." You have no education in economics. Zero. You are just spewing out propaganda fed to you by the rich and their corporate media. "What is that thing that gives out cash called in monopoly? Oh yes, that's the welfare state in the real world." No, that's simulating the labor, which can't keep up with the rent as the rich player develops a monopoly. As the monopoly grows and the wages stay stagnant at $200, and you just can't keep up with the interest, rent, insurance, CC payments, mortgage, etc. "the rich who provide jobs and fund innovation." So wrong. Rich provides a few jobs, just enough to make themselves rich, but not enough for everyone. Usually, they will replace jobs with robots as soon as possible. The rest of the people are supposed to become entrepreneurs and create their own jobs. Oh, but they can't because the rich already bought up all the resources making it impossible for the young to start out. Try starting a business, the bank will tell you, "sorry, no collateral, no loan for you." Very different from the boomer generation. "People don't seem to realise that the state is that one abusive monopoly you all so fear," The economy is a game. We make some rules and then we play. The state is supposed to make those rules and referee them. However, they also do the jobs that we need but are totally unprofitable, and therefore no businessman would touch, such as doing research. Most businesses do very little research and development, which you seem to be confused about. The reason is that there is no guarantee in research that you will find something. You could research for years and get nowhere. No business will take that risk. So government must. If you think businesses fund innovation, you are sadly misinformed. Would you want privately owned police that only protect the rich neighborhoods who could pay for their services while letting the poor kill each other? It is funny that the rich will bribe the politicians with one hand, and then with the other point at big-government for all the problems in society saying we need more freedom. You say the politicians won't self-regulate. Okay, so why would they shrink their size either?
USA has very huge public service (county, state and federal). How many people work for law enforcement agencies? Then go to other sectors like defence (800 military bases outside US🤔) - almost police state. Also USA State Dept has huge labour force (+largest embassies, largest donor in USAID). In USA most low level private sector jobs are insecure and dont pay that much
What is rational? One action can be deemed irrational but with more context suddenly become rational. Lack of information could create the illusion of acting rationally or rationally, therefore claiming something, even if very simple, is irrational is in my opinion wrong since there's always too much information and too many factors to account for to class something as rational or irrational. I believe that though very unreliable, individuals themselves are their own best judges for whether they acted rationally or rationally. Did they seek the best outcome? What's 'best'? Maybe the worst choice for efficiency was the most satisfying one? Is that rational or irrational? Also, what neoclassical economists have you been speaking with? No, a credible neo-classical economist would say that we're doing a good job 'everywhere', which is what I assume you're implying, since if not, you've not specified the specific area, also in certain areas it is objectively true that things are improving, e.g. technology, though again in certain aspects of technology, not all.
@@killaryhlinton8853 I like how you made this whole response breaking down the meaning and implications of the words rational and irrational and how rationality is all subjective based on preferred outcomes and then go onto claim that some areas of technology are objectively improving….what is the definition of “technology” again? How about “improving”? If you don’t know them look up the definitions and let me know how your own application of the concept of subjectivity allows for your statement to be fine but not the one you’re arguing is incorrect.
heh US employing 70% of the labor force is simply a stunning number until you think about it for a few seconds. Might take days for some, but they probably don't think too much about government structure or know anything about their own.
Jesus SavesUS I was surprised with this number as well. But I Googled and the numbers according to the US Bureau of labor statistics is 22 million fed sate and local public sector employees in 2015 and 156 million working Americans in 2018. That is 15%, nowhere near 70%. So I’m not sure where he is getting his numbers. Perhaps he said 17% but his pronunciation sounded 70%. Same with 15 and 50. They do sound similar.
Thank-you for making this lecture series available to the public! This channel is full of valuable content.
Absolutely true!
The problem with the “government is the issue” economic argument is that their solution is completely counterproductive. Government has grown to accommodate capitalism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing capital.
Rather than looking at the economy as something separate from the government, where government interference corrupts what would be a completely self-regulating system, you have to recognize that the government is a part of the economy. It grows and shrinks with the economy.
Your economy can either sustain an internal battle between government and capital, where in the end everybody loses. Or your economy can try to find a healthy balance between government and capital. The “more capital, less government” utopia is not sustainable, and neither is the “more government, less capital” utopia.
Wonderful lecture. Very insightful. Wish there was some student interaction and questions.
There is, th-cam.com/video/xM4AgD-FJ-w/w-d-xo.html
Jordi Schröder Bosch Thank you. This is great.
And one thing he dosent mention is meaning in life. There must certainly be a connection between economics and how we as humans create meaning in our lives.
socialism
Politics is the continuation of economics by other means.
politics is the continuation of war by other means
Very interesting, meanwhile the social commitment of psychology "kick the ladder" of science and the profession. Maintaining its institutional monoholes and oligarchies...
36:09 "Basically markets are run according to one dollar one vote rule and democracies are run according to one person one vote rule. So if you say that you want to constrain politics, it basically implies that you want to give more power to people with more money."
Counter-intuitively, when you don't constrain politics and let the state expand, people with more money get more power. Lobbyists and the ruling elites.
When freeing the markets, you allow those with least 'votes' to gain more, more easily unlike now.
Money, whether in a big-government state or a small-government state will always be 'votes'. People like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates will be better off in a bigger-government state than small since they can lobby for more government regulation to stifle their smaller competitors.
Is that what you want? Or a freer economy where the smallest of businesses can undercut these behemoths (even if locally, or in this internet age potentially globally)?
@@killaryhlinton8853 Full of holes. The smallest of businesses won't exist. They will have been put out of business by the larger giants. They can't even buy a plot of land to open their lemonade stand because Mr. Billionaire already bought the whole town.
We have a corrupt government because we allow politicians to be bought. Your solution is to shrink government and expand the free-market. Wrong solution. Instead, remove money out of politics so the leaders can't be bought. Put an education standard to make sure idiots who are ignorant of science can't run for office.
Don't believe me? Go buy the board game called Monopoly and invite some friends over to play. Sooner or later, after enough times around the board, I promise you that there will be one player who owns everything and several other players who are bankrupt and own nothing. Is that what you want?
Capitalism is fantastic in the short term and self-destructive in the long term. The big fish will always swallow up the smaller fish until there is only one whale left. The only solution to keep the game going is to severely tax the top 1% to reduce the wealth gap and send that money to the bottom in the form of government jobs.
@@0trynewthings0 If you think the real world is anything like a monopoly game, I'm afraid you haven't been educated in economics. Also, what is that thing that gives out cash called in monopoly? Oh yes, that's the welfare state in the real world.
"Take the money out of politics". What a good idea. Well, why do you think it hasn't happened yet? Because politicians love their money and their cronies. They will never regulate themselves by banning themselves from receiving "donations" be it in the open or under the table if it's 'banned'.
"Put an education standard so that ignorant idiots can't run for office". Again, if you think self-regulation in the free-market isn't going to work, what makes you think politicians will participate in self-regulation.
A state is just a war machine enforcing laws made by the ruling elite - politicians and the big corporations who buy them (aka lobbyists), who want politicians to make regulation so that smaller businesses and medium-sized businesses can't compete with them, put hurdles in their way so those large corporations can establish a monopoly (pun not intended).
You don't seem to realise that the state itself is acting like a corporation that is so inefficient that it has to force its "customers" to pay for its poor, inefficient services, and whilst doing that it plunders its own population and to avoid revolts needs to provide welfare and other services, paid for by forced "customers". It also uses the divide and rule approach by separating us into the 'rich' and the 'poor' and since democracy is a majority rule, they use the 'rich' as a scapegoat to win votes from the majority (who aren't rich). It's like two wolves and a sheep 'voting'' on what's for dinner. That's democracy for you. They split the population and put the poorer folks against the rich to make them hate the rich who provide jobs and fund innovation.
People don't seem to realise that the state is that one abusive monopoly you all so fear will come to existence. Open your eyes, that monopoly is right in front of you. Forcing you to pay for their services because they can't compete, maintain a monopoly on violence, force their competitors (other businesses) to pay them money and forces its population to act according to laws it creates.
Imagine Amazon becoming so large it takes over a territory, forces local businesses and individuals to pay a percentage of their income, and if they refuse, they'll put into an amazon-run prison, if you defend yourself and refuse from being caged, you'll be clubbed, defend yourself then and you could be shot dead.
Amazon then tries to regulate your behaviour and shopping pattern through regulation and subsidies. Amazon will spy on you, your phone, laptop and etc. Amazon will use the money it extorted from you to go and kill people in the middle east. Now imagine if people got sick of Amazon being so abusive so Amazon creates a shadow, unelected dictatorship capable of even more power than previously, and controls whoever the locals happen to 'elect'.
Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's your state!
Also, your arguments are incredibly weak, you say my solution is wrong but fail to mention why you only mention another theoretical solution. That's like saying x is not 3. Therefore y is 3. It's like how about some proof?
@@killaryhlinton8853 "I'm afraid you haven't been educated in economics." You have no education in economics. Zero. You are just spewing out propaganda fed to you by the rich and their corporate media.
"What is that thing that gives out cash called in monopoly? Oh yes, that's the welfare state in the real world." No, that's simulating the labor, which can't keep up with the rent as the rich player develops a monopoly. As the monopoly grows and the wages stay stagnant at $200, and you just can't keep up with the interest, rent, insurance, CC payments, mortgage, etc.
"the rich who provide jobs and fund innovation." So wrong. Rich provides a few jobs, just enough to make themselves rich, but not enough for everyone. Usually, they will replace jobs with robots as soon as possible. The rest of the people are supposed to become entrepreneurs and create their own jobs. Oh, but they can't because the rich already bought up all the resources making it impossible for the young to start out. Try starting a business, the bank will tell you, "sorry, no collateral, no loan for you." Very different from the boomer generation.
"People don't seem to realise that the state is that one abusive monopoly you all so fear," The economy is a game. We make some rules and then we play. The state is supposed to make those rules and referee them. However, they also do the jobs that we need but are totally unprofitable, and therefore no businessman would touch, such as doing research. Most businesses do very little research and development, which you seem to be confused about. The reason is that there is no guarantee in research that you will find something. You could research for years and get nowhere. No business will take that risk. So government must. If you think businesses fund innovation, you are sadly misinformed. Would you want privately owned police that only protect the rich neighborhoods who could pay for their services while letting the poor kill each other?
It is funny that the rich will bribe the politicians with one hand, and then with the other point at big-government for all the problems in society saying we need more freedom. You say the politicians won't self-regulate. Okay, so why would they shrink their size either?
a corollary to that is one bullet one vote, a la geopolitics.
USA has very huge public service (county, state and federal). How many people work for law enforcement agencies? Then go to other sectors like defence (800 military bases outside US🤔) - almost police state. Also USA State Dept has huge labour force (+largest embassies, largest donor in USAID). In USA most low level private sector jobs are insecure and dont pay that much
This is awesome lecture!
If everybody behaved rationally, neoclassic economists would look at the economy and say we are doing a bad job, but they don’t.
Wtf they all say that, it’s more of a “we’re doing exceptional for 50%+ gov spending of gdp.”
What is rational? One action can be deemed irrational but with more context suddenly become rational. Lack of information could create the illusion of acting rationally or rationally, therefore claiming something, even if very simple, is irrational is in my opinion wrong since there's always too much information and too many factors to account for to class something as rational or irrational. I believe that though very unreliable, individuals themselves are their own best judges for whether they acted rationally or rationally. Did they seek the best outcome? What's 'best'? Maybe the worst choice for efficiency was the most satisfying one? Is that rational or irrational?
Also, what neoclassical economists have you been speaking with? No, a credible neo-classical economist would say that we're doing a good job 'everywhere', which is what I assume you're implying, since if not, you've not specified the specific area, also in certain areas it is objectively true that things are improving, e.g. technology, though again in certain aspects of technology, not all.
@@killaryhlinton8853 I like how you made this whole response breaking down the meaning and implications of the words rational and irrational and how rationality is all subjective based on preferred outcomes and then go onto claim that some areas of technology are objectively improving….what is the definition of “technology” again? How about “improving”? If you don’t know them look up the definitions and let me know how your own application of the concept of subjectivity allows for your statement to be fine but not the one you’re arguing is incorrect.
Kewl
Bro you are newly entering politics and being career politician are two different things.
7 minutes in, the country of China has yet to be mentioned.
Gonna keep watching and see if this changes.
Jones Elizabeth Jones Amy Hall Timothy
heh US employing 70% of the labor force is simply a stunning number until you think about it for a few seconds. Might take days for some, but they probably don't think too much about government structure or know anything about their own.
Jesus SavesUS I was surprised with this number as well. But I Googled and the numbers according to the US Bureau of labor statistics is 22 million fed sate and local public sector employees in 2015 and 156 million working Americans in 2018. That is 15%, nowhere near 70%. So I’m not sure where he is getting his numbers. Perhaps he said 17% but his pronunciation sounded 70%. Same with 15 and 50. They do sound similar.
He said 17%, or at least, that's clearly what he intended to say.
17%
should be 17%. 70% makes no sense (even if that's how CC translated it)
Subtitling wrongly says 70% but I assume he means 17%. Same as in the UK.