The best debates I remember as an undergraduate were between professors, two friends at nearby universities, who would alternate years going to each others' campuses for the debate. There was never any talking at cross-purposes, there were never any misinterpreting what the other said. Each was always on point and challenging the other. I would love to see the result of Bryan finding a situation like that.
The socialism vs. capitalism debates are best had in relative, directional terms; meaning, "Should we get more socialistic or more capitalistic than the status quo?"
I don't think that could have happened here. Whenever Caplan brought up any data on the causes or extent of poverty, Leiter dismissed them without explanation or alternative. On education, Caplan has a whole book about how much skill, knowledge, productivity, citizenship, appreciation for art & culture etc it creates and at what cost. None of that is interesting to Leiter, because "capitalism." Housing makes up a big part of the costs of living that both sides agree constrain human well-being, and maybe 10 - 30% of the assets that Leiter wants to redistribute. So, naturally, Caplan has a book on it, and Leiter has no knowledge or interest. I think that meaningful incrementalist discussion requires a mutual commitment to empiricism and cost/benefit analysis. That mutual commitment doesn't seem to have been present here.
@@OptimalOwl On a more serious note. Leiter is somewhat serious. Caplan with his data is saying only this, so far we have data that shows that this works... Fine. But technology advances, mathematics advances, knowledge on biology advances and so on. The theory and application of economy and social sciences should also evolve. Basing your argument on current data is not enough. You must propose better things otherwise we would still be in the middle ages with claims on what has worked so far best. Besides, basing society on violent competition only does this: education and the acquiring of skills are based simply on competition, i.e., I study so I get the better job. Education and skills are then relative. They only mean that as long as I can show I am better than you, I am happy enough. It is a savage form of competition even if it works. The other is seen only as a threat that can some day get our job. Second, jobs are only a means to get money. The meaningfulness of doing something is irrelevant. Among other, contradictions like this one can take place: if destroying a city to then rebuild it brings more money (to me) than producing food for people that need food (but can't pay), then I destroy the city. War is partly a consequence of this.
@@OptimalOwl Another thing is the yardstick. Basically the common metric for measuring "well-being" when discussing these things is money. Capitalist societies take capital as a priority, i.e., money. Of course if your main priority is money you will likely do better (money-wise) than others that don't take money as a priority. But better here means only capital. It is a reductionist way of thinking. Societies that base everything on seeing the other as the competitor, i.e., my full existence is based on taking the job and making sure the other does not take my job (irrespective of the meaningfulness of the job because here only the amount of money counts), turn people into monsters. Saying that other economic theories are worse is irrelevant. You haven't worked out all other economic theories. And now I can say this more seriously. In terms of the pandemic, these capitalistic theories should translate into: let the strongest survive. So if you don't have money or resources to survive the virus, die, and I will take your job.
@@sergiosantos9534 Thank you for illustrating my point. I'm very open to the possibility that I should be looking at a different metric or a different dataset. But you didn't specify either. You just sort of implied that, for as-yet poorly understood reasons, everything will get better if I give you whatever you want.
Bryan you need to put your name "Bryan Caplan" in the video title, when I search "Bryan Caplan" on youtube and sort by latest videos to find your new videos this video does not come up. It will help people find the video.
Actually the most economical thing to do would be to title for what people actually search for more frequently. Think “rational click-baiting” a title that puts you more on the radar. No one who actually needs to be introduced to Bryan caplans content is typing in bryan caplans name.
I find it truly extraordinary that this gentleman simultaneously argued the US dismantled social democracy in the 1980’s, and that Singapore is social Democratic. In Singapore, which has no minimum wage at all, govt spending is like 11% of GDP lol. In the 80’s, the US became *marginally* more like Singapore, but this man is insinuating it became less like it.
"I rescinded from talking specifically on construction regulation because it's not my area and it's also beyond preposterous to suggest that the high cost of living in San Francisco and New York is simply because of government regulation." Did this guy actually just say "I don't know about this subject but you're clearly wrong"?
No, he didn't. One can say "I'm not a cosmologist, but your claim that the Sun revolves around the earth is beyond preposterous," without any contradiction. The claim that the high cost of living in NYC is due to regulation is an equally absurd claim.
@@Quinn2112 The idea that artificially restricting supply and increasing costs of production will raise prices is equally absurd to claiming the sun revolves around the earth?
@@joshuamoyer4141 That's not at all what I'm doing. You presented a gloss of Leiter's claim in your original comment as: ""I don't know about this subject but you're clearly wrong." I used an analogy to point out that one can consistently admit to not being an expert in a subject area while nevertheless rightly dismissing a claim made in that subject area. Leiter's point was that one does not need to be an expert in construction regulations in NYC to know that the high cost of living in NYC is not a function of regulation alone. Anyone who thinks about that claim for 10 seconds will come to that conclusion, because it is entirely obvious that many, many other factors play a role in driving up the cost of living in NYC. Are you unable to understand this claim? You're on youtube watching a debate about socialism, so I'm assuming you are at least moderately intelligent and educated. Are you really claiming that you do not know that it is indeed "beyond preposterous to suggest that the high cost of living in [...] New York is simply because of government regulation"?
I found this debate remarkable as I’ve been looking for debates like this to use in my classes: Leiter started strong and cast a very appealing, rhetorically effective vision before he fell into evasions and insults. Maybe I shouldn’t be too surprised: a quick search turned up a couple of enthusiastic posts about Hugo Chavez in 2004, 2006, and 2007. I couldn’t find anywhere that Leiter distanced himself from Chavez or Maduro.
Marx would have called himself an economist, but it's funny how it's always the lawyers/"philosophers"/others arguing for socialism and the actual economists who argue against it. Just like there are virtually no Marxists teaching in economics departments but plenty in gender studies, sociology, art history, etc. Isn't this curious?
_"Marx would have called himself an economist"_ I don't think Marx would've pigeon-holed himself with a single label as you claim. Also, the distinct categorization of philosophy, politics and economics is a 20thC distinction, (arising from the specialization of labor) as prior to this people didn't consider themselves to belong specifically to one discipline or the other. As to why you rarely hear from Marxist economists (outside of academia), it's because they're no longer considered mainstream, but are instead fringe voices, which don't get the same attention (or indeed opportunity to be heard), in the mainstream media. To be fair, this also applies to classical economists, such as Adam Smith. The economics profession recognizes the historical significance of the work of both Marx and Smith, but has "progressed" and "diversified" beyond this, which is why most economies today are MIXED, incorporating elements of both Socialism and Capitalism.
@@GonzoTehGreat You are about a century off. Adam Smith would not have recognized "economics" as a separate discipline from philosophy, etc., but by the end of 19th century, it certainly was. The Economist magazine was founded in 1843. Alfred Marshall, a contemporary of Marx, held a chair in political economy at Cambridge - similar titles were held by Carl Menger and Leon Walras (the other co-founders of marginal economics, which thoroughly debunked the basis of Marx's economic thoughts, something that Marx never addressed despite promising to do so). Marshall's famous book was entitled "Principles of Economics." I was slightly wrong. Marx would not have called himself an "economist" but he certainly would have called himself a political economist, just like Marshall, Menger, Walras, etc. I am not talking about hearing about economists outside of academia. I am talking within academia, where very few economists would call themselves Marxists. For the same reason that very few astrophysicists openly talk about signs of the zodiac. Marxism is considered to be crank economics within the economics profession. It only thrives in disciplines that don't understand economics.
@@GonzoTehGreat All econoMIES are mixed, but econoMICS isn't, and very few econoMISTS are. You can find lots of theorists who champion Marx's ideology or political proposals, but very few who champion his theory of economics. Some scientific theories do get unfairly maligned, dismissed for reasons having nothing to do with their predictive validity and parsimony. But under that hypothesis, I would expect to see Marx's political theory, ideology, related policy proposals etc to be tarred with the same brush and suppressed to roughly the same extent. That's clearly not what's happening here.
Three of the world's leading economists today are Paul Krugman, Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz, and all three of them are progressive. Piketty wrote a book recently titled "Time for Socialism" where he gives a progressive case for socialism. Krugman prefers not to use the word socialism or capitalism, but he pushes for progressive ideals. Same with Stiglitz - who endorsed Bernie Sanders. As to why there are no "Marxist" economists in universities, probably because a lot of people on the left don't like to associate themselves with Karl Marx for personal and philosophical reasons - they don't want to be tied down with that specific ideology as articulated by Marx. The socialist philosopher Bertrand Russell disliked Marx and Marxism because "Marx was inspired by hatred."
@@giggleman9908 You are the only person - other than Piketty himself - who thinks that Piketty is one of the leading economists of the world. He is a hack whose work has been widely debunked. Krugman doesn't call himself a "socialist" because he isn't a socialist, anymore than the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They are market economies with large welfare states, which is what Krugman expouses. And Stiglitz is just a whack job who has political beliefs that bear no relationship to his field of expertise in economics - his Nobel was awarded for his work in assymetric information. In any event, I can list dozens of economists of greater or equal prominence - Cowen, Cochrane, Mankiw, Barro, Romer, Summers, Feldstein, etc, etc, etc - who not only don't call themselves socialists but would openly laugh at the proposition. But you fundamentally avoided the point of my comment: if "socialism" is as meanstream in the economics profession as you seen to believe it is, then why is a non-economist participating in this debate? Why isn't there a conga line of bona fide economists waiting to take the socialism side of the argument?
“You know who else liked capitalism?!” WHY? Why did he have to bring up that Austrian painter at the beginning? Why do they always do things like this? Makes it so hard to take anything else he says seriously after that. Just make points instead of trying to poison the well so obviously ffs.
These academic debates about ideology have some entertainment value and possibly also a little educational value, (although you really need to do your own research/study to learn anything from them), but otherwise aren't of much use, because "Socialism" vs "Capitalism" isn't a useful argument. Debating specific policies within the context of these ideologies would be more instructive and useful for the public. For example, the pros vs cons of government funded healthcare.
That is why Bryan is such a perfect person to have in these debates, he will argue in favor of the market every single time. Even if he doesn’t convince the audience every time he is intelligent enough to make them think about it on a deeper level.
I agree that Capitalism vs Socialism is not really where the debate should be. But, I would like to see more debate around the basic foundations of Capitalism and Socialism, which is sorely missing in these debates that stick heavily to concretes. For instance, what definition of "freedom" should we use. Is "freedom" the freedom to act in order to pursue your values, or is it freedom from hunger? Most people haven't even thought about the difference.
@@matthewstroud4294 Debating the meaning of freedom is a philosophocal, rather than political or economic, discussion, so I think you're better off asking philosophers to participate.
@@GonzoTehGreat I'm pretty sure the guy said he was a philosopher (of sorts), for what that is worth nowadays. Political concretes are often discussed, disagreed upon, and usually lead nowhere for the audience. Politics is a branch of philosophy and the ideas are not often discussed, and that is what I'm saying - they should be. Having a better framework of the ideas and principles allows us to decipher the concretes and detect the bullshit. All the time, I see these debates where good guys like Bryan are dragged into stats-battles or arguments about history. What they need to do is drag their opposition onto the ground of fundamental ideas, and expose their premises for the humanity-hating, reality-denying muck that they are.
I actually think he kept his cool pretty well, given that Caplan consistently misrepresented his position, offered up opinion as fact, completely failed to address Leiter's central claim, and generally employed rhetoric rather than reasoned argument.
I think debaters would all do well to put end dates on projections like machines will take all the jobs in the future. Like by 2100. Also 1 thing people often miss in that regard is that people can and do compete with machines. Example: Take a corporate farm with a 12 row harvester, why don't they use a 24 row harvester, because it's cheaper to have a human drive 2x as long than to buy the 24 row harvester. You might think, but wages would have to be very low, but I'd respond in a world of much more machines everything will be very cheap.
Hey what happened to the lectures on Marxism from the great professor you introduced. I cant remember his name but you commented on how he is old school in the sense of read alot , taught alot, but didnt publish much.
36:30 the next big industries will be Artificial Intelligence, Mixed reality aka Augmented Reality, Flying autonomous cars, and the Space Industry. So blue collar jobs will be opening doors at the car landing spot, exploring space, creating art in the world. There will be jobs until we colonize space and even then we'll need to relocate to a new planet so there will be jobs there as well.
I’m not really sure how people can get away with just saying, “you’re lying!” In a debate. I not sure how they can get away with not knowing anything about housing either. Wild world we live in😂
According to the socialist proponent, given that energy is a cost of production and reducing them down would maximize profist, we should be worried about what we will do with the amount of energy we are producing and also with employees working in the energy industry. Ridiculous.
This is perfect. Socialism will only work when we have abolished scarcity. Debate over, socialism loses until the world is filled with rainbows and unicorns. Does this professor realize he committed intellectual hari-kari in the middle of this debate.
The Jewish professor called 'Bryian' won😉😉😉🤣😂😅😄😁 Just joking, Bryan Caplan; specifically; was much fairer, much more respectful, much more honest, much more polite & well mannered and much more reasonable and rational throughout this debate👍👍👍
People of America, look around you.....Capitalism has failed! I'm not going to say what system is better, i'm not intelligent enough to speak on behalf of any system, i just know that America and its economic system of capitalism is failing over 75% of its citizens. That tells me that we have to adjust and possibly even consider a Democratic Socialist model if we are to survive in the new world. The way i see it, Communism/Socialism has beaten Democracy/Capitalism. And one can argue with me about this but, all i have to point out is two things....75% working Americans live pay check to paycheck....and second, the number of homeless people living on sidewalks has been steadily climbing in huge numbers in the last few years. If these are not indicators of a failed state, then what is?
If the fact that the US has a lot of people who are homeless and who can't save is proof that capitalism doesn't work, then what do the countless millions of deaths, the authoritarianism and revolutionary terror and secret police, the starvation and breadlines and flight to the West say about communism? To be completely clear, you're not wrong for pointing out problems. You're wrong for failing to weigh them even-handedly against the problems with your own preferred solution.
What capitalism? The US, and probably all countries, suffer under fascism to varying degrees - that is, rather than private property based free markets their economies are dominated by a corporate/governmental duopoly of power wherein politically connected big corporations succeed via buying special privileges from government as opposed to free markets where the only way a business can succeed is by providing better and/or less expensive goods and services.
“In terms of the merits of social democracy vs market capitalism I think the only thing we have to go on are the so-called natural experiments…” Uh, no. You can learn economic theory. You don’t need any experiments.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](/img/n.gif)
The best debates I remember as an undergraduate were between professors, two friends at nearby universities, who would alternate years going to each others' campuses for the debate. There was never any talking at cross-purposes, there were never any misinterpreting what the other said. Each was always on point and challenging the other.
I would love to see the result of Bryan finding a situation like that.
The socialism vs. capitalism debates are best had in relative, directional terms; meaning, "Should we get more socialistic or more capitalistic than the status quo?"
I don't think that could have happened here.
Whenever Caplan brought up any data on the causes or extent of poverty, Leiter dismissed them without explanation or alternative.
On education, Caplan has a whole book about how much skill, knowledge, productivity, citizenship, appreciation for art & culture etc it creates and at what cost. None of that is interesting to Leiter, because "capitalism."
Housing makes up a big part of the costs of living that both sides agree constrain human well-being, and maybe 10 - 30% of the assets that Leiter wants to redistribute. So, naturally, Caplan has a book on it, and Leiter has no knowledge or interest.
I think that meaningful incrementalist discussion requires a mutual commitment to empiricism and cost/benefit analysis. That mutual commitment doesn't seem to have been present here.
@@OptimalOwl I love competition. For this reason the thing of covid made no sense to me. Let the strongest survive!
@@OptimalOwl On a more serious note. Leiter is somewhat serious. Caplan with his data is saying only this, so far we have data that shows that this works... Fine. But technology advances, mathematics advances, knowledge on biology advances and so on. The theory and application of economy and social sciences should also evolve. Basing your argument on current data is not enough. You must propose better things otherwise we would still be in the middle ages with claims on what has worked so far best. Besides, basing society on violent competition only does this: education and the acquiring of skills are based simply on competition, i.e., I study so I get the better job. Education and skills are then relative. They only mean that as long as I can show I am better than you, I am happy enough. It is a savage form of competition even if it works. The other is seen only as a threat that can some day get our job. Second, jobs are only a means to get money. The meaningfulness of doing something is irrelevant. Among other, contradictions like this one can take place: if destroying a city to then rebuild it brings more money (to me) than producing food for people that need food (but can't pay), then I destroy the city. War is partly a consequence of this.
@@OptimalOwl Another thing is the yardstick. Basically the common metric for measuring "well-being" when discussing these things is money. Capitalist societies take capital as a priority, i.e., money. Of course if your main priority is money you will likely do better (money-wise) than others that don't take money as a priority. But better here means only capital. It is a reductionist way of thinking. Societies that base everything on seeing the other as the competitor, i.e., my full existence is based on taking the job and making sure the other does not take my job (irrespective of the meaningfulness of the job because here only the amount of money counts), turn people into monsters. Saying that other economic theories are worse is irrelevant. You haven't worked out all other economic theories. And now I can say this more seriously. In terms of the pandemic, these capitalistic theories should translate into: let the strongest survive. So if you don't have money or resources to survive the virus, die, and I will take your job.
@@sergiosantos9534
Thank you for illustrating my point.
I'm very open to the possibility that I should be looking at a different metric or a different dataset. But you didn't specify either. You just sort of implied that, for as-yet poorly understood reasons, everything will get better if I give you whatever you want.
Bryan you need to put your name "Bryan Caplan" in the video title, when I search "Bryan Caplan" on youtube and sort by latest videos to find your new videos this video does not come up. It will help people find the video.
Actually the most economical thing to do would be to title for what people actually search for more frequently. Think “rational click-baiting” a title that puts you more on the radar. No one who actually needs to be introduced to Bryan caplans content is typing in bryan caplans name.
I find it truly extraordinary that this gentleman simultaneously argued the US dismantled social democracy in the 1980’s, and that Singapore is social Democratic. In Singapore, which has no minimum wage at all, govt spending is like 11% of GDP lol. In the 80’s, the US became *marginally* more like Singapore, but this man is insinuating it became less like it.
"I rescinded from talking specifically on construction regulation because it's not my area and it's also beyond preposterous to suggest that the high cost of living in San Francisco and New York is simply because of government regulation."
Did this guy actually just say "I don't know about this subject but you're clearly wrong"?
No, he didn't. One can say "I'm not a cosmologist, but your claim that the Sun revolves around the earth is beyond preposterous," without any contradiction. The claim that the high cost of living in NYC is due to regulation is an equally absurd claim.
@@Quinn2112 The idea that artificially restricting supply and increasing costs of production will raise prices is equally absurd to claiming the sun revolves around the earth?
@@joshuamoyer4141 No. The claim that the high cost of living in, e.g., NYC is solely a function of regulation is the absurd claim.
@@Quinn2112 You’re not even close to making an argument. You can’t just dismiss anything you disagree with as absurd
@@joshuamoyer4141 That's not at all what I'm doing. You presented a gloss of Leiter's claim in your original comment as: ""I don't know about this subject but you're clearly wrong." I used an analogy to point out that one can consistently admit to not being an expert in a subject area while nevertheless rightly dismissing a claim made in that subject area. Leiter's point was that one does not need to be an expert in construction regulations in NYC to know that the high cost of living in NYC is not a function of regulation alone. Anyone who thinks about that claim for 10 seconds will come to that conclusion, because it is entirely obvious that many, many other factors play a role in driving up the cost of living in NYC. Are you unable to understand this claim? You're on youtube watching a debate about socialism, so I'm assuming you are at least moderately intelligent and educated. Are you really claiming that you do not know that it is indeed "beyond preposterous to suggest that the high cost of living in [...] New York is simply because of government regulation"?
Bryan nailed it 😊✨️
Which one?
@@BlunderCity ???? Bryan Caplan smashed it. I'm going to watch again it's been ages!
I found this debate remarkable as I’ve been looking for debates like this to use in my classes: Leiter started strong and cast a very appealing, rhetorically effective vision before he fell into evasions and insults. Maybe I shouldn’t be too surprised: a quick search turned up a couple of enthusiastic posts about Hugo Chavez in 2004, 2006, and 2007. I couldn’t find anywhere that Leiter distanced himself from Chavez or Maduro.
Marx would have called himself an economist, but it's funny how it's always the lawyers/"philosophers"/others arguing for socialism and the actual economists who argue against it. Just like there are virtually no Marxists teaching in economics departments but plenty in gender studies, sociology, art history, etc. Isn't this curious?
_"Marx would have called himself an economist"_
I don't think Marx would've pigeon-holed himself with a single label as you claim.
Also, the distinct categorization of philosophy, politics and economics is a 20thC distinction, (arising from the specialization of labor) as prior to this people didn't consider themselves to belong specifically to one discipline or the other.
As to why you rarely hear from Marxist economists (outside of academia), it's because they're no longer considered mainstream, but are instead fringe voices, which don't get the same attention (or indeed opportunity to be heard), in the mainstream media. To be fair, this also applies to classical economists, such as Adam Smith.
The economics profession recognizes the historical significance of the work of both Marx and Smith, but has "progressed" and "diversified" beyond this, which is why most economies today are MIXED, incorporating elements of both Socialism and Capitalism.
@@GonzoTehGreat
You are about a century off. Adam Smith would not have recognized "economics" as a separate discipline from philosophy, etc., but by the end of 19th century, it certainly was.
The Economist magazine was founded in 1843. Alfred Marshall, a contemporary of Marx, held a chair in political economy at Cambridge - similar titles were held by Carl Menger and Leon Walras (the other co-founders of marginal economics, which thoroughly debunked the basis of Marx's economic thoughts, something that Marx never addressed despite promising to do so). Marshall's famous book was entitled "Principles of Economics." I was slightly wrong. Marx would not have called himself an "economist" but he certainly would have called himself a political economist, just like Marshall, Menger, Walras, etc.
I am not talking about hearing about economists outside of academia. I am talking within academia, where very few economists would call themselves Marxists. For the same reason that very few astrophysicists openly talk about signs of the zodiac. Marxism is considered to be crank economics within the economics profession. It only thrives in disciplines that don't understand economics.
@@GonzoTehGreat
All econoMIES are mixed, but econoMICS isn't, and very few econoMISTS are. You can find lots of theorists who champion Marx's ideology or political proposals, but very few who champion his theory of economics.
Some scientific theories do get unfairly maligned, dismissed for reasons having nothing to do with their predictive validity and parsimony. But under that hypothesis, I would expect to see Marx's political theory, ideology, related policy proposals etc to be tarred with the same brush and suppressed to roughly the same extent. That's clearly not what's happening here.
Three of the world's leading economists today are Paul Krugman, Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz, and all three of them are progressive. Piketty wrote a book recently titled "Time for Socialism" where he gives a progressive case for socialism. Krugman prefers not to use the word socialism or capitalism, but he pushes for progressive ideals. Same with Stiglitz - who endorsed Bernie Sanders. As to why there are no "Marxist" economists in universities, probably because a lot of people on the left don't like to associate themselves with Karl Marx for personal and philosophical reasons - they don't want to be tied down with that specific ideology as articulated by Marx. The socialist philosopher Bertrand Russell disliked Marx and Marxism because "Marx was inspired by hatred."
@@giggleman9908 You are the only person - other than Piketty himself - who thinks that Piketty is one of the leading economists of the world. He is a hack whose work has been widely debunked.
Krugman doesn't call himself a "socialist" because he isn't a socialist, anymore than the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They are market economies with large welfare states, which is what Krugman expouses.
And Stiglitz is just a whack job who has political beliefs that bear no relationship to his field of expertise in economics - his Nobel was awarded for his work in assymetric information.
In any event, I can list dozens of economists of greater or equal prominence - Cowen, Cochrane, Mankiw, Barro, Romer, Summers, Feldstein, etc, etc, etc - who not only don't call themselves socialists but would openly laugh at the proposition.
But you fundamentally avoided the point of my comment: if "socialism" is as meanstream in the economics profession as you seen to believe it is, then why is a non-economist participating in this debate? Why isn't there a conga line of bona fide economists waiting to take the socialism side of the argument?
“You know who else liked capitalism?!”
WHY? Why did he have to bring up that Austrian painter at the beginning? Why do they always do things like this? Makes it so hard to take anything else he says seriously after that. Just make points instead of trying to poison the well so obviously ffs.
Gotta do what you gotta do to win
These academic debates about ideology have some entertainment value and possibly also a little educational value, (although you really need to do your own research/study to learn anything from them), but otherwise aren't of much use, because "Socialism" vs "Capitalism" isn't a useful argument.
Debating specific policies within the context of these ideologies would be more instructive and useful for the public. For example, the pros vs cons of government funded healthcare.
That is why Bryan is such a perfect person to have in these debates, he will argue in favor of the market every single time. Even if he doesn’t convince the audience every time he is intelligent enough to make them think about it on a deeper level.
I agree that Capitalism vs Socialism is not really where the debate should be. But, I would like to see more debate around the basic foundations of Capitalism and Socialism, which is sorely missing in these debates that stick heavily to concretes.
For instance, what definition of "freedom" should we use. Is "freedom" the freedom to act in order to pursue your values, or is it freedom from hunger? Most people haven't even thought about the difference.
@@matthewstroud4294 Debating the meaning of freedom is a philosophocal, rather than political or economic, discussion, so I think you're better off asking philosophers to participate.
@@GonzoTehGreat I'm pretty sure the guy said he was a philosopher (of sorts), for what that is worth nowadays.
Political concretes are often discussed, disagreed upon, and usually lead nowhere for the audience. Politics is a branch of philosophy and the ideas are not often discussed, and that is what I'm saying - they should be. Having a better framework of the ideas and principles allows us to decipher the concretes and detect the bullshit.
All the time, I see these debates where good guys like Bryan are dragged into stats-battles or arguments about history. What they need to do is drag their opposition onto the ground of fundamental ideas, and expose their premises for the humanity-hating, reality-denying muck that they are.
That Brian Leiter fellow seemed upset.
You mean destroyed?
He's wrong, of course he's upset.
I actually think he kept his cool pretty well, given that Caplan consistently misrepresented his position, offered up opinion as fact, completely failed to address Leiter's central claim, and generally employed rhetoric rather than reasoned argument.
I think debaters would all do well to put end dates on projections like machines will take all the jobs in the future. Like by 2100.
Also 1 thing people often miss in that regard is that people can and do compete with machines. Example: Take a corporate farm with a 12 row harvester, why don't they use a 24 row harvester, because it's cheaper to have a human drive 2x as long than to buy the 24 row harvester. You might think, but wages would have to be very low, but I'd respond in a world of much more machines everything will be very cheap.
Hey what happened to the lectures on Marxism from the great professor you introduced. I cant remember his name but you commented on how he is old school in the sense of read alot , taught alot, but didnt publish much.
Releasing soon!
@@BryanDCaplan THANK YOU!
36:30 the next big industries will be Artificial Intelligence, Mixed reality aka Augmented Reality, Flying autonomous cars, and the Space Industry.
So blue collar jobs will be opening doors at the car landing spot, exploring space, creating art in the world.
There will be jobs until we colonize space and even then we'll need to relocate to a new planet so there will be jobs there as well.
Did Tyler Cowen pay his bet
Leiter won this one handily.
Professor Dr Bryan Caplan will definitely win this debate🤝👏🏻👍🏼🏦
Is Caplan the best defender of capitalism?!
I’m always surprised at how many people are either willfully ignorant or dumb.
Bryan's opponent is rude. Jut stand there and listen. Stop pulling faces at the audience.
I’m not really sure how people can get away with just saying, “you’re lying!” In a debate. I not sure how they can get away with not knowing anything about housing either. Wild world we live in😂
According to the socialist proponent, given that energy is a cost of production and reducing them down would maximize profist, we should be worried about what we will do with the amount of energy we are producing and also with employees working in the energy industry. Ridiculous.
This is perfect. Socialism will only work when we have abolished scarcity. Debate over, socialism loses until the world is filled with rainbows and unicorns. Does this professor realize he committed intellectual hari-kari in the middle of this debate.
You didn't understand. Watch again.
The Jewish professor called 'Bryian' won😉😉😉🤣😂😅😄😁
Just joking, Bryan Caplan; specifically; was much fairer, much more respectful, much more honest, much more polite & well mannered and much more reasonable and rational throughout this debate👍👍👍
Amazing debate! By Amazing I mean Bryan DESTROYEEEDDDD the commie lol
People of America, look around you.....Capitalism has failed! I'm not going to say what system is better, i'm not intelligent enough to speak on behalf of any system, i just know that America and its economic system of capitalism is failing over 75% of its citizens. That tells me that we have to adjust and possibly even consider a Democratic Socialist model if we are to survive in the new world. The way i see it, Communism/Socialism has beaten Democracy/Capitalism. And one can argue with me about this but, all i have to point out is two things....75% working Americans live pay check to paycheck....and second, the number of homeless people living on sidewalks has been steadily climbing in huge numbers in the last few years. If these are not indicators of a failed state, then what is?
If the fact that the US has a lot of people who are homeless and who can't save is proof that capitalism doesn't work, then what do the countless millions of deaths, the authoritarianism and revolutionary terror and secret police, the starvation and breadlines and flight to the West say about communism?
To be completely clear, you're not wrong for pointing out problems. You're wrong for failing to weigh them even-handedly against the problems with your own preferred solution.
75% of socialists have no Paycheck and homeless. Less than 0.5% of Americans are homeless and even they choose to be homeless due to mental issues
What capitalism? The US, and probably all countries, suffer under fascism to varying degrees - that is, rather than private property based free markets their economies are dominated by a corporate/governmental duopoly of power wherein politically connected big corporations succeed via buying special privileges from government as opposed to free markets where the only way a business can succeed is by providing better and/or less expensive goods and services.
“In terms of the merits of social democracy vs market capitalism I think the only thing we have to go on are the so-called natural experiments…”
Uh, no. You can learn economic theory. You don’t need any experiments.