Everybody talks about capitalism -- but what is it? | Kajsa Ekis Ekman | TEDxAthens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2015
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. In the wake of the financial meltdown and the euro crisis, a new interest in understanding capitalism has surged. So what is this system? It has the power to transform rural societies into bustling urban metropoles in only a decade, foster innovation and new technologies - but one thing the system lacks is a plan. And as we face not only economic crisis, but a much bigger climate crisis, a plan is exactly what is needed.
Kajsa Ekis Ekman was born in Stockholm 1980. She is a journalist and author of two books, "Being and being bought" about trafficking in women, and "Stolen Spring" about the eurocrisis and its consequences for Greece. Her books have been translated into several languages and she lectures around the world about crisis theory, women's rights and Latin American politics. She is a critic at Sweden's major daily Dagens Nyheter and an op-ed writer for the newspaper ETC. She is the founder of the climate action movement Klimax and the solidarity network NFG.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Seems that the different definitions here on the board and in the talk clarifies at least one thing: people aren't even talking about the same thing. So if people aren't having the same idea of what they are talking about, how can there be a solution/sensible discussion on any issue? I think this is what this talk is really aiming at, to define, not to propose economic and political ideologies.
Exactly! This is the issue with a lot of the current social commentary- we don’t know if we are on the same page or not because we don’t have a common basis of understanding.
@@EmeraldRubyTea I keep thinking this whenever I talk to people and whenever I see fights online. I think its not actually concepts we're disagreeing on, at least not for the most part, but definitions. What if I have a different definition of capitalism than you? I think that if one attacks an idea from the root, from its basis of existence, there is a chance to succeed in getting an idea across. Not saying that it means they think you're right, but they will at least recognize what you intend to say, not just what they choose to hear normally.
This occurs because the speaker is confused.
This is such a good talk, I keep coming back to it to remind myself of what the world really is that we're living through these days
What if I told you that this woman is clueless?
@@BarrySlisk can you elaborate?
@@yahyagannour8486 He can't. My guess is that he has bought into the brainwashing that capitalism is the default state, just because it has been in our lifetimes. As such, he views any critique of capitalism as an attack on the natural and obvious order (which to the enlightened mind, it clearly isn't).
@@joeymac4302 One of the most articulated comebacks I've seen on this site. Teach me Master
Capital is the means of production. Tools are capital. One can not eat a fishing pole but one can use a fishing pole to catch fish or frogs which one can eat. From simple tools to high tech tools all of these tools are capital. Everybody uses tools. Free market countries use capital as do socialist or communist countries. The entire world is a capitalist. The important thing of capital is who controls the capital. She could have given this lecture in 10 minutes but she just wanted to show off her new dress and high heels and talk of fake trade agreements like the European Community which is run by monopolists.
Very well explained. Can´t do much better in 15 minutes, considering that it takes half a term to cover capitalism at Law School.
At least somebody who agrees to her talk. Yes, it was right on spot.
Many people don't understand why their wages are low and mortgages high.
This is what journalism is supposed to be about!
@@EmeraldRubyTea ooooc
Hmmmm.. now I understand what capitalism is... hmmmm
Never knew a hot girl could get closer to explaining what is capitalism.. 🥵
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.
In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.
Economists, political economists, sociologists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice.
These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism.
Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies.
The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.
The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy.
Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.
Market economies have existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places and cultures.
However, the birth of modern capitalist societies (marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and an ultra rich elite capitalist class which dominates the control of wealth and political power) occurred in Western Europe, in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution.
Such capitalist systems, with varying degrees of direct government intervention, have since become dominant in the Western world, and continue to spread.
Capitalism has been criticized for establishing power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of a working class majority; for prioritizing profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and for being an engine of inequality and economic instabilities.
Supporters argue that it provides better products through competition, creates strong economic growth, yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefits society, as well as being the most efficient system known for allocation of resources.
Stella Maris you should have done the Ted Talk instead of her sheesh
Capitalism is based on greed.
Stella Maris Your definitions are contradictory. You state that capitalism is an ideology based on private property and private ownership of the means of production. But then later you state that there are various forms of capitalism, some of them being welfare capitalism or state capitalism. In those systems, the government interferes in private property, meaning it violates the concept of ownership by private individuals. Therefore, terms like state capitalism or welfare capitalism are both a contradiction in terms.
@@kiswahilikitukuzwe2547 Your unthinking anti-capitalism is based on stupidity.
@@samuelboucher1454 It was cut&paste from Wikipedia.
Very well put, please more!
Share with everyone you care about, then share with everyone you can.
Truly believe understanding this is our salvation.
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
Damn she is so spot on of my thougts on captialism.
People need to get organized and take back the infrastructures, children and healthcares that the corporations have stolen from the citizens.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
What could possibly go wrong...
nahiag So because of risks things should not be done even though it's the right thing to do? Besides, let's not moralize over Russian Revolution when we've had our share of blood in the name of "liberalism" (e.g. French Revolution). Also, one could argue that part of the Russian Revolution was "liberal" since it was a rise against the tsar's totalitarianism.
nahiag yeah its better to continue with ruining the world with capitalism, its so great with poverty, pollution and dictatorships from the companies.
Not quite. The problem is that she calls corporatism capitalism.
yeah, she probably missed that point. ...
I came here for information because I'm writing a speech on capitalism and honestly I think the comments are more helpful than the video...
Love is one of the few anarchist systems we still have so it’s best to cherish it
Anarchy, how so?
Awww
@@Cybernaut551 Your viewpoints of anarchist is look up Michael malice amazing mind that dives deep into it
Brilliant talk. Unfortunately, too many people are too ignorant to get the message. And too many have to much to lose by taking this to heart.
Meak ... gOOGLE: Corporatism . Cronyism . Fascism/Socialism ... Its not as complicated as many statist's are trying to make it - when you know who's the basic stockholder - and what/who's the stock...
'The companys only goal is profit'
Well, that is correct - but what is profit? And how does a State-corporation make profit (- & create derivatives)? What is Fiat-Currency? She is trying to make it so redundant as possible - so her Marxist model can be applied and everyone can understand it, after 10min. It is not fair - it is corrupt.
'The causes of the crisis...'
..The system are not experiencing small pockets of 'crisis' - the system IS crisis. Time to smell the napalm -.- the confused subjugation fthe words of Marx/hegel will only get u so far : Unless you are actually worshipping this imperial grid (of the capitals) & their schisms, the bureaucracy, the violence/coercion & centralization of power.
It was bad, really bad. Bad english, annoying voice and what she talked was bullshit.
They will never get the point.... dont take loans to be a consumer... lol
DrNietsoj
Not many, but the powerful have a lot to lose :)
People are complacent.
I like her not cause she is smart not because she is pretty but because she is BRAVE.
Thank You Lady 🙏
I never seen Talks like this; everyone is busy to feed us their version of truth not to portray whole picture.
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
she was an amazing lecturer, she talked about "economy, capitalism etc" and even made it sound better, threw some punch here and there!
Such ignorance. Blaming so called deregulation for bubbles. The real culprit is the Federal Reserve. They regulate the money supply and when the printing presses are turned on coupled withj artificially low interest rates creates the boom/bust cycle.
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
@@RightfootWestHam What is "terrorist level of extreme"? Who are these groups she supports? What I'm saying is: no one believes you, and no one takes you seriously. Just because we don't advocate hunting the homeless for sport like conservatives do doesn't mean we're terrorists.
Usually I'm about halfway through my 3rd shift of the week at McDonalds when I start blaming capitalism for making me borrow 100K to get a degree in journalism lmao
Nah, don't blame capitalism - blame your school system, your parents and yourself.
You choose to get that useless degree, your parents choose not to properly research and guide you on to the right path and your school system/politicians choose not to update the curriculum and give you a proper education in capitalism and how business ownership and capitalism works.
@@jzk2020 Why are you blaming everything but capitalism? Why aren't you even mentioning the bank who loaned him the money promising him a better future? The pursuit of profits is what drove the predators who loaned him the money knowing they were ripping him off. So if people steal from a bank it's the people's fault, but if the banks steals from the people it's the people's fault? You can't have it both ways.
In a horribly regulated capitalism you get a country where the average person graduating high school has 30,000 in debt, like in the USA. Where as here in most places in Europe, debt is not something you need to go to college.
@@jzk2020 Journalism is worthless only in societies that have allowed the military industrial complex to infiltrate the free market and convince politicians and consumers that unless their product serves the interest of war, it has no value. If journalism is worthless, you should stop consuming news as it has no value.
@@ElectronicCalifornia because it wasn't the bank that loaned the money, it was the government, the government doesn't care about how you pay the loans back, all it cares about getting the money back. That's why we need to privatize student loans, which unfortunately for you is apart of capitalism, because the private bank cares about whether you're actually able to pay the loans back, which will lead to guidance from the bank in the career you pursue, it knows it wont get its money back from a degree in gender studies.
C. Lincoln bruh what’s the right path then, giving up your dreams to become an electrical engineer and committing suicide at 40?
Excellent point by this speaker: Capitalism is production for profit with private owners (As opposed to production not made for profit and/or not in private hands)
Not in private hands is capitalism, state capitalism.
Very good talk, I have learnt how the world works a little bit more...
Profit works to generating of more profits = capitalism .
Thank you 🤍👏👏👏👍
Kajsa Ekman asked several key questions that made her contribution intelligent and helpful. She differentiated “Capitalism,” which is driven by return on investment (ROI), from “the market,” which tends to be local (e.g. farmers taking products to customers, as she said), and is driven by human need plus the passion that we all have to be useful, to make things and to serve others. What she omitted was that it is the state (equals politicians who are in bed with the rich) that has corrupted capitalism by creating corporations with limited liability and privilege, plus patents and copyright, which are based on state force that has no place in a free market, plus hundreds of other laws that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Lastly, Ekman criticised democracy, which has become a racket. The ballot box gives citizens no power, but places “sovereign” or absolute power, in the hands of politicians who are always corrupt. We need to set citizens free, decentralise all power, and make possible the re-emergence of healthy families and local communities again.
The simple fact is that the free market is the natural relationship between ordinary people, and it works. But the market cannot work if corrupt politicians strangle it with laws made to divert resources into their back pockets.
Socialism is driven by need while capitalism is driven by greed.
@@kiswahilikitukuzwe2547 Socialism, where a few work hard to take care of the lazy. Greed is necessary for civilization to progress, this is how we get guys like Ellon Musk.
Nicely put
You are spot on that rich in bed with politicians must stop. That corruption weakens our ballot box power so that we can not control our government. A separation of business and state. End the racket!
@@leehayes4019 politicians NEED the rich, that's how they get money for their campaign in the first place. Broke people can't provide the money needed for a campaign. And without the campaign they can't reach those broke people in the first place. Also politicians getting money from the rich isn't necessarily corruption or bribery as long the politicians are doing things i their own terms and not money.
RULE No 1
Dont spend what you dont have, full stop.
Skalleman
Its amazing how many people dont abide by this rule.
Loans are a very useful thing. You just have to be able to pay them afterwards. I encourage you to not construct simple rules about unfathomably complex topics.
Well, that's pretty much what everybody did, prior to the 1600's. Economic growth was just about absent back then. Without creating money in the form of debt, only very small companies would have been founded
👏 I agree with all of the contradictions that face us and we just go around them, troubled and servile... Etc
Great speech! But I wonder about the post-colonial analysis, for example “no crisis in Europe” - Was that at the expense of third world production or resources? Because that makes a big difference too...
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
Microsoft pays the highest salaries and earns the highest profit. So lowering salaries is not the gateway to profit. Industries that lower salaries close down.
8:26 the girl chewing the chewing gum thinking if she would buy chewing gum during the crisis. 😂
without profit, a company cannot support itself. it would be non-profit which depends on "handouts"
+Bigdawgphilleep imo, those non-profits that sell products are making profit in a sense that they end up with more money that they started with through the selling of products or services. it's just that the money generally serves a larger group of people than a for-profit organization.
So powerful...it just blow up your mind---simple, clear and logic understanding of a system called capitalism. Solution: capital ownership!
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
Good point those who see money as a tool and those who see money as the goal.
What?! Its every persons goal to make a profit. Its just nonsense rambling that only communists can sympathise with.
Erik Eriksson It depends on how you see profit. Profit does not just have to come in the form of cash. Cash can be a tool for great profit in the form of creating a beautiful environment/place to live in.
Cash and profit can be different to each other.
Erik Eriksson there is no profit in taking care of other its called being a human-fucking-being. There is no profit in doing sacrifices to make this earth live alittle longer. you know what kills it? profit. capitalism has the same pattern as another living organism. can you guess what that is? a virus. It will drain the host of its nutritions until its dead and the virus dies with it just like profit is killing people today.
Gfors85 you took deep thinking to another level!!! Is there anything that YOU DO that isn't motivated by some kind of profit? For tour information capitalistic countries are the ones with the most austere environmental legislation. You go to Switzerland (which is up there on the capitalistic index) and you see a pristine environment, I dare you to look up China (which BTW is improving due to capitalism) or Venezuela, or how the Soviet Union used to be (which of course now is an oligarchy operating on the same ethics of the past). I have been to communist countries back then and they were the filthiest places I've ever been. I have also lived in the States and UK no comparison...
P.S. the very fact that you are here on the net, expressing your opinions freely, from the comfort of your house, thousands of miles away from others that you converse with, for free, is due to capitalism. Not to mention the overall phenomenal improvement of standards of living of the western middle class in just 100 years.
C_R_O_M__________ First of all, none of those countries you call communist has ever been real communist countries. just because a crazy dictator says he is a communist does not mean that the country actually is ruled in a communistic way, which by the way means that the country would not have any money at all. Secondly, I come from Sweden, which were a socialistic nation and also the worlds richest country per citizen. With no homeless and almost none unemployees we had a great nation with a secure social network that took care of all of us for free. Healthcare, School and many other social services were for free and with very high standard. Now we have adapted a more capitalistic way and we have lots of homeless people, the socialnetwork is hollow and does not help as much as it harms, most of our taxes goes to companies that sucks it up into their own pockets and school and healthcare are shit. thanks capitlalism. oh yeah, we do have maybe hundred new millionaires. but for one millionaire we get hundreds of homesless and thousands of unemployeds.
oh and I bet that if it werent for profit I would had this conversation decades ago since noone would have to make money on internet or youtube before I could actually sit here and write this to you. you do know that nothing is free and profit slows evolution down since every company must earn the profit from making a new product...
Ekis!
She is a real punk in a good sense of that word. This speech is one of the best I ever heard and I heard and read a lot in my 50+ years on this planet. Crass band said - fight war, not wars.
I'd like to hear more about those mechanisms
She is a little inconsistent in defining capitalism as production for profit in private hands but then describing production for profit in state hands, as in China, as "state capitalism". Better to define capitalism more simply as production for profit, with private capitalism and state capitalism as subtypes.
She's sort of talking about neoliberal globalization. An ambitious task to talk about in less than 15 minutes.
She's right about Sweden. It used to be a text-book example of so many good things for decades. When Julian Assange was charged with "rape" in Sweden, I knew something to that country had changed for the worse. Somewhere in the past decade or so, Sweden had joined, or been hijacked by, the "dark side" of the U.S. empire.
you are everywhere lol
beautifully explained, an engaging talk
Letting everyone know that this Kajsa Ekis Ekman is a Swedish journalist that have shown support for extremist leftist organisations.
When I mean extreme, Im talking about terrorist-level of extreme.
depending who exactly your taking to but in canada we have university essays on crown corporation effectiveness
THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE BOUGHT AND THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SOLD !
Not necessarily, humanity at one point did not buy or sell anything. This is not to say that I would rather live in those times, however, note that your survival under this system depends on you being a consumer. Could there be alternatives to surviving being dependent on individual consumption and more based in collective action?
The tragedy of this world is that instead of thinking about how we want the 22nd century to look like, people are debating obsolete systems (see comments below).
Radu Miron I absolutely concur- why do people continue to "debate" and advocate nonsense like Marxism, whose central tenet, the Labor Theory (sic) of Value, was totally discredited in the 19th century by Bawerk, et al. Had Ulyanov bothered to read any of the economic scholarship of the 25 years prior to the "revolution" that he led (or indeed, any at all) the human and economic cost of that mistake could have been averted. Not to mention Mao or Pol Pot...
Wondering whether the example given at the end, of securing the co-operation of young people as stakeholders by charging them for their higher education, could also apply to immigration/border control policies that charge large sums for citizenship tests, visas and the like. Intuitively I had expected that rational choice theory would mean that the higher the cost of these basic utilities (movement and education), the higher the sense of disillusionment with the system that was gatekeeping these utilities through fees and fines. Fascinating to consider it working in the reverse.
in this speech addresses most of the prejudices about capitalism mentioned by the great economist Ludwig von Mises in his book Anti-Capitalism
You mean what she says, Mises refutes?
Interesting point of view and different angle on history, but could use some suggestions for solutions, instead of just redefining the same old problems.
The solution is really quite simple. Mixed economy. Socialized medicine, defense, and education, and privatized everything else. You know, like they do in the countries that consistently rank as the happiest countries on the planet. Spoiler alert, pure capitalist USA hasn't hit the top 10 in decades. This is really very simple. Many places have found a way to make it work without profit driving everything, including your entire quality of life. It amazes me that people can't see that we're doing something wrong, and try to implement some of the strategies more successful countries have.
WOW amazing speech ^_^
She's got nice b00b00s.
Simp
Such a great talk,wow.
Great breakdown on this complicated topic. My only issue was with the person behind the camera switching. They kept going to random shots and jumping from one camera to another way too quickly. Made it a bit tough to focus on her message. This might be the video editor in me speaking though lol
Unfortunately, she doesn’t understand that capitalism is by far the most democratic system to ever exist (not to mention it is also morally superior to all other arrangements since it does not involve the use of force to impose itself). All a capitalist can do is offer a service in exchange of another through the price system. Nothing more. You are always free to choose who you work for and which goods and services you acquire. Those companies that do not offer competitive wages and whose goods and services nobody wants to acquire, goes out of business or is forced to rearrange itself radically. Those companies whose goods and services satisfy the needs of the consumer (an individual making a choice independently from what the majority dictates) are rewarded with a competitive advantage. Therefore, not only is it the most democratic but also it considers the individual as the master of his or her own fate without having to threat anyone to go to prison!
Yep
A plan for capitalism? No. Capitalism is about riding the currents of the river. Not trying to control where the river flows.
I know right, central planning is the exact opposite of capitalism.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Capitalism is all about controlling where the river flows.
Ultraviolet Morgan Tarot socialists think the weirdest things.
No one could haven't done this in 15 minutes!
What is needed is not just a "Common Market" but a "A Common Economic System Architecture for the EU" which was the original title of my kindle. It si now titled "Creating Responsible Capitalism". It describes a capitalist system where the system dynamics are altered to produce a stable crisis free economy and produces economic justice and reduces income inequality.
Capitalism is responsible.
A good analysis of capitalism.
But farmer needs money when he is growing te crops. So he is also selling in order to make more money. money-product-money.What about it?
Great talk
Wonderful speech !!
Thats right you cant have democracy in love.... democracy is force and you cant force people to love..... love is free.... free like a private owner and a private consumer making a transaction they both agree on without force... capitalism...
Good!
You explained a lot in a short time
The camera moving so much and not just focusing on the speaker was very distracting
Hmmm, everyone of her negative examples of capitalism had something to do with a government attempting to derive an outcome of sorts. 🤔
Precisely. She never mentioned The Federal Reserve or Community Reinvestment Act. she is clueless.
"Capitalism is more powerful than democracy..."
Well, we call it "Capitalist Democracy", not "Democratic Capitalism". The priority is right there in the name.
Turn it however you like - but she is right.
Capitalism is bending the rules in Democracy where ever it can.
JCLeSinge You cant have capitalism and democracy together. Capitalism the system of freedom, where individual rights are protected. Democracy is mob rule. To the extent you can vote on anything meaningful, you don’t have capitalism.
Richard Petek the us inst even a democracy anyway
@@damonhage7451 Sure the rich capitalists call any inroads on private property by the workers the majority. "mob rule"
@@ryanpatridge3918 You do know that there many more countries with a capitalist system besided the US, right?
It may be necessary to google Gary North's extensive work 'Conspiracy in Philadelphia' and 'Shay's and 'The Whiskey Rebellion' (1787, 1791-94) as the link/server for these is not functioning well
now.
What do you do Erick?
The answer to your question at the end of the show is pretty simple. The nature, the liberty as it was shown in your own country I the 1800's. No the force, nor coercion, nor compulsion, all of them actually present in all the life's of hundred of persons including the States. The absence of these is what human needs to make wealth (no money, money is the mean to transfer wealth from one hand to other), and voluntary cooperation. Are you in favor of coercion, force, or compulsion? If so, you are no in favor of liberty, you are not in favor of capitalism, you are in favor or dictator.
Capitalism is a system that creates dictators and slaves - far from freedom, unless you are a dictator, I mean business owner.
Capitalism is the private ownership of property and the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no profit motive. The profit motive is inherent in the individual regardless of who owns property or the means of production.
I was born either too early or too late.
We are all a kind of too early.
Nu när jag äntligen hittade hit... Kajsa, det du säger är helt sant!! Helt opolitiskt men helt beskrivande av kapitalismens funktion och drivkraft!
A country with good economic policies such as capitalism instead of socialism, is more important to growing prosperity than democracy or the advancement of science. New Harmony n Indiana was very science minded, filled with intellectuals & artists but failed miserably within 2 years under socialism (a bad economic system) point is, incentives to produce & incentives to improve are vital to a countrys prosperity. Capitalism is the only known economic system in which this is possible today [today]
When you think you have great ideas but don't know exactly how things work in general
Explain the farmer example: What if I don't have eggs to sell? Can I sell my labour?
She so technically forgot that the farmer can be a capitalist too.
Imponerande. I am impressed.
There needs to be a differentiation of capitalism. We are in urgent need to divide capitalism and divide two types of currencies.
Im in love Kajsa! =)
Och dom säger att blondiner är dumma???
Göran Nilsson Hon är ett bevis på att blondiner är totalt blåsta.
Long live to Marx, Engels, Lenin & Rosa Luxemburg!
i hear science involves logic and reason... Mises and the austrians were big on that
Sergio Díaz Nila "And Marx too ..."
no he wasn't, Marx DQ'ed himself in the opening pages of Das Kapital when he claims that things are exchanged because they are equal in value... all his logic is based off that fallacious first step.
When things are exchanged, its because both parties value what they are getting more than what they are giving up. In other words, there is a double inequality of value, rather than equality as marx fallaciously asserts and then proceeds to build on.
"...but how is fame related to accuracy? does fame implies accuracy on analysis? no it doesn't. Suggesting, implying or assuming such statements has a name in Logic "Ad Hominem" and it is a fallacy."
uhhh, i have no idea lol... considering i never mentioned anything about any of that, I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I didnt attack anyones person, and if i was going to i would make sure to refute their doctrine first so its not ad hom.
i agree for the most part about your views on science, i would just say that the same scientific method used for the physical sciences liek physics and chemistry is inappropriate for social and philosophic sciences like economics because there are no constants... in other words, collecting data and plotting it on charts and what not is not the correct way to deduce economic theory.... as you mentioned, economic theory is properly deduced via logic the same way mathematics is.
for example, no amount of empirical data could ever disprove the pythagorean theorem. Its correct because the basic assumption is correct and the steps along the way are correct, therefore the conclusion must also be true. If you found a triangle that didnt add up, that doesnt invalidate the theorem, it means you werent actually looking at a triangle. Same situation with economics... if you find the market is not "working", its not a real market and there is some sort of government intervention messing it up.
"It is known that Mises and many other Austrian Economists, they wrote it in books, base their "research" on principles they assume to be truth and their logical derivations. And Behavior Economists, Sociologists, Anthropologists, Psychologists have proven wrong multiple of those principles. "
the assumptions that "humans act"... i guess he were really reaching there lol... i think its a correct assumption. the only assumption is that humans act, you think thats a false assumption proven untrue?
"Actually the concept of free market has being touched by other societies it wasn't an Idea of Adam Smith, he just introduced it to the West. The original idea came from Medieval Islam, they had only known regulated markets and designed a free market based on the principles of their religion, for them trade and commerce are not wrong but usury it is, and compound interest is a form of usury for them. Smith learned from this Islamic writers and made it public to the West based on judeo-christian principles"
I'm well aware, smith represents a disastrous decline in economic thought and we are still suffering from it. Smith was wrong on interest and promoted a labor theory of value, but i think it had more to do with his calvinist roots than he reading of islamic writings lol.
Sergio Díaz Nila " i have talked to people and per transaction this isn't an universal truth is just a comfortable assumption to make logic simple and easy for lazy pseudoscientists, for instance some people say, i don't want or need or value what i got from the transaction, but i wanted to help the other, like someone that offers a quick job to a friend to help him. Or when someone buys something in the street to a kid, because he/she wan't to help him/her.
The assumption about Mises that i mean is wrong, is that HUMANS ACT SELFISHLLY, and that is what has being proven wrong by Behavioural Economists and Psychologists."
ok you must have misread Mises then (if you bothered trying to read him at all, have you actualyl read him?). Mises covers all that stuff and ties it all in. Mises does indeed say that everyone acts in their own self interest and will choose the action that they believe will bring them the highest value or satisfaction. Your example fits in quite nicely with all that. the guy obviously expects to value the satisfaction gained from helping the kid more than he values the amount of money he gave up. Helping out the kid was higher up on his value scale than keeping the money.
How is that not consistent with people always choosing what is highest on their own value scale and acting in their own self interest?
what about that is incorrect or fallacious? if you think about it, it has to be true, if the guy doesnt want the product, and if the guy values the money more than the satisfaction of helping the kid, he wouldn't buy the thing from him. The very fact that he choose to voluntarily help the kid necessarily implies all the above. If he didnt value helping him more than the money he wouldnt give it up.
This is a great thought experiment to illustrate the universal praxeological truths that mises was espousing. lets extend it a little further and think about what would happen if the price of the kids' goods kept going up. Do you think that, even though the guy really wants to help out the kid and buy his wares, there might come a point where the guy might value the money over the satisfaction derived from helping the kid?
interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Sergio Díaz Nila lol, so in other words you have nothing to say about how your own example of a guy helping the kid fits perfectly into the austrian framework about acting in perceived self interest, and so you change the subject ranting about other things totally ignoring the question posed.
how is the example of the guy helping the kid NOT a clear cut case of him preferring the satisfaction gained from his act of kindness to the money he gave up to bring it about and thus acted in his own perceived self interest? he could have been wrong, afterwards he could of been like "dam, that wasnt nearly as satisfying as i hoped it would be, not gonna do that again, better off keeping the money"
its your own example and you got smashed. Its okay to concede the point, it doesnt make you dumb or less of a man or anything. It an act of integrity because we aren't out to big dick each other on who was right, its about finding out truth.
and it does take into account self destructive behavior... its just obvious the person gets more value out of "self destructing" than other actions. Mises also points out how action is uncertain... the guy could take an action thinking he will benefit, and be totally wrong, it could wind up being destructive. its pretty obvious you havent read what he said on this stuff. you are not trying very hard to comprehend if you cant work a say, heroin addict into that framework.
Sergio Díaz Nila "first you have to start with a mockery term as "lol" Why is that?"
because i was laughing out loud that you came up with an example of a guy altruistically helping out a kid, which you thought was an air tight proof of how people dont always act in their own perceived self interest, and i showed very clearly how it fits into the theory of human acting in their own perceived self interest perfectly fine. Mises even covers examples like that in his own writings.
you still haven't offered any counter argument to that. You give an example, i prove how it fits in fine with the theory, and instead of addressing that argument you go all ad-hom, something you accused me of earlier LOL.
You are just butt hurt because you thought you could use that lame example to prove Mises wrong, it failed, and instead of offering any retort you just lash out with insults.
you need to explain how the example guy helping the kid wasnt a case of the guy valuing the satisfaction of helping the kid more than the money it costs to but a product he didnt want.
IDK why you are so hung up on hating on guy whos work you havent read and are unable to refute. Is it because you think if you agree with Mises that humans act you will have to then support free markets?
Superb Talk!!!! But Why did she literally ran from the stage after finishing the talk??? Also was it only me who thinks she looks lot like Nicole Aniston??
Would you please add the Korean subtitles for the video?
swedish pride!
Fuck off
Superior to Swedish envy ;)
Swedish shame*
Swedish pootang
Sweden grew under deregulated free markets. Lol. Sweden grew because of capitalism.
I think I'm in love.
💜
There is no such thing as a utopian society and nothing in this universe (that I know of) is absolute and perfect, fundamentally. That being said a free market economy is the greatest compromise anyone has come up with yet. Only here can a man or woman regardless of class boost his/her position in society, gain wealth and power. It may be hard but what isn't in life? It's supposed to be hard if you weren't born privileged or living in this bubble were you can outwardly criticize a government and even suggest we replace them without fear of being silenced for good. We have our problems but when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you realize we got it pretty damn good. Atleast I think so..
Kajsa är så jävla grym alltså! Kajsa, om du läser det här så vill jag bara säga att jag är öppen för äktenskap. Hör av dig om det låter intressant.
Så du är en till blåst kommunist...
blaha blaha bonnläpp.
Välkommen till Göteborg, Sveriges framstjärt.
Ni är bra på att göra parodi på er själva.
Erik Eriksson Du framstår verkligen som en respektabel människa när du skriver sådana kommentarer. Fortsätt du i samma hjulspår och hoppas någon tar dig seriöst någon gång :)
Hver sin smag. Jeg foretrækker en kvinde med hjerne.
Capitalism is a subsystem of the Monetary System and the same goes for Socialism, Communism, Fascism.
Now why can't we human beings come up with a new and better system than the Monetary System?
Why do we have to stop at any one system indefinitely?
For example Science & Technology have been racing forward but social systems are so so far behind. I mean we still have Democracy which hasn't been updated ever since its inception which was over 2000 years ago.
Now imagine if we only had technology that was 2000 years old.
That being said, we could stop yelling at one single system and create a new improved system, there's no natural law saying we have to stick to the Monetary System.
If there's one thing the human species is really good at is at innovating and coming up with new ideas.
Best thing is small limited and specific role of government and a heightened view of the rights of the individual
Good lecture 👍🏾
Owners of big corporations earn money by people's hard work and by virtue of their ownership of resources and means of production. If companies are state owned there can be workers'democracy, consumers' democracy and the profit will be used for social welfare like infrastructural development, education, health care, security, justice, environmental and wildlife protection etc. which capitalism has no answer for.
thw owner puts their money and his other asset at risk . Company fails, the workers jump to another bandwagon but the owner has to face the losses.
@@madhureshminoshi4272 Not necessarily their own money. Sometimes it's a loan, or investment of someone else's money. The workers do the work and sometimes risk their health/lives. If the company fails, they can become jobless
Capitalism isn't perfect but it is the best we have
Defeatist unoriginal thinking
@@darleyt1 so what do you suppose.
@@carbinepeepoo
Crickets....... :)
Vedic sanaatan Living and economic system is real democracy
She needs to read about The Road to Serfdom.
She isn't promoting socialism or communism.
She was promoting that capitalism should be regulated from the bottom, for example unions which would represent workers and/or worker representatives which would be members of the board within companies and social democratic governments which would provide social services to citizen (free healthcare, education etc..)
@@richardpetek712 that’s democratic socialism. technically speaking, the workers own the means of productions so it’s technically socialism
@@mimeyman80 Yes, if "democracy at workplace" means that workers own the means of production, it is.
If workers cooperate in management boards and the society (=government) regulates the corporate world like she says at 13:38, it is social democracy.
But even if workers own the means of production, this doesn't mean becoming an authoritarian society which people are (rightfully) afraid of.
Worker co-ops, free market and democracy might well work together too. The problem is, it is an unstable system, capital tries (and does) take over means of production ASAP. It is all about people who decide who will govern them: capital through donations to political parties - or themselves by forbidding "party contributions" as a legalised form of bribery.
Brilliant speech..
Capitalism is when the government does less stuff and socialism is when the government does stuff
I cant tell if this is satirical or not.
The lack of crisis post WWII was because GOVERNMENT stepped in and controlled the capitalist economy - not because capitalism doesn't have a problem with instability!
Ekman's definition of capitalism is a little narrow, too. You can have businesses owned privately and aiming for profit but that aren't capitalistic - they are worker-owned co-ops. The crux of capitalism is the RELATIONSHIPS within the enterprises. She touches on this when she talks about the lack of democracy in capitalism, but doesn't take it to its conclusion: that the alternative to capitalism is workplace democracy - every worker owning and controlling the enterprise.
Simply one of the most intelligent talks on T e D tl
Capitalism IS democracy. Every day man votes for what he wants with dollars. The winners get the most dollars. It is voluntary.
Well, to stay within your terminology - the "most democratic people" make the rules.
That's a good definition of democracy "one dollar one vote" ... and of course some of us get a whole lot of votes and some almost none at all. Very democratic!
@@dthomp74ca then let’s burn all the dollars, send them to the field, everyone equal -polpot
At 9:48 she makes a naive statement. The United States so cleverly outsourced the jobs to the third world countries and paid just 10 percentage of what it pays to its own citizens.
Please add the Korean subtitles
Exceptional
So to clarify, capitalism is a completely meaningless term that can describe literally any economy you want?
Basically. Plus, the use of these terms to define multiple things creates the confusion needed to sustain these systems because when a discussion is in place, people refer to different definitions using the same terms
Basically. Plus, the use of these terms to define multiple things creates the confusion needed to sustain these systems because when a discussion is in place, people refer to different definitions using the same terms
No not really. By her definition. Capitalism is the greedy form of any economic system.
This isn't even a matter of ideological disagreement or using different definitions. What she is saying is objectively factually untrue.
In our world politics dictates economic outcomes. What we refer to as "democracy" requires examination. Are the processing of governing participatory, representative or delegated, or some combination of all three? How are individuals chosen to serve in public office? Do the systems of law, regulation and taxation meet objective tests of justice? Or, do these systemic forces secure and protect monopolistic privileges that result in the redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests? Is there an appropriate balance under law between the protection of property and human rights? What, in fact, is property? What we produce with our labor (and whatever capital goods we own) is surely our property. What about nature? Nature is not produced by any person. Land and natural resources are provided to us free of charge. Do some have a greater claim on nature than others? If so, what is the principle involved? None of these issues has been resolved by human societies as the centuries have come and gone. The philosopher Mortimer J. Adler suggested that the extent to which just law, justly enforced, exists in a society is whether the overwhelming majority of citizens have access to the goods of decent human existence. if many people do not, one can logically conclude that there is serious injustice at play. Many thoughtful intellectuals have offered an analysis of how and why some (whether a majority or just a significant minority) have not enough when others have far more than needed. The person I have come to believe offers the greatest insights and most practical solutions was the 19th century political economy Henry George. Every thoughtful person would benefit from reading his 1879 book "Progress and Poverty." This book, which has sold millions of copies since it was first published and has been translated into almost every language, brought people as diverse as Leo Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, Sun Yat-Sen, and John Dewey to devote much of their energy to bringing Henry George's vision of the just society to reality.
hello , me and some friends are very interested in this Video , we have translated it into arabic , and it would be great if we had permission to upload it on our youtube channel (a social democracy channel ) with arabic subtitles , can you please let me know how to contact you
Try her fb page
where this chat happend? When is the next talk in athens :D
You can tell she dated Richard Wolff 😜
Wait, for real?
Skills are base of Honesty ?? If I have money for purchase any skills , than using authority Honesty may skilled human's or Honest human ??
MAGNIFICENT
They were privatized unfortunately because the state couldn't run them efficiently
She quotes Marx to explain what capitalism is. Says it all. Marx knew nothing about capitalism and was disproven by Eugene von Böhm Bawerk already in his own time.
1:49 Anybody read anywhere about such rebuttals?
I'm pretty sure she made that up or she read it on some useless Marxist website.
The Lord a blessed Abraham, Jacob and Joseph with their wives. I want this one