The system prevailing in the US and UK is _already_ socialism -- socialism for the corporations. Our legal system allows them to socialize the cost and risk and privatize the profits for the big corporations and the thieves that run them.
I agree that wdednam's comment is not spam. It is a reasonable contribution to the debate: he points out that Nuku Calvocoressi is wrong to present our choice as being between welfare and investment spending: "the "proportion" of total public spending going to welfare (social spending) in the US is about the same as it is in Europe: about 50% of total public spending." It is becoming more and more obvious that we should not allow private actors to socialize risks and privatize profits.
The idea that the government took risks is ludicrous. Businesses can fail and lawsuits can be devastating. The EPA destroyed a river in Colorado and they didn't even respond to subpoenas. The government can take chances on drugs because nothing bad will happen to them.
That's the point genius. Private companies can fail when they make risky investments. Governments can't. Ergo = The state makes the risky investments which create things like the internet.
@@friarpapius3008it's beyond that though, because corporations are subject to the whims of shareholders and shareholders get scared, corporations are limited by nature in what kinds of long-term investing they are even capable of doing. Everything must be tabulated *quarterly* so if you're gonna spend, it needs to pay off /now/. That's an exaggeration and oversimplifying somewhat, but the essence is valid. Government, on the other hand, has budgets. These budgets are flexible and in the case of federal budget we start to get into MMT discussion, and we're not gonna do that here, but anyway you get funds allocated. Those funds are meant to accomplish things, and while there are regulations there's also a fair amount of discretion about how best to achieve things, which means if the best outcome means a longer project with a better result, that's a choice that can be made. In research specifically, the private sector is almost exclusively focused on final products. Research needs to pay for itself with a product and quickly. Government grants are allocated to promising projects, but not exclusively to end products, so things that may not have a specific use immediately or can't be made market-viable without developing new production methods and further research can be funded, as long as they're promising. This is how most breakthrough technologies start out. Graphene, for instance, is an incredible substance, but in the beginning it had zero viability as a commodity because nobody had developed a product that used it in the construction because it didn't exist, and production methods were inefficient, making it prohibitively expensive for most things. I actually haven't checked on how that one's developed in awhile, but it had made leaps and bounds last I checked. Anyway, graphene, if developed privately, would have been made proprietary and probably shelved indefinitely because further development would have been too expensive without a clear payoff. It serves as a good case study to show why real innovation often comes out of public funding rather than private research. Needing an immediate payoff limits our ability to try things that might not work or be useful.
Private debt is even worse?? Financial crisis caused by private debt State is the biggest monster Private sector is fast, dynamics, evolving State is bureaucratic, leviathan Using caricatures for Ideological reasonings State funding helping to boost small enterprises, not private fundings Pharma company examples Innovation is risky and uncertain Us having a Visible hand in the market
It's a pity someone feels they have to mark wdednam's comment as spam. He was just stating that the same proportion of total public spending was going to welfare in the US as in the Scandinavian countries. Must be because the other commenter has nothing substantive to reply with.
Very interesting - it appears that the balance in government spending in Europe may be wrong relative to the US with too high a proportion of government spending going on welfare and too low a proportion on state investment in technology etc. that has the potential to increase productivity and therefore wealth in the medium to long term.
"Entrepreneurial government" would invariably increase the demand for Socialism, because what justification could there possibly be if the taxpayers take all the risks while private capitalists get to keep all the profits.
She seems to want to give an intellectual backing to the Obama "You didn't bulid that" fallacy, offsetting the fact that countries with minimal government intervention have tended to grow the fastest, including the US during the 19th century when the government's share of the economy was miniscule.
The US gov't was hugely interventionist in the 19th c. They built the transcontinental railroad, which triggered booms. They raised tariffs to protect young industry and fund infrastructure. The 19th c. Republican party supported high tariffs and major spending. Hell, the US gov't fought a massive war to bring the south into the modern world. Look at China today, where the gov't is draconian, and its economy booms. There's no correlation between "minimal govt" and growth. You don't need education for your opinions, but contemporary workers usually do, and that's gov't.
This whole talk is dependent on some absurd poorly thought out illusion that the "State" is some kind of wealth producing entity that preceded when the opposite is true since proper examination of the situation proves it is false. The State is essentially run by politicians who have very few skills in business and are mostly politically driven individuals rather than science or fact based. If the "State" were the sources of wealth then it would Not have to tax individuals or private sector organizations to get wealth to spend or provide as welfare. Yet all "States" do. If anyone thinks that the 'State' creates the wealth and innovation and transfers that wealth to the private sector they are very confused about themselves and reality itself. If you think like that then you have swallowed propaganda instead of thinking for yourself. The lack of thinking leads to confusion the legal obligations of and actions of the "State" with actions of individuals. In reality there is No such being as "the State" because it is a name for a group of individuals. "The State " is an inanimate abstract creation in people's minds. It does not have the restrictions on it that private people have but applies restrictions to private individuals and private organizations that it exempts itself from. It can take No action of itself. Only private individuals have that ability. When people talk about the 'State' inventing things as a opposed to the individuals in the private sector they ignore the fact that the state is a monopoly enterprise that derives it's income essentially through taxing of individuals and private organizations to get some wealth. Without that income the "State " would not be able to exist and did Not exist historically. The private sector and private individuals do Not tax the State. That is because it is impossible to tax an abstract entity that creates and owns no stores wealth other than that created by taxes derived from individuals and private sector organizations.
She didnt say that the state is "some kind of wealth producing entity". She said that the fallacy of the private sector being innovative vs state being bureaucratic and slow is factually wrong. The state takes risks first, and the private sector is always late to the party, but is the only one to profit from the innovation.
@@henrikhubert4202 The state is mostly slow to respond to the market . It is run by politicians who are rarely inventers. Look at some of the things like new innovations over the last 30 years like Internet which they held onto for many years before realizing the public needed it. Again like new computer programs a such as DOS , Apple , Microsoft Windows, Linux, and others. Look at vehicle safety systems a such as seat belts, lane departure warnings, collision warning alarms and activation which were promoted by car manufacturers before the state got involved.
The difference between her argument and yours is that hers is backed up by facts (she is a very influential academic), whereas yours is based on rhetoric. Funny that you are the one talking about “swallowing propaganda”.
@@zest.b6127 Where are the facts she talks about ? Where in the real world of science and reason is an inanimate monopoly entity named "the State" able to do anything at all that others can do ? Nowhere that you can point to since it is only a monopoly human concoction which has exempted itself from obeying many of the rules that confine all others yet is financially dependent on all other individuals. Her influence is confined to people like you who have put up no understanding of the situation. Your argument so far is you believe her because she told you. Not because you have shown any reasoned logical answer.
@@zest.b6127 You just swallowed propaganda . The same propaganda that she puts forward in believing the 'state' is so wonderful despite the fact that it has to tax everyone to exist whereas everyone else is forced to pay the state to exist even if they don't want what the state produces. Of course she ignores this always relevant fact a that when taken into consideration proves the point that private individuals are the real producers of wealth though their innovation and not the "state"
The system prevailing in the US and UK is _already_ socialism -- socialism for the corporations. Our legal system allows them to socialize the cost and risk and privatize the profits for the big corporations and the thieves that run them.
I agree that wdednam's comment is not spam. It is a reasonable contribution to the debate: he points out that Nuku Calvocoressi is wrong to present our choice as being between welfare and investment spending: "the "proportion" of total public spending going to welfare (social spending) in the US is about the same as it is in Europe: about 50% of total public spending." It is becoming more and more obvious that we should not allow private actors to socialize risks and privatize profits.
amazing talk. great to see women in this field!
The idea that the government took risks is ludicrous. Businesses can fail and lawsuits can be devastating. The EPA destroyed a river in Colorado and they didn't even respond to subpoenas. The government can take chances on drugs because nothing bad will happen to them.
That's the point genius. Private companies can fail when they make risky investments. Governments can't. Ergo = The state makes the risky investments which create things like the internet.
@@friarpapius3008it's beyond that though, because corporations are subject to the whims of shareholders and shareholders get scared, corporations are limited by nature in what kinds of long-term investing they are even capable of doing. Everything must be tabulated *quarterly* so if you're gonna spend, it needs to pay off /now/. That's an exaggeration and oversimplifying somewhat, but the essence is valid.
Government, on the other hand, has budgets. These budgets are flexible and in the case of federal budget we start to get into MMT discussion, and we're not gonna do that here, but anyway you get funds allocated. Those funds are meant to accomplish things, and while there are regulations there's also a fair amount of discretion about how best to achieve things, which means if the best outcome means a longer project with a better result, that's a choice that can be made.
In research specifically, the private sector is almost exclusively focused on final products. Research needs to pay for itself with a product and quickly. Government grants are allocated to promising projects, but not exclusively to end products, so things that may not have a specific use immediately or can't be made market-viable without developing new production methods and further research can be funded, as long as they're promising. This is how most breakthrough technologies start out. Graphene, for instance, is an incredible substance, but in the beginning it had zero viability as a commodity because nobody had developed a product that used it in the construction because it didn't exist, and production methods were inefficient, making it prohibitively expensive for most things. I actually haven't checked on how that one's developed in awhile, but it had made leaps and bounds last I checked.
Anyway, graphene, if developed privately, would have been made proprietary and probably shelved indefinitely because further development would have been too expensive without a clear payoff. It serves as a good case study to show why real innovation often comes out of public funding rather than private research. Needing an immediate payoff limits our ability to try things that might not work or be useful.
That's how North Dakota State Banks works!
Private debt is even worse??
Financial crisis caused by private debt
State is the biggest monster
Private sector is fast, dynamics, evolving
State is bureaucratic, leviathan
Using caricatures for Ideological reasonings
State funding helping to boost small enterprises, not private fundings
Pharma company examples
Innovation is risky and uncertain
Us having a Visible hand in the market
the FED is private
First, change velocity to 0.75 :)
Try ; Economics in One Lesson.
Poberty
❤❤❤❤
👏👏👏👏
It's a pity someone feels they have to mark wdednam's comment as spam. He was just stating that the same proportion of total public spending was going to welfare in the US as in the Scandinavian countries. Must be because the other commenter has nothing substantive to reply with.
let me guess. are you from the us?
is this why we don't get any European Justin biebers
you are a king amongst men. bravo.
Very interesting - it appears that the balance in government spending in Europe may be wrong relative to the US with too high a proportion of government spending going on welfare and too low a proportion on state investment in technology etc. that has the potential to increase productivity and therefore wealth in the medium to long term.
Those from ICE. Hi!
🤔🤔👏👏
"Entrepreneurial government" would invariably increase the demand for Socialism, because what justification could there possibly be if the taxpayers take all the risks while private capitalists get to keep all the profits.
I am curious, you have written this 4 years ago. Are you know a supporter of trump and protection?
@@dogukan127 definetely yees hahahaha
Pretty based, comrade, ngl.
Lol she was so nervous!
too much ME too drugs like coffee!
She seems to want to give an intellectual backing to the Obama "You didn't bulid that" fallacy, offsetting the fact that countries with minimal government intervention have tended to grow the fastest, including the US during the 19th century when the government's share of the economy was miniscule.
The Best You mean when the highest corporate tax rate was 91%?
The US gov't was hugely interventionist in the 19th c. They built the transcontinental railroad, which triggered booms. They raised tariffs to protect young industry and fund infrastructure. The 19th c. Republican party supported high tariffs and major spending. Hell, the US gov't fought a massive war to bring the south into the modern world. Look at China today, where the gov't is draconian, and its economy booms. There's no correlation between "minimal govt" and growth. You don't need education for your opinions, but contemporary workers usually do, and that's gov't.
@@a_little_bit_of_wisdom they were not. Look at the total spending of government during those years. It's less than 10% of the GDP
@@SilentDeathByNINJA marginal tax rate 92% bring back Eisenhower!
This whole talk is dependent on some absurd poorly thought out illusion that the "State" is some kind of wealth producing entity that preceded when the opposite is true since proper examination of the situation proves it is false.
The State is essentially run by politicians who have very few skills in business and are mostly politically driven individuals rather than science or fact based.
If the "State" were the sources of wealth then it would Not have to tax individuals or private sector organizations to get wealth to spend or provide as welfare. Yet all "States" do.
If anyone thinks that the 'State' creates the wealth and innovation and transfers that wealth to the private sector they are very confused about themselves and reality itself.
If you think like that then you have swallowed propaganda instead of thinking for yourself.
The lack of thinking leads to confusion the legal obligations of and actions of the "State" with actions of individuals.
In reality there is No such being as "the State" because it is a name for a group of individuals. "The State " is an inanimate abstract creation in people's minds. It does not have the restrictions on it that private people have but applies restrictions to private individuals and private organizations that it exempts itself from. It can take No action of itself. Only private individuals have that ability.
When people talk about the 'State' inventing things as a opposed to the individuals in the private sector they ignore the fact that the state is a monopoly enterprise that derives it's income essentially through taxing of individuals and private organizations to get some wealth.
Without that income the "State " would not be able to exist and did Not exist historically.
The private sector and private individuals do Not tax the State. That is because it is impossible to tax an abstract entity that creates and owns no stores wealth other than that created by taxes derived from individuals and private sector organizations.
She didnt say that the state is "some kind of wealth producing entity". She said that the fallacy of the private sector being innovative vs state being bureaucratic and slow is factually wrong. The state takes risks first, and the private sector is always late to the party, but is the only one to profit from the innovation.
@@henrikhubert4202 The state is mostly slow to respond to the market . It is run by politicians who are rarely inventers. Look at some of the things like new innovations over the last 30 years like Internet which they held onto for many years before realizing the public needed it. Again like new computer programs a such as DOS , Apple , Microsoft Windows, Linux, and others. Look at vehicle safety systems a such as seat belts, lane departure warnings, collision warning alarms and activation which were promoted by car manufacturers before the state got involved.
The difference between her argument and yours is that hers is backed up by facts (she is a very influential academic), whereas yours is based on rhetoric. Funny that you are the one talking about “swallowing propaganda”.
@@zest.b6127 Where are the facts she talks about ? Where in the real world of science and reason is an inanimate monopoly entity named "the State" able to do anything at all that others can do ? Nowhere that you can point to since it is only a monopoly human concoction which has exempted itself from obeying many of the rules that confine all others yet is financially dependent on all other individuals.
Her influence is confined to people like you who have put up no understanding of the situation.
Your argument so far is you believe her because she told you. Not because you have shown any reasoned logical answer.
@@zest.b6127 You just swallowed propaganda . The same propaganda that she puts forward in believing the 'state' is so wonderful despite the fact that it has to tax everyone to exist whereas everyone else is forced to pay the state to exist even if they don't want what the state produces. Of course she ignores this always relevant fact a that when taken into consideration proves the point that private individuals are the real producers of wealth though their innovation and not the "state"