As an actor and story teller from California I find this wildly interesting. Thank you so much for what I am considering my new favorite subject of study. I have studied some of economics before college, and, primarily philosophically in college, but never quite found it interesting, or of enough relation to my life and/or work to become a piece of the puzzle. Being somewhat older now, I find it to be endlessly compelling. Thank you so very much for all of this content. I surely will be digesting these videos and soon reading some of the mentioned material. Again, thank you!
Perhaps they didn't want to scare away neoliberal economic adhererents from listening to a well recognized supporter of Keynesian economics. Which is so out of favor with the current economic regime. As a return to that kind of successful economics might help raise all boats, not just the yachts of the wealthy.
I begin questioning whether there is such a thing as a "free market", but that all markets require a level of government intervention. This would suggest the necessity of a mixed economy approach, rather than "laissez-faire" or total socialism?
I'm the guy in the park who supports govt intervention in economics. I often get frustrated at the illusion that if only there was even less intervention by the state, the "free market" would save the world. I see a giant lack of redistributive properties of wealth, especially into new business. The American economy is eating itself alive via speculation and casino capitalism.
That hardly addressed the central question. It distilled more or less to a "he said/ she said" about the utility of social assets toward a presumed end, not a definition of the end.
@@ncooty You are a damned idiot for demanding an answer in the context of academic debate. If you want "answers" from on high maybe start kneeling and pray?
The US Government's goal of putting men on the moon through NASA's Apollo program created lots of miniaturized electronics and the multiprocessor, the heart of PC based computers and cellphones and such. It's a pretty easy argument to make that without the Apollo moon program, a state led economic venture, there wouldn't be a silicon valley. Many of those people in industries there worked with NASA to develop those things. The multiprocessor was out of the reach of industry to build. It took deep government pockets to afford the numerous failures before they finally made one that worked. SV then took that ball and ran with it having partnered on it.
And yet the free market religion is the strongest in USA... Did you not know that " if you put the Government in charge of Sahara desert, they will run out of sand? "
Read How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. The author uses historical facts and figures to explain how the developed countries of East Asia all used state policies to develop, while the less developed countries gave in to the Washington consensus and left their growth mostly to the market. In addition, he also mentions how Germany and USA utilized state policies in the 19th century to grow their industry.
It's the opening of Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition. A famous Russian composition. It's only a little over a half hour long and worth a listen. It goes through various themes as the composer sets to music his feelings looking at various pictures at an exhibition. The band Emerson, Lake and Palmer did a rock interpretation of it which they became known for and popularized it in the 1970's. Though I'd suggest listening to a symphonic version of it first. It's one of my favorite pieces of classical music with distinct sections with memorable melodies that work like songs within the piece. Pretty accessable stuff if you don't listen to that kind of music often.
The so called "exploitation theory" of development is presented quite incorrectly as a radical version of structural theory -- wich relies heavely in structural dualism within underdeveloped regions, focusing the analysis in "internal obstacles", economical and polítical, to proper development. Some of the features of the later are atributed to the former. The distintive feature of the "exploitation" theory approach (at least in marxian version) relies rather on the "transformation of values into prices", presented by Marx in Das Kapital, book 3. Its about different costs of production, mediated by price equalization in the global market, resulting in transfer of profits from low to high organic capital composition investments, proportionally to the total amount of invested capital. For Marx, it is the exact same mechanism by wich monopoly arises from, and reproduces, competiton within any capitalist economy. To ignore this mechanism of profit transfering between capitalists, and taking the exploitation between countries as just a transposition of the mechanism of surplus value extraction by capitalists from workers is absurd - but convenient, since it dismisses the hole analysis as reductionist. In Marx, those are quite different problems. To put it shortly, it is a type of exploitation, yes. But by the more productive capitalists over the less produtive, wich in turn are forced to super-exploit the labor force in peripheral countries in order to stay afloat.
The exploitation of the Planet by those with the most wealth, appears to have replaced Monarchy? Oligarchy replacing Monarchy, and describing the process of change as Democracy, appears to have made democracy into a product? The Wealthy buy the representation that Government provides, and convince the Citizens they are in charge. A Lovely system, for the Wealthy, as long as Capitalism lasts.
The guy talks about "silicon valley and the technological progress" without mentioning that an overwhelming amount of funding and research for all such wonderful things came from the one and only, U.S. Military. These institutional geezers are done .. Back to Noam Chomsky and such...
@@virtusoroca7724 Hi. Yet to mention them, as examples would be useful too. Example Wifi, we all love it - Where did it come from? The Iphone itself contains several components and technologies which are a result of military R&D. Also ever wonder where the money comes from - For all such state back "developements"? The taxpayer.
Variations of 17th Century ideas for the 21st Century? Really ?? Economics will not be meaningful or useful until it diagnoses its two glaring dysfunctions: dispossessing inequality and climate change. Economics is neither choice nor wealth theory but, ultimately, oikos-nomia. All markets have a policy and institutional framework. By relegating redistribution and ecosystem beyond its purview, it renders itself irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. That means the end of economics as we know it: renewal and transformation or oblivion.
This lecture is postmodernist nonsense. How did non-human life accumulate so much wealth (success) without a creator? Why should it be any different for humans? Government being analogous to the creator as defended here. Recall, Darwin was influenced by Smith.
As the subject was economic growth, why did he not present the growth models that do include innovation and change? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model The stone tool economies didn't run out of rocks, but technology and the enlightenment changed everything as the value of science and innovation became apparent. Perhaps he wanted to exclude concepts that explain too much of observed reality while his other two theories have been demonstrated to be nonsense everywhere they were tried. Why did his ask the question of whether the poor are better off with the Washington Consistence and global trade but then not answer it. Was it because they are much better off by all measures? He sites Japans success but doesn't mention their 5th generation computer projects where they wanted to displace Intel as a world leader and wasted many billions of dollars over a decade to always be a generation behind. At the time Japan when after the car market, the US car market had a monopoly union, workers who were overpaid and sloppy with books published like "Rivet Head" describing how the worker were getting high on the job and deliberately harming quality control. The three companies were an oligopoly and only competed on tail fins. It seems like they effectively agreed to produce crappy cars that only lasted 50,000 miles so they could all sell more. Note that you don't see 1970's cars in classic car shows, the whole decade was lousy overpriced cars that wouldn't hold up. You see lots of cars from the 50's and 60's where a 100,000+ miles was common. I was from the fast car in LA culture of the '50's so I followed automobiles and their engineering details. As all Japanese products has a lousy reputation for lack of quality in the 40's and 50's they did start stressing quality using management theories from the US and this resulted in better quality in their cars and TV's. The education system and Government supported quality control. Going over a 100,000 miles on a Japanese Car was normal. Old monopoly, oligopoly, and government monopoly institutions all become incompetent over time and can't innovate. With management trained in quality control and a productive work force, they could easily kick American car makers around. It costs almost the same amount to make a lousy car as an excellent car and in the 70's being twice as good was easy. Of course our UAW and Car companies got tariffs and protection from the Japanese cars but a factor of 2 in quality allowed people to still buy Japanese cars. His support of tariffs always end up hurting the citizens of the country creating the tariffs and the infant industry argument is just silly. His statement appears smooth until you ask was is missing from his thinking. He is very good at excluding observational reality that his heterodox theories don't work anywhere they are tried. Note you can't describe a 3.-D object in 2-D and he is leaving out innovation, human capital, and technology.
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy is fabulous. His understated British wit is so quotable.
As an actor and story teller from California I find this wildly interesting. Thank you so much for what I am considering my new favorite subject of study. I have studied some of economics before college, and, primarily philosophically in college, but never quite found it interesting, or of enough relation to my life and/or work to become a piece of the puzzle. Being somewhat older now, I find it to be endlessly compelling. Thank you so very much for all of this content. I surely will be digesting these videos and soon reading some of the mentioned material. Again, thank you!
This needs to be a book. Brilliant.
Putting the name of the main speaker in the title would be helpful. Robert Skidelsky is a brilliant economic scholar.
Good point. I fell into these video's as a lay person. But I have to say mister Skidelsky explains it all beautifully.
It is..
Perhaps they didn't want to scare away neoliberal economic adhererents from listening to a well recognized supporter of Keynesian economics. Which is so out of favor with the current economic regime. As a return to that kind of successful economics might help raise all boats, not just the yachts of the wealthy.
I begin questioning whether there is such a thing as a "free market", but that all markets require a level of government intervention. This would suggest the necessity of a mixed economy approach, rather than "laissez-faire" or total socialism?
I'm the guy in the park who supports govt intervention in economics. I often get frustrated at the illusion that if only there was even less intervention by the state, the "free market" would save the world. I see a giant lack of redistributive properties of wealth, especially into new business. The American economy is eating itself alive via speculation and casino capitalism.
I'm sure you meant to just say capitalism. There is only one kind of capitalism
"Speculation and casino capitalism." Right.
That hardly addressed the central question. It distilled more or less to a "he said/ she said" about the utility of social assets toward a presumed end, not a definition of the end.
Wrong expectations, kiddo.
@galek75 That's very interestingly worded--it's both useless and condescending. Why "kiddo"?
@@ncooty You are a damned idiot for demanding an answer in the context of academic debate. If you want "answers" from on high maybe start kneeling and pray?
The US Government's goal of putting men on the moon through NASA's Apollo program created lots of miniaturized electronics and the multiprocessor, the heart of PC based computers and cellphones and such.
It's a pretty easy argument to make that without the Apollo moon program, a state led economic venture, there wouldn't be a silicon valley. Many of those people in industries there worked with NASA to develop those things. The multiprocessor was out of the reach of industry to build. It took deep government pockets to afford the numerous failures before they finally made one that worked.
SV then took that ball and ran with it having partnered on it.
And yet the free market religion is the strongest in USA...
Did you not know that " if you put the Government in charge of Sahara desert, they will run out of sand? "
@@dinsel9691 I've never heard that saying. Who's said it?
I love your series! Thanks 👽♥️♥️♥️
"Most economic growth has been state-led not market-led " 8:19
What is the proof of this?
Read How Asia Works by Joe Studwell. The author uses historical facts and figures to explain how the developed countries of East Asia all used state policies to develop, while the less developed countries gave in to the Washington consensus and left their growth mostly to the market.
In addition, he also mentions how Germany and USA utilized state policies in the 19th century to grow their industry.
Listen to Ha-Joon Chang's series from this channel. You will get your answer.
What is the horn music at the start of the video? Thanks
It's the opening of Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition. A famous Russian composition. It's only a little over a half hour long and worth a listen. It goes through various themes as the composer sets to music his feelings looking at various pictures at an exhibition. The band Emerson, Lake and Palmer did a rock interpretation of it which they became known for and popularized it in the 1970's. Though I'd suggest listening to a symphonic version of it first.
It's one of my favorite pieces of classical music with distinct sections with memorable melodies that work like songs within the piece. Pretty accessable stuff if you don't listen to that kind of music often.
Pictures At An Exhibition
th-cam.com/video/DXy50exHjes/w-d-xo.html
Having a transcript would be wonderful. I'd rather read this fast rather than be stuck at a roughly 30min speed.
You can try changing playback speed to 1.5-2X in options. If you are focused it works well.
The so called "exploitation theory" of development is presented quite incorrectly as a radical version of structural theory -- wich relies heavely in structural dualism within underdeveloped regions, focusing the analysis in "internal obstacles", economical and polítical, to proper development. Some of the features of the later are atributed to the former. The distintive feature of the "exploitation" theory approach (at least in marxian version) relies rather on the "transformation of values into prices", presented by Marx in Das Kapital, book 3. Its about different costs of production, mediated by price equalization in the global market, resulting in transfer of profits from low to high organic capital composition investments, proportionally to the total amount of invested capital. For Marx, it is the exact same mechanism by wich monopoly arises from, and reproduces, competiton within any capitalist economy. To ignore this mechanism of profit transfering between capitalists, and taking the exploitation between countries as just a transposition of the mechanism of surplus value extraction by capitalists from workers is absurd - but convenient, since it dismisses the hole analysis as reductionist. In Marx, those are quite different problems. To put it shortly, it is a type of exploitation, yes. But by the more productive capitalists over the less produtive, wich in turn are forced to super-exploit the labor force in peripheral countries in order to stay afloat.
The exploitation of the Planet by those with the most wealth, appears to have replaced Monarchy?
Oligarchy replacing Monarchy, and describing the process of change as Democracy, appears to have made democracy into a product?
The Wealthy buy the representation that Government provides, and convince the Citizens they are in charge.
A Lovely system, for the Wealthy, as long as Capitalism lasts.
It's seems rather disrespectful to use a group of silent grad students as props.
The guy talks about "silicon valley and the technological progress" without mentioning that an overwhelming amount of funding and research for all such wonderful things came from the one and only, U.S. Military. These institutional geezers are done .. Back to Noam Chomsky and such...
I think that is precisely the point being made in the video: those are not maket but state backed developments.
@@virtusoroca7724 Hi. Yet to mention them, as examples would be useful too. Example Wifi, we all love it - Where did it come from? The Iphone itself contains several components and technologies which are a result of military R&D. Also ever wonder where the money comes from - For all such state back "developements"? The taxpayer.
I love Chompsky, and I think this talk is highlighting many of noams arguments.
@@AudioPervert1 Isn't the military industry funded by taxpayers?
"These institutional geezers" have lived long before and survived crises you have not even heard off
Very poor presentation filled with holes and frankly, nonsense.
Variations of 17th Century ideas for the 21st Century? Really ?? Economics will not be meaningful or useful until it diagnoses its two glaring dysfunctions: dispossessing inequality and climate change. Economics is neither choice nor wealth theory but, ultimately, oikos-nomia. All markets have a policy and institutional framework. By relegating redistribution and ecosystem beyond its purview, it renders itself irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. That means the end of economics as we know it: renewal and transformation or oblivion.
corporate welfare
This lecture is postmodernist nonsense. How did non-human life accumulate so much wealth (success) without a creator? Why should it be any different for humans? Government being analogous to the creator as defended here. Recall, Darwin was influenced by Smith.
As the subject was economic growth, why did he not present the growth models that do include innovation and change? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model The stone tool economies didn't run out of rocks, but technology and the enlightenment changed everything as the value of science and innovation became apparent. Perhaps he wanted to exclude concepts that explain too much of observed reality while his other two theories have been demonstrated to be nonsense everywhere they were tried.
Why did his ask the question of whether the poor are better off with the Washington Consistence and global trade but then not answer it. Was it because they are much better off by all measures?
He sites Japans success but doesn't mention their 5th generation computer projects where they wanted to displace Intel as a world leader and wasted many billions of dollars over a decade to always be a generation behind.
At the time Japan when after the car market, the US car market had a monopoly union, workers who were overpaid and sloppy with books published like "Rivet Head" describing how the worker were getting high on the job and deliberately harming quality control. The three companies were an oligopoly and only competed on tail fins. It seems like they effectively agreed to produce crappy cars that only lasted 50,000 miles so they could all sell more. Note that you don't see 1970's cars in classic car shows, the whole decade was lousy overpriced cars that wouldn't hold up. You see lots of cars from the 50's and 60's where a 100,000+ miles was common. I was from the fast car in LA culture of the '50's so I followed automobiles and their engineering details.
As all Japanese products has a lousy reputation for lack of quality in the 40's and 50's they did start stressing quality using management theories from the US and this resulted in better quality in their cars and TV's. The education system and Government supported quality control. Going over a 100,000 miles on a Japanese Car was normal. Old monopoly, oligopoly, and government monopoly institutions all become incompetent over time and can't innovate. With management trained in quality control and a productive work force, they could easily kick American car makers around. It costs almost the same amount to make a lousy car as an excellent car and in the 70's being twice as good was easy. Of course our UAW and Car companies got tariffs and protection from the Japanese cars but a factor of 2 in quality allowed people to still buy Japanese cars. His support of tariffs always end up hurting the citizens of the country creating the tariffs and the infant industry argument is just silly.
His statement appears smooth until you ask was is missing from his thinking. He is very good at excluding observational reality that his heterodox theories don't work anywhere they are tried. Note you can't describe a 3.-D object in 2-D and he is leaving out innovation, human capital, and technology.