The greatest benefit of globalisation has perhaps been knowledge and know -how transfer which should bring greater productivity if well enhanced through infrastructure support for developing countries
English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the Cambridge English Webinars for Teachers: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Understanding and using the CEFR for teaching and learning. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the webinar: Developing and Assessing Listening skills at B1 and B2 level. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the VIRQUAL Webinar - Learning Outcomes & Assessment. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the seminar: the Network's for integrating Virtual Mobility and European Qualification Framework in HE and CE Institutions webinar about EQF and Recognition of Prior Learning. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the Cambridge ESOL Certificate Cambridge Day: Cambridge Young learners English tests preparation - activities, resources, motivation; exam preparation activities for Cambridge English First (FCE) and Advanced (CAE). English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the 8th Webinar course entitled Shaping the Way We Teach English. The 5 online seminars: 1. Art for All: Teaching Resources from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2. Activating Vocabulary: Creating a Way with Words. 3. Trace Effects 3D Multimedia Video Game: Teaching and Learning Adventures. 4. The Movable Class: Promoting Motion for Language Learning & Health. 5. Introduction to Reader's Theater for ELF Classrooms. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the conference: How to Integrate Social Media in Vocational and Adult Training, SVEA Conference, the Next Generation Learning Conference from Brussels. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas studied at the University of Oregon: Shaping the Way We Teach English, 1: The Landscape of English Language Teaching, A Statement of Accomplishment with DISTINCTION. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas
The actual cause of inequality is easy to understand. We have always been a society dominated by landed interests, individuals and entities that extract rent from those who produce goods or provide real services without providing anything in exchange. The universal low effective rate of taxation on rents provides to holders of land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum and take-off and landing slots at airports) an actual or an imputed unearned rental income stream. This income is capitalized by market forces into a price for such assets. The market and price for such assets is driven up by hoarding and land speculation. And, of course, the extent to which speculation drives up prices is directly influenced by the extent to which speculation occurs using credit rather than one's own financial reserves. Even in the United States a very large portion of the population is landless. One-third of all households live in apartments owned by someone else. The "landlords" generally enjoy the advantage of insufficient supply and are able to increase apartment rental charges as land prices in their market are increasing. Even among the 65 percent of households that own at least on residential property, the aggregate ownership of land value is relatively low for the bottom half. A small percentage of those in the top half of landowning households own second residential properties, and a small percentage still own income-producing properties. There are no publicly-available statistics on the concentration of ownership of landed assets. Moreover, the manner by which "rent" is calculated and included in the National Income Accounts is so flawed as to be useless. Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that rents comprise roughly one-third of GDP. Peter Barnes some years ago estimated that of privately held land in the U.S. (roughly half of the land area and far higher as a percent of total land value), 95% of total value was held by no more than 3-5 percent of the population, including ownership of shares of stock in companies that own land outright or hold licenses to land-like assets (the licenses having a huge resale value). Globalization has exacerbated this situation, as foreign nationals with surplus dollars derived from sale of goods in the United States have acquired land and land-like assets. This is the fundamental source of the problem of income and wealth inequality. Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
What is your definition of "oppression"? The philosopher Mortimer Adler argued that the just society is one in which all persons have the opportunity to acquire the goods of a decent human existence. This included adequate food, clothing shelter, medical care, education as well as time to engage in civic affairs. By this measure, which I believe is quite reasonable and appropriate, many people in the United States are left out.
Edward Dodson equal opportunity in a society where everyone has the right to do what they want without interfering in other peoples lives is true freedom
Might I suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Common Sense of Politics," by Mortimer J. Adler. Adler argues that we ought to seek is liberty rather than freedom. Liberty is, he argues, is freedom constrained by justice. Not that justice is easy to define, but Adler make a very noble effort.
While I agree with the conclusion, I have a very different reason why I believe that globalization can lead to higher inequality. If groups A and B are trading when they weren't before, that means that these new deals are more economically efficient than before. This means fewer resources are needed to serve the same needs as before. This almost certainly means that some people will be fired or let go. If these displaced workers are able to find new jobs that are about as valuable to society, then great. Groups A and B gained without it costing them much. If not, though, the new trade partnership caused unemployment and therefore inequality. If I'm right, then it's not about absolute skill level (A is always superior to B) but about skill level at the current task and possibly skill level at transitioning to a new task.
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
Creativity is key. Corporations sit on earnings. If they knew what people would & could buy, they'd invest in it. They don't know, because people's needs becoming more complex. Silly marketing subdivides products into tiny categories, which isn't creative solution, just rule-based. Look at IT. Web bubble, app bubble, tech bubble, useless biz's that claim creative breakthrough. Not. Instead a few big tech companies now monopolize basic services. Standardized education dulls minds.
Well you sure are a privileged twat, income inequality weakens the economy, since spending power has decreased, since wealth is poorly distributed, where's your nobel laureate bafoon
Deltroid 7 I am sorry but inequality is inherent in any economic system. There are 2 types of equality, 1 equality of outcome and, 2 equality of opportunity. If you seek out one you destroy the other. If you seek equality of outcome you must hold those back who rise ahead and pull those up who fall behind and in this life is easier for those who fall behind and harder for everyone else not just those who are more successful. Unfortunately in equality of opportunity people are not held back or pushed up thus everyone is equal yet some will rise to the top
Why would one go to their local bank to pick up a phone there and talk to an agent? Why not just call from home? Further more I wouldn't consider all these organizations outsourcing their customer service is a net benefit for the consumer.
Why don't these endowments of rich schools share their cash with the poor colleges of the USA. Is in not obscene Harvard has a massive endowment of rich preppy brat students yet pays no taxes on it?
Because capitalism necessitates inequality in order to maintain profits. Its logical conclusion is the consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands. This is no surprise.
It is how that system operates... and is the best system for our civil culture. The issue is how to how that consolidation be relieved incrementally (while retaining an intrinsic motivation to accomplish that consolidation).
A person who is leaving his place for another one simply to do an unskilled or skilled job for a little higher wages ,is infact creating imbalance , at first he is a property physicly and economicly of his native land. Then he is changing the demography of a place he does not belong to .He can diversify his skills and needs in his own land by using the experience and help of others.He should not provide cheap labour and manpower to another place ,and get his own land ruined ,nor these agencies should lure him. K RAJESH RANA
I reject its conclusion. inequality is not actually that bad of a thing. And assuming that it is I believe is a flawed assumption. Furthermore to say that the producers will not pay for education and job training for low-skilled workers and or that the low-skill workers will not pay for the job training or education is simply false. as the higher skill workers in the poor country get the job training or or get these new jobs that are making more money. They're bringing that money back into their market and with that there's more production being done there's more there's more investment in the market and then there's an incentive for the low-skilled workers to become higher skill workers and with an incentive they'll work their way up and they'll work until they can pay for that job training or until another producer will pay for that job training to say that it's up to the government or some kind of third-party to pay for job training is
Inequality is a bad thing if you care about the stability of the system and if you take into consideration not just politics but reality as a whole. Inequality produces bad political movements, social instability, and a lot of other bad, nasty, side effects. It's a spectrum, the quantity matters. Controlling inequality is a sensible thing to think about, even if you are free market pro-capitalism leaning.
Inequality is a total disaster. As you see in the USA....the rich now RULE the country.....all blabla about a democracy, but the poor do NOT vote (the rich have a real incentive to see to it that they do not vote)....the poor do NOT contribute the way they could IF they could go to have the education they deserve, and e.g. the health care they deserve. We hence ROB society of valuable contributions, which never materialise. "The rich" get rich based on trillions of cumulative investments. So it is only normal that they have to pay back....perhaps not all (?!), but....most of it! A country is not borders...a country is the contribution of everybody...the lucky few....are the lucky few...and that is not a reason to be treated as "somebody special". If managers only want to manage if they earn millions per year....kick them out...a company deserves better....it is an HONOUR to manage a company...ok for a decent compensation (USD 300.000?) but that is it....we do not need money wolves...
Prof. Maskin dismisses the notion that workers would invest in their own education. (Too expensive he thinks). He may be wrong. This is the weakest part of the argument.
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
I love how the last ignorant coming on youtube can feel himself unrestrained at bashing against one of the top game theorists of the planet. Thanks for this too, internet.
Ignorance is all around. But given 8+ years - I'm sure he would agree to his own ignorance. The economic world did not pan out to his expectations. Making him forgettable. So sad.
it sounds like the third way is a lot like socialism (communists to the american discourse) is what the professor is recommending socialise the costs and maintain rent seeking capitalism at all costs.. ever expanding in a world of limited resources economics fail big time
wait till us, developing countries, catch up with you, then we talk about market equality. discrimination, in this case affirmative action, is needed for us to compete with the developed countries.
For all this renown name, education and position at that school and the man cannot TALK! Communication is the essence of education. I've just listen to five minutes and I'm already bored. It's not the subject. It is his total lack of being able to lecture! He gets an "F".
It’s the problem with academia. Smart and effective people find more more rewards in the real world. As always, those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
I had maskin as my teacher and mentor. He was a great professor. That was before I dropped out of Harvard and partied my life away and did drugs lol.
Hope you're winning in life rn
The greatest benefit of globalisation has perhaps been knowledge and know -how transfer which should bring greater productivity if well enhanced through infrastructure support for developing countries
If only people were machines...
English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the Cambridge English Webinars for Teachers: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Understanding and using the CEFR for teaching and learning. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the webinar: Developing and Assessing Listening skills at B1 and B2 level. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the VIRQUAL Webinar - Learning Outcomes & Assessment. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the seminar: the Network's for integrating Virtual Mobility and European Qualification Framework in HE and CE Institutions webinar about EQF and Recognition of Prior Learning. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the Cambridge ESOL Certificate Cambridge Day: Cambridge Young learners English tests preparation - activities, resources, motivation; exam preparation activities for Cambridge English First (FCE) and Advanced (CAE). English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the 8th Webinar course entitled Shaping the Way We Teach English. The 5 online seminars: 1. Art for All: Teaching Resources from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2. Activating Vocabulary: Creating a Way with Words. 3. Trace Effects 3D Multimedia Video Game: Teaching and Learning Adventures. 4. The Movable Class: Promoting Motion for Language Learning & Health. 5. Introduction to Reader's Theater for ELF Classrooms. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas participated at the conference: How to Integrate Social Media in Vocational and Adult Training, SVEA Conference, the Next Generation Learning Conference from Brussels. English writer Gintaras Kavarskas studied at the University of Oregon: Shaping the Way We Teach English, 1: The Landscape of English Language Teaching, A Statement of Accomplishment with DISTINCTION.
English writer Gintaras Kavarskas
guys, show the charts. his argument is derived from the charts, and we cant see them!
no sure it would help.. he should take a rethorics class or two -___-
sir maskin tell us graphically about the concepts and its summary
gangus ghan was the biggest property owner of all time
The actual cause of inequality is easy to understand. We have always been a society dominated by landed interests, individuals and entities that extract rent from those who produce goods or provide real services without providing anything in exchange. The universal low effective rate of taxation on rents provides to holders of land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum and take-off and landing slots at airports) an actual or an imputed unearned rental income stream. This income is capitalized by market forces into a price for such assets. The market and price for such assets is driven up by hoarding and land speculation. And, of course, the extent to which speculation drives up prices is directly influenced by the extent to which speculation occurs using credit rather than one's own financial reserves.
Even in the United States a very large portion of the population is landless. One-third of all households live in apartments owned by someone else. The "landlords" generally enjoy the advantage of insufficient supply and are able to increase apartment rental charges as land prices in their market are increasing. Even among the 65 percent of households that own at least on residential property, the aggregate ownership of land value is relatively low for the bottom half. A small percentage of those in the top half of landowning households own second residential properties, and a small percentage still own income-producing properties.
There are no publicly-available statistics on the concentration of ownership of landed assets. Moreover, the manner by which "rent" is calculated and included in the National Income Accounts is so flawed as to be useless. Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that rents comprise roughly one-third of GDP. Peter Barnes some years ago estimated that of privately held land in the U.S. (roughly half of the land area and far higher as a percent of total land value), 95% of total value was held by no more than 3-5 percent of the population, including ownership of shares of stock in companies that own land outright or hold licenses to land-like assets (the licenses having a huge resale value).
Globalization has exacerbated this situation, as foreign nationals with surplus dollars derived from sale of goods in the United States have acquired land and land-like assets.
This is the fundamental source of the problem of income and wealth inequality.
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Edward Dodson no one is oppressed in America
What is your definition of "oppression"? The philosopher Mortimer Adler argued that the just society is one in which all persons have the opportunity to acquire the goods of a decent human existence. This included adequate food, clothing shelter, medical care, education as well as time to engage in civic affairs. By this measure, which I believe is quite reasonable and appropriate, many people in the United States are left out.
Edward Dodson equal opportunity in a society where everyone has the right to do what they want without interfering in other peoples lives is true freedom
Edward Dodson not on person is keeping these people from getting what they need. therefore they are not oppressed
Might I suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Common Sense of Politics," by Mortimer J. Adler. Adler argues that we ought to seek is liberty rather than freedom. Liberty is, he argues, is freedom constrained by justice. Not that justice is easy to define, but Adler make a very noble effort.
try 1.25 x speed
at least
While I agree with the conclusion, I have a very different reason why I believe that globalization can lead to higher inequality. If groups A and B are trading when they weren't before, that means that these new deals are more economically efficient than before. This means fewer resources are needed to serve the same needs as before. This almost certainly means that some people will be fired or let go.
If these displaced workers are able to find new jobs that are about as valuable to society, then great. Groups A and B gained without it costing them much. If not, though, the new trade partnership caused unemployment and therefore inequality.
If I'm right, then it's not about absolute skill level (A is always superior to B) but about skill level at the current task and possibly skill level at transitioning to a new task.
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
Creativity is key. Corporations sit on earnings. If they knew what people would & could buy, they'd invest in it. They don't know, because people's needs becoming more complex. Silly marketing subdivides products into tiny categories, which isn't creative solution, just rule-based. Look at IT. Web bubble, app bubble, tech bubble, useless biz's that claim creative breakthrough. Not. Instead a few big tech companies now monopolize basic services. Standardized education dulls minds.
inequality is a necessary sign for a flourishing capitalist society.
Well you sure are a privileged twat, income inequality weakens the economy, since spending power has decreased, since wealth is poorly distributed, where's your nobel laureate bafoon
Deltroid 7 privileged? as in wealth privilege?
Deltroid 7 I am sorry but inequality is inherent in any economic system. There are 2 types of equality, 1 equality of outcome and, 2 equality of opportunity. If you seek out one you destroy the other. If you seek equality of outcome you must hold those back who rise ahead and pull those up who fall behind and in this life is easier for those who fall behind and harder for everyone else not just those who are more successful. Unfortunately in equality of opportunity people are not held back or pushed up thus everyone is equal yet some will rise to the top
@@apfinance1284 this was an interesting perspective
Which is why capitalism must be abolished.
Went to silver paso
Why would one go to their local bank to pick up a phone there and talk to an agent? Why not just call from home? Further more I wouldn't consider all these organizations outsourcing their customer service is a net benefit for the consumer.
Logic is correct
Why don't these endowments of rich schools share their cash with the poor colleges of the USA. Is in not obscene Harvard has a massive endowment of rich preppy brat students yet pays no taxes on it?
heres a thought. dont drink water out of a wine glass.
This dude took almost two minutes to be introduced. Geeze.
simples
Because capitalism necessitates inequality in order to maintain profits. Its logical conclusion is the consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands. This is no surprise.
It is how that system operates... and is the best system for our civil culture. The issue is how to how that consolidation be relieved incrementally (while retaining an intrinsic motivation to accomplish that consolidation).
A person who is leaving his place for another one simply to do an unskilled or skilled job for a little higher wages ,is infact creating imbalance , at first he is a property physicly and economicly of his native land. Then he is changing the demography of a place
he does not belong to .He can diversify his skills and needs in his own land by using the experience and help of others.He should not provide cheap labour and manpower to another place ,and get his own land ruined ,nor these agencies should lure him. K RAJESH RANA
Just remove labor movement barriers between US and Mexico!
That... as can be finally understood... is foolish.
minute 18
ya
Eric is great, tout court, bottom line, end of story.
Labor capital land and financ
Comparative advantage
Trade
Better at
Humble fitz
Unless a reseion
India as a comparative advatge for ? Tec orservices
Poverty is a negivve externilty
It's an externality... not negative per say... depends on context.
I reject its conclusion. inequality is not actually that bad of a thing. And assuming that it is I believe is a flawed assumption. Furthermore to say that the producers will not pay for education and job training for low-skilled workers and or that the low-skill workers will not pay for the job training or education is simply false. as the higher skill workers in the poor country get the job training or or get these new jobs that are making more money. They're bringing that money back into their market and with that there's more production being done there's more there's more investment in the market and then there's an incentive for the low-skilled workers to become higher skill workers and with an incentive they'll work their way up and they'll work until they can pay for that job training or until another producer will pay for that job training to say that it's up to the government or some kind of third-party to pay for job training is
Inequality is a bad thing if you care about the stability of the system and if you take into consideration not just politics but reality as a whole. Inequality produces bad political movements, social instability, and a lot of other bad, nasty, side effects.
It's a spectrum, the quantity matters. Controlling inequality is a sensible thing to think about, even if you are free market pro-capitalism leaning.
Inequality is a total disaster. As you see in the USA....the rich now RULE the country.....all blabla about a democracy, but the poor do NOT vote (the rich have a real incentive to see to it that they do not vote)....the poor do NOT contribute the way they could IF they could go to have the education they deserve, and e.g. the health care they deserve. We hence ROB society of valuable contributions, which never materialise. "The rich" get rich based on trillions of cumulative investments. So it is only normal that they have to pay back....perhaps not all (?!), but....most of it! A country is not borders...a country is the contribution of everybody...the lucky few....are the lucky few...and that is not a reason to be treated as "somebody special". If managers only want to manage if they earn millions per year....kick them out...a company deserves better....it is an HONOUR to manage a company...ok for a decent compensation (USD 300.000?) but that is it....we do not need money wolves...
You argue against your own interests, sad.
College is the last place to learn about economics
von thunen????theory
Prof. Maskin dismisses the notion that workers would invest in their own education. (Too expensive he thinks).
He may be wrong. This is the weakest part of the argument.
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
I love how the last ignorant coming on youtube can feel himself unrestrained at bashing against one of the top game theorists of the planet. Thanks for this too, internet.
i agree
Ignorance is all around. But given 8+ years - I'm sure he would agree to his own ignorance. The economic world did not pan out to his expectations. Making him forgettable. So sad.
short term YES...long term NO
Japan has goldresve as China's
England basalt odgold
it sounds like the third way is a lot like socialism (communists to the american discourse) is what the professor is recommending
socialise the costs and maintain rent seeking capitalism at all costs..
ever expanding in a world of limited resources
economics fail big time
wait till us, developing countries, catch up with you, then we talk about market equality.
discrimination, in this case affirmative action, is needed for us to compete with the developed countries.
For all this renown name, education and position at that school and the man cannot TALK! Communication is the essence of education. I've just listen to five minutes and I'm already bored. It's not the subject. It is his total lack of being able to lecture! He gets an "F".
It’s the problem with academia. Smart and effective people find more more rewards in the real world. As always, those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
@@itsajungle22 On the contrary smart people can't communicate their ideas
Refer to as the new world order
Dork lol
Boring!!!!!!
What? Harvard? Really?
😲🤔💩
OAO what?