I am an academic economist from the UK who has long been critical of the economics profession and how economics is used in public policy. Mostly the channel will cover economics with a critical perspective but I aim to educate people about economics in the process, so I'll try to explain key concepts and ideas along the way. That way, even if you disagree with aspects of the videos you will hopefully learn something from them. I am interested in more than just economics and will likely do videos covering other topics such as statistics and politics.
43:07 love this stealman. Glad you caught the backhanded word slide. Yeah I was not fond of the term essential worker namely because all workers are essential. The desire to shutdown some jobs is rediculous. But I do understand the desire to kill of only the essential workers, I mean save the lives of non-essential, I mean err nope I'm out.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS IS - - NOT--, AND HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL NOBEL PRIZE! It is awarded by the Swedish national bank in "the memory of Alfred Nobel". NOT by the Nobel committee. So, an award from morons to the most loudmouthed idiots.
17:39 You spent a lot of time complaining about the word play, but here you are admitting the point is actually correct even though it isn't captured by the word play. The point wasn't to establish scarcity as the most important or only requirement, it was to establish it is necessary to have an economy and you state that is the case. And from this I learned that it would make sense that an economist would not just study economies, but those things around economies, thank you.
Economics more and more feels like a field where they decided they know the rules and have to fit everything within them instead of pushing those concepts to make sure they don’t crumble.
1:55:00 cruel world we had before the walfare state where all the poor people starved :( woman and children were unheard of phenomenon until very recently it seems
I studied ecology and we actually use a bunch of theories that orginated from economics, mainly game theory but we also use inequality indexes to determine habitat diversity. But these are baseline frameworks for understanding complex systems and ecology almost always relies on false assumptions since its impossible to account for every variable. So if economics are anything like that we should probably ignore a lot of it and send them to live in the woods. It works for ecology.
"Fix money, generate freedom and human progress; save the world." Theory of Constraints Economics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kr1CskXRPQQ.htmlfeature=shared
I have yet to finish the video but the allegation that banks "create nothing" is completely incorrect or misleading. The dont create a good. But they do create financial services. Because i use a bank i dont have to reconcile all of my transactions at the end of the day with every personni made a transaction with. In return the get to use my money to make profit. Dontbget me wrong i hate bankers too, but to say they create nothing is just a lie.
"Fix money, generate freedom and human progress; save the world." Theory of Constraints Economics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kr1CskXRPQQ.htmlfeature=shared
«You are not going to learn real basic econocmics with this book» Thats what I always thought about independent books. When I started to read economics I went to the website of my own university and i looked for what they read in economic degree xdd
What a great video, truly great. Often when I walk round my little town, I start getting mad at the amount of cars. I think about the neverending growth in the numbers. I find it really annoying, if only we had better public transport.
He lived in NC until he was 9 but his more formative years were in NYC. You misrepresented that at the beginning. Then you start to say his books are bad because they come from a certain presuppositional place. That doesn’t make them bad, it makes them just less comprehensive of other views. I think your review is rubbish because it presupposes a world view antithetical to Sowell’s. Therefore, using your same reasoning, your video is rubbish.
@@designeedesigner6182 each sentence is structured, syntactically, as if they follow one another. they don't. the middle-to-end is also chock full with opinions & assertions that are treated as logical deductions reasoned out from earlier assertions. not even touching on the implication that the conclusion was derived from an initial set of presumptions that are somewhere between irrelevant & pedantic, ignoring the subsequent +2hrs of breakdown addressing the substance of sowell's writings. hope that clarifies things
The real no. 1 rule of economics: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it because the greedy fuckers from 1st world countries horde everything for themselves while the rest of the world fight for the remaining scraps. Seriously, their yearly profit margins can end povery many times over if it weren't for greed.
capitalism results in innovation and competition which creates planned or perceived obsolescence therefore. The alternative is to not innovate or compete? Beyond antitrust laws the option is ending the creation of new products. Do you think we would be better off being a perpetual agrarian society?
Why do people hate capitalistic society's, USA is a mixture of limited capitalismn and Limited Marxism.. semi socialists but with limited markets.. this should make birth parties equally limited by tax and profits. More tax is Marxist less tax is free marketish
If only you know how little sense that comment made you literally by definition can't have a mixture of socialism marxism and capitalism that just doesn't make any sense
Es extraño porque no veo una opinión clara en este video (o estos vídeos). Sí, son muy instructivos para enseñar economía a la izquierda pero, por ejemplo, en el tema del sueldo mínimo la conclusión es que no hay evidencia de nada, podría no generar desempleo si la elasticidad de la demanda (empresarios) la absorbe, pero también podría generar desempleo en los sectores con una demanda inelástica (o una productividad marginal baja). Lo mismo con la renta máxima o la limitación a la renta, la conclusión parece ser que no hay evidencia clara sobre si disminuir el mercado del alquiler a favor del mercado de compra-venta es mejor o peor; y que, poniendo el caso de Berlin como ejemplo, no hay evidencia clara en el daño al mercado. Aunque el caso de Berlín sí muestra una diferencia, puede ser mínima (no lo es) pero sí hay una diferencia. Se critica que el artículo señalase como perjudicial la bajada en los precios del alquiler, y no se profundiza más, simplemente se señala como un error del artículo, pero eso no es así. Está claro que el precio bajará si obligas por ley a que baje, la cuestión es que también bajó la oferta. Lo mismo ha sucedido hace unos meses en Barcelona, se aplicó la misma medida y la oferta disminuyó haciendo que si antes había 100 interesados por anuncio ahora hayan 300 interesados por anuncio (aumenta la presión en el mercado). Algo parecido pasa con la parte del Econ101. La base para afirmar que el libre mercado de competencia perfecta fue un fracaso es la existencia de crísis o la existencia de super-ricos. Pero el mercado de competencia perfecta implica barreras de entrada inexistentes, esto es lo que pasa en el mercado de manzanas, y en efecto, no hay super-ricos de las manzanas. Me gustaría que este canal tratase la teoria de Jesús Huerta de Soto. Afirma que las crisis no son tanto obra del capitalismo como obra de una institución ineficaz que permite la expansión del crédito más allá del ahorro real disponible.
"We have to give up some economy to get health or environment is straightforwardly false" - no, it isn't. This bizarre Marxist thinking that we can just will our way out of scarcity and there are no consequences for our choices is absurd. It's not so much "unlearning economics" as it is in denial of economics.
There's so much strawmanning going on here yet again! It doesn't say that we can't solve major issues without major costs, only that there are trade-offs. It's hilarious to see you try to write off trade-offs as a "conservative talking point", a sort of bizarre guilt by association ad hominem. You literally acknowledge that trade-offs exist then talk about the idea like it's conspiracy theory. Do you even read through your scripts before you record yourself speaking them out loud!?
Listen, I get your critique, but the anger and need to attack a 90 year intellectual just presents you as a crazed zealot with questionable intelligence. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man who's spent his career trying to help people better understand the world we live in. You don't have to take everything the man has said as gospel, but as supplementary information to form your own opinions. The amount of time it appears you have wasted attempted to crucify a single person just shows a motive that is not based on anything rational. Also, as an American, please do not ever discuss American sociology again. You sound absolutely retarded when you give your input on that subject.
no, that is not who Sowell is, or was, & that is never what is work has been. as a fellow american, and with personal empathy to the potential circumstances of ur education resultantly, ur reactionary defensiveness is infintely more retarded. maybe intake what is said & deliberate on it first, next time!
I listened to about half way. You don't get the point of his presentation as compassionate and empathetic. You don't understand the common sense of his wisdom because your an intellectual idiot. I dare you to go rant to a fentanyl addict about the economics of fentanyl and see how helpful that would be. The left is loosing because of its disconnect from reality. Even as anecdotal stories Mr Sowell uses are easy to understand when compared to the harsh realities of the USA.
@@designeedesigner6182 no. he was referring to an ongoing process of monopolization, of corporate consolidation. never did he imply any such thing. if he did, timestamp it.
This entire analysis of Sowell's work is so stupid. These "market failures" are mostly nonsense. There are no monopolies, externalities are not a failure of valuing, perfect information is an impossibility, value is literally subjective, people are not irrational. It's been so painful going through this non-takedown of his work which relies almost entirely on straw man arguments and ad homs but worst of all - a poor understanding of economics from the aptly titled "unlearning economics".
