Capitalism | FULL DEBATE | Doha Debates w/ Jason Hickel, Anand Giridharadas, Ameenah Gurib-Fakim 

Jason Hickel your point is genius! Full on on the degrowth movement! 🌎❤

Jason is amazing. Unfortunate that he's not being listened to. Humanity will end itself while people laugh at attempts to save it.

I would have liked to hear Anand Giridharadas and Ameenah Gurib-Fakim address Jason Hickel’s point that even regions as “green” as Scandinavia are consuming four times the capacity of our one planet. How does that fit in with their notions of growth?

"Three per cent growth means doubling the size of the global economy every twenty-three years" / "Capitalism is fundamentally dependent on growth. If the economy doesn’t grow it collapses into recession" - Hickel, Jason. "Less is More "

To believe that the economy can grow forever in a finite world, you have to be a madman or economist.

Jason is the most smart of them all, Growth is the problem

Two things set apart Jason from the other two speakers (and their critique on his views are related to this) - only Jason takes into consideration/is familiar with planetary boundaries and only he takes a global perspective (e.g. global justice). If the other two were also familiar with, and looked at the issues from the perspective on the planet as a whole, they would be much less opposed to his views:)

Jason's position is the most rational. Growth is not good. It's based on the irrational position that the Earth is infinite, resources are infinite, etc....and several hundred years ago one might be excused for maintaining such a position. However, we know better now. The Earth is finite. The resources are finite. And many other things as well. In fact, growth is not even a part of what economics means, and is usually counter to it.

I get the feeling this format/debate isn't seen or used very much in a country like the US which sorely needs to learn what constructive civil discourse looks like.

Jason was so operating on a completely different intellectual level. His "opponents" were just passionately articulating talking points while Jason was actually addressing and unpacking scientific ideas with tangible implications on everyday life.

Brilliant debate. The speakers were amazing. Jason pulled the voters his way at the end which gave me goosebumps. Interestingly he swayed me the same way as the studio audience. Thoroughly insightful debate.

It is so bizarre to watch a debate like this in Qatar, where not only Capitalism rules but combined here with autocracy, no Human rights and no freedom of speech is allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was such a disingenuous response on Mauritius' tax system. Of course the country is a tax haven. If people use it as a tax haven, then it's tax haven. It just proves the concept of people being self-interested when she hides that fact. No wonder Ameenah's debate position tanked in popularity afterwards (although, thankfully, it wasn't popular to begin with among these intelligent young people).

I'm sorry but I have to say, Jason is the only one who contributed some substantial, helpful (like empirical evidence) and clear points to the discussion. The other two overwhelmingly used a frustrating amount of platitudes, clever sounding, but empty rhetoric and agnostic unclear non-positions.

The host kept trying to put the capitalist's thumb on the scale with her framing of the debate. She took any chance she could to eliminate nuisance and force the speakers into extremes that they didnt initially express.

Great debate! I like Anand but Jason kicked some ass, and gave a right explanation of what capitalism is. And yes: there were carpet sellers making money in medieval or ancient greek times, and no: they were not capitalists. I also have to give props to the presenter who was a great moderator but also put Ameenah a bit on the spot a couple times with her presumptuous yet totally empty answers.

What struck me is that neither Anand and Ameenah, capitalism's defenders, talk about what it fundamentally is. Anand speaks about regulating change, but under capitalism a tiny fraction own the means of production and thus control the economic levers. And as that one astute audience member noted, corporations and oligarchs have overwhelming influence over government, as well as international groups like the UN and World Economic Forum. Thus whether you want to achieve less economic inequality, as Anand and Ameenah want, or a non-growth based economy, as Jason wants, then the key is to distribute power and democracy out from just the halls of government and into the entire economy. Workers and communities should own the means of production and directly control their societies, not capitalists.

I've been seeing the sponsored posts by Doha Debates on Twitter from sometime now and finally took some time out to watch the debate today and I must say, I'm very impressed and thankful that they promoted it on Twitter. It was a very good, insightful and knowledge debate. And I loved how calm and relaxed everyone was, the host was really nice and did a good job. And keep posting new debates. Thanks!

I am disappointed in the lack of listening done by the participants here. Even from the interviewer not listening to Jason for the first couple of times saying that poorer countries should not abandon growth.Also Anand strawmanning Jason's point as an 'all or nothing approach'.

Studio looks amazing. Architects and designers did a great job.

my 12 year old son said to me the other day... " dad, how can anyone believe that our society can grow forever, it's just stupid on a finite planet" if imperical evidence matters to you, then the obvious evidence would persuade you that the benefits of society need to be shared more fairly and that earth's ecological boundries need to be respected. There is now ample evidence showing what happens to civilizations that don't respect those boundries ....

This was an excellent discussion. My only complaint is the question period was entirely too short, and didn’t allow enough time for full answers. One question that I wish was asked, and should be in the future is “what do we do about the capital stock markets of the world, and the owner class that owns most of it? Because they will inherently resist any and all change that is discussed here.”

I was amazed recently when responding to a survey by the New York Times that I am considered low income. I lived through poverty and bad jobs when I was young but I finally secured a job that provided me with a retirement income and health insurance. I made money from selling a home and now live in a rental. The idea that I am low income just makes me wonder how families are surviving today on less than I receive. Something is very wrong and capitalism is the problem.

They didn't understood Jason's points

Economists say... They have never and are not able to predict accurately any form of capitalism. Feudalism was all the world knew until the 15th century. To think a post capitalism system is not possible is ridiculous.

Overall it was a great debate, but I was disturbed by the lack in content of the guest's responses. The questions were really, really good but the guests were avoiding the answers. It was frustrating to see the rush in ending the debate when it started to become really interesting. That was the point when the guests should have sustained their ideollgies at it's best.

I’ve just come to discover this debate it’s really, mainly a benefit to us thank you 😊

I"m from Canada and I'm spending my weeks in meetings where most people don't understand most of the thing happening in those meetings, and have even less understanding of what is going on in the world. The young people in this audience are already so much more mature, educated and inspiring than most of those people I'm stuck with in my every day life.

This needs much more views.

Brilliant format. Great to see a reasoned and plural debate, and to directly involve our future leaders. An important and complex topic, very well presented and argued. I am most impressed by the insightful and thoughtful questions from the audience. A new power is rising.

This was a good one. I wish they increase the time towards the end during questions.

We need more debates like this.

I thought Anand was smarter than this. The capialism that America has today is exactly how free market capitalism is suppoosed to work! Profit, profit, profit to the already rich and crumbs or nothing to the poor.

Good debate, food for tought. But 3 years later there still is no signs of change, on the contrary.

Probably the best debate watching experience I have ever had. Very civil and comfortable discourse.

I can't believe the questions of the public, they're wild. Very nice.

having listened to the debate the pro growth side seems not to understand the one time bounty humanity has been given by fossil fuels - or the very unique qualities of fossil fuels that simply are not replicated by renewable energy sources - stating how you have seen growth over the last few decades lift up and transfrom a country and people and how this is much preferable to being poor and undeveloped - this is not being argued by the degrowth side - this is a wonderful reality and as such is why the degrowth arguement is so important- for when properly contextualized the benefits of growth will evoprate when growth is no longer able to be achieved , and this fact escapes the emotional yearning for the continuation of the current system - let's just keep doing what we are doing but better..... the message of the climate science and earth sciences in general is that the system of growth is having such profound side effects that those side effects are actrually rgoing to overtake the benefits and actually reverse the gains so hard fought for over the last decades and century.... i think the pro growth side is missing the scale of the ecological crisis and are under valuing equity in human affairs .... degrowth is really the only logical answer to the problems we face as a result of exponential growth of huiman activities over the last 150 years.

The problem is interest being charged by financial institution, greed and not giving back to the community. We will continue heading in a bad place as long this is not stopped.

closed the debate down just when it was getting uncomfortably critical

great debate jason

Besides Hickel, Michael Hudson is the best contemporary voice on these issues.

Interesting perspective - Thank you Jason Hikel, I aced my Econ paper :) Still unclear why your country is contained within mine :) Exceptional debate, Thank you

I cannot favor one or another. I believe in the necessity of getting to some form of zero growth economy as Jason Hickel suggests. Is that change possible sans catastrophe? If change is going to be possible it would be necessary to morph through series of steps or transitions passing through the soul searching Anand describes with such honesty and clarity. I experience Ameenah Gurib-Fakim as representing the starting point. Where we are now. The mindset that as delivered so much, but we must move beyond

One question: Why is growth only associated to capitalism ? We definitely need growth to improve the lives of people living in the global south but why not achieve growth in a pro-worker way which is a : fair and redistributive b: sustainable and c : capable of improving lives . Guess what , this may come as a shocker , which country GREW from a backward agrarian country with 75% illiteracy to the second superpower in a bipolar world in the 20th century ? Soviet Union . Clearly it didn't follow the path of capitalism to grow .

I need more info like this to consume. I am addicted I need more!

Anand Girdhardas doesn't seem to realize that renewable sources of energy have their own problems. It is not as if the production of solar panels or car batteries leaves no impact on the environment.

If capitalism didn’t exist in the medieval era, how would Jason explain the inherent need to form and expand empires that seized labour, land and trade routes for the benefit of elites. Modern capitalism didn’t arise out of thin air.

TELL THESE PEOPLE WHY YOU WERE SACKED OUT FROM THE POST OF PRESIDENT

Given both sides are very intelligent and tremendously well informed. The question that begs an answer is where will all the energy to feed and keep alive come from? Both Anand and Hickel basically never address the question of carrying capacity - which is clearly related to overshoot and consequent collapse. And Doha? A petrol paradise itself and gone tomorrow to sea level rise.

What if the real driver is not growth, but rather the idea that I can grow my personal position by eliminating the competition. From a macro-economic perspective the outcome might be growth, but from a micro-economic perspective I just want to grow my business(es) or wealth (and generally relative to the other players in the world). That means at the end of the day people are driven by the idea of how to get wealth transferred from others to themselves.

Neoliberal free market economics never produced much in the way of progress that matters, the point of the economy is to produce things we need, optimise its production/design/efficiency, distribute it according to some criteria to people/sectors/groups that need it and in the end produce a net positive outcome. We are at a stage where we have vast technical knowledge, extractive capabilities, organisational capability, outcomes that we agree on based on what people need to live comfortably that are generally universally acceptable - except no ambition to deliver it simply because such act would not return an income or profit. If you wonder why so many live in relative/absolute deprivation - its not because we have a system that needs to grow to reach them, its because it operates under a constant premise: what will I gain from giving it to you? What will you give me for building a sewage and water system in your village that will provide clean water and waste management to all your villagers? It does no benefit to those who need it for the sake of need, it does so for the sake of self interest, not genuine interest. The obstacle lies in solving distribution issues, abolishing crude measures of access to resources - money/capital/funds and innovate to a more comprehensive measure that better represents need. For now taxes are all there is for distribution, and we know they have little to no chance of distributing wealth in a meaningful way giving the ease with which someone with a good lawyer or good imagination can do tax evasion.

54:27 “I think we can’t allow the abuse of a system to define a system because we allow the abusers to be the powerful in that case.” Same point applies to religion-just because there are some who misread fear and hate into the text doesn’t mean that’s what the text calls for.

Greta conversation-Jason and Anand 💯 The format is rather odd though, I don’t think the big VOG and graphics help with the discussion, causes things to feel rather artificial IMO

So Anand, This wonderful course called MBA that spews the wonders of capitalism with platitudes of risk and reward, etc. - all couched in lukewarm social objectives surely begs intense re-examination, does it not? I attribute so many of the ills of the western world from the mid-70s to this MBA craze. Scrape the entire course and get back to commonsensical economics that does not engage in numeric acrobatics.

This intellectual exercise feels like a game show.

at 13:16 the esteemed lady say "Africa ... the youngest continent" When in reality human life originated in Africa at least 2 million years back. Then the camera pans to a bunch of hooded muslim women, who otherwise live like semiotic slaves inside Doha or the royalty of Qatar, which does not permit abortion. Amazing institutional hoodwink at some level.

Hi! What does growth mean? Check the definition of GDP. We can also grow the care-economy, for example! What do you want to grow?!

best question 50:12

#True_love | #QATAR_keep_shining

was this filmed before Ameenah Gurib-Fakim was forced to resign that prestigious position she was introduced with due to her corruption and financial scandals? Does not seem like an honest person. Also it should be mentioned she began her argument with a strawman to the first speakers statements. He specifically mentioned that the rich nations drastically reduce growth, Mauritius is not and was not then a rich country, so framing it as needed is misrepresenting the argument.

Consumers are needed for feeding the system that depends on consumption growth. That is the issue, while it's the system that should be designed to feed the citizens.

Intentional country policies are key. But can inclusive growth be pursued concurrently with justice for all?

For degrowth to happen we either need the top 10% make sacrifices or run out of natural resources.

UBI can fuel the change! Its too complex of many issues. slow thoughtful learning and education is required to create the new systems we need. UBI gives everyone the time to pick new ways of being. I believe it will be a strong foundation upon which everyone has a say with their own dollars, how we should go forward. Creating a new class of people that can never fall below an income floor would drastically improve our ability to adapt.

Nice

I disagree with Ameenah. She is confusing growth with progress. Progress is needed but eternal growth is "logically" impossible. Current capitalism is a Ponzi scheme that needs growth that's why. This System is going to be demolished by humans or by physical laws. A controlled demolition would be preferable,...but I guess is going to be the other way.

jason is amazing

Way to short. An hour is barely a taste of the info that must happen.

great speakers and debate even though the moderator seemed a little out of place at times

Anand is right in saying ‘tax the hell out of super rich’ and reduce the inequality gap is the only way forward. Billionaires can never do this because they damage indirectly more than they tend to help.

All these people are so happy. just doing there jobs and having great careers. The well being of your society is not a job its a duty

Big fan of free market capitalism. But very much open to having my mind changed... let’s watch...

Is this a wrestling match or a debate?

Haha they don't want Jason to speak.

The word says it already. Capitalize. How did the world ran into environmental problems? Right, fossil fuel capitalization. Now replace that to a form of renewable resource and limits to planet exploitation. I think that will be a part of the solution.

Who are the guy's in white

why do we have a youth audience? and a presenter talking like we are teenagers? this discussion has been had before and it will continue until it is resolved.

The president lady’s position is the least sophisticated of all

Very surprised to hear praise for Jason in the comments. I thought he just made mundane points. Anand was the only intelligent voice on the stage, perhaps I need to re-hear the debate.

©️44:22

Look at the girl at 15:35 (right side of the screen)

Jason🐅

Was anyone speaking there actually defending profit and rent seeking exploitation? No. So where was the debate? Nothing Ameenah or Anand said was a defence of exiting capitalism. You cannot have inclusion without financial inclusion, which means production for pure rentier profit (M-C-M') is not sustainable. The only way to truly be just is to free worker time without reducing wage share by getting the rich to work too, and the only way to make work produce sustainable goods is to eliminate the profit motive which is biased heavily to produce crap (or luxuries no one truly needs) from cheap labour. One way or another the monetary profit motive has to be eliminated, and the social profit motive enhanced; be that through legislative, regulatory and through moral education, all methods to bear. If you can produce something people need that is essential it will sell with a mark-up providing a firm with investment surplus, there's no need for a boss to take more than they need to live on, to take more than their lowest paid worker. When the boss gets the lowest wage in the firm you've got a form of post-capitalism, a just form. Private ownership of the means of production is classical capitalism, but with no rentiers, but this is no today's actual existing capitalism which is rentier finance and rent seeking parasitic neoliberal capitalism, and that form of capitalism certainly has to go.

What a simpleton view of this problem. Ask what you want. Join us in St.Louis (DSM) we march we hit the street to stop this madness. Turn off your device , burn your phone. go to the streets show them your pain.

Actually Capitalism is not the only system, it is the dominant yes. China, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland are countries that have mixed package systems, where the Government controls and owns a large part and shares some of the rest with the private sector.

Ameenah does not give an answer to an excellent question about double tax, just a very Oxfordian full of flare words.

Peculiar that we don’t even get a definition of capitalism until the last five minutes of the video and neither are correct. Anand thinks markets means capitalism and Jason thinks infinite growth means capitalism. Simply put, capitalism is a socioeconomic system with a employer/employee class system, where control of the means of production is assigned to the employer. This class relationship is simply a kinder and gentler form of even more immoral forms of socioeconomic systems such as feudalism, slavery, etc… No amount of redistribution of resources can rectify the true indignity of the power distribution. It is this uneven power distribution that is the rot at the core of our world. A brief stroll through history shows that as that power imbalance decreases, the general quality of life increases, even for those at the top.

TELL THEM ABOUT ALVARO ,YOU FOOL

“Degrowth“ won’t solve climate. Yes the policies they talk about are good socially but they’re not gonna solve much of the climate problem. Yes they should be implemented but not to target climate change but to target inequality, which indirectly will improve emissions. In developed countries most of the consumption is in the form of services which are less impactful to the environment and we are generally more efficient utilising resources. This is not to say we should just keep consuming more and more. We should definitely consume less and transition to green infrastructure. But the truth is that developing countries (with some exceptions) are the ones that produce the most emissions per capita. Now, I understand that we outsource a lot of our production and that is why we should reduce consumption. But to say let’s make the global north consume less but the south grow no questions asked is just nonsense. Bordering wishful thinking. And hoping for burning even quicker. Yes reducing consumption in the north would reduce emissions in other places like china, India etc. basically in places where we outsource production. But, these are not even the most polluting countries per capita. Developed countries are able to have less emissions because of the advanced infrastructure and technology, which makes us much more efficient with resource usage and industries are mostly services oriented. Also We already have roads, houses, infrastructure etc. All this emissions have been done. There’s no changing that. However, In most developing countries all the emissions to build all of the infrastructure still needs to be done. That’s just reality. So, yes we can consume less in the north but we need global policies to safeguard and ensure that development in the global south is sustainable too. Hoping to develop infrastructure in the south and expecting that somehow the west’s consumption is the cure all solution is really unlogical. Particularly, when construction is one of the most polluting industries. Is it fair that the north is more developed at backs of the south. Absolutely not. At the same time we can’t afford, or better yet our planet cannot afford, developing countries to follow the same shitty path of development that took developed countries and the planet to what it is today. Let’s not forget that developed countries constitute a relatively small percentage of the world’s population/ geographical mass and the cost of that development took us here.what do you think would be our future if the vast majority of the world would follow the same path? We need to start thinking globally, cooperate, and stop with petty fights for power and self serving blaming of each other. We need to take everyone out of poverty regardless of where they are. For that we don’t need every centimetre of worlds surface to be developed to the teeth. If we stopped playing country fights we would realise that maybe we don’t need people living in every random place on earth. Maybe having a few populous places across the world but highly dense would be much more efficient and better for the planet. I know it sounds tough and insensitive for the connection some people have to land but maybe we shouldn’t be trying to develop that city or country that barely no one lives or that is barely developed. Maybe saving the planet and ourselves could for once come above anything else. Including our attachment for stuff, land, etc. I feel very fortunate to be born where I did and wouldn’t wish anyone what many people in developing countries have to go through. If I was in their position I’d probably be mad too and I know it is easier for me to say this from my sofa but we really cannot let the south take the same choices we took to develop at any cost. let’s not repeat the same mistakes. We know better. Or at least we should. If we don’t, then good luck cause there won’t be a planet left. But again maybe that’s what we all deserve as humans

Anand's view sounds to me more like redistribute power than wealth

This debate is pointless as the capitalism is a system that the human ego created. As everyone is egoist and strive to more. More pleasure which means also more money and more respect etc. this includes all the speakers and audience which want more. And the human ego is growing all the time and it cannot be stopped.

Talk about insane 🤦‍♂️

This looks like World Economic Forum.

Social Capitalism like in Germany has been the best version of Capitalism so far. Ofcourse it has its flaws

They are all right in a way. It's just that greed, unnecessary competition, and the consistent insatiable drive towards becoming super economies is grossly undermining genuine capitalism.

Jason seems incapable of separating the idea of growing the GDP and environmental destruction. He isn’t really even intersecting with the other guests’ positions. Innovation, doing more with less, is the backbone of our increasing quality of life.

Jason is an idealist, Ameenah a pragmatist, and Ananda a realist!

I don't really accept the definition of capitalism right at the top, and part of the problem is the word means different things to different people. Like I'm pretty sure the concept of using surplus value to better your business or craft or whatever existed before capitalism. I think a more valuable exercise word be to discuss underlying economic theories, observed phenomena, and empirical data on a case by case basis. Otherwise it just becomes a kind of religious debate.

Answer: Eliminate Billionaires.

These people are so clueless about capitalism it’s so sad. They confuse cronyism for capitalism. Shame.