I follow many economists, I even follow some economists' derivations and computations, I still can't catch up with Dani one hundred percent when I read his books. What a wonderful mind! Need more economists like him.
Although I found the description of the trilemma was spot-on, I thought the focus on putting "the firm" at the centre of improving outcomes & development of workers, extremely dissatisfying. As other commenters have highlighted and multiple audience members questions eluded to; to somehow think that by simply "opening a dialogue" with "firms" that they'll behave better in any meaningful manner is, in my opinion, magical thinking. Firms' overriding functions are to make profits and sustain their existence(and they will hire and fire staff as needed, as long as the firm survives in name and the owners keep their shirts); they tend only to behave morally when there is a) competitive advantage b) they'll be punished by a loss of profits or reputation c) forced by legislation.
You are 90% right. The only fair systems of organized work I've ever seen are worker cooperatives. The dominant old-fashioned reactionary politics idea of "the firm" as primary really has to be destroyed. Question is how? Competitive advantage however does not promote moral behaviour, it promotes techno efficiency and likely exacerbates exploitation of workers. Also, competitive advantage _per se_ is not well understood. It is often better for a nation to diversify than specialize, because machinery is not transmutable, and labour is resistant to relocation across borders, even in an open market like the EU. See Steve Keen's talks: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iGlEw63HSvs.html
I think the only way you can ensure that firms work in the interest of the workers and the consumers is some form of expanded codetermination. Once a firm reaches 500 workers, those workers need equal/proportional representation on the board. Once a firm has more than 10% market share in its given industry, consumers should have equal/proportional representation on the board. Just think about that: large firms, especially tech firms, standardized their software and technology and consumers have little choice. Imagine if consumers were able to tell Apple, “hey, we actually want one cord to charge all our products, or we want to be able to repair our own damn phones” you won’t need a leviathan government to come in and make rules for consumers, they can regulate the company themselves as consumers. So many of these companies have their own credit cards. If you have one of those cards, and you’ve bought something with it in the past year, you can elect board members. Firms ARE the source of education and innovation, because they’re essentially large private governments. They should just be more democratic and less totalitarian, and then I think you’ll get something similar to what Dani is talking about.
The problem with globalization is it stands on an unsound financial base. The health of a nation is based on its gDP which is based on debt. The welfare, culture and community is not taken into account.
At 1:06:00 the moderator gave an answer that was flat out wrong, he attributes CEO's ultimate pursuit of maximizing shareholder value to the decay of morality within it's system and uses the example of the difference of morality of corps from the 50's and 60's as being "morally better". This is simply and absolutely false, if by that logic, then corps before the Great Depression from 1910-1920 would have be even more moral and good, but we know now that they had even more avarice then current corps. That's his first mistake, the logical fallacy of a decay of business ethics and morality, and he misses the main point that the singular apex function of all business is to make profits, that "maximizing shareholder value" is the feature and not bug of the entity. It is either ignorance or disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I'm surprised Rodrik did not counter this argument as it is obviously untrue. Corps are not evil nor are they good, they simply pursue the ultimate goal of profits and evil/good is simply a byproduct, unfortunately. Two, the reason for the better morality of corps in the 50-60's was because there was more federal regulations, coming out of the Great Depression the rules and regs put forth by the FDR admin broke up banks, jailed bankers and cracked down, the corps had no choice but to comply and be on their best behavior, and guess what happened, sustained prosperity, economic growth, and raised income distribution through all income brackets. The 50-70's had the strongest regulations at any time, and the erosion of those safeguards started in the late 70's up to our present day, hence the lack of morality today. The corps in the 50-60's didn't act morally because they were more moral, it was because there were strong, punishing consequences if they stepped out of line, the gov/people created and defined their "morality", not the corps themselves. The moderators answer is extremely dangerous because this narrative absolves the corps and CEOs of their greed and wrongful actions. I know he's a journalist, and has said that he talks to alot of CEOs, but he didn't have to drink the Kool-Aid
@@tux1968 Well, this is where we agree to disagree :) If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that it is both laws and narrative that motivates CEOs, whereas I say that narrative has never been a motivating factor, and if it has, if a CEO had to make a decision between a moral choice and profit, the choice to make profits will always win out, every single time. The only narrative they believe in has been always this: profits Are there companies that fall into the wide spectrum that is "good and bad", of course there is, some companies make more moral choices than others, but in order to truly create a moral company you need laws and consequences. If a CEO had to decide between a moral non-profiting choice and an immoral profiting choice but faced dire punishment for such behavior that would net harm company, then the CEO would have to, in their shareholder's view, take the moral non-profiting choice. What you said was that narrative and laws have equal standing, what I am suggesting is that laws create and drive narrative alone, the fact that "maximizing shareholder value" is itself a narrative is evidence to the lack of laws and consequences in our present day. What I mainly disagree with (along with the journalists casualness to point out yet does not dispute) is the idea that CEOs hands are tied because of "maximizing shareholder value", that if unfettered from those restraints, we would have an increase in moral actions from corps. I've presented historical evidence where that is simply false, and in actuality, we would see an increase in immoral actions.
He seems confused. The means by which "globalism", aka multinational investor interests, has damaged public interests far and wide, as scapegoats, yet he defends "globalism" as a concept, just nothing like what currently exists. ???
@@Lobishomem Right here, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bsy349k3zds.html The tension is not subtle. (Trump, Brexit, Yellow Vests, etc.) Who did you vote for, for your representative in the WTO? Is there any country, who votes for their WTO representative?
I feel that the person who buys stock is in the same catagory as the person who buy a lottery ticket they both hope to win big some will win and some will lose and each should have no more right s than the other and furthermore neither should be able to deduct there losses. The gambler has not right to run the casino nor should the person who purchases stock have any say in running the company. although he may sell his stock which is more than the gambler can do with his losing ticket. also The gambler and the stock holder should be taxed at the same with no deductions for losses.
Why would you make that assumption I am 80 years old I $ 260.000 in cash $ 450,000 in my 401k I own a $ 2.000,000.00 house Ia have a farm in OK that brings in pocket money annually. It doesn't matter how much money I have, I am talking about how the tax code is rigged in favor of the rich capitalist over the hourly and salaried workers. It is all official government policy enforced by the courts, the congress, the executive branch, with their chief enforcer the IRS. And upper class have the nerve to wonder why the common people are are very angry.
