Economics summarized in 10 minutes | Steve Keen and Lex Fridman 

I try to do that in conversation. It’s hard - both because you have to really be paying attention to recapitulate properly and you also have to risk seeming stupid or ignorant. It’s ultimately worth it, though, I think

You mean corporations right? Who do you think buys the politicians?

Anarcho-capitalism

@@gionthomas7160 what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Term limits for a start

@@gionthomas7160 you can only buy a politician who doesn't mind being bought

that is crazy yet not surprising

What uni do you go to? If I may ask

Unfortunately, Steve Keen won't help in that respect either. I've watched one lecture of his on Austrian economics and, although he does mention Mises once, he never explains any of his ideas. He only goes through a bit of Hayek (some misrepresentations) and mostly of Schumpeter (who is, at most, an Austrian fellow traveller. He was in Böhm-Bawerk's class, one of the main early Austrians, but, as Böhm-Bawerk acknowledged, he didn't get much from it). So, call me crazy, but if one of the main topics he covers in the lecture is the Austrian critique of maths in economics, he should at least go over the guy who's written 4 books that touched on the subject. In addition, when he talks about entrepreneurship it's all about Schumpeter, when the real main theoritician of entrepreneurship is Kirzner (following in the steps of Mises).

@@adrianrg75 Well, there you have it. To talk about Austrian Economics ignoring Mises is like talking about Romantic Music ignoring Beethoven.

or Karl Marx. Haven't heard a single lecture on him.

He talked about the subjective theory of value, about the neoclassical school at that point. And you don't learn the labor value theory that Adam Smith, Ricardo and other classic economists represented in college. Classic and neoclassical theorists are very different. And the teachings in college are different again. Can you not listen? Listen to him again before you make a pointless argument.

Adam Smith has a whole section of On The Wealth of Nations dedicated to the labor theory of value. He was a great economist, but missed the mark on value and helped contribute to a lot of death and misery in the 20th century.

yes Adam smith maintained a labour theory of value, not the same as Marx's but a different, he didn't say Adam smith didn't have thoughts on money and banking. oh and Adam smith was not a neoclassical economist. this is my issue with non-Marxist economists. they not only hopelessly history and strawman their opponents, but they also get basic facts wrong, and are incapable of coherent thought.

Yep, the monetarily school think money is irrelevant... what rubbish, and I'm no monetarist.

dont worry youve got my love

trust me, they are not

they mostly talk gibberish if you really speak "economics"...

Its not like saying that at all. Its more like saying the clinate will change.

@@edwinurey4927 whatever floats your boat. The crucial thing is that temperature is defined *at equilibrium*. And yet we have no problems in tracking changing temperature.

Temperatura es a measure. Equilibrium is a state of a system. The equilibrium is DEFINED by temperature. (Is temperature is stable, the system is ar therminal equilibrium). So, no it is not the same, it´s apples and pears.

@@sebamtorres No real system is at equilibrium, and yet we find temperature, which is only defined at equilibrium, to be incredibly useful.

Comparing economic flux to temperature is a gross oversimplification and one that is both disingenuous and lazy. Congrats on the gumption....You must be of the Austrian economic herd

Sounds a lot like a modern day western economic structure applied to intellectual property 🤔

@@alectronicmail they know he’s smart this guy

Marx all the way

Thanks for the source, I'll have to read this shit myself.

@Down with Corporate Amerika reality refuted libertarianism? What an absurd statement. Care to elaborate?

That’s precisely why I don’t buy it. Economics makes sense, he is basically trying to muddy the water with jargon and throwing around different measures of “value”. I’ve seen that classical economics works and provides real-world decision power. This is nonsense

Don't stress. That was an embarrassingly stupid movie that did not understanding entropy in the slightest.

Yeah cause the crypto hype is "down to earth"

@@cameronblack7984 It’s debatable whether or not crypto fits into the Austrian school

@@cameronblack7984 the only reason cryptos exist is because governments cant be trusted with issuing currency.

@@charleswalker2484 but random dudes who just wrote some code can be?

@@charleswalker2484 I'm not saying current Central and Private Banks are the optimal solution at all, but crypto doesn't get rid of all the problems created by the current banking establishment.

Your second point is incoherent. To suggest cost of production is not a factor of sales price completely contradicts supply and demand. Price is an indicator of both supply and demand. That is it fluctuates in accordance with both. Therefore, cost of production is an inherent factor of sales prices.

@@solusgamer164 Only to the extent that the good is a discretionary purchase.

@@solusgamer164 _"To suggest cost of production is not a factor of sales price completely contradicts supply and demand."_ I don't follow. What do you mean, exactly?

The only recognized great neo-classical economist is Leon Walras, who was a socialist and wanted to develop a social market economy like Oskar Lange another general equilibrium theorist

@@SafeTrucking , no. It is in every case. The cost of essential goods/services are factored into the price. That's the purpose of a price. It indicates multiple things, including the cost of production, since the demand for more production is regulated by consumer discretionary in either case of essential and non-essential.

Really exciting stuff. I suspect we will all learn a lot of new things about economics vecause of blockchains. Al of our economic orthodoxies will likely be challenged. I still think a slowly inflating fiat currency alongside a bunch if experiments is a good idea for now.

Why is debasing the currency inherently bad?

@@edwinurey4927 because the group who has the ability to debase the currency has an extremely unfair advantage. They also never know exactly the correct amount to debase a currency at a given time so they're always either oversteering or understeering the debasement process.

@@shittychicken2095 doesnt mean the alternative is better.

@@edwinurey4927 a system without this type of privileged access to the money printer is more fair. More fair systems are usually better.

No. Neolibs can't be great. They're pretty petty thinkers. Simpletons.

Can you make a video about him I will watch it

​​@@justins5756 sorry I don't have the capability to properly edit a good video at the moment. But I would suggest watching some content about him on the mises institute youtube channel.

Maybe try the companion clip titled "Austrian Economics Explained"

@@raein2853 Unfortunately, most academics today basically don't acknowledge Austrian Economics as legitimate.

Why would you want to listen to someone talk at more length about economics who genuinely thinks Marx was the greatest intellect in the history of economics? There's an "Austrian Economics Explained" clip as well, btw, and it's clear he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about (who's "Ronbard"? no mention of Mises?) This guy is not worth listening to.

@@_.Jon._ the Austrians simply won't win though. The idea that you can have the economy run on a deflationary reserve asset is simply not going to happen. Not gold, not bitcoin etc...I'd recommend you listen to the entire podcast.

@@edwinurey4927 1) Your post addresses nothing I said in my previous post, so I'm not sure why your post is directed at me, and 2) "[they] simply won't win" and "[it's] simply not going to happen" aren't arguments.

All university study of economics, yes. The stuff they teach at the undergraduate, and graduate, levels is nothing but mere apologetics for the central banking system, on the one hand, and big government interventionism on the other. The former is a giant wealth transfer scam, and the latter a scam to keep an elite political class and their cohorts fat and happy. The two work hand in hand, as the central bank monetizes the spendthrift government's debt, and subsidizes the enrichment of the elites and company.

Right. I have had the thought recently that the proper role of the economist is not a specialized adviser for those trying to manipulate anything, but more like a weather man. Analyze, report, give heads up and warnings. The weather man doesnt try to control the weather. They merely try to report and predict.

Dude, microeconomics is just another name for much of the neoclassical economics crap he is describing, with bullshit indifference curves etc.

@@MrNights-is8mx Those are genuinely useful mental models for personal/professional decision making. It's not a hard science like it can be interpreted to be, and definitely people aren't the perfectly rational homo economicus depicted in the theories. But those are useful mental models for decision making in market environments and understanding markets. I think it's when you get to the macro level of using public policy as a lever for driving economies that stuff gets screwy. That's more macro

so in studying economics you actively got worse at it

@bernges7228 No, I got better in it. I didn't understand incentives. Supply and demand. Inflation. Recessions. Profits/losses and how it affects the economy. Tariffs. Price controls. Etc the list goes on. We all know the intentions but intentions and results are 2 completely different things. Something many people don't understand including myself back then. It wasn't until I started studying economics I learned the economic principles. The facts. The logic and reasoning. "If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"- Friedrich Hayek. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. I used to be more of a socialist until I started studying economics. When I first started, my arguments were getting refuted. A portion of them. I never heard the other side out because again, these policies sound amazing on paper. So I came across the opposing side and they refuted it. I couldn't believe it. I've never been much of a bias person, I can change my mind when evidence is presented to me. Which is why I jumped from socialist to capitalist. So when I got these ideas refuted, I looked to my side for the responses. What can I say back? What's your argument in response? I was met with mostly criticism for even questioning their stance which was my stance. I was still on their side but I was questioning things. They went after me despite being on their side just from me wanting a stronger argument to address this. I knew something was very wrong because it was an emotional reaction and not a logical one, they gave me nothing but personal insults. So I started studying economics. Looked up all the book recommendations from the opposing side. Stumbled across a few and those few led me to tons more. College textbooks. The whole 9 yards. I became thirsty for the right answers. I found them after many, many, many thousands of hours of research because I became obsessed with finding the correct answers. Even to this day, I can't discuss economics with Keynesians/socialists because anytime I try to engage i am met with personal insults. It's because I can refute them very easily. The facts/logic are indeed on my side. So if they're on my side, the only thing the other side can do is insult me. When I went over to this side, the Austrian side along with the Chicago school, I had all my questions answered. They don't hurl personal insults at me for questioning them. They answered my questions in a logical/factual way. I came in as a socialist so I questioned their side same way I did mine. The reactions were 2 completely opposite reactions. The socialists/keynesians were hostile with zero argument. The chicago/austrian schools did not do that and they answered everything.

And biscuits...

You said a whole lot of nothing in your comment.

@@DardanEmini Did I? How sad!

Poor leaders in any system makes a bad system.

In terms of looking back he does a very nice lucid job of summarizing schools of thought and he is very correct in pointing out how uncertain the future is so another good choice of guest for this show

I highly doubt that... Markets factor in growth and if the population isn't growing.... Well that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

He's a marxist.

Funny way of saying I don’t understand big words

Marxist, so no surprises here

@@erlingaamodt1964Did you listen to him at all? He's school is post-Keynesianism which is pretty different from Marxian school of economy.

@@iachtulhu1420 Ok, fair. Not a marxist. And no, I did not finish listening. I never do once I know someone's thinking is bad. I was pointing to the ranking of intellect and his putting Marx all the way up there. That is enough for me to know that this man is out of whack, and that nothing he says can be of any substantial value.

​@erlingaamodt1964 consider reading Marx.

This season has been really great I’ve been making massive returns on my binary investment all thanks to my expert Samuel Richard

Am going for a long term trade.

He believes in money printing 🫠

Austrian Economics is retarded gobbledygook. They literally reject the concept of evidence. Never hire an Austrian as a lawyer.

Nobody knows anything you need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.

I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by a fin-advisor, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying off risk as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, coupled with the exclusive information/analysis they have, it's near impossible to not out-perform, been using a fin-advisor for over 2years+ and I've netted over 2.8million.

@@MarkFreeman-xi3rk I actually subscribed for a few trading courses but it didn't help much, been getting suggestions to use a proper financial advisor, how did you go about touching base with your coach?

I absolutely dislike giving such advice because every person's situation is different. However, there are a lot of independent advisors you might look into. Margaret Johnson Arndt and I have been working together for nearly four years, and she is excellent. You could proceed with her if she satisfies your discretion. I support her.

I just checked her out and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

yes 👍

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QMJ0cf84g0k.html

So true!! The only thing that gives anything it’s value or price is what someone else is willing to pay for it. This is normally determined by supply and demand, not by the prices of its inputs. However if the cost of producing it is greater than what someone is willing to pay for it, it won’t get made.

austrian school economics is unbelievably irrelevant to modern economics and does not represent and important chapter in the development of economic thought. also yes people agree price is determined by supply and demand. the fact that you think the comment you typed out brings any cohernt thought to the discussion or levys any actual counter argument demonstrates that you know nothing about economics. anyone who sites the austian school economists as their choice fore greatest economists aren't actual economists, they are prepubecent ben shapiro fans who try deseprately to make incoherent arguemtns as to why capitalism isn't inherently flawed

You guys completely missed him describing you and explaining that neo-classical economics reduces value to marginal utility and focusing on the most interesting feature of the world being equilibrium….. but the economy is not an equilibrium system Conceptually these simple curves are too simplistic to explain a complex system. “If you don’t have the critical background, that’s what you think is economics” 😂

Pretty much

gaurentee you know nothing about marxit economics, but instead are blindly jibbering on the interent to try and debunk a man who effortless demonstrated the fact the society that you live in today is fundementally flawed and will collapse. because you worship endless cancerous production and mindless conception your infantile withered brain cannot cope with this

​@buffcommie942 So what do you agree with Marx on? Or what do you disagree with capitalism on?

Indeed

Marx was primarily an economist. Much of what he forecast has come to pass.

Who did he leave out?

@@chongomwila4242 Milton Fridman.

Nouriel Roubini or Dr.Doom is known for his adverse position on bitcoin, which he has described as "the mother of all scams." -accurately predicted the 2008 financial crisis. Conversely; Keynes was almost bankrupted by the stock market crash of 1929,(not too smart)

Lulz

Who?!

Brilliant, ah yes I agree he was brilliantly racist and antisemitic. Also reprehensibly cruel to his wife, oh and his socioeconomic theory has repeatedly failed every when even just single ideas are slightly implemented. Only political and social theory I know of that has no track record of clear-cut success one can point to yet alarmingly continues to be promoted by a large number of people who are coincidentally in the same profession as one another but that part is pure coincidence.

@@Zappappappappa That's some "ad-hominem". Where do you got that info? And the other question is: is the fault of Marx or the people who tried to implement Marx's thinking? Is always good to remember that, for example, Lenin and, particularly, Stalin reinterpreted a fair amount of Marx theory -taking in account the political and economic context of Russia at the moment. On the other hand, a lot of people regards the implementation of neoclassical economics in Chile by Pinochet's dictatorship as a miracle. In reality for Chile in a mediocre economic growth and the total obliteration of the economic wellness of the medium and low class. And various people where involved: the school of Chicago, Von Hayek, Friedman. Direct assessors and brains behind the economics and politics of Pinochet. An incredible failure.

​@@FarencioChile ended up the richest country in latin america, while communist countries consistently end up the poorest. But sure communism is the approach we should be trying more of and Chile the abject failure.

The worst part is I am really open to Marxism (I'm a historian and Marx and Engels work on the German Peasants War is still seminal) but Critique only gets you so far, it just seems shallow to me.

It sounds like you already know all you want to know.

@@scoobedoo1008 I know that if I'm wrong it's good when people tell me I am. Other than that I know pretty much nothing.

@@SerZachariah sounds OK to me. Of possible interest to you: ru-vid.com?search_query=steve+keen

_"Lex gets these Marxist thinkers on here and I learn nothing and I leave hungry and disappointed"_ A big reason for this is Marx never says exactly how, once socialism is established, it actually works to produce wealth. Marx simply assumes prosperity in the socialist society.

There is a difference between being intelligent and being correct. Sowell pointed this out in his writings on Marx and he obviously disagrees with Marx's economic theories. Intellect is the ability to pick up on ideas. But it doesn't do you good if you pick up bad ideas. Marx was an objectively gifted intellectual, an autodidact who learned multiple languages and studied philosophy at a young age, his theories on the other hand have been complete disasters.

Read mises please.

​@@kurtjohansson1265 No thank you! I thought we wrote off the Austrians decades ago lolololol.

If they had they would be Marxists.

Nice

Marx was brilliant, but he was wrong also.

I'm a diehard capitalist who agrees. Marx was transcendentally smart, he really is the father of economic theory. It's pretty disappointing that there are so few fair honest critiques of Karl Marx.

​@@saladtnogs I really struggle to understand what possible intellect or value people see in Marx. Read his works, and I can't find absolutely anything of value. Am I missing something?? All of Das Capital is 100% his fantasy-land ideas, completely removed from reality, with no truth to it whatsover, and proven wrong multiple times over. Am I crazy here? What do you see as his contribution??

​@@saladtnogs I struggle to see why his books are put in the economics section rather than the fiction section. How can you call him the father of economic theory?? 🤯