Economics: The User's Guide | Ha-Joon Chang | Talks at Google 

A Paradigm Shifting Talk.

Mr ha Joon Chang speaks of common sense, which we have lost from the over-complication of the theories we learn. Let’s get rid of our ideological biases and focus on real problems guys.

Love it! Ha-Joon, Mark Blythe, @profstevekeen, between them maybe we can build an economic plan that makes sense. On child labor: in fact many of those working children were kidnapped and kept in a condition and status indistinguishable from slavery.

Love his analysis on how political will affects dynamics of perceived value of various work.

When I was young a very specific folklore advice in relation to whistling was always a given, and it all had to do with very precise rules in relation to when or not to whistle, but most importantly why. One could not and should not whistle in the forest any forest, at night, at night in a forest, in the house, in any house, at night in any house, and on or during a journey, any journey. If a question as to why is that, which would be asked by anyone young with most attention....! The question would strictly be answered, by pointing the indisputable fact that even a young person would straight away understand, the one being that in doing so, evil spirits, demons and the devil itself would be invited and join anyone involved in such a activity. Now when considering that the advice is related to folklore and putting together all the specific places anyone should not whistle, it can be quickly understood that the answer is exactly and very precisely right, although the definitions of what could be invited is with most people more folklore than folklore as actual present reality. With each of the locations identified and in relation to as far back as folklore goes with and within human existence, whistling gives to anyone happening to be in and around any and each of such locations, your precious movement and as consequence a point of reference to where anyone is, and when taken as a totally of a folklore existence, anyone listening to anyone whistling in such locations and period of a day whistling, is more likely than not a more or less real physical representation of a evil spirit, demon or a devil. Folklore tales of many societies present the exact same structure in different ways and methods, religious parables do the same, some of these folklore tales are by now very famous and in every part of the modern society, with one very particular oddity added. Which is the structure, the folklore tales where developed to represent in the first place has been striped away completely, in fact the tales have been turned in some marvelous utopian fantasies for all sorts of reasons and logic. What is more fascinating is that the folklore tales have already pointed to this happening as far back as very far back. One specific folklore tale that has precisely pointed this phenomenon in happening is known as (Hansel and Gretel). The whole structure of the tale is constructed in the definition and meaning of a strange house that is made out of (sweets and cakes). If anyone were to ask anyone, to point out, now, in modern ((times))....! Where are these house's made of (sweets and cakes) now in the present just as in the old folklore tales...!?!? Why are these house's there...!?!? And...! Who owns, develops, and run's such house's made out of (sweets and cakes) ...!?!? What would anyone answer, or what would be the answer to such questions......! That is not the point, the point is this....! A true representation of these folklore tales, a very specific one, a reality one, that I will bring attention to is known by many in the world as (Anne Frank). And my point is this...! Fascism has already won, it won a long ((time)) ago, and it is now alive and well nurtured with and within anyone, especially the self claimed anti fascists. You see the story of Anne Frank points to something very crucial in relation to fascism and anyone involved with and within it. That is the usage of all what anyone has cultured in order to destroy anyone else which what is cultured with and within anyone is or seems to be against that specific anyone as being. It is beyond violence, because it insists to walk step by step, breath by breath, laughter by laughter, ridicule by ridicule, paranoia by paranoia, torture by torture, word by word that specific anyone chosen for destruction. With an extra addition...! That of the end, being presented with the very face or face's of what is destroying anyone, taking full pleasure in the act, one that anyone about to be destroyed will have a lot of suffering from as a self witnessed experience. That is exactly what did happen to Anne Frank and her family, described be her very own words. This what I have just tried to describe I have observed it in happening with and within anyone, including myself, old and young, man and woman, no matter the religion, race or ideology, throughout the media, music, and all arts, together with science, with most of each being very much against fascism. Because....! There are two sentences that would describe anyone's standing in this world with guaranteed certainty. Yet if any of the two is read, heard, or worded by anyone's self, for most people either sentence would make an absolute sense or no sense at all, and the lines if any of the sentence applies to anyone are very clear and distinct in most of the cases. Meaning.... A categorical (I care) or a categorical (I don't care) as it applies or not to anyone, will be ready and without any lack of confidence for either case, together with middle few/many, that would use a doubtful (I would like to, but I usually do not put much attention to that type of thought, and life is more complicated than that). Because of that, I will try and give a different explanation to the sentences, keeping the (meaning) that each refers to, while simultaneously not using it at all. The sentences are...! (Walking with God.) And ..... (Walking with devil.) Between the two sentences there is an enormous difference, all because of the historical, linguistics and civilization forms of being related for anyone on earth. If we take the meaning of one as related to the word (good), while the meaning of the other as related to the word (bad)....! Then a easy definition for each is there to be had, all related to what anyone knows and recognises as (good) or (bad). In the basis of that...! Meaning that anyone can leave out what is understood by the words (God) and (devil), instead keeping only what is understood by the words (good) and (bad).....! Then the sentences have a different understanding, but although once this understanding is with and within anyone, it will be soon realised that nothing has changed by changing the words, the meaning is exactly the same in all possible aspects of existence no matter the period or person. The meaning of each sentence once a little experience of any period of life has been lived by anyone in this planet, is this....! Walking with (good). Means that everything that life has to offer is there, but the walk, it's initiation, it's intention, it's developing, and it's maintaining is always with and within one purpose, creating as a consequence a belief, that it's end together with the purpose is (good). Walking with (bad). Means that everything that life has to offer is there also (exactly as in walking with good). But it's initiation, it's intention, it's developing, and it's maintaining is always with and within one purpose, and exactly as in the sentence of (walking with good), it creates as a consequence, a firm belief that it's end, is exactly as it's purpose, weather it is stated or accepted as being so. Being that a meaning for the words (God) and (devil) is very much debatable, then what remains is a meaning for the words (good) and (bad). Being that a meaning for the words (good) and (bad) is also very much debatable, and as with the words (God) and (devil), often none existent or without a relatable meaning (as it can be interchangable by anyone as in the example: (good is bad, and bad is good).....! Then a question arises for a simple answer....! What is there that remains as an understanding, for and related to anyone on earth. The abstract meaning for each sentence is related to the fact, that each sentence refers to a statement as being (something) separate that anyone can walk with, but as a consequence of what walking, is both a sentence which also refers to anyone's self simultaneously. As in the example of anyone walking as themselves (by themselves), walking with others (as themselves) and vice versa together with everything that surrounds anyone at any given period on earth (as themselves). With this in mind..... (What is there that remains as an understanding, for and related to anyone on earth?) type of question....! Takes the being form of (the problem), wether it is admitted or not. © Mir 14 March/2023

I had an opportunity to listen again to this talk. The young woman near the end of the Q&A period asked about the one or two issues that people need to understand. I would respond by urging her and other to gain an understanding of the fundamental importance of how property rights to land -- to nature -- as they exist and have existed are THE most important cause of poverty in the world. In 1994 the British economist Fred Harrison collaborated with two U.S. economics professors -- Mason Gaffney and Kris Feder -- on a book titled "The Corruption of Economics." This book provides the details of this story and why economists as a group have failed to see the forest for the trees.

Great book.

darth vader introducing

Haven't seen the talk yet, but is this new book very different (and thus worth the read) from 23 Things and Bad Samaritans?

The problem with Pareto's idea of when to make a change in law or public policy is that the system of law in place in every society rests on centuries-long entrenched privilege. Just requires and end to privilege, the most serious form of which is landed privilege (i.e., the privatization of rent). As Winston Churchill declared when campaigning for the House of Commons in 1909, the most serious problem in the British Isles was monopoly privilege. He then declared that land monopoly is the "mother of all monopolies."

Very nice. Thanks

loved the talk and I will read his books, but austria has a pop of 8.7 million not 7 (; special greetings (I can't believe my country was even mentioned, most of the time only scandinavian countries or the big ones are mentioned in these contexts ^^

I hear lots of echoes of varoufakis in this.

Jeff Sachs' clinical economics encapsulates pretty much all of this

even though i know he spoke in generalized terms and therefor my reaction is hopefully not seen as defensive, me as a german doesnt think of greeks as lazy people. Rather i think that a post communism strategem took place. Whereby Zbigniew Brzezinski opened up the gates of hell due to publicly telling on c-span in 2000, that the future main adversaries of USA would be EU and China. For the EU he then directed the attention and pointed out Greece, Poland and Portugal as the weakest links within the EU. So when any of those would be taken out of the equation, the EU would be in deep trouble. When you then look at the transactions of Goldman Sachs shortly afterwards, which may have been the first shark who smelled the blood or a socalled economic hitman, which is debetable as Goldman Sachs is one of the US banks with arguably the most and closest ties to US Government at that time, in any case the initiator for cheap credit to greece, while withholding that information from their side as also due to agreements between Greece and Goldman Sachs, Greece witholding the fact of that credit laon from the EU bodies. So making my point, the EU member states may have been just plain stupid not to notice what was going on, more likely, they made themselves complicit to these actions as the ties inbetween many of the EU member states and the US are strongly manipulated through many layers of several lobby organisations, by that then i would accuse my own government in germany aswell others in EU to willingly cripple greece to safe a "friendship" with the US, while the US used exactly that sentiment to their benifit to get rid of a possible future rival.

Great talk, he is weak on automation destroying jobs, see the leisure society and alvin toffler, it's a paradigm shift,

Dr. Chang needs to practice what he preaches. His view of history around the events he was referring to require scrutiny. Strange how he jammed Israel into the end of the speach and ignored all historical facts surrounding its formation, displacements of original habitants, destruction of property, genocide and theft of land

Capital is absolutely essential for any nation. What would Karl Marx dole out if not capital?

All though his books are interesting, his speeches are a tad boring in the classic economist sort of way.

The ban on child labor came only because of the high level of income that came from the free market and this happened naturally - try to ban child labor in the CAR

북한에 가십시오!

А very dangerous person... half-truth is worse than a lie