No video :(

Lee Smolin: Physics Envy and Economic Theory

Подписаться 7 млн

Просмотров 80 тыс.

50% 1

Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewV...
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
Other Frequent contributors include Michio Kaku & Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Michio Kaku Playlist: bigth.ink/kaku
Bill Nye Playlist: bigth.ink/BillNye
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Playlist: bigth.ink/deGr...
Read more at Bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics.
Join Big Think Edge, to gain access to a world-class learning platform focused on building the soft skills essential to 21st century success. It features insight from many of the most celebrated and intelligent individuals in the world today. Topics on the platform are focused on: emotional intelligence, digital fluency, health and wellness, critical thinking, creativity, communication, career development, lifelong learning, management, problem solving & self-motivation.
BIG THINK EDGE: bigth.ink/Edge
If you're interested in licensing this or any other Big Think clip for commercial or private use, contact our licensing partner, Executive Interviews: bigth.ink/lice...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Big Think here:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/face...
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Inst...
📹RU-vid: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Опубликовано:

22 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 424

@utubemaymunadam 11 лет назад

Economics has suffered massively from a desire to look like a hard science. Instead its incredibly complicated and can't be reduced to laws. Path dependence, complexity, disequilibrium are all part of what is taught in (most) graduate schools these days, but this is a very elite group. The majority of the profession are undergraduate degree holders that do not appreciate that they only have illustrative models rather than complete solutions when they try and apply their skills in government.

@HSet77 7 лет назад

A lot of comments about his hand motion. Such a brilliant and witty observation internet! You might want to pay attention to what he's saying. This is not a stupid man.

@isaacolivecrona6114 4 года назад

Even with the sound off, I understood everything.

@user-bz4ni2of4m 3 года назад

It is the fucking internet we like to have fun .

@HSet77 3 года назад

Yeah, "We' - mean spirited ridicule - is so much fun. I did not realize the entire internet was just one big laugh riot.

@rikodewaner 2 года назад

That's nervous what moves his hand and also his thinking and speaking simultaneously. I would have been like that too, not being too used to public speaking.

@Mjiujtsu 7 лет назад

I didn't know he could speak Italian

@Guizambaldi 5 лет назад

The neoclassical model is just the benchmark model. It is the simplest one. It helps you understand some things. What people from the natural sciences might not understand is that our models are not perfect descriptions of reality. We know that. They are very imperfect descriptions of a certain realm we are studying. If you are thinking about financial crisis, you add some more structure. If you want to think about monopolies, you add a different hypothesis on your market structure. The problem with economics is that we have a plethora of models, but we don't always know exactly which one to use in each circunstance. We still need to better provide validity to the assumptions we make, test the theories using our newly acquired and decent statistical techniques (RDD, diff-in-diff and IV), replicate more studies and throw away the models that don't work well. We are still a scince in the making, on the transition between a philosophical, assumption-based field, to a scientific, empirical-driven field. We have some very good results in some areas: we know for certain some things about trade, about demand and relative prices, about aggregate demand and recessions, how to do an auction and how to evaluate public policies. But we still don't know for sure a hell lot.

@emmanuelameyaw6806 4 года назад

c'mmon, everything is debatable in economics...will you put your entire fortune on some economic theory that it is going to work everywhere regardless of the environment?

@Guizambaldi 4 года назад

@@emmanuelameyaw6806 I don't get your point. Economic theories are context dependent. There are no invariant fixed parameters nor an invariant number of variables interacting. Still, we can develop some general models who can get us closer to qualitative results, and some times to a reasonable range of magnitude. That's what's possible for now. No economist think he can predict the exact path of any economic variable. I'm completely open to any help from outside the profession. Smolin argued that gauge theory could help develop better models some time ago. That's great.

@emmanuelameyaw6806 4 года назад

@@Guizambaldi Yh, I agree...general economic models and quantitative results are not invariant...it depends on data, fixed parameters (in some models), methodology, and even the researcher himself. So there is always going to be some form of debate due to this variability in research results...and no one wins the debate though. If you are a policymaker, you need to take sides:)...it doesn't mean the side you take is correct, it is correct just in your own opinion.

@Guizambaldi 4 года назад

@@emmanuelameyaw6806 More or less. There are degrees of certainty. Some research designs are more powerful than others, and some areas of economics are more succesful in understanding the general rules than others. A different idea which is wildly speculative and still hasn't gathered a lot of data supporting it in some instances shouldn't go directly into policy, in my opinion. It should gather some support in academia first, and try to build some consensus on its results. I'm typing from Brazil, a place where mainstream economics is not taken seriously enough, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Let the mainstream be open to criticism and paradigm shifts, but in a disciplined way.

@emmanuelameyaw6806 4 года назад

@@Guizambaldi Yh I agree, there is some degree of certainty about some findings, for example, you don't raise cooperate taxes if your sole goal is to reduce unemployment. Maybe economists should start reducing internal debates (somehow) to make the profession a little bit unified:). There are so many theories and one that even won a noble price but it does not really support the data in my country...some of these theories may need to be retarded, perhaps should be country-specific. It will bring some credibility to the profession, maybe....:). Anyway...nice talk.

@RaeudigerRuediger 10 лет назад

The economy should be looked at as a complex adaptive system. Every attempt to observe the whole system, its behaviour or outcomes will ultimately chance the whole systems or groundings on which I based my attempts to change it in the first place. People are part of the economy and that is also why it is so completely different from Physics (although I don't know much about physics). And that is also, in my opinion, why the contemporary upcoming of the connections between psychology, behavioral sciences, neurosciences and social sciences with economics are very important. Interpretation is key.

@BooyahL 4 года назад

I'm sorry that's bullshit. Physics is exactly made to be over the problem you're exposing

@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 Год назад

@@BooyahL No, that's why economic is different from physics. A molecule can't give 2 fucks about what you think of it. But if the people expect the inflation to be 110% next year and negotiate their wages accordingly, then the inflation will rise to a much higher level. So you cannot treat economics like physics.

@ccadavreexquiss 11 лет назад

He is very dedicated hand-jiggler but he is also a great physicist. Even one of the most inspiring and open-minded in my opinion. If you are interested, I suggest you read his last book "Time Reborn" where he's more eloquent on the economics' subject and how it's related to both his own scientific field and to this new vision of time.

@NabeeltheThird 11 лет назад

I couldn't agree more, with all you're comments. Anyone not in physics or math cannot even begin to comprehend how difficult these subjects are. And I've seen it first hand, physicists and mathematicians are generally good in all fields of academia (probably due to high logic skills require to do them).

@jpawhees 11 лет назад

2:00-2:43 One thing I understand is that you don't haft to make someone elses life worse to make yours better. It benefits to make their lives better to make yours better.

@TheRealSmacker 11 лет назад

One of the more interesting Bigthinks in a long time. I too had the experience of "prior knowledge" of the economic crisis of the early 21st century. I had the privilege to speak to a CEO of private equity of a big London bank around 2007. In a silent moment he kind of sighed and said; "We're really just waiting for the sky to fall down on us here." It didn't matter that he told me. Nobody would have listened to little me anyway.

@Nicko2604 10 лет назад

Careful... The wandering hand could attack at any second

@dabulls1g 8 лет назад

*smacks poor student asking questions in his office*

@time_cop2901 6 лет назад

It's as if he needs to wave his hand in order to be able to talk

@ashishgurung1417 5 лет назад

😂😂😂😂😂😂👌👌👌👌👌

@flamos44 5 лет назад

The thing is neoclassical model is a very simple method to teach people how to think like economists and solve optimization problems. Economics is at the end of the day about optimization. Given a set of simultaneous equations in the form y=AxB or even nonlinear equations how do you find a set of or a single solution that finds a solution to all the values of y. Thats real economics, but to be able to add forward looking behavior, behavioral traits, game theory etc, requires one to first understand the basic model. Just like you learn algebra in math before learning calculus, you learn the basic econ models ISLM for example and Profit/Utility maximization to build that basic understanding of how systems of equations relate to each other to then extend into more complex systems of equations. Kind of like in physics you start with newton you dont go into relativity immediately. Modern Economic theory is based around not one equilbrium but a changing equilbrium point that is affected by impulses or shocks. It examines the movement of the curves from one equilbria to another over time(dynamic) or it examines the effects of an external shock on the movement of an equilbrium from one point to another(static). Thats really what economists do is solve a series of simultaneous equations which in turn are built based on a set of axioms/proofs which find support from empirical real world data analysis and probability/statistical theory. Of course when politics comes into the picture the equation changes but real economists try not to get involved in the politics and focus more on understanding the theory or empirics.

@elietheprof5678 4 года назад

If the simple model was a reasonable approximation of reality, then it would be worthwhile. But what actually happens is: even small deviations lead to huge differences in outcomes. For example in a perfect free market, it would be fine if the top 0.1% owned 70% of the wealth. But as soon as there's even a tiny bit of corporate lobbying, the market stops serving the needs of the people.

@RockVideoOfTheWeek 11 лет назад

LOL That hand!!!

@camybratt 11 лет назад

I remember back a few months ago, it seemed like everyone was begging for videos that were only Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and only watched those ones and challenged Big Think to upload more of those videos and Big Think said "No, we won't. But we will make other videos a lot more interesting." And the very much succeeded. I'm normally not into videos about economics, but this was a really good video.

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

But in the same vein an economist can accurately predict how the sales of a product will change with the price. Newton had to invent calculus in order to work with more complex systems than physics understood until then. Economics needs a similar advance. Everything in the economy follows a pattern. The same way the weather systems follow a pattern. The issue is we haven't got the skills to accurately predict the patterns because they get so complex.

@martinguila 9 лет назад

He should have used more repetitive hand gestures because then the message would be much clearer.

@Joddit 11 лет назад

"certainly smarter than any economist" That's a rather bold claim. I have no reason to doubt this man's intelligence, nor his expertise in his field. His grasp of the complex field of economics, however, is lacking. Signed, an economist (probably one of the ones who are certainly not as smart as this fellow).

@jasonliz000 11 лет назад

Whilst I agree with you (for different reasons), I feel the need to remind you, you're citing an obvious argument from authority fallacy.

@H1TMANactual 11 лет назад

Lee the supply and demand classical model with flexible prices is hundreds of years old. There is no physics envy, imo.

@flirm777 11 лет назад

What are your qualifications? Nothing he said here regarding equilibrium is new. As he stated, these ideas have been known and acknowledged since the 70's by, and not limited to, many people that contributed to the development of neo-classical economics. This isn't controversial in any way. You could argue the physics envy aspect as it is not really objectively verifiable, but that would be pointless in any case.

@BartAlder 8 лет назад

If Lee ever loses his 'speaking hand', or if someone glues it to his hip you just know he'll fall mute.

@Joddit 11 лет назад

:) I have to admire your attempts to try and talk sense into these people in a youtube comment section. But to be honest, if people are using words like pseudo-science and indoctrination, and then blaming others for not saying anything, it seems rather useless to me.

@lmaka1 11 лет назад

That's not what he's saying about arbitrage. He's not implying that arbitrage is inherently good or bad. Arbitrage is a mechanism for creating equilibria in free markets. Note: this is not an opinion; but rather a description of aspects of the neoclassical model. Once a market reaches an equilibrium state, no further arbitrage is possible in theory. Thus he is saying that the models do not correspond to reality because we know arbitrage opportunities exist. That's it.

@emmanuelameyaw6806 4 года назад

Even before neoclassical economics, there were classical economists with the same beliefs but they were not physics-envy, I guess...like Adam Smith and co. The debate in macroeconomics has always been whether or not the government should intervene in the market economy though...

@EebstertheGreat 11 лет назад

The statement that all government economic regulation is costly is equivalent to the statement that it is impossible for any organization to increase the efficiency of a real-world economic system. Since arbitrage does precisely this, I cannot comprehend how anybody can still defend such a strict neoliberal view.

@CaseyCJL 11 лет назад

anyone else find it hard to listen to this guy. i'm sure he's smart and I don't mean to bash him, but he's clearly not smart enough to understand the importance of good communication skill and a good presentation. michio and neil have charisma and I could listen to them all day. i'm sorry but I don't know how anyone could take this guy seriously no matter how brilliant of a physicist he is.

@BuceGar 11 лет назад

Lee's assumptions are 100% correct, and he can only say them because he's not an economist. He's basically stating that arbitrage creates nothing, it just takes, and this is what throws simple buyer/supplier markets out of equilibrium. Of course, if you make your money through arbitrage or speculation you don't want to hear this. You'll immediately rationalize your actions by saying the market will re-balance itself, so you can continue to make money while contributing nothing of value.

@jordanweir7187 9 лет назад

very interesting, i never would've thought that the style of newtonian physics could've affected something as different as economics o_o

@drillsargentadog 9 лет назад

Lee Smolin's hand is trying to escape!

@Joddit 11 лет назад

Unfortunately, you know nothing about me, other than being an economist, but it doesn't seem to stop you from making predictions, or should I say estimates, about my persona. That is rather telling.

@flirm777 11 лет назад

Crony capitalism (lobbying, the revolving door, etc.) is what caused government supported loans. He is not speaking specifically to what caused the financial crisis, he is speaking to a fundamental flaw in the basic theory of neo-classical economics. Like he said in the beginning, this is not new knowledge. This has been *known* since the 70's, and acknowledged by many of the contributors to the development of neo-classical economics.

@kirroberts 11 лет назад

Its ok to disagree, but if you remove 'my wife' from 'my wife and me' it ceases to make sense. Youve just clarified my proposition.

@PrivateAccountXSG 11 лет назад

I'm not disputing that. In this instance, Smolin's expertise in Physics has merit. Economists boast that their models are mathematical science... so who better to have academic high ground to test that than the masters of predictive mathematical models in science? John Nash was a mathematician, but I think his example lends to my point quite cleanly.

@jamesbentonticer4706 3 года назад

His left hand has a mind of its own.

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

Then you've completely missed the point of the video. He's not saying economics is not scientific or mathematically based. He's arguing for an improvement of the models. He even names researchers who have made improved models . And models are mathematical. Are you saying that he doesn't name researchers who have made better models? Are you saying that he doesn't agree with their models? Ofc not because he's advocating better modelling of the economy not pretending it can't be modelled

@KaiYotiC 11 лет назад

I'm glad to see you watched the video. Might want to do it again.

@VictorE1030 2 года назад

You can tell he's a great physicist by the way he waves his hands

@FictionHubZA 8 месяцев назад

There is a direct correlation between hand jiggling and intelligence.

@waqasarshad7273 8 лет назад

Perfect competition and market equilibrium exists like angels. These are only benchmark for economists. As long as free market is concerned, yes invisible hand is effective but this hand needs to be back by rule of law which was not the case during the financial crisis.

@calculon000 11 лет назад

I think this is exactly right. What people forget is that ALL laws are regulation. McDonald's could make much more profit and sell a cheaper product if it were allowed to employ slave labor, Corporation A could more effectively compete if it could hire mercenaries to destroy the assets and kill employees of it's competitors, ect.

@ess7013 2 года назад

I think I know part of the proplem and part of the solution : the problem is that we created a bubble of debt represented in fiat money, bonds which is based on debt explained in the wrong equation (liability +owner's equity =assets) (liability =debt was never an asset but a borrowed time and effort from the future to be spent right now and it's not a real value added in the economy, we should spend real time and effort to create an assets with intrinsic value but we did not, we just created a bubble of assets exploded in every Era of time line

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

But that's saying "Before Newton Physics could predict it but people could not" Which is exactly the same idea as "Economics can predict things, but as of yet people cannot." Maybe economics just hasn't had it's Newton yet

@davidjenkins5914 11 лет назад

yes many economists are still coming to grips with the realization that market forces are by in large dictated by sociological shifts .math can only explain certain markets on a micro scales.if ones seeks to influence the market one must promote and predict how the populous changes its consensus

@Doiler 11 лет назад

Lee Smolin contradicted himself in this video saying the market model is designed under the premise that there is NO REGULATION.. then goes on to say these different equilibria are a bi product of REGULATION. There are just so many more aspects of economics he fails to include in his interpretation which disappoint me because I highly respect physicists. The Federal Reserve, Fiat Currency as a few..He uses very vague terms in a way that justifies our economic situation, and encourages regulation

@friezefrite 11 лет назад

If you study economics, you'll find yourself that many regulations are fairly well justified. With that said, I still agree and feel like we have too many regulations in certain areas (and not enough in others). Every market is structured differently and runs optimally wish differnet pushes, it's more an issue of politics than anything for when we have too many or too little regulations. (It takes so long to make changes, and those changes are being voted on by politicians...)

@Riverdale270 11 лет назад

Saying that he is smarter and therefore right is a pretty lousy argument. And I say that without pointing to any side and saying: 'they are right'. It's a lousy argument, independent of which sides we're on.

@w13d3rgEb0r3n 11 лет назад

Left us with an unsupported claim there at the end. "X causes Y, ... Well I'm not an economist so I don't have to give you the reasons why that is. Instead here are some analogies that apply to the rest of my talk.". Correct me of I'm wrong and I will thank you.

@JimmyMcBimmy 11 месяцев назад

Modern free market economics is an ideology with equations. It begins with the ASSUMPTION that efficiency/profit is the #1 priority and goal, then it constructs mathematical models that show how to achieve that efficiency/profit, then it claims "ergo: deregulation, etc. -- we have arrived at the scientific economic system!". The whole thing is a circular logic loop. You have to agree with its value-based assumptions before you even begin. This serves elite interests, of course.

@periurban 11 лет назад

I think you're right, but maybe the point here is that economics was (and may still be) pretending to have a scientific veracity it could never have, whereas the other examples you quote all have a degree of self checking built in to the process. So, whilst physical sciences get more accurate (possibly!) over time, economics cannot.

@gerardollp 11 лет назад

Tabaco is also incredibly bad for you, but still people CHOSE to use it. If you don't use formaldehyde good for you, but please don't force others to be like you, even if they make bad choices. By the way I'm not pro-slaves, that was just an example of how social regulations are better then state regulations.

@nthperson 11 лет назад

What political economists such as Henry George understood but too many modern economists have ignored is that the laws governing the production and distribution of wealth are laws of tendency. Outcomes are subject to powerful externalities, the most powerful of which is how government raises its revenue. George expanded on Smith and Ricardo and Turgot to apply the law of rent to all of nature. Rent is societally-created by aggregate demand. Rent is public revenue. (continued)

@H1TMANactual 11 лет назад

You actually expect politicians to pass regulations that are not in someone's favor? Most likely every regulation that's passed someone lobbied for it.

@PlayerVsPlayer 11 лет назад

i agree, it does not make him smarter than us, but it DOES make him more versed in understanding and applying the scientific method. He was stating that economists tell the world they apply the scientific method to their theories, when in fact, they actually don't. For example, have you ever heard the economic term of "invisible hand" in economy? From a physicist point of view who learns economy, that is a load of bullshit!

@syates777 11 лет назад

I agree, I also think one of the largest problems with the species is thinking that the entirety of model based sciences are the end all be all of explanations. Compartmentalizing these vastly complex issues into one or two variables shows the flaw of applying Occam's razor ad infinitum. The acceptance of these models and the lack of scrutiny placed upon them just shows the deadbeat demeanor of many academics (not just economists) who are really posing as true scientists.

@rawheas 11 лет назад

before you blame a lack of policy ask yourself this... what is the probability that all the banks and investment firms on wall street made the same bad investment decision? pretty much zero. It was government policy which encouraged an over investment in the housing market and promoted risky investments, it was NOT the fault of private investors. not even a little bit.

@PotentialThall 11 лет назад

and fyi i called out atheists because you guys always seem to jump on someone with "your wrong" or "this is the only fact because I said so"

@ilovesudan 9 лет назад

His hand is so annoying

@oliverhantu910 3 года назад

Every one is noticing the movement of the hands, but how about the elegance of the hands themselves... But really, I'm paying attention to what he's saying.

@jmccurle08 11 лет назад

To further your point techfighterminal. With the limited ability for new oil companies and refineries to exist because of choking regulation there is very limited competition in the petrol market today. We have the largest surplus of oil in many years yet gas prices stay high. This is because of the monopoly large oil companies have over the market and can fix prices to keep sales and in turn margins high.

@lmaka1 11 лет назад

Why don't you define in simple terms what qualifies as a science? Empiricism, scientific method, objectivity? Then ask yourself if Political Science is a science. Is Sociology a science? Is Economics a science?

$@fractalnomics$

@fractalnomics 2 года назад

It is disingenuous to say no one knew. There are realists in economics too and they are the Austrian school and they/we predicted it. The rest (Keynesian /Monetarist) is woo.

@SwordsAndRavens 11 лет назад

Although the comments are split between the subject, grammar, and his hand, the important part is of course the subject, but that fucking hand is driving me, up a fucking wall.

@pentuplemintgum666 11 лет назад

i know he's trying to be serious, but that fucking hand! this is the most unintentionally funny video i've seen in a long time. i think he was once a beat poet, and thats his bongo hand! lol

@BrennanYoung 11 лет назад

No it isn't. He says that economist adopted the trappings and terminology of physics to make their fictions more convincing, while misusing those very trappings and terminologies. He never says that economics was too scientific. On the contrary, he implies that classical economists have not been rigorous enough in their choice of models, which is almost the same as saying that they are lousy scientists. The clue is in the title: "Physics Envy"

@nice0shot 11 лет назад

I totally disagree with this guy, equilibrium is simply what markets ultimately seek, just like water, but the reason arbitrage opportunities exist is because just like water in an ocean, there are waves, constant change and cycles.

@sosofresh360 11 лет назад

"economics" (hand), "equilibrium" (hand), "mathematics" (hand)

@Stayinflight 11 лет назад

I got hypnotized by his hand and his monotone voice.

@louisdebeer2055 4 года назад

Must’ve been a seafood dinner

@colourmegone 11 лет назад

You couldn't be more wrong. Physics, from its very beginning, has been able to accurately predict future events such as: this amount of force will move this amount of weight. Since Newton all the laws of motion are fully understood but that doesn't mean that before his synthesis physics was unable to predict future events accurately.

@Sewblon 6 лет назад

2:09 Not necessarily. What you just described is competitive equilibrium. In Nash Equilibrium, not everyone is happy. But no one wants to change it. Its like that one line from South Park: "Everyone is sick of it. But everyone is waiting for everyone else to stop." The important thing here is that markets don't necessarily maximize happiness. They only equalize quantity supplied and quantity demanded. The economy is a very path-dependent system. But it almost doesn't matter. What path you go down is in and of itself a function of what you learn. You can't predict what you will learn, that would imply that you have all ready learned it. Also, you hinted at this problem. But you didn't bring it into the open. Even knowing that there are vast numbers of equilibria, we don't actually get to choose which one we live in, at least not directly. When politicians craft and implement public policy, they are not choosing between equilibria, they are choosing between different social arragements. So knowing which equilibria are possible only helps if you know which social arrangement corresponds to which equilibria.

@afriedrich987 7 лет назад

While the equilibrium theory is good at convincing politicians that we don't need regulations, it is not good at convincing politicians that business cycles are normal and desirable. We want to stay away from equilibrium as much as possible, and produce large swings in the business cycles as much as possible. Otherwise, we get the much dreaded "stagflation." I suggest we pursue the following program: 1) Reduce taxes and regulations in order to produce inflation and high asset prices. 2) The rich should then sell their inflated assets to unwary buyers and complain that we must do something about inflation. 3) The Federal Reserve should then raise interest rates to crash the economy. 4) The rich should then complain that we should cut taxes even more, lower interest rates, and increase government spending, to get out of the depression by re-inflating the economy. 5) The rich should then buy up the depressed assets using money borrowed at low interest rates. (Only the rich are qualified to borrow at this time in the cycle.) 6) Repeat the above, endlessly.

@gerardollp 11 лет назад

I think you are underestimating society pretty bad. Circus with animals and bullfights are decreasing not because of laws, but because there's fewer demand. And I think people are more empathic with humans than animals. By the way, I'm not saying slavery should be legal, is just an example of how people can regulate themselves without the force of government. Just to make that clear.

@vryc 11 лет назад

We've known about this 'micro-equilibria conflated as macro-equilibria' misappropriation for decades. There has been no honest appraisal of this system of economics for so long and the people that propagate(d) this misunderstanding (or who themselves didn't/don't understand the conflation) continue to set policy regarding economics and economies around the world. At some point this whole ideology will collapse because an inability to embrace reality just can't sustain itself forever.

@Riverdale270 11 лет назад

I wasn't commenting on your point. I was commenting on your comment that he is right because he is so smart.

@MrBlockyTV 11 лет назад

Can he pleeeaaaaase stop moveing his hand i could listen with his hand moveing around like this...

@donaldperras5140 11 лет назад

What the doctor has described is the "efficient market' Theory which indicates that the market is never wrong and will discover the value through the balance of investor sentiment. He aludes to many equilibria, which is the market in different cycles of the economy. At times the market has ascribed to "the greater fool" theory which indicated perpetual growth. Stocks could be purchased anytime and someone else would eventually pay more. Now the economy seeks the discounted future value.

@BattousaiHBr 11 лет назад

4:31 here's what his hand thinks of your comment

@catbatbomb 11 лет назад

Do you not understand that "equilibrium" was the argument being put forth by Chrony capitalism and these "crap loans" as an economically sound reason to allow them to act without checks? That's the point here.

11 лет назад

I put these videos in a background tab just listening. Its bad video when i zone out while listening and a good video when i go back and watch the video I zoned out in this video.

@hababyte 11 лет назад

The last time I saw this much hand movement I was having a conversation with a Cuban

@magnushelliesen 3 года назад

That is my kind of humor :)

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

But people do buy things that are definitely made by slaves. It's like Formaldehyde. In certain high quantities (at low levels it's fine) Formaldehyde is incredibly bad for you, and the govt banned formaldehyde from being above those levels in cosmetics where it's commonly used. That was the EU. In the USA dangerously high levels of formaldehyde are still present in cosmetics. But the consumers just don't care. And the ones that do just don't affect sales enough to companies to change.

@astropie89 11 лет назад

If there is no law requiring the disclosure of how the hamburger was made, how would you know?

@mahesh7337 11 лет назад

For everyone bitching about his left hand - middle finger 4:36 - 4:39

@brentdobson5264 Год назад

One seems to recall it was somwhere on the back cover of Richard Buckminster Fuller's book " Grunch Of Giants " ..the observation " no where in this book will you find the word " economics " . One also recalls reading the book like a fiend and never finding the aforementioned word . ( At one point was about to say Ah Ha ! ..however it was a false alarm ) . Richard Buckminster Fuller was Head Engineer for Economic Cold War Fairing during World War Two from the beginning to near middle forties . Fuller was an American pragmatic Transcendentalist .

@fatpotatoe6039 6 лет назад

Equilibrium is built by arbitrage. Look up Austrian economics. In a single day or weekend a market obviously cannot reach equilibrium, but financial intermediation and arbitrage maintains an intertemporal equilibrium of the long-term. People are confused by neoclassical equilibrium because it eliminates profits from prices, but Austrians understand that originally interest (normal profit / interest) is a necessary component of equilibrium prices. Intertemporal equilibrium, after all, can only be maintained by intertemporal exchanges like loan banking, arbitrage and capital investments.

@bgaripov Год назад

Almost like he’s saying that government policies and regulations are the reason why markets can’t stay as close as possible to the equilibrium. He’s so close.

@Hydorior 11 лет назад

Sure, there are bordering disciplines like chemistry. But there is absolutely no basis to credit them with a "good broad knowledge of science". In fact, they regularly fail to understand the very basics of science. And while that is true for most other academics as well, at least the others do not suffer from the delusion that "Everything is just physics". An expert in economics is much more likely to recognize the limits of his competence and not to try to teach physicists about physics.

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

Computers are also a human invention but the same rules still apply. The economy is a mathematical model of a certain system. It is entirely governed by mathematical rules. It can't be a random system since humans aren't random. Thus it must be a non-random (read: predictable) system. You seem to be confusing difficult to predict with impossible to predict. The weather is difficult to predict and predictions need to be changed every day. because they are wrong. You're taking it very personally.

@CaivsGermanicvs 11 лет назад

While I agree with Lee Smolin on his arguement. No self-respected economist assumes the neo-classisit model as a standard model. Krugman, Stiglitz and other great economics see the inherent flaws pointed by Smolin and prefer the Keynisian model which is a wayyy better understanding on how economics really work. The only economist pushing neo-classical theory on academia have special interests (i.e work on an investment firm, etc..) to frown upon the Keynisian model because it requires regulation

@jessstuart7495 7 лет назад

I think the take-away from 2008 should be that "financial insurance", highly leveraged investments, and deception really fuck with economic equilibrium. Regulation is needed, but it has to be good, simple regulation and not so overly complex that it gives an advantage to large organizations who can better afford to the costs of the added complexity (regulatory capture).

@rekalki01 Год назад

The fascination with these self adjusting Economic forces drove me to study economics and even get two masters in it. But the more I studied the subject it has become apparent that economists must understand that to get a model that is completely accurate about how the real world works you will have to account for all the variables in the universe ! This is simply impossible no matter how much computational power you have. To get over this problem, economists use a neat trick called econometrics which is basically using statistics to approximate economic models. Economists have gone to great lengths to make their work sound fancy by adding complicated math from STEM fields but this is just like putting up some make up to hide the ugly truth beneath.

@Jayremy89 11 лет назад

You can't regulate a system you do not understand nor can you remove regulations of which you don't understand their impact. Most regulations removed are the checks in place where as the regulations that remain are market control measures, used to favor some. I am not for regulation by principle but I do recognize good regulation from bad and you just can't go chopping and burning down a system based on ideal. Nor should you expect trying to manipulate and control it is best.

@GreaterDeity 11 лет назад

Well, I guess I should listen better. I understood a few of his points, but most of it was 'blah blah bleh blur' to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

@steventoops9440 11 лет назад

Part of it was flipping off the camera. Seriously it takes a theoretical physicist to come up with a theory about the economy "really" answer to our economy needs is Susie Orman "seriously" her attitude and her foot down approach would solve a lot of things

@Minecrafter289 11 лет назад

Idk about you guys but i like the physicists videos much more, they are the ones that actually make me think

@The101damnations 11 лет назад

0:06 I lost it when the camera cut into the side view. His hands are so funny,they should do comedy.

@4thstuning 11 лет назад

What I'm stating is that human beings have individual motivations that are hidden from social scientists. As to determinism derived from 'knowing every particle and its trajectory through spacetime' - that concept ignores quantum probability, i.e. it contradicts modern physics.

@PrivateAccountXSG 11 лет назад

You are referring to the Milgrams experiment when you describe your 'Authority Fallacy' invention. Smolin isn't influencing outcomes like Milgram's did, he is using his expertise. In the realm of argument, expert assessment has powerful value. Smolin's point is that he observed that economics has attempted to be a mathematically modeled science like physics (which Smolin is a proven champion of) and when tested, in fact economics is NOT scientific or mathematical by any known models. Do u see?

@Joddit 11 лет назад

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about... Thank you for playing, though...

@darrishawks6033 3 года назад

What he said made sense to me. What do you mean?

@EpicShkun 3 года назад

@@darrishawks6033 I think he means he actually believes those models as if they were physics, it basically just went over his head. Smolin is correct, if he were wrong then we would have heard of some very bold predictions from economists as a consensus. Some people just think economics is like physics.

@Moortas 2 года назад

Moral of the story: economics is not a strong science like physics and chemistry, it's a social science and it depends on power, history, war, society and there are no laws, you can just highlight tendencies

@emmanuelameyaw9735 2 года назад

There are laws...the laws of demand and supply, for example. If a lot people move to the city, rent goes up. It is true whether you live in jamaica or US. You can predict some form of human behaviour. If people get a raise in their salary...they are happy, their utility goes up. If the government raises taxes...people are sad...if the tax is too much, they will stop paying (laffer curve). There are a lot of facts about human behaviour and firm behaviour, and entire economy. It is not random event that caused srilanka to collapse. If you don't obey basic macroeconomic laws, your economy would be like zimbabwe or srilanka.

@JoeJones3001 11 лет назад

As much as I agree with your sentiment all sciences work like that. If physics never revised itself after predictions it would still be in the dark ages. If meteorologists never changed their predictions the weather forecast would always be wrong. Just because your prediction didn't come to the right conclusion doesn't mean it was a mistake. It means that you just didn't have all the information necessary to make a prediction

@medhue 10 лет назад

Damn straight he's not an economist. He doesn't even understand what the real debates are in economics.

@Atanu 6 лет назад

It shows how foolish it is to stray outside one's domain of understanding. Smolin even conflates finance and economics. Funny in a non-ha-ha way.

@rishabdevnani365 6 лет назад

Sure, because banks and stock markets can be found only on Planet Finance.

@psikeyhackr6914 6 лет назад

Medhue Yeah, Keynes vs Hayek is so important. Economists don't say when they debated ignoring the depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods.

@xandercorp6175 6 лет назад

An outsider's critical opinion can be incisive and useful. Freedom from the traditional intractables of a discipline acts as a kind of fresh eyes. The difference between finance and economics is a matter of mode, not type; the principles of physics do not cease to function simply because you are considering a chemical reaction, traditionally dealt with using the chemistry discipline.

@seto007 6 лет назад

This guy has legitimately no understanding of what he's talking about. He thinks that Economics is a zero-sum game, that there has to be a winner and loser. This is absurd, because profits lead to more investment, and more capital to spend, and as such decreases the marginal costs of producing that product in the future. This lowers the end cost to the consumer, increases the number of employees that can be fired, and how much they can be paid, increases effeciancy and innovation, and increases utility for everyone.