What Ha Joon Chang doesn't tell about himself:- Ha Joon Chang's argument that there should be more equality is just a dopey argument that he himself does not personally ascribe to. Does he get paid more than those who struggle ? Of course he does and doesn't see it or want others to see it. Is he part of those he calls "the rich" ?
Of course he is since he earns many times what some others in the world in poorer situations earn and he doesn't dare talk about it because he doesn't want others to see what he really is like – a hypocritical economist telling others to do what he doesn't do himself.
Overlooks the monkey reach principle. People do what is in their own interests as they see them. Confusing personal resource allocation with social philosophy.
Capitalism is the best system humanity has invented…unless you allow capitalism to work as intended, which makes it questionably better than feudalism, and unless you understand that other systems have been invented that are far better, but capitalists have intentionally done everything possible to ensure their failure.
Capitalism is a system based on self-interest/greed, not on humanism, filling needs, or anything virtuous (that doesn't mean you can't have capitalists who are really good people that try to do right by others). You can't expect a system based on rewarding greed to produce a society that doesn't see rewarding greed as "normal and good," so all of his criticisms to "improve capitalism" are really about identifying why capitalism is a horrible system, and definitely not the best one that humanity has invented.
Something people need to be aware of is that capitalism didn't improve the lives of millions. Government intervention into capitalism did that. Name an improvement in quality of life that you think capitalism is responsible for and you'll see capitalists fighting to keep it more exclusive/profitable even as the masses (when organized they are a serious threat) push their governments to make them more affordable. Name an improvement in working conditions and wages and you'll see capitalists fighting against them. On the flip side, name a war in the last 100 years and when you look deep enough you'll find that capitalists were behind them…
WWI was predicted to happen because the economic and political conditions were leading up to it, namely issues of colonialism. Imagine trying to teach people that the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter was what caused the U.S. Civil War, and that's about as dumb it is to talk about assassination attempts starting WWI. WWII was an economic and political consequence of WWI, made worse by capitalists in the U.S. and Europe. South Korea's left-leaning government was replaced by U.S. interventionism after WWII, putting a despot friendly to capitalist interests into power who staged mass executions and invaded North Korea, and whose replacement did much the same, leading eventually to the war that the U.S. fought there. Vietnam was more colonialism involving the French, but also with the excuse of "fighting communism," and led to the rise of Pol Pot…who probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the U.S. bombing Cambodia while forcing its government to assist the U.S. in the war, and even after the war continued the bombings. Iraq 1 and 2 were all about capital interests that heavily influenced politics. Afghanistan was about the same, but different interests.
Not just government interventionism has been behind U.S. actions, but also economic interventionism by capitalists under the protection of the government. The Banana Wars were the consequence of capitalism. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" to learn about some others that were all about profit. Read "Killing Hope" to find out even more that were all about creating a "Western" capitalist hegemony at any cost. It isn't capitalism that does the good stuff, because the good stuff isn't profitable. Capitalism sure finds the bad stuff profitable, though, which is why there are no alternatives to capitalism; imagine trying to create one when faced with a world full of the most economically and politically powerful AND ESTABLISHED societies/countries/businesses on the planet that have a vested interest in making sure that no such alternative is allowed to be seen as even somewhat successful, and then you can start to see why the propaganda around socialism and communism has been so pervasive that Americans can't even talk about it without the entire conversation being talking points they were trained to unthinkingly repeat.
Capitalism has expended all of its energy and resources into enriching the few at the top while working hard to keep those at the bottom right where they are. Capitalism is feudalism without bloodlines, and while economic mobility is possible, it's still not a common thing no matter how much it's romanticized. It's difficult specifically because competitions have outcomes (who knew?) that result in businesses getting bigger and pushing out all of the smaller competition, leading to monopolies that then have more economic and political power than entire counties or states (or countries), which allows them to control politics and economies to favor them over others.
There are better systems that are currently being practiced. The problem is that the majority of the world's population is so brainwashed by capitalist propaganda that they can't comprehend that they are possible on larger scales, more diverse populations, etc, and so merely mindlessly repeat the same old talking points without ever stopping to consider the ideas (the ones they attack or defend) in any depth.
When you remove individuals from moral responsibility through corporate protectionist policy, and create for those individuals positions of power which attract disproportionally psychopathic individuals, you're just asking for trouble. Corporate protectionism is one of the most fundamental issues the economy faces.
Sven the bus driver gets paid more then raj because raj lives in a capital poor, over population part of the earth whilst Sven lives in a capital rich underpopulated part of the earth. For example if Sven and Raj swapped places Raj would be the superiors wage to Sven. It has nothing to do with the 'labour theory of value' but rather the allocation of capital and population across the earth.
that’s what PG&E did. They didn’t invested in infrastructure and development, all the money went to dividend and buybacks, and not only bankrupted themselves, but cause countless wildfires costing California tens of billions of dollars.
Looks like economists can’t make up their minds as to the correct path or model for economic progress. Economic theories seems to be constantly evolving and changing. May be we should get all brands of economists in one room to do the brainstorming to come up with economic theories or models for world to follow. Otherwise, layman like us shall remain confused forever.
I am 30 years old, from Germany, and I would rather have worked than having gone to 13 years of boring and politically correct government school. All of Mr. Chang's arguments can be refuted easily. I recommend the Austrian School of Economics.
Good insights for an economist, but he thinks 3 1/2 % growth is desirable, and refers to money as "wealth." I guess he never got a chance to watch "the most important video you'll ever see" on youtube, nor to understand that money is DEBT, not wealth. He needs to read Frederick Soddy.
Well I did anyway and boy what a mistake. 1) Child labour laws are unnecessary in free societies because such societies quickly generate enough wealth for parents to be able to make sure their children get education. 2) There is no problem with companies going bust because of irresponsible shareholders, short-term or long-term, so long as governments don't subsidize the behaviour. This is the essence of creative destruction and only someone ignorant of economics would think otherwise. 3) Prices are struck between individuals based on subjective value. Obviously wealthy people will subjectively value transportation services higher than poor people. This guy is trying to revive the labour theory of value which is basically missing the last 200 years of advances in economic thinking.
I can't even be bothered by the rest. Give me back my time.
Harris Maria Perez Kenneth Martinez Donald
Ha-Joon Chang looses his credibility by his repeated sweeping generalizations.
His books are the worst nightmare for any Neo-Liberal Capitalist.
The
Main.thing.we are.eating.to.live.not.the.other.way.around.😂😂😂❤
Gg
What Ha Joon Chang doesn't tell about himself:-
Ha Joon Chang's argument that there should be more equality is just a dopey argument that he himself does not personally ascribe to. Does he get paid more than those who struggle ? Of course he does and doesn't see it or want others to see it.
Is he part of those he calls "the rich" ?
Of course he is since he earns many times what some others in the world in poorer situations earn and he doesn't dare talk about it because he doesn't want others to see what he really is like – a hypocritical economist telling others to do what he doesn't do himself.
Overlooks the monkey reach principle. People do what is in their own interests as they see them.
Confusing personal resource allocation with social philosophy.
Capitalism is the best system humanity has invented…unless you allow capitalism to work as intended, which makes it questionably better than feudalism, and unless you understand that other systems have been invented that are far better, but capitalists have intentionally done everything possible to ensure their failure.
Capitalism is a system based on self-interest/greed, not on humanism, filling needs, or anything virtuous (that doesn't mean you can't have capitalists who are really good people that try to do right by others). You can't expect a system based on rewarding greed to produce a society that doesn't see rewarding greed as "normal and good," so all of his criticisms to "improve capitalism" are really about identifying why capitalism is a horrible system, and definitely not the best one that humanity has invented.
Something people need to be aware of is that capitalism didn't improve the lives of millions. Government intervention into capitalism did that. Name an improvement in quality of life that you think capitalism is responsible for and you'll see capitalists fighting to keep it more exclusive/profitable even as the masses (when organized they are a serious threat) push their governments to make them more affordable. Name an improvement in working conditions and wages and you'll see capitalists fighting against them. On the flip side, name a war in the last 100 years and when you look deep enough you'll find that capitalists were behind them…
WWI was predicted to happen because the economic and political conditions were leading up to it, namely issues of colonialism. Imagine trying to teach people that the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter was what caused the U.S. Civil War, and that's about as dumb it is to talk about assassination attempts starting WWI. WWII was an economic and political consequence of WWI, made worse by capitalists in the U.S. and Europe. South Korea's left-leaning government was replaced by U.S. interventionism after WWII, putting a despot friendly to capitalist interests into power who staged mass executions and invaded North Korea, and whose replacement did much the same, leading eventually to the war that the U.S. fought there. Vietnam was more colonialism involving the French, but also with the excuse of "fighting communism," and led to the rise of Pol Pot…who probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the U.S. bombing Cambodia while forcing its government to assist the U.S. in the war, and even after the war continued the bombings. Iraq 1 and 2 were all about capital interests that heavily influenced politics. Afghanistan was about the same, but different interests.
Not just government interventionism has been behind U.S. actions, but also economic interventionism by capitalists under the protection of the government. The Banana Wars were the consequence of capitalism. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" to learn about some others that were all about profit. Read "Killing Hope" to find out even more that were all about creating a "Western" capitalist hegemony at any cost. It isn't capitalism that does the good stuff, because the good stuff isn't profitable. Capitalism sure finds the bad stuff profitable, though, which is why there are no alternatives to capitalism; imagine trying to create one when faced with a world full of the most economically and politically powerful AND ESTABLISHED societies/countries/businesses on the planet that have a vested interest in making sure that no such alternative is allowed to be seen as even somewhat successful, and then you can start to see why the propaganda around socialism and communism has been so pervasive that Americans can't even talk about it without the entire conversation being talking points they were trained to unthinkingly repeat.
Capitalism has expended all of its energy and resources into enriching the few at the top while working hard to keep those at the bottom right where they are. Capitalism is feudalism without bloodlines, and while economic mobility is possible, it's still not a common thing no matter how much it's romanticized. It's difficult specifically because competitions have outcomes (who knew?) that result in businesses getting bigger and pushing out all of the smaller competition, leading to monopolies that then have more economic and political power than entire counties or states (or countries), which allows them to control politics and economies to favor them over others.
There are better systems that are currently being practiced. The problem is that the majority of the world's population is so brainwashed by capitalist propaganda that they can't comprehend that they are possible on larger scales, more diverse populations, etc, and so merely mindlessly repeat the same old talking points without ever stopping to consider the ideas (the ones they attack or defend) in any depth.
Hi
he is so good!
I miss the days when people were interested in stuff like this
More relevant now
Interesting, gotta check this book out
" The enormous propaganda effort to make Americans fear fascism but not communism has failed : Americans hate them both. "
Ayn RandCan someone TL;DR this
Haha the ending is brilliant
No country today uses capitalism. They all use financialism. Yes, there is a difference.
When you remove individuals from moral responsibility through corporate protectionist policy, and create for those individuals positions of power which attract disproportionally psychopathic individuals, you're just asking for trouble. Corporate protectionism is one of the most fundamental issues the economy faces.
Sven the bus driver gets paid more then raj because raj lives in a capital poor, over population part of the earth whilst Sven lives in a capital rich underpopulated part of the earth. For example if Sven and Raj swapped places Raj would be the superiors wage to Sven. It has nothing to do with the 'labour theory of value' but rather the allocation of capital and population across the earth.
Making point in his fine humour.
I love the little "hmm?" he adds after some sentences.
“95% of economics is common sense made complicated”. Lol.
Someone on tic too was like “what’s the point of life?” And some one responded “to pick berries, but they made it complicated.”
@29:35 did mans just say I have to boob job? Is that why I'm not getting regular raises???
You should have live here in Peru before open “free” trade policies …it is no myth
Free markets dont exist but at the same time is no good? What? United states as an example of free market? What?
They never tell you that Capitalism is infinitely BETTER than Socialism, Communism, or any other ism.
북한에 가십시오!
Glad I found this guy, he may well turn out to be our generations Leon Trotsky. Great teacher
that’s what PG&E did. They didn’t invested in infrastructure and development, all the money went to dividend and buybacks, and not only bankrupted themselves, but cause countless wildfires costing California tens of billions of dollars.
Better than David haevey
Looks like economists can’t make up their minds as to the correct path or model for economic progress. Economic theories seems to be constantly evolving and changing. May be we should get all brands of economists in one room to do the brainstorming to come up with economic theories or models for world to follow. Otherwise, layman like us shall remain confused forever.
The reason for the success of Japan, Korea, Germany is not protectionism, but great porn, and they also smoked a lot! Idiot and idiotic arguments!
25 is an odd number: not even. Just saying.
"But the truth is that the Free Market Capitalism has been bad at generating growth"??
"We are still living in planed economies"?? I guess higher education doesn't necessarily enlighten ones thinking huh?
Hard to believe he still likes capitalism after dismantling it so handily haha.
Economic freedom.
Why Buuddhists are not following Buddhist Economy?
Heartens me that even with all his disagreements, he still thinks that capitalism is the best system in the world.
I am 30 years old, from Germany, and I would rather have worked than having gone to 13 years of boring and politically correct government school. All of Mr. Chang's arguments can be refuted easily. I recommend the Austrian School of Economics.
I like this man.
micheal jordan baseba .. basketbal player fukin jokes!!
pure genius.
"I don't like even numbers" when referring to 25
Good insights for an economist, but he thinks 3 1/2 % growth is desirable, and refers to money as "wealth." I guess he never got a chance to watch "the most important video you'll ever see" on youtube, nor to understand that money is DEBT, not wealth. He needs to read Frederick Soddy.
Well I did anyway and boy what a mistake.
1) Child labour laws are unnecessary in free societies because such societies quickly generate enough wealth for parents to be able to make sure their children get education.
2) There is no problem with companies going bust because of irresponsible shareholders, short-term or long-term, so long as governments don't subsidize the behaviour. This is the essence of creative destruction and only someone ignorant of economics would think otherwise.
3) Prices are struck between individuals based on subjective value. Obviously wealthy people will subjectively value transportation services higher than poor people. This guy is trying to revive the labour theory of value which is basically missing the last 200 years of advances in economic thinking.
I can't even be bothered by the rest. Give me back my time.
Why should I listen to someone who thinks 25 is an even number?
I'm a sucker for a Matrix analogy haha
I tried. This is not compelling, and really he forewarned of that in the first 3 minutes.