Apparently Evil intent, which is usually the default mechanism of denial of responsibility, is very often disguised as "stupidity", because a failure to learn by doing experience of the common good is the default opposite of intentionally taking responsibility for distributing mutual benefits.
A belief in Capitalism has this same problem of intentional knowledge of (lawful) responsible actions and default ignorance of consequences when privatisation dominates decisions.., ie "Dark Money" falsified legalisation has dominance over legitimate governance. (As anyone can see)
Pi is approximately 22/7, so the prime number 23 is excluded "outside the circle" of inclusive cofactors, if you need a less amorphous excuse for the kind of Numerology Economists often use. (?)
If, as in the case of MMT, theory is an aspect of superficial trending.., plus/minus valuation of market quantization, ..so T is for Trends in Monetary policy after the fact of economic activities as they exist in the global Ecology, then the reason "Precision is not Accuracy" is because discovered evidence disproves "Correlation is not Causation", ..halfway to e-Pi-i cause-effect unity=duality=> Relativity, is temporal substantiation of Existence in Singularity. Or "ist and ism" tending towards.., includes money management Capitalism and does not automatically exclude dis-management practices from Dark Money (and the best legal system money can buy), corrupting the nominally inclusive Democratic Courts system. Ie Judgement of difference between legitimate and legal, ethically.
interesting thinker. My only criticism is the way he speaks. Saying "yeah" after every other sentence is incredibly irritating and caused me to shut off the video after 30 mins
Free market existence brought into question. No dispute it does actually exist , one struggles to look for an occult and accurate academic definition. Predilection for a technical rather than palaeolithic description. A market place dependant on supply and demand equilibrium for efficient allocation of resources, competition and growth. Comes with low tax regime, plenitude of skilled and otherwise supply of labor, flexible wage and contract systems. Those can only be attained by non interventionist gov policy, little trade union activity, always a sign of a small state. The state only omnipotent in provision of legal and economic framework institutionally. The rest is basically left to the markets to self regulate, firms enjoying laissez-faire with the state guidance rather than rigid yoke of quangos and red tape.
@ 5: 36 I don't Korea did anything economically except take advantage of USA military spending ,because they didn't explode until after the riots to get rid of USA military. Proof is in the difference in the quality of products before and after !!!!
35:05, it seems clever to draw the comparison between Stalinism and the non-existence "trickle down economics", but I don't think any proponents of "trickle down economics", which likely only consist of politicians, never economists, think we should go around with guns forcing people into work camps and take their surplus to give to the rich to reinvest, Jeff Bezos never forced me to give him my money at gun point, but I use Amazon often, if them having to pay more tax results in their prices being less competitive, as far as my daily concerns go, that's my loss, because the chances of the extra tax they pay actually coming to noticeable good is minuscule.
22:45 Free immigration policy would displace 80%-90% of the workforce in the rich countries, he says. Western workers should never forget that when they vote: immigration is global capitalism's highway back to wild capitalism, and accusations of xenophobia and racism are just part of the ideological suprastructure of global capitalism, devised to emotionally repress workers' fight against the elimination of their historical social progress.
Da, da, da, da, da, da, da, ……this guy is a lefty…..people are not only paid according to how productive they are,…..people are also paid according to supply and demand for a particular set of skills. Several million people died, but there was economic growth…what an outrageous statement….!
someone should make a drinking game out of this guy, have him talk on stage and you take a drink when ever he say "yahn". However, make sure you have 911 on speed dial because alcohol poisoning will happen when you play this drinking game.
Says the author who wrote a book? tell me professor when you wrote your book did you do it out of the goodness of your heart? Did you do it for free or did you receive some sort of compensation?
What do we call that if you sell a lot of books???? ummmmmm , hmmmmmmmm what is the word???
Oh yeah…. PROFIT.
Ooops.
I wonder if that was one of the 23 wrongs of capitalism ?
What a terrible heavily political biased video. Why are it always the losers advocating against a free market. All those poor people haven't done anything to get the world where it is today and now they want a piece of the pie. Well forget it. That's not going to happen. Greed is good and the West has plenty of it.
How could anyone say that financial markets need to become less efficient. That would make finance more expensive or harder to get. If less efficiency is good at all then why not make those 'washing machines' more difficult to access and less efficient ? If you were really that convinced you could do that by making finance for washing machines illegal by regulation that requires anyone selling them to have a deposit upfront from the purchaser for five years to be allowed to sell or lease one. The whole idea is plainly just stupid and confuses personal emotions or preferences with efficiencies.!!
At 9 :40 he says he doesn't like 25 . I don't like even numbers !! What ?? He must be numerically challenged ! So he has spent over 3 minutes on the meaningless of why the book has such a title. Ha Joon Chang's argument is essentialy that market economies are not really totally free so we have to totaly abandon the whole idea of a making a market more free than it is at any time. Why not totally abandon the idea of a non free market because it too is not an exact reality and never can exist totally controlled. His anaogy of the drivers operating intwo different countries is not a good example for having skill comparison and unequal pay. He even shoots his own argument against free markets down by mentioning the restrictions on freedom of markets which allows this to occur. The part he has not mentioned is the tax scales that apply in many poor countries which work against their country benefitting from trade. These taxes include import duties, consumption taxes, high income taxes, high cost of government charges and other lack of critical continuity of good financial management by their governments. Hhe again shoots down his own arguments by saying that deregulation made people rich becasue they benefitted from financial systems, regulated and deregulated. You can't have it both ways saying that derulation allowed the financiers to make more money and at the same time say that they did not get more efficient. Just how does that work again? Get no more efficient but make more money by being what??
The tax driver's pay difference is not determined by their performance but by the supply and demand in their respective market. In Sweden, there are less supply for taxi drivers because there are many other good alternative jobs available. And further more people in Sweden are willing to pay more. In New Delhi there are not many high paying job available, so obviously lots of people want to be a taxi driver.
Also the cost of living in Sweden for taxi driver is different from a driver in New Delhi.
Price is not determined by the inherent quality of the service or good, but by what the two party consider to be off equal value. In a given location, if both taxi driver and passenger think a taxi trip is worth $x, then $x is the price. And in general, as a country becomes richer the cost of service will rise and the cost of commodity will fall.
The role of a trader in a free market is to move goods from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. Similarly in a purely economic situation, people will move from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. What prevent that is politics, social systems and whether the person likes the location's environment.
They are two totally different markets, so the price is of cause different. Its like complaining that the price of water in a desert is higher than those in a supermarket.
'In my book I have tried to dispel the notion that economics is too complicated for the average person'. It is clearly too complicated for you. Your point that people in poor countries are more entrepreneurial is just weird. Of course they are more entrepreneurial. There are no jobs whatsoever in West Africa. So you are basically saying that because they make charcoal and sell fruit by the roadside or make moonshine to sell that they are more entrepreneurial and there is no economic justification for why they are poor. If you believe that then you need to have your degrees taken back by whatever College issued them to you. That is possibly the dumbest argument I have ever heard. So I guess the guys who stand in the road in New York City selling plastic trinkets, bottled water and trying to wash your windshield are more entrepreneurial than the Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's and CFO's who are driving into the City to work? While they might be more 'entrepreneurial', why do we possibly care and how is that illustrative of any inherent lack of fairness in the global economy due to free market economics? I thought Asians were supposed to be brilliant? I would destroy this guy in about 5 minutes and I don't hold an economics degree nor do I hold any degree in science.
'Their high productivity is dependent upon the fact that they have been born into a society with advanced institutions and infrastructure that they themselves did not create'. And this has what to do with the price of tea in China? This guy is an academic? Seriously? Are you suggesting that the advanced institutions of learning, the governmental bureaus that provide for defense, sound currency, taxation, the Cities with all of their Industrial capacity and research capabilities is all the product of luck? This guy is a legendary idiot. So if another country has these things then their citizens are simply born lucky and not entitled to benefit from the legacy and success of their forebears? This is just more of the same arbitrary fairness bull applied to the science of economics like a square peg being pounded into a round hole. He can talk til his tongue falls off about luck and fairness and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the direction of the global economy. His lectures might make policymakers in poorer countries stand up and clap and cheer, but it wont help those countries advance their economies one inch closer to prosperity. Excuses don't build great nations and envy and fairness rhetoric does not propel people forward.
'Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be'. This is incredibly stupid. How can you make a statement like that? He uses the example of the Swedish taxi driver making significantly more (50x) than the taxi driver in New Delhi. How can you rationally compare the two wage scales? They serve different customers in different countries that are thousands of miles apart. One serves customers that are very wealthy and have much more disposable income than the driver who serves people who are comparatively much, much poorer. There is no rational comparison between the two and there is no benefit to such a comparison. You might as well be talking about the gravitational pull of the earth being unfair compared to the gravity one experiences on the moon. He keeps bashing free market economists but he makes their point for them. The value of any good or service is precisely that which people are willing to pay for it. No other complex analysis is required. Swedish citizens in Stockholm have more disposable income and can therefore pay more to be carried around in Sven's nice European sedan versus the crappy rattle trap car that his Indian driver is using to ferry customers in. How does this tell us anything about the merit of free market economics? This kind of idealogically motivated rationalization is worthless. Its based on some kind of subjective notions of fairness that have no bearing on the science that governs economics. You cannot possibly solve a problem that is based on your subjective notions of fairness. Its just like the word greed. Greed means nothing outside of Church. Its never you and me that are greedy, its always the other guy who is greedy. This is a perfect example of the subjective and completely worthless notion that is fairness. That word should be banned from any discussion involving the science of economics.
These guys remind me of half baked intellectuals, presenting themselves experts in Capitalism when in fact they are lefty unionists who I'm sure are sucking out ridiculous wages and could not chance in hell run their own businesses
TA TA TA TA ya? Well it starts off with an idiotic statement that having no political intervention on economy is doing politics, he says "natural free market is not a scientific claim" well that has nothing to do with science dumb ass, thats basic logic, if you do nothing by force it is automatically natural. So it can only end up in tragedy from this starting point.
And btw productivity has nothing to do with your abilities but with your production or output, any first grader should know that but some people have an interest in not knowing…I would love to see this guy being crushed on a debate but unfortunatelly seems like he doesnt accept debates I couldnt find any on youtube.
I like the way he says "dodge the rickshaw"
6:40
Great
Apparently Evil intent, which is usually the default mechanism of denial of responsibility, is very often disguised as "stupidity", because a failure to learn by doing experience of the common good is the default opposite of intentionally taking responsibility for distributing mutual benefits.
A belief in Capitalism has this same problem of intentional knowledge of (lawful) responsible actions and default ignorance of consequences when privatisation dominates decisions.., ie "Dark Money" falsified legalisation has dominance over legitimate governance. (As anyone can see)
Pi is approximately 22/7, so the prime number 23 is excluded "outside the circle" of inclusive cofactors, if you need a less amorphous excuse for the kind of Numerology Economists often use. (?)
If, as in the case of MMT, theory is an aspect of superficial trending.., plus/minus valuation of market quantization, ..so T is for Trends in Monetary policy after the fact of economic activities as they exist in the global Ecology, then the reason "Precision is not Accuracy" is because discovered evidence disproves "Correlation is not Causation", ..halfway to e-Pi-i cause-effect unity=duality=> Relativity, is temporal substantiation of Existence in Singularity. Or "ist and ism" tending towards.., includes money management Capitalism and does not automatically exclude dis-management practices from Dark Money (and the best legal system money can buy), corrupting the nominally inclusive Democratic Courts system. Ie Judgement of difference between legitimate and legal, ethically.
How could nation even survive without capital? What would Marx dole out if not capital?
This is good unintentional ASMR
interesting thinker. My only criticism is the way he speaks. Saying "yeah" after every other sentence is incredibly irritating and caused me to shut off the video after 30 mins
6:25 thank me later.
Free market existence brought into question. No dispute it does actually exist , one struggles to look for an occult and accurate academic definition. Predilection for a technical rather than palaeolithic description. A market place dependant on supply and demand equilibrium for efficient allocation of resources, competition and growth. Comes with low tax regime, plenitude of skilled and otherwise supply of labor, flexible wage and contract systems. Those can only be attained by non interventionist gov policy, little trade union activity, always a sign of a small state. The state only omnipotent in provision of legal and economic framework institutionally. The rest is basically left to the markets to self regulate, firms enjoying laissez-faire with the state guidance rather than rigid yoke of quangos and red tape.
Everyone making fun of the speaker’s accents speak ONLY English. Stfu y’all.
Even though I haven't read his books yet, I believe reading them will sound better than listening to him.
The amount of angry comments is the proof he's hitting the nail in the head 😀
The Shaun the Sheep Movie
Very interesting presentation quite enhanced by Dr Ha-Joon Chang's dry even droll humour. A very good listen.
OPINION:
BE CATHOLICS
OR BE JEWS .
THEN BAPTIZED TO BECOME CATHOLICS.
@ 5: 36 I don't Korea did anything economically except take advantage of USA military spending ,because they didn't explode until after the riots to get rid of USA military. Proof is in the difference in the quality of products before and after !!!!
If the rich are investing less, than why haven't interest rates decreased on average? When people save, interest rates decrease.
Cool Video
35:05, it seems clever to draw the comparison between Stalinism and the non-existence "trickle down economics", but I don't think any proponents of "trickle down economics", which likely only consist of politicians, never economists, think we should go around with guns forcing people into work camps and take their surplus to give to the rich to reinvest, Jeff Bezos never forced me to give him my money at gun point, but I use Amazon often, if them having to pay more tax results in their prices being less competitive, as far as my daily concerns go, that's my loss, because the chances of the extra tax they pay actually coming to noticeable good is minuscule.
My left ear is really enjoying this.
It's because the "capitalists" of today are aristocrats of the late 19th century.
22:45 Free immigration policy would displace 80%-90% of the workforce in the rich countries, he says. Western workers should never forget that when they vote: immigration is global capitalism's highway back to wild capitalism, and accusations of xenophobia and racism are just part of the ideological suprastructure of global capitalism, devised to emotionally repress workers' fight against the elimination of their historical social progress.
Da, da, da, da, da, da, da, ……this guy is a lefty…..people are not only paid according to how productive they are,…..people are also paid according to supply and demand for a particular set of skills. Several million people died, but there was economic growth…what an outrageous statement….!
skip: 6:25
I can't be the only one who finds this to be incredibly weak tea.
23:18 BURNNNNNNNNNNN HAHAHAHAAHA
someone should make a drinking game out of this guy, have him talk on stage and you take a drink when ever he say "yahn". However, make sure you have 911 on speed dial because alcohol poisoning will happen when you play this drinking game.
Says the author who wrote a book? tell me professor when you wrote your book did you do it out of the goodness of your heart? Did you do it for free or did you receive some sort of compensation?
What do we call that if you sell a lot of books???? ummmmmm , hmmmmmmmm
what is the word???
Oh yeah…. PROFIT.
Ooops.
I wonder if that was one of the 23 wrongs of capitalism ?
Why u no show the slides?
this guy is funny
Film: "The Flaw", "Inside Job"
Book: "Free Market Madness"
What a terrible heavily political biased video. Why are it always the losers advocating against a free market. All those poor people haven't done anything to get the world where it is today and now they want a piece of the pie. Well forget it. That's not going to happen. Greed is good and the West has plenty of it.
Agreed! an excellent and important lecture.
excellent. Does anyone recommend other vids?
Really wish more of the people commenting here actually listened to the video… is very important material.
How could anyone say that financial markets need to become less efficient. That would make finance more expensive or harder to get. If less efficiency is good at all then why not make those 'washing machines' more difficult to access and less efficient ?
If you were really that convinced you could do that by making finance for washing machines illegal by regulation that requires anyone selling them to have a deposit upfront from the purchaser for five years to be allowed to sell or lease one.
The whole idea is plainly just stupid and confuses personal emotions or preferences with efficiencies.!!
At 9 :40 he says he doesn't like 25 . I don't like even numbers !! What ?? He must be numerically challenged ! So he has spent over 3 minutes on the meaningless of why the book has such a title.
Ha Joon Chang's argument is essentialy that market economies are not really totally free so we have to totaly abandon the whole idea of a making a market more free than it is at any time.
Why not totally abandon the idea of a non free market because it too is not an exact reality and never can exist totally controlled.
His anaogy of the drivers operating intwo different countries is not a good example for having skill comparison and unequal pay. He even shoots his own argument against free markets down by mentioning the restrictions on freedom of markets which allows this to occur.
The part he has not mentioned is the tax scales that apply in many poor countries which work against their country benefitting from trade. These taxes include import duties, consumption taxes, high income taxes, high cost of government charges and other lack of critical continuity of good financial management by their governments.
Hhe again shoots down his own arguments by saying that deregulation made people rich becasue they benefitted from financial systems, regulated and deregulated.
You can't have it both ways saying that derulation allowed the financiers to make more money and at the same time say that they did not get more efficient.
Just how does that work again? Get no more efficient but make more money by being what??
The tax driver's pay difference is not determined by their performance but by the supply and demand in their respective market. In Sweden, there are less supply for taxi drivers because there are many other good alternative jobs available. And further more people in Sweden are willing to pay more. In New Delhi there are not many high paying job available, so obviously lots of people want to be a taxi driver.
Also the cost of living in Sweden for taxi driver is different from a driver in New Delhi.
Price is not determined by the inherent quality of the service or good, but by what the two party consider to be off equal value. In a given location, if both taxi driver and passenger think a taxi trip is worth $x, then $x is the price. And in general, as a country becomes richer the cost of service will rise and the cost of commodity will fall.
The role of a trader in a free market is to move goods from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. Similarly in a purely economic situation, people will move from where they are valued less to where they are valued more. What prevent that is politics, social systems and whether the person likes the location's environment.
They are two totally different markets, so the price is of cause different. Its like complaining that the price of water in a desert is higher than those in a supermarket.
'Thankyou, I Like Your Style!'
seems there's shitloads of assholes falling over themselves to tell you why you shouldn't have freedom
Joel Mokyr's 'Gifts of Athena' is a brilliant work and worth the money. This guy is a puppet for Socialists.
'In my book I have tried to dispel the notion that economics is too complicated for the average person'. It is clearly too complicated for you. Your point that people in poor countries are more entrepreneurial is just weird. Of course they are more entrepreneurial. There are no jobs whatsoever in West Africa. So you are basically saying that because they make charcoal and sell fruit by the roadside or make moonshine to sell that they are more entrepreneurial and there is no economic justification for why they are poor. If you believe that then you need to have your degrees taken back by whatever College issued them to you. That is possibly the dumbest argument I have ever heard. So I guess the guys who stand in the road in New York City selling plastic trinkets, bottled water and trying to wash your windshield are more entrepreneurial than the Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's and CFO's who are driving into the City to work? While they might be more 'entrepreneurial', why do we possibly care and how is that illustrative of any inherent lack of fairness in the global economy due to free market economics? I thought Asians were supposed to be brilliant? I would destroy this guy in about 5 minutes and I don't hold an economics degree nor do I hold any degree in science.
'Their high productivity is dependent upon the fact that they have been born into a society with advanced institutions and infrastructure that they themselves did not create'. And this has what to do with the price of tea in China? This guy is an academic? Seriously? Are you suggesting that the advanced institutions of learning, the governmental bureaus that provide for defense, sound currency, taxation, the Cities with all of their Industrial capacity and research capabilities is all the product of luck? This guy is a legendary idiot. So if another country has these things then their citizens are simply born lucky and not entitled to benefit from the legacy and success of their forebears? This is just more of the same arbitrary fairness bull applied to the science of economics like a square peg being pounded into a round hole. He can talk til his tongue falls off about luck and fairness and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the direction of the global economy. His lectures might make policymakers in poorer countries stand up and clap and cheer, but it wont help those countries advance their economies one inch closer to prosperity. Excuses don't build great nations and envy and fairness rhetoric does not propel people forward.
'Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be'. This is incredibly stupid. How can you make a statement like that? He uses the example of the Swedish taxi driver making significantly more (50x) than the taxi driver in New Delhi. How can you rationally compare the two wage scales? They serve different customers in different countries that are thousands of miles apart. One serves customers that are very wealthy and have much more disposable income than the driver who serves people who are comparatively much, much poorer. There is no rational comparison between the two and there is no benefit to such a comparison. You might as well be talking about the gravitational pull of the earth being unfair compared to the gravity one experiences on the moon. He keeps bashing free market economists but he makes their point for them. The value of any good or service is precisely that which people are willing to pay for it. No other complex analysis is required. Swedish citizens in Stockholm have more disposable income and can therefore pay more to be carried around in Sven's nice European sedan versus the crappy rattle trap car that his Indian driver is using to ferry customers in. How does this tell us anything about the merit of free market economics? This kind of idealogically motivated rationalization is worthless. Its based on some kind of subjective notions of fairness that have no bearing on the science that governs economics. You cannot possibly solve a problem that is based on your subjective notions of fairness. Its just like the word greed. Greed means nothing outside of Church. Its never you and me that are greedy, its always the other guy who is greedy. This is a perfect example of the subjective and completely worthless notion that is fairness. That word should be banned from any discussion involving the science of economics.
Fakes
Sort the sound out please LSE!
These guys remind me of half baked intellectuals, presenting themselves experts in Capitalism when in fact they are lefty unionists who I'm sure are sucking out ridiculous wages and could not chance in hell run their own businesses
Keynes theories don't work in real world in the long run.
The gap between Keynes' ideas and private charity is like the way from here to Saturn.
TA TA TA TA ya? Well it starts off with an idiotic statement that having no political intervention on economy is doing politics, he says "natural free market is not a scientific claim" well that has nothing to do with science dumb ass, thats basic logic, if you do nothing by force it is automatically natural. So it can only end up in tragedy from this starting point.
And btw productivity has nothing to do with your abilities but with your production or output, any first grader should know that but some people have an interest in not knowing…I would love to see this guy being crushed on a debate but unfortunatelly seems like he doesnt accept debates I couldnt find any on youtube.