Why does such a based guy has to be this ignorant about Stalin? When did Stalin ever say that to make a great nation, it is ok to sacrifice some? Stalin never said that. The same Neo-Liberal economists and historians that Ha-Joon Chang, they claimed that Stalin said such things. Ha-Joon Chang turns his brain off when the talk is Communism.
What's wrong with globalization? – Mainly it doesn't suit some politicians who want to pint it as something bad because it reduces their ability to gain power for themselves in many circumstances !!
And yes, obviously much less people die because of hunger then 1990s now. Globalization have some serious pros and as expected cons. Is there anything that has only advantageous or is to everyone's liking ever existed in the world. I would say, technology and globalization worked generally in the favor of the man kind regardless of it's cons. And we live in a fast and rapidly changing century, people left behind. Socially structured and wealthy enough western countries just compensate for the such ones in expanse of others extra luxuries. I find the system more appealing but stating only the cons is not the right way. "The Full Monty" is not the reality of development world, it is just one of the negative expects of it. Why are you not stating any positive outcomes. Are positive outcomes that insignificant to state, discuss, and analyze, is that the case? I start to feel like this is kind of propaganda video series in disguise of an academic one? There seem to be a strong message which is trying to be conveyed here. Academics operate on models, theories, data, information and relation between those, it is not to send a message. And there is only the creolization and stating failings but no propositions as usual.
Great lecture! Free trade a lie. But why was it so believed? Well, the power of corporations and believers among politicians push this nonsense. Meanwhile, the environment is spoiled to extreme and many, many towns, sections of cities, populated with the homeless and poor. Both are connected. Part of these ‘free market’ ideology. Also called, TINA, ‘there is no alternative’. Pure nonsense. Bye, bye for the middle class.
He lost me at the world growth rate, of course the growth rate goes down as the "low-hanging fruits" of innovation have been eaten already. Return on energy is going down as drilling oil gets harder etc
Nothing is wrong with globalization unless you let capitalists define the form it takes. Otherwise it's just the continued growth of what mankind defines as "Us" and "We". We all win when humanity stops limiting it's potential based upon geographic proximity and superficial cultural decoration. From the family unit to the nation, every time our understanding of who is and can be a teammate expands outwards we all benefit. Standing against globalization also seems like the fastest way to ensure those capitalists get to implement it in the form they choose. Who has more power: the individual nation, standing alone based upon Grandpa's backwards notion of who his allies were or the strong unified collection of nations or states using collective bargaining to better their outcome? I guarantee the EU is in a better position than the UK to get favorable outcomes in a global future. Because they didn't step backwards to cling to an outdated notion of nations that benefits only the parasites who can more easily feed off of weakened and isolated populations who believe they are on their own.
The ‘Trickle Down Theory’ in economics is what we might call an ‘upside down theory,’ proven by the fact that since this theory has been espoused by numerous Right Wing Neo-Liberals in the industrialised countries, most of the real wealth in our various societies has actually ‘trickled Up!’
Great stuff- Economist basically make it up as they go along, makes you think when governments go to economist for advice and they tell them do this, or that. They don't actually know the answer it's just an experiment, with the poorer people as the guinea pigs
Anyone find it off putting that he keeps using the terms “winners” and “losers”? Is this the way economics professors teach Economics? By using derogatory terms in this way?
Why does such a based guy has to be this ignorant about Stalin? When did Stalin ever say that to make a great nation, it is ok to sacrifice some? Stalin never said that. The same Neo-Liberal economists and historians that Ha-Joon Chang, they claimed that Stalin said such things. Ha-Joon Chang turns his brain off when the talk is Communism.
How can we have access to these slides?
Great to have a cerebral discussion without the tropes, yelling or sermonizing!
Gary Stevenson on the front row could have feigned a bit more interest.
@19:41: this guy in front row, top right, is soooo bored !!!😂😂😂
Great talk by the Professor!!!
Thks & The Dreaded KOCHTOPUS (~2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaqh4p41lpQ&t=186s
Cringy comment about Stalin. Sigh, even people like Ha-Joon are not immune to disinformation.
fascinating
There is nothing wrong with globalization. What is wrong is the mindless single-sourcing from a country like China, for instance.
What's wrong with globalization? – Mainly it doesn't suit some politicians who want to pint it as something bad because it reduces their ability to gain power for themselves in many circumstances !!
I like his morivtion
His motivaton way is very imprasve
Yaha jhun change his motivition way is very imprasve
And yes, obviously much less people die because of hunger then 1990s now. Globalization have some serious pros and as expected cons. Is there anything that has only advantageous or is to everyone's liking ever existed in the world. I would say, technology and globalization worked generally in the favor of the man kind regardless of it's cons.
And we live in a fast and rapidly changing century, people left behind. Socially structured and wealthy enough western countries just compensate for the such ones in expanse of others extra luxuries. I find the system more appealing but stating only the cons is not the right way. "The Full Monty" is not the reality of development world, it is just one of the negative expects of it. Why are you not stating any positive outcomes. Are positive outcomes that insignificant to state, discuss, and analyze, is that the case?
I start to feel like this is kind of propaganda video series in disguise of an academic one? There seem to be a strong message which is trying to be conveyed here. Academics operate on models, theories, data, information and relation between those, it is not to send a message.
And there is only the creolization and stating failings but no propositions as usual.
Great lecture! Free trade a lie. But why was it so believed? Well, the power of corporations and believers among politicians push this nonsense. Meanwhile, the environment is spoiled to extreme and many, many towns, sections of cities, populated with the homeless and poor. Both are connected. Part of these ‘free market’ ideology. Also called, TINA, ‘there is no alternative’. Pure nonsense. Bye, bye for the middle class.
He lost me at the world growth rate, of course the growth rate goes down as the "low-hanging fruits" of innovation have been eaten already. Return on energy is going down as drilling oil gets harder etc
Nothing is wrong with globalization unless you let capitalists define the form it takes. Otherwise it's just the continued growth of what mankind defines as "Us" and "We". We all win when humanity stops limiting it's potential based upon geographic proximity and superficial cultural decoration. From the family unit to the nation, every time our understanding of who is and can be a teammate expands outwards we all benefit. Standing against globalization also seems like the fastest way to ensure those capitalists get to implement it in the form they choose. Who has more power: the individual nation, standing alone based upon Grandpa's backwards notion of who his allies were or the strong unified collection of nations or states using collective bargaining to better their outcome? I guarantee the EU is in a better position than the UK to get favorable outcomes in a global future. Because they didn't step backwards to cling to an outdated notion of nations that benefits only the parasites who can more easily feed off of weakened and isolated populations who believe they are on their own.
What an excellent lecture. Beautifully and logically put together and easy to follow. Kudos!
Good to see Gary Stevenson in the front row.
The ‘Trickle Down Theory’ in economics is what we might call an ‘upside down theory,’ proven by the fact that since this theory has been espoused by numerous Right Wing Neo-Liberals in the industrialised countries, most of the real wealth in our various societies has actually ‘trickled Up!’
Great stuff- Economist basically make it up as they go along, makes you think when governments go to economist for advice and they tell them do this, or that. They don't actually know the answer it's just an experiment, with the poorer people as the guinea pigs
Anyone find it off putting that he keeps using the terms “winners” and “losers”? Is this the way economics professors teach Economics? By using derogatory terms in this way?
Fascinating lecture and illuminating.
US Empire has turned into a rentier economy. Good discussion. Thanks
Currencies must have parity.
Inequality is the hack that breaks globalism.
One or the other has to go.