CrashCourse - 2015-11-06
We talk a lot about Keynesian economics on this show, pretty much because the real world currently runs on Keynesian principles. That said, there are some other economic ideas out there, and today we're going to talk about a few of them. So, if you've been aching to hear about socialism, communism, the Chicago School, or the Austrian School, this episode is for you. Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever: Fatima Iqbal, Penelope Flagg, Eugenia Karlson, Alex S, Jirat, Tim Curwick, Christy Huddleston, Eric Kitchen, Moritz Schmidt, Today I Found Out, Avi Yashchin, Chris Peters, Eric Knight, Jacob Ash, Simun Niclasen, Jan Schmid, Elliot Beter, Sandra Aft, SR Foxley, Ian Dundore, Daniel Baulig, Jason A Saslow, Robert Kunz, Jessica Wode, Steve Marshall, Anna-Ester Volozh, Christian, Caleb Weeks, Jeffrey Thompson, James Craver, and Markus Persson Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet? Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
"This guy looks like Mark Cuban, but not as attractive or rich" - Mark Cuban
Hilarious
Khiem Luong Cuban is a big fan of Ayn Rand
Denmark isn't Socialist.
@J ahhh, mistakes will be made! No problem man.
Sorry for being agitated, it's cos I see so many Americans call Europe socialist, which keeps me at wits end 😂 😂
@J social democratic
@kim mogensen Social democratic, not free market
@Maruha Starshaya Socialist economies go from centrally planned ( government control, no market ), to decentralised planning ( democratic workers control, no market ) to Lange Model ( government control, free market ) to Ricardian/Smithian socialism ( democratic workers control, free market ) I prefer Ricardian socialism with some tweaks ( demcratic control, mixed economy except government controlled industries are decentrally planned with government assistance ).
@kim mogensen colonialism made a lot of European countries rich and many are still living off that wealth and connection/influence.
No one:
Malthus: 'We all are going to die of hunger.'
ROBO karizma haha classic economics
>A: Any socialism is bad
>B: Scandinavia has some successful socialist policies
>A: Nah, those just appear socialist, they're actually free market capitalist
>B: Fine, let's implement them
>A: But that's socialism
The problem with labels
@Dex Boat postmodern thinking will not push Western Civilization forward.
Coda Mission Scandinavia is successful in spite of socialism. No matter how you slice it, if you interfere in affairs of law abiding citizens, you are reducing economic efficiency. When you take 50% income from Scandinavian citizens, you are taking 50% of their decision making. When someone else spends your money, they will certainly not make the best decisions for you as you would if you spent it.
Even though parts of the Scandinavian economy are owned by the government (such as education and healthcare), the majority of the control is private. For this reason, they're not really socialist. Therefore, it isn't really socialism to bring government control over very particular parts of the economy, but that doesn't mean that there isn't reasons to disagree with parts of the Nordic model :)
EXACTLY
Ok, an actual socialist here. Scandinavia is repeat, NOT socialist. It's social democratic ie. reforms capitalism. But at the same time, the USSR and the Eastern Bloc only show the centrally planned socialist economy. There's decentralised planning ( democratic worker control, no market system ), the Lange model ( government control, free market system ) and Ricardian socialism/Smithian socialism ( democratic worker control, free market ). I'm partial to the Ricardian system but I prefer another which I don't know yet ( democratic control, some aspects of a mixed system except usually government controlled industries ie hospitals, energy etc are put under decentralised planning ).
"Ideas shape the course of history"
Dialectical Materialism would like to have a word with you
@The show off!
@The an Austrian economist, lol, Marxism is just cringe philosophy that also tries to predict future.
@Penter Pro
What
Penter Pro said by someone who believes that High fantasy magic is real
@Penter Pro Austrian economics isn't much better
Main outtakes of this lesson
Economic theories are constantly been proven, disproven and revised. The problem is, when these theories are wrong, millions of people can be adversely affected.
1) The founder of modern economics was a Scottish philosopher, named Adam Smith. In 1776 his book "The wealth of nations" was published. It was an organized discussion about economic theory.
a. When both focus on what they're best at and then trade, everyone benefits.
2) In 1890 was published a book, called "Principles of economics" by Alfred Marshall. It embodied classical economics.
3) In 1936 John Maynard Keynes published a book "A general theory of money" which launched a field of macroeconomics.
a. They claimed that during recessions it is necessary for the government to get involved by using monetary and fiscal policy to increase output and decrease unemployment.
4) Socialism - system where the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.
5) Monetarism - focused on price stability and argue the money supply should be increased slowly and predictably to allow for steady growth.
6) Supply side economics (trickle down economics) - advocated deregulation and cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes.
7) New neoclassical synthesis - synthesis of classical economic theories and Keynesian economics.
"How to troll austrians" - by Сергей Галиуллин
Сергей Галиуллин
not Keynesian economics only Keynesian Deficit Spending are used today by the powerful, like Germany or US, less powerful like south Europe have to go with austerity.
Other Keynesian economic policies aren’t used like real wages raising in line with productivity, high taxes on the rich and corporations, the corporations making the debts for the savings of the private households and the state and foreign state don’t increasing nor decreasing their debts.
During the Keynesian time only the war debts were paid back but didn’t grow after that for 25 years ~1945-1970.
where are the Austrians?
@that guy you don't know ??
@that guy you don't know in anarcho-capitalist paradise. They are literally ancap now. Most, if not all.
Mises' student Rothbard lit that fuse.
" The Curious Task Of Economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design " Frederich August Von Hayek
The Fatal Conceit
Always quoting your master eh?
budiman 31 nice, a lolbertarian
>Scandinavia
>Socialist
This is how you tell if someone has never read a primary source in their life
Yeah you commies! you aint socialist, your commies! commies I tell ya!
Nah, this is how you tell if someone is from the United States or anywhere else.
@The_Blazer that was sarcasm, anyways "if your from the united states or anywhere else?" Isn't that the whole world??
@Kargadan Nonono I meant either from the US or another place wooops. (also it wasn't a response to your comment in particular, blame Youtube's horrible comment system for that)
Hear here!
They acknowledge the different economic schools, but they keep going on teaching the Keynesian equations.
"The specific anticipative understanding of the conditions of the uncertain future defies any rules and systematization" Ludwig Von Mises
@Rzeczpospolita dlya Cosmopolita Good Joke.
Oh wait. That was a argument?
@Asy B He never said that we should not use maths to study economics, he said that only using Maths is stupid.
@Grant Kirby "Best economic system" by what metric? It is impossible to test economic systems in a vacuum because you cannot control the circumstances in which they are implemented. You can go off only principles. The principles of Keynesian economics are inherently flawed and have led to runaway debt, the Great Recession and another likely recession in a few years.
@james Doctor your trolling is expert-level, congrats.
@Delbert Frost The right LOVES Keynesian when a recession comes to bailout the market.
oh my god imagine thinking denmark is socialist I can't
It's like saying that North Korea has capitalism.
It's incorrect to characterise Social Democracy and Keynesian government welfare programs as socialist, this is going to confuse many people and misinform many students.
Well, isn't social security like government-funded health care a pretty socialist concept?
@RollinsFN yep. Because every country in Western Europe is a failed state
@TheEdMaster Bernie is much more radical than an European politician, he runs on the fake narrative of saying he would be "center" on Europe.
@RollinsFN dude, I'm european. He has some normal policies
@TheEdMaster Universal Healthcare? Normal. Abolition of private insurance making the state the only provider of healthcare? Radical. Taxing the Rich? Normal. Taxing the rich to an unsustainable amount that can kill bussinesses and investments? Radical. He is not a normal politician, he hides his radical positions behind fairly normal policies.
"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday, did't happen today."
-Laurence J. Peter
Today we have got 2 econimics that are out of this statement
false theories tend to be wrong, while the obvious one hasn't even had the opportunity to be tried in modern times
Lost credibility when they said Cuba was moving towards capitalism
and China
@AGR China isn't moving towards capitalism, it already is capitalism + cronyism.
Supply-side economist Thomas Sowell says that “trickle-down” is a misconception
@Mekaloo JH no, Chicago.
@Bailey M I also have your concerns of monopolies, still trying to find the answers to this problem. Government exacerbates monopoly but they still can form naturally, although rare.
Its the very same supply side economists who while advocating for tax cuts defend their position saying the wealth will trickle down to the average worker.
@serge lefleur yea, that's the point
cool beans So, there is no misconception in calling it trickle down.
One part of Keynesian economics is spending during a recession, the other part is SAVING during the good times.
The problem is that no government ever SAVES, they only spend.
Hence why Keynesian economics will never work when practised by government.
Cibby Kwaka there’s a problem with the economic infrastructure, which is way countries don’t save in good times.
Keynesian policies were used between 1930/40 and 1970. During that time no big recession appeared and state debts didn’t raised nor was money saved. It just stagnated.
But someone had to make debts as our money system works like that. When someone wants to save money, someone have to make debts for it.
In the Keynesian time the Private Households saved money and the Companies made the debts through loans which they invested to increase productivity.
With higher productivity the real wages followed in line (“Keynesian rule 1940-1970”), increasing purchasing power which increases demand, giving companies the incentive to invest again.
They forced to go into debts and invest by high taxes.
Only the war made the state taking debts, which they paid in a few years back.
This whole infrastructure has changed, wages don’t follow productivity and taxes are low, companies become savers themselves forcing only the state making debts.
They using the Keynesian emergency tool wich is Deficit Spending to rescue the economy, but won’t use the Keynesian system to pay back the debts wich was caused by deficit spending. Of course it doesn’t work, if you change the circumstances.
This isn't true, many countries do through sovereign wealth funds. It's the reason for Norway's continued economic success.
Agreed
Cibby Kwaka what a JOKE! How can saving be the purpose of Keynesian economics when it favors inflation as a means of incentivizing consumption instead of savings? 🙄
Dudes just helped me aced my test by 80/95.
Thanks Crash Course dudes!
>communism is a stateless and classless society
>communist countries like china, cuba, and north korea
why did you think explaining multiple ideologies in one video would be a good idea
@Munroe Saleh it is rather annoying when people say that China is a communism. Everything you have to do is google "socialism" or "communism" in the wikipedia to learn that the main attribute of both systems is democracy at the workplace... As easy as it is! Not dictatorship of the shareholders (capitalism), but democracy extended from the state to the workplace (socialism, communism)
Those countries arent communist you doofus
China, Cuba, and North Korea are ‘communist’ in title only. They are not Marxist communists.
@KatoBytes Your comment is kind of stupid. Anarcho-Communists aren't Marxists.
There is a slant to there left with Crash Course but overall they bring up good overviews.
So why did you spend a few seconds on Austrian Economics when the question was regarding Austrian Economics? Can’t respect this channel or you people.
Damn, don't get salty
@Joakim Grum Nice argument smoothbrain
All of these "basics" of economics sound like they could learn a lot from ecology.
Google Murray Bookchin
5:26 am I seeing that or what the screen goes all flashy.
Scandinavian countries are one of the most free market places in the world, despite the huge welfare system. Just look at the international rank of economic freedom.
flawed measure
True, but in many English-speaking areas welfare = socialism.
@R1ff 07 Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Hang yourself with barbed wire.
@Ianassa91 You are absolutely right. People are jumping on you for being un-PC but sociological conditions such as IQ and culture play an enormous role in overall economic performance. Just as one can compare the two Koreas in outcome of economic policy, one can compare South Korea and an African nation to see how sociological differences impact prosperity.
You can be that free market when you have a robust safety net as they do.
Austrians came before Keynes and they refuted him and socialists too. It's a shame if this video is not corrected.
They may have come before, but they weren’t influential. Hayek was defeated by Keynes at that moment in time.
Hayek was after Keynes, and he was the most important of the Austrians
@Diego Vilches oh no no
In your dreams
@Diego Vilches Hayek refuted Keynes but he was the inferior to Mises. Rothbard was the true successor of Mises.
Can we get a video focusing on Political Economy?
Humm I was really hoping they would get into the mechanics of how communism works. Guess I have to read Das Kapital
@Kévin Autin I'd rather we found some points to agree upon, but I must differ with you here. Saying that "capitalism wasn't the dominant mode or production in the past" is a vague statement. No, modern commerce as we know it today didn't exist to that extent then (and it's partly why we're so much better off now), but private ownership of the means of production has been around since the Agricultural Revolution. The oldest cuneiform tablets found in Sumeria are receipts for private transactions. Trade flourished across the ancient world, especially in regards to the Phoenicians. In the Middle Ages there was a large amount of trade as well; the Templar Order was a modern bank in many respects. Great merchant cities sprung up in the European north and south with Italian city-states and the Hanseatic league; commerce was part of life there. Were these activities not capitalist? The more one looks at history the more ubiquitous private enterprise appears, even in places (though obviously to a lesser extent) where such activities were burdened or looked down upon. It's impossible to go without capitalism completely, and if you read the books I recommended you would come to that realization.
You think in terms of a "historical dialectic" or easily categorized periods of history whereas I think in terms of "human action" and that is the primary thing that divides us. There's always a temptation to divide epochs into times of particular ideas holding sway; reactionaries tend to do the same thing as well. However, how people behave in certain situations does not tend to follow such categories and we have more in common with our ancient ancestors than we realize. People are naturally oriented towards their own well-being and that of their immediate fellows, and will tend to pursue that well-being whether through religion, power, or the market. You can diss "human nature" but we are not blank slates to be written over.
@Zorro9129 Private property, by itself, doesn't make a mode of production "capitalist". Ancient Greece wasn't capitalist, it was a slave society. Production was mostly done by slaves, which definitely weren't wage workers. Feudal society wasn't capitalist either.
Also, trade isn't specific to capitalism either.
Pretty much all historians, philosophers, sociologues, etc, agree that capitalism has only been the dominant system for a few centuries.
The economic laws of those other systems were very different, since they were based on very different social relations (Master and slaves, for example, doesn't operate the same way at all as owner/wage worker)
@Kévin Autin >despite you saying its impossible
I didn't say it's impossible (if I did then I'm wrong), I said it's inefficient. I'm quite well aware of SOEs and how they work, and some are even quite successful. Because of the way they're structured they typically run into issues that are less commonly found in market economies. For instance, some SOEs have artificial monopolies over an area of commerce. This included the U.S. Postal Service; a man named Lysander Spooner who was dissatisfied with it (and opposed government in general) started a competing firm and was eventually forced to shut down, though not before bringing down the cost of mail. SOEs also are often structured for political ends rather than for economic benefit; this is the case of many northern manufacturers in China which are "zombie firms" kept alive to employ the workers there. That there are exceptions does not disprove the rule.
Also, you keep using the word "non-capitalist." I don't think you know what it means. When I use the term I mean according to private ownership and voluntary exchange. A donation model for Youtubers is by no means "socialist" because their content is not publicly owned (they "own" their videos which they freely distribute to others). If Youtubers are producing videos because they are satisfied with their reception and the donations they receive, that is a voluntary transaction and therefore "capitalist." I'm afraid you're conflating "capitalist" with "for-profit," which of course makes any act of charity inherently "non-capitalist." I don't know if it is intentional or not, but one could then pull a sleight-of-hand trick and then claim capitalism "has no value for the poor" despite the existence of charity.
The publishing of materials for free is entirely consistent with supply and demand; it may even prove advantageous in the long term. For example, RedHat, the firm that developed Linux, has made its program open-source for the public benefit but sells its services as a consultant. Are they capitalist or not? Moreover, you'll find that some radical pro-capitalist economists such as Stephen Kinsella even oppose the existence of intellectual property, but based on axioms of private ownership!
One thing we can agree upon, however, is how GDP is a terrible measure. Austrian economists have long criticized that worthless metric, as it can easily be propped up with government expenditure (something Keynesians love to do).
@Zorro9129 "less efficient" : No, it all depends what you are trying to achieve. State sector has been way WAY superior to the capitalist sector in regard to space exploration for example (to the point that the first country to space wasn't even capitalist). This space exploration led to countless innovations that trickled down to the rest of the economy over time.
Similarly, countries with a public Healthcare system achieve better results with less money compared to countries with a fully private system. Example : for US, 17% of the GDP goes to Healthcare, while it's only 11% for most European countries with a public Healthcare system.
Regarding "voluntary trade is capitalism" : No, it's not. Capitalism might imply volontary trade, but volontary trade doesn't imply capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership + wage labor + commodity production + worker/owner relation. Without those, it's not really capitalism.
Writing Wikipedia article or contributing code for free to an open source project isn't a capitalist form of production. And I didn't say it's socialist either, so don't say i did please.
@Kévin Autin There is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness and how they relate to projects. State-run projects are designed (at least on paper) to be effective at what they do: if a goal is not achieved then there is a major failure. That is why governments, if they do not manage to achieve a goal, use more funding until it is achieved. In regards to some things (such as fighting a just war) this is indeed necessary, but for almost every aspect of economic life it is suboptimal as it generates a large amount of waste. There is less incentive to cut down on this waste as the funds are largely impersonal and come from a budget allocation. In fact, agencies often intentionally waste resources (from constructing unnecessary buildings to using up printer ink) so that politicians believe that all this funding for the next term is “necessary.” In the private sphere there must be a balance between effectiveness and efficiency: a goal must be achieved, but in a way that minimizes costs. If something looks to exceed eventual returns (calculated for time) it will not be pursued, otherwise the firm will go bankrupt from waste. This economic efficiency means that finite resources are put to areas which are predicted to do the most good.
I should be happy that at least the State has used money stolen from me to explore space, as that money is better served there than on wars or Medicare. Is it the best use of it, though? That much is debatable, as is the claim that the state sector is “superior to” the private sector in this area. First off, private space programs do exist to some extent, as it has been necessary in order to build communication satellite networks (this has been an exceptional bettering of the human condition). While the expansion of the private sphere into space has been a more-or-less recent phenomenon, I would argue that this is at least partially due to “crowding out” by state-funded space programs which use up all demand. As to whether or not this is true depends on an understanding of space program administration which I doubt either of us grasps. It does certainly appear, though, that the private sector is slowly assuming a more dominant role in space exploration.
What I can say for sure, though, is that technology is not significantly more advanced because of space programs. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s because people aren’t more intelligent because of such programs. The exact same brilliant people who made advances in space exploration would have still had careers in something else likely suited for their skills. There would still be mathematicians, theorists, and engineers at Corning making advanced materials. We may have different advances due to a different economic allocation but we would not likely be less advanced. We may even be more so because of better allocation; after all, NASA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars designing a pen to work in microgravity which has little impact on any of us. Still though, I would much rather complain about wars and healthcare than NASA.
“a fully private system” The USA DOES NOT have a “fully private system.” You are terribly misled in this regard. After the 1960’s America abandoned an actual private system and embraced a quasi-fascist corporatocracy which gives billions of dollars in subsidies to major healthcare firms such as that owned by the Sacklers. This system has its own approval agency in the form of the FDA which protects these firms from legal consequences arising from unethical decision-making. This in combination with an ever-more-stringent intellectual property system and a heavy regulatory hand provides a very unequal application of law.
Nor are public healthcare systems better! I cannot speak for France but Canada is notorious for its wait times and its arbitrary quality of hospitals. Because of their publicly-mandated system of compensation the most talented doctors head to the most prestigious hospitals, leaving provincial hospitals with substandard healthcare often filled with migrant doctors. In addition, the UK government forced the child Alfie Evans to die and would not even let his parents take him to the US for treatment. In France Vincent Lambert was euthanized against his will! So no, public healthcare is horrible even if it was more “efficient,” because it gives the elites another means to kill you as they please.
Voluntary trade on an individual scale necessitates private ownership. If you do not own something how can you trade it? Moreover, if voluntary trade is permitted then who’s to say I cannot trade my time and labor in exchange for a wage? But if I do so, then am I not a worker and the other an “owner” (assuming I work on his property)? And why would there be such a transaction of labor if not to do something with it, such as building a house or planting a garden? Capitalism flows naturally from voluntary trade. You make the interesting argument that one can exchange labor for a non-commodity return (such as affection from a family member or a feeling of having contributed to knowledge). But is that so different qualitatively from a commodity return (a wage)? Both forms benefit me in some way that is greater than my personal input, otherwise I would not do it. And of course there is a murky gray area: is an apprenticeship where I am not paid, yet am given room and board (possibly better than what I had before) a form of wage labor, or is it a non-capitalist form of production? If the former, then it flows quite naturally into the latter as with experience one will start earning a wage along with the other benefits.
i wish malthus had been right and that i was never alive
I like your videos. I'm teaching economic theories at high school in Sweden and we start even earlier, with Mercantilism as an economic idea. Aside from that, I find your film very usable in my education. Thanks!
Please, teach them about Human Action.
Bro I'm just trying to pass my economics class, and high school in general. 💀
Than read the book by Thomas Sowell - Basic economics
You know, kudos to them to actually treat each aspect equally unfairly.
Especially since it is so condensed I can appreciate it.
I wish I had your videos when I was studying economics in business school, you guys definitely put everything into perspective very well.
Never mind, they just called Scandinavia socialist.
Nope, they said “they love these socialist policies”
It has socialist programs but its technically a social democracy
Sir Jopalot compared to the american system it is
@JMan Hei fra Norge (hi from Norway)
The definition is wrong, and I embrace socialism, but we ain't it, and there is a pretty strong consensus on that. A political party that has a dude (and I mean one single dude out of 169 total) in government, and their party progreamme just added communism as a part of it, and and people were outraged or hopeful, but nobody claimed we have it. Only political iliterates (and I say it this love) who have american youtubers ad their source of political data ever claim so, and those poor potential comrades are laughed of stage. But nobody seriously think we're socialist. Can't speak for sweeden or Denmark, but they don't seem like it either.
I liked your comment because I see you everywhere
"North Korea is too isolated to be a test case for an economic system" i think they are isolated because of their economic system. U cant trade with north korean companies (if there are any) because the govt prohibits you to do so.
"The field of economics grew, advancing ideas like private property and free markets and then along comes the communist manifesto in 1848" that is hilariously ahistorical, ideas of "socialism" had been around since the french revolution. "Marx and Engels looked at economic classes and argued that history was explained by the conflict between workers and property owners" This is also incorrect as classes are more nuanced the that and in most class society's there was not a binary class division (in relation to the ownership and use of the means of production) "This process would inevitably lead to workers overthrowing their bosses, ushering in a new stateless and classless system called communism" this is found nowhere in Marx, overthrowing the bosses is not a shift in the mode of production and therefore would not lead to socialism.
The Scandinavian countries have a freer economy, Denmark is economically freer than the US.
@Bruno Pereira Maybe I didn't expressed it properly.
Heritage selected a number of indicators of freedom and gave them equal weights. There is no objective way to assess the index, since it is philosophical in its nature. Why should freedom from inflation be given equal importance than freedom from government spending?
Now, my opinion is that most of the indications of freedom clearly correlates negatively with indicators of development, but not the welfare state ones (freedom from taxation and government spending), which probably correlates posively with development. By creating an index with a lot of market interventions and only two of the redistributive kind, the index makes freedom as a whole to correlate with development, which makes the free market looks artificially better.
@Bruno Pereira Maybe I should. I have a very simplistic understanding of the economic machine. Well, certainly, even economists are pretty ignorant when it comes to the topic. Even so, things must certainly be different between now and the 19th century, would you not agree? Technology has changed every faucet of the economic system.
@Guilherme If that is your opinion.
In Heritage Foundation there are open lists of countries and data about each indicator of Freedom.
You can prove your point taking countries with very close Government Spending Scores, then compare these countries's development and other indicators of Freedom.
Simple that.
@José Pablo Gramajo no they dont.
@Realist get your fascist ideas out of here
Imagine having to "forcefully push" to keep your private property lmfao crazy world
“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
–Adam Smith, Scottish political economist (1723-1790)
@Freek314
Only Keynesian Economics is credible and stop spreading tyrannical supply-side bullshit on my post, thx..
@Freek314
go spread your fascist economics on Fox Propaganda or Alex Jones Channel, but not my post.
Credible sources and info - get some.
@Stikibits "Everything I don't like is fascist"
@Zorro9129 Nope, everything that's fascist is fascist, no matter if you like it or not.
@you're right Yep, Adam Smith wasn't a sociopath. He was enlightened so didn't claim it's fine to exploit and harm others in the name of profit and personal gains. Your "notable" capitalists aren't enlightened and freely exploit and do harm for profit and personal gains, so are sociopaths. It'd also be far more accurate to call them fascists rather than capitalists. You don't know anything about Adam Smith not capitalism, hey?
That AC/DC belt though 10/10
looks like it’s always been easier to
imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism, right Malthus?
its time for us to meet Stan
Stan:
Nobody ever:
A: "Whew..... Stan so many isms..."
milton, my dude
Beat it kid
"We should expect surprises that will upset our current economic model" - Adrian Hill
when your video starts in a ignorance of history how do u expect to make a unbiased video. Mercantilism was the economic policy of the 1700 and 1800s, not free market capitalism. tariffs were high on imports and exporting products was encouraged. u.s was the first to kick the chain
Unable to reconcile them all into one summary.
Would be nice if we had a summary chart with four columns
date
name
location
theory
For heaven's sake, stop misconstrueing social democracy as "democratic socalism" allready!!
People here really seem to believe they're experts at everything and can't possibly be wrong.
This isn't really a good way to learn about things.
Its hilarious
Your name is sexual potatoes...
Noice profile pic tho... And u might be right
@Sexual Potatoes Lol, did you even watch the vid'?
And having no opinion and saying "who knows" is an adequate response? Yeah you have to develop convictions about things to move forward.
Jacob Clifford, you're always wrong about the title of Keynes' masterpiece. Always wrong
I’ve seen Econ videos from the Jacob guy before! He’s such a good teacher.
I love these videos! It's fantastic that I can keep learning all the time, even after school hours and during school breaks! Thank you!
thank you so much i really enjoy watched the video, i found that this kind of topic is really can be enjoy
and so the 100 year flamewars in the comment section begun...
+shreder89 Yo, The comment section makes the best mix tapes.
+shreder89 I think your a bit late to kick this off.
+shreder89 And it was so bad that everyone died. The end.
Wait ... This not fair! You have handgun, while we only had bow, arrow, and pitchfork ...
This gave me a good chuckle. You win the internet for today.
Ed Vogt - 2019-08-25
Economists and weather forecasters are the only people who can be wrong all the time and keep their job.
The Elven Jedi - 2020-04-03
Don't psychologists get to keep their job even if their patients kill themselves? Do doctors keep their jobs even if a patient gets sick [again]? Do investment bankers get to keep all the profits from the good times even if they wreck the economy and need public $ to bail them out? ;-)
Seems to me this applies to anyone who works in a sufficiently complex arena.
Sofya Redwall - 2020-04-10
@mo ali👍 absolutely imagine the world without morality implaced
mo ali - 2020-04-10
@Ian Thomson well if 1 billion folks believe in the Same thing it's gonna be objective right.
Ian Thomson - 2020-04-10
mo ali ?? Not really objectivity is only possible through collective empirical observation and falsification.
mo ali - 2020-04-10
@Ian Thomson well how are you supposed to have that in the real life? Then?