He’s obviously into Eugenics & part of an Agenda 😉

@22:44 A "good" society is one in which individuals have freedom: the freedom to act, to do, to live up to their full potential. "Someone without ANY resources has NO freedom to act - he does what he can to survive. That's not freedom." Amen brother.

Why is EVERYBODY jewish!?

Redesigning politics for sustainable development is crucial in an era where pressing global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and resource scarcity demand immediate and coordinated action. Traditional political systems, often driven by short-term goals and reactive measures, are not equipped to tackle the complexities of sustainable development. To truly advance, politics must be reimagined to prioritize long-term well-being over temporary gains, with policies rooted in equity, environmental stewardship, and social justice. This redesign requires a shift from a purely economic growth model to one that values ecological sustainability and human development as integral parts of progress. It means embracing policy frameworks that promote renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and equitable access to resources, while also investing in education and healthcare to improve resilience and quality of life for all communities. Additionally, incorporating participatory governance, where marginalized voices are heard and considered, ensures that solutions are inclusive and reflective of diverse needs. International cooperation must also play a central role. No single nation can address these challenges alone, so partnerships that transcend borders, facilitate knowledge exchange, and promote global solutions are essential. This involves not only aligning economic incentives with environmental goals but also fostering political will and accountability at every level of decision-making. Ultimately, redesigning politics for sustainable development means creating systems that are adaptive, transparent, and committed to fostering a balance between economic prosperity, environmental health, and social equity. Only by embedding sustainability into the very fabric of governance can we hope to create a world that is both prosperous and resilient for future generations.

Sachs destroyed New Russia, made millions of people unemployed, and created mega-rich Oligarchs through his privatisation program. Now he supports evil China. He represents what is bad about the American economics profession.

What is missing from the discussion is a recognition that the socio-political arrangements and institutions of almost every society have evolved out of conflict over rights to property and over the distinction between property that rightfully belongs to all (i.e., the commons) and property that rightfully belongs to its producer. In this struggle, the most fundamental problem has always been the claim of ownership of nature and the natural assets provided to us free of charge in terms of labor.

The ecological disaster is caused by the communist countries: China, Russia (even though now it's a kleptocratic despotism, not a communist totalitarian regime, the dependence on the hydrocarbon fuels hasn't decreased).

Is there the "good life" in North Korea, Cuba, China, Russia/the USSR?

Shite!

according to this smartass, Capitalism = trade... people trade and get richer... therefore capitalism Good... OH MY FUCKING GOD

Progressive gaslighting

Please try to convert the US into a Good Society . Having too many drug addicts and homeless people on the street are not good signs of Good Society .

Very good information!!

Please study, deeply, the topic of vaccines and masks. You are repeating the narrative pushed into us by big pharma and its colleagues in the media. Study and listen other scientific narratives.

Social media is no longer "social"...it's hypnotical. The idea now is to grab people's attention at any costs, mostly for likes and monetization. I believe everyone needs a break from it. The workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels goes great with Jonathan's book. I went a couple months while not using it and it was like a bath for my brain...just felt so clean afterwards, and now i cringe when I look at what people post and look at.

Fuck capitalism and all its proponents too! If everyone just accepted the peer reviewed Science, we would finally be done with this unfounded, delusional, barbaric, archaic, racist, misogynistic, anti-scientific, destructive, bias, belief based economic religion! Hearn Studies kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJ2ucoh6ZZiHpLc Princeton U. study kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6XYZGV5eKaSf8k Panama Papers kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWOkgYyGn7mKkJo Harvard U. study kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4GufISkns-hqa8 Evidence of rigged markets kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaW7hquCa5Wfopo Research by Piketty kzbin.info/www/bejne/fn2QioiKe9anq6s

I have been a Jonathan Haidt fan for two decades and this is precisely why I will always be.

Heckman's argument is based on an estimate thats so novel and potentially precise that it makes him cum vs one from a data set he acknowledges has massive isssues and data gaps. My dog is more convincing when they play dead. That's ignoring the ideological blinders he has on.

Great interesting indeed talk Prof. Stiglitz, as usual, thank you. Best regards from the Geisha and Karaoke country.

An excerpt from a 1980 Review of some Book the speaker wrote around that time: "But enough. This is a ridiculous book. If it can be said to possess a virtue, it is that it demonstrates with particular clarity the secret of Richard Sennett’s success. For he is an author who over the years has managed to trick out just about every advanced cliché about modern life in the language-and, as it were, with the “authority”-of respectable philosophic and sociological thought. " And he's high in this Center for Capitalism and Society? Poor capitalism. Poor society.

it's a torture listening to Esa's banal verse, overrated and vapid

And a lot of it is a facade bot accounts running chat bots sock puppet troll account ect. I'm pretty damn good at spotting the fake accounts on X now. Right now we're winning the chat bot wars online but it really a fucking mess. It's mostly damage control right now trying too keep it from getting worse.

Jeff Sachs aka Mother Teresa aka Jeff Tracey (by me)... 🙂🥳😸

Professor Stiglitz says that for a society to be good and continue to be good, innovations should also be directed towards creation of jobs for unskilled people. There is an underlying assumption in the argument that investments that produce such employment must be profitable too. This is not at all necessary. When the world built pyramids or temples or monuments like Taj Mahal, profitability was not at all a consideration. Perhaps government policies can be directed to build modern day monuments and thereby provide employment to the unskilled people in the society.

Thanks for an insightful and an honest talk. It is rightly claimed that we need to find a democratic version of political system as well as a system of market economy that, on an ongoing basis, can ensure mildly increasing welfare levels in the society. Democracy is difficult to be maintained because: Harold Laswell says in an article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of social sciences published in 1933: “We should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests; they are not. The best judges are us, the elites, smart guys, the cool observers, and we must, therefore, be ensured of the means to impose our will for the common good….. This will require a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses.” Propaganda is necessary because democratic societies cannot control anarchy resulting from frustration or greed by force. This argument assumes, rightly so, that masses can be led towards aims decided upon by the elites in the society. In other words, stupidity is an attribute of masses, which can be exploited by the elites towards their own ends. Bonhoeffer has commented on dangers of stupidity in detail (Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity - Sprouts - Learning Videos - Social Sciences (sproutsschools.com) The challenge for the policymakers, therefore, is to at least control the stupidity of the masses sufficiently so that they can ensure their own good, or to control the forces that exploit this stupidity to their own ends. Long back Plato had argued that King should be philosopher. The challenge is how to go further.

Monopoly, unregulated, game over - capital divergence, 1177 BC, 410 AD, Industrial revolution and colonialism, 1969 globalization. Still underestimating capital divergence Rethink Cript’s and Godals Sectorial Balances. Trade def. Results in loss ofmid class wealth, increased multinational corporations wealth, government deficits, printing money and inflation.

Glad to see you on YouTub

Why start the talk with a strawman?

The only thing to say about capitalism is not nice. Obviously it always turns into fascism with criminals bribing people. Then no one is safe around criminals with the bride money. And that will never be the right Healthcare or a government !

kzbin.infosgu-dC0_cvM?si=iUKmwlL7e-e-wHlz

Modern monetary theory and the not good people who made it up is what is destroying our society. US is not a good society.

Allowing people to eat during the talk was a supremely bad idea.

The nation-state is being replaced by the corporate-state. Fascism is the new black.

The Center for the Commodification of Society. Commodify Or Die

Sachs is a lovely man and has a solid intellect

Individualist realism at play

Sachs is an arrogant buffoon psychopath who cluelessly facilitated the destruction of Soviet Russia. He's a total charlatan, fraud.

Incorrect!

"Capitalism is just trade" is both an oversimplification and an incorrect description of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods. Saying capitalism is good for the bodily needs because people "are not starving as much" because it "makes us richer" ignores the reality that for a large section of the population, it doesn't, and it's a system that prioritizes individual wealth of the capitalist class, while increasing the gap between those and the working class. Social mobility has also plummeted in the last decades of capitalism. It also ignores how China, which had been capitalist for decades (they called it "communism with chinese characteristics), and in the recent years has taken a more communist approach, has taken out of poverty more people than any other country on earth (I'm obviously not supporting any other practices such as the dictatorial and totalitarian regime, but we're talking exclusively about economic systems here). Moreover, communism as an economic system also involves trade, the difference is in the ownership of the means of production. For example, there can still be large scale production and distribution, but the workers are also represented in the companies interest, and not just the interests of the capitalist class that controls them in capitalism. With a planned economy, the products could fulfill the needs of the community, and not incentivise the work ethic that would lead to the biggest profits, which are the main motors of any capitalist company. In fact, kinship is actually invirgorated in a communist economic system where equal representation and equal retribution is expected, instead of the alienation that happens with many of today's jobs. Kinship is put on a lower pedestal when the capitalist owner decides that making a bigger profit is okay even when it involves destroying ecosystems by deforestation, pollution of natural resources and increased carbon emissions. Capitalism puts you in a highly individualistic point of view, which might be expected through the bodily system you mention, but it isn't the ideal system for a social species that also depends on the environment. It's also by no means the "natural" state of being, capitalism, as many other isms, was invented and implemented through a series of trials and errors, and while it was incredibly useful and it helped grow cities like we know them today, it's also become obsolete when you think about the constant growth and expansion it needs, in a world with finite space and resources.

Adam Smith's vision of capitalism was based on the idea of free markets and limited government intervention. He believed that when individuals were free to pursue their own self-interest, it would lead to the greatest good for society as a whole. In his book The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that the invisible hand of the market would lead to competition and innovation, which would benefit everyone. He also believed that government intervention was often harmful to the economy, and that it should be limited to protecting property rights and enforcing contracts. The current form of capitalism in the US, on the other hand, is much more concentrated and regulated than Smith envisioned. A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy, and the government often intervenes to protect their interests. For example, the US government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations each year. This gives them an unfair advantage over smaller businesses and makes it more difficult for new businesses to enter the market. The US government also has a number of regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses. For example, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between US ports be transported on US-flagged ships. This law raises the cost of shipping for small businesses and makes it more difficult for them to compete. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations has led to a number of problems in the US economy, including: Wage stagnation: Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have soared. This is because corporations have been able to use their market power to suppress wages. Inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening in recent decades. This is because corporations have been able to extract more wealth from the economy, while workers have seen their wages stagnate. Monopoly power: A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy in many industries. This gives them the power to raise prices and stifle innovation. Adam Smith would likely be appalled by the current state of capitalism in the US. He believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy, and he would have seen the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations as a threat to competition. Here are some specific examples from The Wealth of Nations that illustrate Adam Smith's vision of capitalism: Smith argued that the government should not interfere in the free market, except to protect property rights and enforce contracts. He believed that the government should not subsidize businesses or try to pick winners and losers in the market. Smith believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy. He argued that competition would lead to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, and innovation. Smith was a strong advocate for free trade. He believed that countries should be able to trade goods and services freely with each other. The current form of capitalism in the US is in many ways a departure from Adam Smith's vision. The government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations, regulates the economy in favor of large corporations, and allows a small number of corporations to control a large share of the economy in many industries. It is crucial to recognize that the intrinsic nature of hierarchical systems does not automatically guarantee their inherent benevolence. In fact, these structures can be regarded as malevolent or even fiendish. Capitalism, on the other hand, can be perceived as an ideology influenced by militaristic principles, which prioritizes profit maximization as the zenithal aim while justifying collateral loss of life as an unavoidable outcome in business pursuits. The individuals who have the potential to misrepresent socialism are currently wielding control in the realm of capitalism. The crux of the matter revolves not around socialism, but rather around specific actors and their deeds. Simultaneously, the tenacity of humanity challenges the idea that competition fueled evolution. In truth, competition appears more as a byproduct of civilization than an innate characteristic of human essence. It is imperative to note that capitalism can perpetuate and intensify avaricious behavioral tendencies and that an unquestioning belief in its faultlessness could denote a dogmatic affinity. Indeed, one can find striking resemblances between capitalism and religious organizations. Wealthy individuals frequently depend on less advantaged members of society in order to exploit susceptible populations; this dependency raises ethical questions regarding accountability and whether collective action is necessary to intervene in these abusive practices. Affluent individuals are often shielded from hardships endured by those belonging to lower socioeconomic groups. When confronted with financial adversity, they might be lifted up by a bespoke social safety net designed exclusively for their echelon. It is important to emphasize that wealth accumulation often arises from inheritance or fortuitous circumstances rather than pure meritocracy alone; indeed, good fortune has a pivotal role in deciding wealth distribution outcomes. Both communism and capitalism (along with feudalism) display inherent imperfections marked by a fortunate minority exerting control over the majority. The assumption that one's prosperity relies solely on hard work disregards the ubiquitous influence of luck in determining socioeconomic standing. Contemporary society reflects consumerism more accurately than capitalism, as initially envisioned by Adam Smith in his monumental publication, "The Wealth of Nations." Today's economic framework mirrors communism under a different guise, capitalizing on the disadvantaged through unique methods. One might contemplate how capitalism coalesces with the teachings of Jesus Christ and religious principles. In essence, economic systems consistently fall short in addressing the varied requirements of human communities. A society devoid of currency can still survive, liberated from the materialistic competition epitomized by rampant consumerism. Lastly, scriptural excerpts from the Gospel (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22, Luke 14:33, Matthew 6:19-21, and Mark 10:21) underscore the significance of renouncing material possessions and prioritizing spiritual virtues. By engaging readers through positive reinforcement and appealing to their higher sensibilities, we can inspire change in behavior that transcends engrained socio-economic paradigms.

Get out of Eurozone and get back monitory policy. Otherwise Italy will become duty-free dumping ground for German goods

I get it. Had to slow it down but I liked the light put on the systems at play.

Inconstrained capitalism is just as bad as I constrained communism or socialism. We have barely constrained capitalism in the US.

Oh, the Romanticism of Numbers!

Bring on that Carrington Event 2.0 !! the global reset button.

The real problem is Organisational Capture of democracy. This will happen wherever fake organisations are allowed to gather together into higher fake organisations. The whole concept of what an organisation is - is it Natural (real) or Un-Natural (fake). My channel contains a videobook on this subject called The Individualist Manifesto. One should study this in the light of these discussions.

27:45 Mr Haidt has previously advocated for heterodox thinking, so I wish he had explored this a bit more. Part of the reason for radicalization on the Right has the capture of virtually all major institutions by the Left. Conservatives have been rendered effectively extinct in places like Academia, Hollywood, Tech, and even old bastions such as the Corporate world. That is necessarily going to push many otherwise centrist conservatives to the extremes, irrespective of the ways social media influences people.

I've been saying this about Babel for years!

The dating market has changed DRASTICALLY. Over 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. Women report NO decline. The market has skewed to a power law distribution. On the dating apps, about 4.5% of men are receiving 90% of the "right swipes." Women report 80% of all men as "unattractive/below average". What does this show (other than the fact that women are bad at math)?

Yes let's blame everything but ourselves.