Economic Schools of Thought: Crash Course Economics #14

[@edvogt4039]

Economists and weather forecasters are the only people who can be wrong all the time and keep their job.

[@ruans.p.5323]

Lmao.

[@lkrader1]

lol

[@braintumor9811]

And religion teachers.

[@ferrarkumar1103]

Neoclassical be like that Not Mises, tho

[@alexandrebravardlopez3363]

Wrong

[@JasonCTillmann]

My wife is a Keynesian.... she's always spending herself out of depressions. Great episode!! Rock-on!!

[@GopikaVyas]

I am a 70 yr old Grandma from India , and knew very little about the terms used in Economics as I was a student of Biology, but thank you guys and ur team for making this so simple and clear.Though I wish you could go a little slow .Thank you once again!😊

[@concretewindow1078]

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday, did't happen today." -Laurence J. Peter

[@Ronin969]

false theories tend to be wrong, while the obvious one hasn't even had the opportunity to be tried in modern times

[@clarasm5943]

*Main outtakes of this lesson* - Economic theories are constantly being proven, disproven and revised. *Incorrect theories* Thomas Malthus - In 1798, he argued that population growth would outpace food production. Social darwinism - assistance to poor people and welfare are socially immoral. Combined ideas of Darwin & Malthus. *1) Capitalism* - free markets and private property Adam Smith - "The wealth of nations", 1776. A person following their own self-interest could end up serving the common good. David Ricardo - Theory of comparative advantage: two people or countries can both benefit from trade, even if one of them can produce more of everything (when both focus on what they're best at and then trade, everyone benefits). John Maynard Keynes - markets and economies don't self-correct quickly because prices and wages take time to adjust. During recessions, the government must get involved by using monetary and fiscal policy to increase output and decrease unemployment. *2) Communism* - collective ownership of the means of production in a stateless and classless system - _Communist Manifesto_ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848 - history is explained by the conflict between workers and property owners. Establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922. *3) Classical economics* (capitalist ideas) - _Principles of economics_ by Alfred Marshall, 1890. Government intervention is seen as harmful for the economy. - Supply and demand. Marginal utility. *4) Socialism* - the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. - Private property and markets. Government ownership of industry. Significant regulation. Big public programs like universal healthcare. Examples: Norway, Sweden, Spain, France... *5) Austrian school of economics* - Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. - Regulation and government involvement has never produced the results it promised. It's seen as a problem, not a solution. - Milton Friedman in the US - Chicago School of Economics, proposing privatization, deregulation and school vouchers. *6) Monetarism* - Monetarists focus on price stability and argue the money supply should be increased slowly and predictably to allow for steady growth. *7) Supply-side economics or trickle-down economics* - Deregulation and cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes. *8) New neoclassical synthesis* - Unified theory that includes ideas from classical economics, including monetarism, and Keynesian economics. It is the basis of mainstream economics today. China and Cuba are not communists anymore, they're capitalists. North Korea is communist.

[@dorkmax7073]

>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

[@dexboat1733]

The problem is 'successful' is subjective. People in European countries accept restrictions for additional benefits and security that perhaps Americans would not.

[@detlefchicken4938]

Firstly Scandinavia is a nightmare. Secondly yes they aren’t socialist. big government =/ socialism Thirdly We don’t have implement everything not socialist

[@jack4810]

The problem is that the social policies in Scandinavia are left-wing (some use the label socialist) whilst the economic policy is questionable. People are against the importing of these social policies. The economic policy is too varied, it depends where we zoom in. In the case of where there is a socialist industry (for example, Beveridge healthcare in Norway), the general consensus is that it is only successful (if it even is successful) because of the much smaller population sizes (source: Euro Health Consumer Index).

[@detlefchicken4938]

ZombifiedFish I was talking about market socialism. No doubt that Scandinavia has big government but calling it socialist would be arguable. They don’t call themselves socialists and most citizens don’t think of their country as socialists. At the end it all comes down to the interpretation of the term socialist.

[@detlefchicken4938]

Julius Maximus that is an interesting statement

[@khiemluong4591]

"This guy looks like Mark Cuban, but not as attractive or rich" - Mark Cuban

[@JacobAClifford]

Hilarious

[@actualideas8078]

Khiem Luong Cuban is a big fan of Ayn Rand

[@nesssssssaaah]

Dudes just helped me aced my test by 80/95. Thanks Crash Course dudes!

[@crim741]

Hum

[@moscanaveia]

Is the 15 points you missed due to mislabeling social democracy - a reformist capitalist ideology - as socialism?

[@michaelporter2103]

Denmark isn't Socialist.

[@J10005]

Michael Porter They're Democratic socialist

[@J10005]

72.5% kek Asian You're half right they're free-market capitalists while having a strong welfare state.

[@CycleGirl-77]

"Social Market Economy" is probably the best term and the one used by influential European leaders.

[@Redsoxvsyankees]

Bruh, if you don't consider a country where you pay 50%+ of you income in taxes yearly like Denmark, then I don't know what is.

[@kimmogensen4888]

Rhonda Sweden, Denmark and Norway have a Social-Democrat economic model = free market economy and capitalism. The leaders in the Scandinavian countries do not call it socialism.

[@robokarizma0308]

No one: Malthus: 'We all are going to die of hunger.'

[@actualideas8078]

ROBO karizma haha classic economics

[@aviralgupta393]

We really are I'm not joking.

[@silvanoramirez4921]

Haha chicken go cluck cluck

[@actualideas8078]

Aviral Gupta buy some canned food and a gun

[@TheOsamaBahama]

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.

[@stratecaster547]

What exactly does "economic freedom mean"? Does that mean least regulated? Population with most disposable income and consumer freedom? I think a clear definition of "economic freedom" is important. Becuase I'm not sure the US will enjoy Scandinavian success if we just de-regulate everything.

[@Ianassa91]

Pretty sure Nordic economic freedom is high due to relatively low corporate taxes and regulation. The individual on the other hand is taxed dry. I seriously doubt my country can come even close to the US in consumer purchasing power. Another factor that contributing to Nordic success is relatively high IQ average, we are ethnically homogeneous and crime is low, as that tends to correlate with stability.

[@timothysmith4343]

@@Ianassa91 When corporations and politicians come together to create crony capitalism, it is the people who are "taxed dry." It is good to have a high IQ but is also important to be business and finance savvy. The general public lacks in this area and therefore, they are taken advantage of. There is plenty of crony capitalism (Trump termed the swamp) that occurs in the which fortunately Trump is eliminating during his presidency. Trump lowered corporate taxes and this seems to have been passed on to workers in the form of higher wages and consumers through stable somewhat. Nonetheless, individuals in the USA have high taxes and pay the corporate tax as well; how? In the end, corporations have to make a return, after tax, for their shareholders and this comes at consumer higher prices when corporations and businesses are taxed more.

[@williamcrawford7621]

Timothy Smith It isn't that worker's wages aren't increasing. Rather, the corporations have the tax cuts that they reinvest in themselves. This creates more jobs and increases the supply of their goods and/or services, thereby reducing the price and making the dollar of the consumer worth more.

[@jessieurena7583]

@@Ianassa91 ah the alt right theory supported by no casual data

[@ottohalbhuber4706]

Social democracy and socialism are very different.

[@Stikibits]

“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)

[@Stikibits]

Inorganic Vegan That's because you've been fed fascist propaganda from lunatics like Murdoch and the Kochs, that cherry picks and omits facts so they're not in their proper context. Smith was Enlightened and prescribed to EQUALITY, Natural Human Rights and certainly wouldn't support any of the fascism foisted under his name by irrational, greedy and tyrannical USA. Hitler and Mussolini would both be proud of current-day USA, though.

[@Stikibits]

Madog Llewellyn piss off, you-lying-lunatic. Get some credible sources and don't spread lies on my posts, thx.

[@alexsitaras6508]

+Inorganic Vegan the goal of capitalism was to produce wealth that everyone can grow off and enjoy, i would say it has been derailed that the situation is still salvageable if we can save it before the communists destroy more cultures and freedom

[@alexsitaras6508]

Stikibits Sadly you speak the truth The US government holds too much power to be puppeteered by major corporations and other lobbies If American citizens fail to get a hold back on our government in an intelligent manner we wont be the only ones to suffer the fallout. Places like Taiwan and South Korea could suffer greatly if we slip too far. We used to actually stand for protecting freedom. We fought a bloody war and took to the streets for each other. US history is, may be was, a story of extending the freedoms of the Constitution to everyone in the country, but I think we may have lost our spark.

[@Stikibits]

Alex Sitaras The Government is the People. Think poorly, vote poorly, get governed poorly. It's the fascist tyrants who hold too much power; people like Murdoch, the Kochs and all those greed-crazed, corporate lunatics (fascists). The USA isn't an objective, enlightened and equitable society of good conscience, so it's shit.

[@tavoh3200]

>Scandinavia >Socialist This is how you tell if someone has never read a primary source in their life

[@lampard98jr]

?

[@lampard98jr]

@Aileron you talking to me?

[@lampard98jr]

I fear i don't find anywhere in the video where one of them said that that any of the scandinavian countries are socialist. Bad strawman from Tavo H.

[@lampard98jr]

@Aileron No, he only said that they are pursuing socialism (which they are), and that their socialist policies are apparently doing well.

[@lampard98jr]

@Aileron Don't know about the trends in Sweden or Denmark, but Norway is definitely turning more red. More regulations and taxation on businesses, private property rights are limited, tariff barriers are high, tax burden is getting bigger (sugar tax increased by 87% this year) and labour policies are strict.

[@luisrojas6665]

Really hard to belive that they are experts. When they said that scandinavia is rule by socialism, when there is nothing more capitalism that a country with free market

[@magnapraetorem]

Never mind, they just called Scandinavia socialist.

[@arturyeon]

+Dave Kiely Social Democratic. Outside of North America, this is the term used for centuries and really the only one you should use. Basically, socialism is the abolishment of private property (that is to say, no one can own means of production) while social democracy is a mostly Keynesian capitalist society that has very strong regulations and social services.

[@notreallymuslim6659]

+Artur Yeon Pretty sure socialosm is the abolition of private ownership of the meams of production, unless the definition is different outside Murica

[@notreallymuslim6659]

+notreallymuslim means*

[@arturyeon]

notreallymuslim English isn't my native language, that was what I wanted to say. And Scandinavia is thus not socialist, even though they are regularly painted out to be by US politicians.

[@Oktoberr]

+JMan But socialists don't. It's a misuse of the word. It's one thing for the everyday person to get it mixed up after 80 years of propaganda likening keynsianism and the welfare state to communism and socialism, but another for an educated person- let alone an economist- to get them confused or peddle this bunk. Socialism is abolition of private control of the means of production for empowerment of the working class, end of story. We can sit around jerking ourselves off over Scandanavia and Bernie Sanders all day but socialists and communists are trying to take the label back and not making progress because of this sort of thing.

[@shreder89]

and so the 100 year flamewars in the comment section begun...

[@a0point0of0view1]

+shreder89 luckily some idiot will make a comparison to the Nazis and all will converge on said fool.

[@jaredtheurer6309]

"Water. Earth. Fire. Air. Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked. Only the Avatar, master of all four elements, could stop them, but when the world needed him most, he vanished. A hundred years passed and my brother and I discovered the new Avatar, an airbender named Aang. And although his airbending skills are great, he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But I believe Aang can save the world

[@templarking6819]

+Jared Theurer I think i just found the Best Comment ever ! ahaha

[@Jackboy019]

+Jared Theurer DAMN YOU, YOU BEAT ME TO IT!

[@Jackboy019]

+shreder89 Yo, The comment section makes the best mix tapes.

[@ajjosh3548]

I've never gotten less than expected from crash course. You guys are simply good at what you do. Simple, brief and fun.

[@ivinspates77]

Opportunity Cost - - one of the most underrated subtopics of economics.. yet, one of the most important subtopics in economics imho.

[@mergele1000]

Which has the worse comment section? CCEconomics or CCHistory? Vote now!

[@CT_Taylor]

+mergele1000 What history one

[@mergele1000]

Franklin D. Roosevelt World history.

[@cloudycloudi631]

history, is that even a competition?

[@EconCow]

+mergele1000 Ha true. Everyone has an opinion on economics or history because they think they know something about it. In contrast, most people have no opinion on electrons or the Higgs boson, which is why you see fewer stupid comments for educational videos on the pure sciences. ↑↑Watch my videos on economics!↑↑

[@isaacgans290]

Ayyyy... 👹👹🔥

[@lukaverheul5242]

oh my god imagine thinking denmark is socialist I can't

[@saricubra2867]

It's like saying that North Korea has capitalism.

[@egoistsolidarity8501]

North Korea has capitalism, but Denmark is not socialist.

[@comrade1158]

Egoist Solidarity imagine thinking Denmark is even real. (p.s. nice profile picture)

[@geekymedia1614]

@@comrade1158 Denmark isnt socialist but neither is Bernie Sanders. They are both merely Social democratic something which has a lot of traction in Europe and in the American populace(polls reveal a plurality support for policies like Medicare for all), which the mainstream media and US politicians are brainwashing the public by calling these ideas fringe

[@comrade1158]

Geeky Media I don’t recall any politicians saying Denmark isn’t real. Most politicians seem to agree that it is real. That is the real brainwashing. Wake up sheeple.

[@hopnotbellatrix290]

All the people who contributed into the creation and production of this episode.. you are awesome. Thanks.

[@SexualPotatoes]

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.

[@Onodera1980]

+Sexual Potatoes "Here" in the comments or "here" on CrashCourse?

[@SexualPotatoes]

Onodera1980 Comments of Crash Course economics, specifically.

[@Onodera1980]

I agree

[@mankytoes]

+Sexual Potatoes Agreed, on the last comments section I was trying to explain this to a guy who was saying anyone who deviated from his libertarian view was obviously an idiot. People rarely see themselves as dogmatic. "But it's a fact! I'm right!".

[@TheScourge007]

+Sexual Potatoes If a person is not an expert in a field, then trusting accredited experts over non-experts is the correct course of action. I know little about physics, so should I put more trust in what Stephen Hawking says or what the Time Cube guy says? If I know nothing about physics, I still know that those who are experts are considered as such because they learned a lot about physics and have views which are defensible for other people who know a lot about physics. For people that spout off information that most experts reject, yes there is a chance they're right but it's a very low chance because there are so many more ways to be wrong about a subject than there are to be right about it, and people who aren't experts are under far less pressure to be rigorous as long as they're talking to a lay audience exclusively. Disagreeing with experts is fine, if a person has done the research and learning needed to become an expert him/herself. Otherwise, what has most likely happened is s/he just made an error that's hard to see without expert knowledge and training. So the people who don't trust what non-experts have to say when those non-experts disagree with experts are being rational. It simply takes an understanding that sounding plausible and being true are two uncorrelated skills, and the former is a LOT easier than the latter.

[@youssefbouchi3010]

looks like it’s always been easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism, right Malthus?

[@IXPrometheusXI]

It upsets me that, too frequently, discussions about economic policy are presented as moral debates. One side complaining that politicians don't care for the poor, with another griping that the "undeserving" are reaping the benefits of entrepreneurship. At the end of the day, what we all want it simple - for everyone to have as much as possible for as little as possible. At the heart of these disagreements isn't a difference of moral opinion, but of economic paradigm. I wish we could have more discussion about what economic policies actually do, with less inflammatory rhetoric about the moral stature of minds from different schools.

[@xenoblad]

aren't you assuming what people want?

[@IXPrometheusXI]

xenoblad I'm not assuming. I realize that there are significantly sized groups that wouldn't agree with those ends, but I think the majority of lay people can get behind the idea that more and more accessible wealth for all is a good thing. My skepticism is about large, widespread differences in fundamental values. I think disagreement is often about empirical questions (what the end results of different policies would be), but the national debate doesn't reflect this.

[@marijnmoleman7703]

+Taylor Bennett You're assuming that what's best for the group is best for the individual (most economic growth for society as a whole), or philosophical collectivism, which is already a moral stance. The way wealth should be distributed is a political and moral issue and we can't ignore that.

[@jeremymiller4189]

+Taylor Bennett One would think doing the right thing is the ideal all humans aspire to. Do you not like it when people mention malthuse and social Darwinism?

[@princeofexcess]

+Taylor Bennett Even if you make the debate only about what is the best system so everyone has as much as possible you will have people disagreeing with one another. (and i think in pure capitalism everyone will have much more than in any other system) But how do you know that the goal of everyone having as much as possible is a worthy goal to pursue without having a moral argument in the first place. Economics will forever be tied to morality and what is wrong and right. Otherwise you do not have any reason to believe one thought of economics is better than the other. You have to measure it based on some scale and that scale has to be based on some sort of morality. And your statement is inherently flawed because you say everyone. While economics doesnt work that way. You cannot equally make everyone have more of everything. You have to decide if everyone having more means everyone has equal? Or do you mean that everyone in the country has way more as a group but some people have less.

[@PedroAraujo93391]

The Scandinavian countries have a freer economy, Denmark is economically freer than the US.

[@carrcorp2]

Exactly

[@josepablogramajo1601]

Scandinavian countries do not have minimum wage laws.

[@sssummmak]

if you define freer as having high tax burden and a lot of redistribution of capital then yes...

[@goldenraven2046]

They are freer because they have a lower regulatory burden.

[@sssummmak]

GoldenRaven20 Can you be more exact? In what sphere?

[@adamschmoetzer1854]

Supply-side economist Thomas Sowell says that “trickle-down” is a misconception

[@nathanw.3187]

Glad to see his name in this comment section

[@chrisrichardson5462]

Trickle-down is merely a derogatory/colloquial term used for political purposes. Thomas Sowell knows what he's talking about, and if you are studying Sowell, then you are in good company.

[@tweaker1bms]

Cause it's more like "trickle-on" amirite?! :D

[@treboleekem499]

@@chrisrichardson5462 MISES > SOWELL, lol

[@owlblocksdavid4955]

@@treboleekem499 how so?

[@TomHasVideo]

If a KZbin video is ignoring KZbin comments, I'd say they're doing it right.

[@EconCow]

+TomHasVideo Most comments are awful, but occasionally some have valuable feedback. So I wouldn't ignore all KZbin comments. ↑↑Watch my KZbin videos on economics!↑↑

[@TomHasVideo]

Econ Cow I agree. My comments are the good ones!

[@101yayo]

+TomHasVideo I like your style.

[@minimooster7258]

your name is suitably ironic

[@TheOsamaBahama]

+TomHasVideo The producers can't ignore the comment section. Here is where their public are ! Giving all the client feedback information they need.

[@BorreLira]

5:52 Adriene: (Austrian School of Economics) They also have a very vocal fan base in our comment sectiom Me: 👀 😗

[@adamtrott78]

Lotta ancaps here

[@Delbertfrost2000]

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

[@grantkirby8813]

Because Keynesian economics is the mainstream economic system and is the best economic system.

[@Delbertfrost2000]

Grant Kirby Best economic system to promote for the left and justify their coercive powerful government, and indoctrinate it into the youth like the government is their best friend, like it is a cornucopia, to make them believe it is absolutely necessary.

[@nathanwright7775]

They went into this at the end of the video. Watch the entire thing before commenting.

[@Delbertfrost2000]

+Nat Wright I meant as in their next economics lessons, they just go on with the Keynesian doctrine.

[@nathanwright7775]

Delbert Frost Keynesian economists teach Keynesian Economics.

[@cmckee42]

All those nice people in the credits section are great too!

[@budiman-kx8dt]

" 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

[@wokeeye6441]

Always quoting your master eh?

[@dustinarroyo8005]

budiman 31 nice, a lolbertarian

[@parallaxcrafttale]

Austrian school is where it is at.

[@PrivateAckbar]

Labour Have you converted to socialism since this?

[@angryjack8206]

Corbyn you are drunk go home :P

[@J4CK4L7]

@lil recycle bin no he's turned into a homeless anti-semite

[@Jamo12]

Milton Friedman is a very smart and wise man

[@sjp2649]

Said no one ever

[@sjp2649]

***** Was that supposed to be funny? Is everyone who disagrees with Friedman about anything automatically economically illiterate? Why do you live in such a pathetic, stunted world? I have so many questions.

[@zsombornagy3935]

“Here I am. Crawling through barbed wire, over landlines through rivers and mountains, so that I can escape the evils of free market capitalism” - said no one, ever

[@lavamatstudios]

I'm sure some people did in the early years of the Soviet Union;

[@Murdoch_Industries]

>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

[@lavamatstudios]

They're communist ideologically. I know this comment is well intended, but don't be pedantic.

[@tannervfx7780]

Slinky Dad Shoutcasting None of the named countries above are currently socialist, the only legitimate socialist nations were the Soviet Union until 1956ish and Albania until 1991. Liberals still can't understand that socialism is not anything the government does.

[@marchingmusicvideos2081]

Hoxha Edits That's why he said communism not socialism.

[@Pridetoons]

Slinky Dad Shoutcasting China, Cuba, and North Korea aren't Communist.

[@zacdybeck1110]

People view Communism as on-going process not a final goal. As it can most likely never be 100% achieved. Similar to how full 100% capitalism can't be achieved because not all property in the world is private property.

[@HardAkito]

So, the game has a lot of bugs and economists update the game very so often to fix it, but... These bugs don't disappear.

[@ElijahBlantonAntioch]

Great video! It's important to recognize that the Soviet Union was actually a socialist country by any definition of socialism, with communism as the ultimate goal of the state. (You mentioned in a previous video that communism has never fully been achieved). Calling socialist countries communist and socialist-influenced capitalist countries socialist is actually somewhat misleading.

[@mattizie91]

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.

[@sharann3482]

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.

[@MrMatt135791113]

This isn't true, many countries do through sovereign wealth funds. It's the reason for Norway's continued economic success.

[@coolbeans6148]

Agreed

[@raularaujostrw]

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? 🙄

[@Stone_624]

I once saw a description "Keynesian = Spending => Economic Growth ||| Austrian = Savings => Economic Growth" In the Keynesian model, Spending is key. You could save money to spend in the future (meaning no spending until later), OR you could use debt to spend RIGHT NOW! and pay off what you spend now over the next 237 years. Meanwhile Austrian model says Saving is key. The more savings people have, the more they're able to spend, and the more able and willing they are to do so. When you pay cash for something, and don't finance it, you reap the FULL fruit of the investment, and don't loose 80% of the revenue potential to for 360 months. When an investment generates 4x the standard cashflow for the same price, that's what REAL growth looks like.

[@goncalo3950]

The Nordic countries aren't Socialist. They are Social-democracies. The Soviet Union was Socialist

[@786sami786]

Keynesian Economics is the reason for all our economic woes now. This tremendous government debt needs to be taken care of some time. Keynesians are all about pushing the consequences of our bad policies into the future for short term benefit. We know that as individuals if we have uncontrollable spending and debt, we will have to suffer sooner or later. Maybe not right away because we get to buy lavish homes and cars but it comes at a cost. Keynesians gave you the 2008 recession. Austrian Economics is very appealing. Perhaps this video doesn't do it justice but have a listen to the likes of Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Jim Grant, Peter Schiff etc. These guys understood a lot of the problems that led to the 2008 recession and predicted the recession. They continue to gain credibility as the Keynesian Federal Reserve continues to lose it.

[@sebastianmendoza1624]

Friedman isn't Austrian lmao. He hated the Austrians. He was a huge critic of the ABCT.

[@RadicalShiba1917]

Friedman was Chicago school, kinda like the Austrain school but their methodology isn't a joke

[@RadicalShiba1917]

Also, neoliberalism isn't Keynesianism

[@PrivateAckbar]

On monetary economics Friedman was a Keynesian, and methodologically he subscribed to an extreme variant of positivism: the opposite of rationalism and the logical deductive method.

[@NotADuncon]

Austrian economics was tested in many emerging markets and failed. It was heavily exported to South America in the 70s and it destabilized their economies tremendously. One yeah you had a 5% growth to have a 3.5% DECREASE the next. Hell Pinochet was criticized for taking left leaning economic changes in the 80s but only then the Chilean economy stabilized and now right wing economists give him credit for saving the Chille economy. Funny thing is he saved it from himself and their ideas. Overall the history of radical free market experiements is a history of failure because people who support it view economy as a religion and if their ideas don't work they just say "more deregulation" ad infinitum. I'm in no means a fan of communism (I just dislike people who are factually incorrect) but there have been national experiements far closer to what the Austrians wanted to what Marx wanted. The only remotely true communist experiments was a brief period right after the Russian Revolution but that's too short to study and what Allende was trying in Chille but his economy was under US embargo and it was heavily reliant on natural resources

[@soupy4099]

Next time Dante goes to the ninth ring of hell, Lucifer's going to have a fourth, yellow head eternally chewing Milton Friedman.

[@asyb9440]

It's painful to see economic illiterates argue in the comments section. I mean I'm just a first year undergrad student of economics, but even I can disprove a lot of the rubbish that is being spouted in this comment section.

[@vanadium6021]

Asy B I love it how the 9 likes this got a probably from people who would fall under this category.

[@merrillseq]

A myriad range of macroeconomic concepts, beautifully summarized. Well done @crashcourse . This is great content!

[@hugodeanda]

Austrians came before Keynes and they refuted him and socialists too. It's a shame if this video is not corrected.

[@Dynamodalia]

They may have come before, but they weren’t influential. Hayek was defeated by Keynes at that moment in time.

[@dhv2852]

Hayek was after Keynes, and he was the most important of the Austrians

[@Swift-mr5zi]

@@dhv2852 oh no no

[@wokeeye6441]

In your dreams

[@Zorro9129]

@@dhv2852 Hayek refuted Keynes but he was the inferior to Mises. Rothbard was the true successor of Mises.

[@Secretsofsociety]

Humm I was really hoping they would get into the mechanics of how communism works. Guess I have to read Das Kapital

[@Bjswac]

no, you will burn your neurons

[@murat9268]

Look SSCB and see how socialism and communism work. There are lots of theories in the world. They do not work in real world. Just look at tianmen massacre or 1921 and 1932 starvation...

[@Secretsofsociety]

Murdy Baskan Agreed. I am a Finance student who has a lot of leftist friends. I am interested because after taking accounting I just don't see how it could be better or even more fair than capitalism.

[@noamchomskyisbae3240]

Look up the anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish civil war.

[@murat9268]

Some social working systems work in highly moral societies in small scale, small monasiteries apply that. But, there is no incentive to work and risk yourself in socialist communities. Lots of suffering, but no gain...

[@whychooseausername]

Economy is a science and these theories have been tested. The Chicago school destroyed south America. Socialism (communism has never been tried out since there is a socialist step in between capitalism and communism) transformed rural and underdeveloped Russia into the biggest industrial country in the world. And it is still working for Cuba today (despite the fact that they have almost no trade with the rest of the world since the end of the Soviet Union bc of US military action).

[@alexandertruuvert2037]

Maybe but Russia fucked sooooooooo many countries up (like Estonia where I'm from) and it is responsible for around 100 million deaths.

[@Grumpini]

+whychooseausername "The Chicago school destroyed south America." o rly? Wikipedia shows me that chicago school policies cut Chile's poverty in half. The “Miracle of Chile” was a term used by Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman to describe the reorientation of the Chilean economy in the 1980s and the benefits of the economic policies applied by a large group of Chilean economists who collectively came to be known as the Chicago Boys, having studied at the University of Chicago where Friedman taught. He said the “Chilean economy did very well, but more importantly, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.”[1] In the early 1970s, Chile experienced chronic inflation, reaching highs of 140 percent per annum, under socialist President Salvador Allende, whose government implemented high protectionist barriers, resulting in a lack of foreign-exchange reserves and falling GDP. The economic reforms implemented by the Chicago Boys had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state-owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. In 1988, 48% of Chileans lived below the poverty line. By 2000 this had been reduced to 20%.

[@scrappmutt2]

+whychooseausername Strange. Only Chile truly embraced the Chicago School. Most of the other countries in South America to include Cuba embraced socialism and now they stand in long lines for toilet paper whilst dodging violent uprising. But, at least there are price controls on the toilet paper.

[@OmbreDunDouble]

Chile? You mean the country who had the worst dictatorship of south america ever? Yeah, thanks to USA for put Pinochet instead of the democratic president Allende.

[@scrappmutt2]

Le Rapace Yep and I guess Venezuela and Cuba get a pass as a workers paradise, some type of hidden oasis of freedom, right? Pinochet believed socialist and communist individuals to be a cancer within their country and he cut them out. While i don't agree with the method, the result was a democratic republic with an outstanding economy after Pinochet stepped out of the way.Compare them to their socialist neighbors in Argentina who have more resources. Chile's economy doesn't have nearly the same amount of problems.

[@hinzzy37]

That AC/DC belt though 10/10

[@jacqueline8288]

as much as I love and appreciate learning about economics, I would love a bonus episode where they roast all of the KZbin commenters

[@Juanfroco1298]

Actually, Classical Economics mostly ended with Ricardo and Mill. Alfred Marshall and his entourage are Neo-Classics, which are pretty different form classical economics in all ways possible.

[@eriksolfors]

It’s kinda contradicting when you first when describing communism defines it as “classless and stateless society” and then use USSR, PRC and North Korea as examples, societies where the states expands greatly and does more than exist. Also, Scandinavia isn’t socialistic, we are social democratic with welfare states. Sure social democracy builds on Marxism but it was a long time since any Scandinavian social democrat or major politician called for a socialist society or mentioned Marx or anything socialistic.

[@Pigou7x]

Tsk...I guess I'll step in then Main outtakes from the lesson: 1. In 1798, Thomas Malthus argued that population growth will outpace food production leading to starvation and death. This idea combined with the idea of Charles Darwin led to "Social Darwinism". 2. In 1776, Adam Smith published "Wealth Of The Nation" where he advocated Free Trade. David Ricardo later proposed "The Theory Of Comparative Advantage"- When both focus on what thy're best at, everyone benefits. 3. 1848 saw the birth of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels which look at economic clashes as conflict between workers and property owners. 4. 1890, Marshall embodied "Classical Economics" with a book 'principle Of Economics". 5. John Maynard Keynes launched the field of macroeconomics after the great recession. They claimed that during recessions ,it is necessary for government to get involved using monetary and fiscal policy too increase output and decrease unemployment. He challenged the classical economist who saw government intervention harmful for the economy. 6. Austrian School Of Economics: by Friedrich Hayek And Ludwig Vonmises argued heavy state involvement has never produced results and regulations were problems. They rejected all form of monetary and fiscal policies. 7. In that same vein, Milton Friedman and the Chicago School Of Economics advocated privatization of many functions which were assumed by the government. 8. Monetarism: It focused on price stability and argued money supply should be increased slowly and predictably to allow steady growth. 9. Supply Side Economics A.K.A Trickle Down Economics advocates deregulation and cutting down taxes especially corporate taxes. 10. Modern economics takes idea from classical economics including Keynesian and monetarism. This unified theory is called the Neo-Classical Synthesis

[@petergollingtn6833]

You know, kudos to them to actually treat each aspect equally unfairly. Especially since it is so condensed I can appreciate it.

[@Nick-bh5bk]

Quantitative Easing IV, just started again a couple of months ago. The Austrian School is sitting pretty comfortably. Too bad the world will have to learn the hard way, yet again...

[@multihrab]

God bless F.A Hayek and the Free Market

[@lars123mc]

Robin Hood yea, cuz jesus was a socialist

[@irenearahal9638]

Yeah say that to Chileans

[@gustafwiberg5033]

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!

[@ferrarkumar1103]

Please, teach them about Human Action.

[@ExPwner]

Keynes wasn't just proven wrong by modern empirical evidence. He was proven wrong by Bastiat decades before Keynes was born. Yes, us Austrians are vocal because we know economics. That's why you have people calling you out on the Keynesian garbage. Those ideas haven't worked on paper or in practice.

[@andrebarros7703]

"empirical" friedman loves that word lol :D

[@ExPwner]

Really? I hadn't noticed. I know that Austrians usually prefer a priori statements and working things out logically, though.

[@haloljt]

You do know that your economic school rejects empirical evidence, and that therefore saying keynesianism is disproven by empirical evidence while subscribing to the austrian school is an outright contradiction, right?

[@ExPwner]

Benjamin Ljunggren just because I like Austrian economics doesn't mean that I reject empirical evidence entirely. While one could disprove Keynesian economics with basic logic (as Bastiat did), I'm going the extra mile by beating them on their own turf. It's been a failure on paper and in practice.

[@haloljt]

***** I don't disagree. It worked well during the great depression, but only to create new flaws.

[@tolkienpop]

Thanks Jacob and Adriene, and the rest of the CrashCourse team. I just subscribed and this is my second video and I've learned a lot. Definitely going to be making an Economic Reading list. Loved the video!

[@manickamdhayalan]

You guys are great. I'm an engineer getting lots of new stuffs watching your videos. Keep up the good work.

[@eduinccs]

Venezuela's Economy is one of the biggest and best examples to demonstrate why hard government intervention is not the correct way to go, balanced within private and government sector is probably the best approach. But still, in that specific economy there are so many factor to take into account. It would be nice to see a video about that case study.

[@johnc1014]

Yah, I'm definitely supportive of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics. Politically, I'm a Minarchist Libertarian. I believe the only legitimate role of government is to protect people's rights to their own person/property and to punish those who infringe on these rights of others These rights include infringements on individuals' person/property such as murder, rape, theft, and fraud. The government protects against such infringements through law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. Everything else should be left to the people to decide for themselves. I do support lower taxes, but only after we get a few things taken care of. 1) Eliminate all illegitimate roles of government (everything except federal law enforcement, justice system, and military) which temporarily keeping taxes constant. 2) Use that additional tax revenue to pay off the national debt. 3) Then, eliminate all federal taxes and replace them with a single flat consumption tax that has one of the least negative impacts on economic growth of any tax, is fair to all, and also has exemptions on certain staple food items so as to not disadvantage the poor. Let me show what I mean with the numbers: The national debt is about $20 trillion. The 2015 budget had a total revenue of $3.8 trillion ($583 billion of which was borrowing). By far the largest of those three legitimate roles of government is military spending at $598 billion. Including the other two roles, let's say total legitimate expenditures amount to $700 billion. That leaves $2.517 trillion/year to pay off the national debt ($3.8 trillion minus $700 billion in legitimate spending minus $583 billion in additional borrowing; no more adding to the debt). $20 trillion divided by $2.517 trillion means we would have the debt paid off in 7.95 years (about 2 presidential terms). Once we eliminated all illegitimate spending and the national debt, now would cut all federal taxes. They would be replaced with a single flat consumption tax. Americans spend about $10.7 trillion per year. The government would need to raise $700 billion. Also, we must account for those exemptions on staple food items. Let's say that reduces taxable spending to $8 trillion. $700 billion divided by $8 trillion means there would only be a single tax rate of 8.75% for everyone. However, this can be further reduced through making those few legitimate roles more efficient and effective. To start, I don't believe the military should be involved in any nation that we are currently not at war with. That makes the over $150 billion we spend on foreign military bases illegitimate. That reduces the total government spending from $700 billion down to $550 billion. That reduces that tax rate to 6.88% ($550 billion divided by $8 trillion). Also, though I am skeptical about these legitimate roles being privatized, I am open to trying. I don't believe they are sufficient, but we do already have private armies, security services, and courts. As for state governments, I would want them to follow the same model, but I would definitely not want the federal government to enforce it.

[@johnc1014]

***** If you had read my views, you'd see that I'm completely anti-Marxist. Marxism can go to hell. It is a wretched economic philosophy that deserves to be thrown in the garbage. It has led to the deaths of millions, and oppression of countless more.

[@ExPwner]

You can't protect property if you're stealing it. Taxation is theft and all goods and services should be bought/sold on the market. Machinery of Freedom

[@johnc1014]

***** I completely agree that all goods/services should be bought and sold on the market, according to the demands of consumers. Regarding taxation, I understand that it is theft. I do not deny that. However, I see at least some taxation as being necessary for some legitimate government that protects people's rights to their own person and property. If we ever managed to reduce government to a single tax and only those three functions (law enforcement, justice system, and military) that protect people's rights, then I would certainly consider alternatives to even that.

[@ExPwner]

John C there can be no "legitimate" government if its operation is based upon theft. If I started a business that purported to protect your rights, it wouldn't follow that I could "tax" you. It logically follows that there cannot be any exceptions for people calling themselves "government." I don't think one thing has to follow another. For example, there's a private police force that's doing great work in Detroit right now. Private arbitration is also making gains in today's market. While most would consider an immediate and sudden shift from today's environment to one of completely private entities to be chaotic and perhaps catastrophic, I don't think we'd have to leave things like police, courts and military for the last things to change. If you haven't already checked out Machinery of Freedom (there's a good video here on youtube), I'd strongly recommend it. Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but I would like to see more market options for these industries in my lifetime.

[@johnc1014]

***** ""For example, there's a private police force that's doing great work in Detroit right now. Private arbitration is also making gains in today's market." Alright. So, those are good alternatives to law enforcement and a justice system. Now, what about military? Let's say a foreign nation decides they want to conquer our own. I can hardly see private police forces, and even private armed citizens being capable of mounting an effective defense. Sure, they'd put of a good fight and maybe inflict a good deal of damage on the invader. However, they wouldn't last long against a national military anywhere near something like the U.S. military today. . . . . "While most would consider an immediate and sudden shift from today's environment to one of completely private entities to be chaotic and perhaps catastrophic" This is why I specifically target my plan at the federal level. The states would still be permitted to each have their own functions. Ideally, the federal government's shift would be fairly immediate and the states would gradually follow thereafter. They would take some of the roles previously held by the federal government. They would let others fall away near immediately. Of those that are kept, they would be gradually thrown out as well. . . . . "If you haven't already checked out Machinery of Freedom" I haven't heard of that before. I'll check it out.

[@anibalnikov47]

9:18 hear that now in 2020

[@Baraka-t5m]

Thank you so much for teaching us about economics, before I didn’t really understand economics but after watching your videos I am now understanding it a little more

[@armstrong2052]

Austrian economics, I believe is the best solution to our current situation.

[@Bjswac]

+TankMusic no it isnt. 100% of communist countries ended up on starvatiom or ended up opening their markets.

[@novuml670]

+TankMusic communism cant properly allocate goods efficiently in an advanced economy

[@novuml670]

*****​ Very poorly, not to mention that division of labour cant be properly implemented in socialism. Also, in a post revolution stateless communist society, the lack of surplus could be devastating to an economy is people get put of out work because of something like a flu, in such economies goods would only be produced up to demand, rather than flowing with the market in order to set prices efficiently

[@novuml670]

*****​ What do you do if there is a lack of people in a specific specialized job field, for example surgeons (which i personally dont think we will ever have a lack of) but lets just use it as example. it would be extremely difficult to push anyone torwards these specialized jobs without the incentive that the supply and demand of a market provide for workers or coercion.

[@sharksandwich101]

Lost credibility when they said Cuba was moving towards capitalism

[@agr_]

and China

[@nautical1078]

@@agr_ China isn't moving towards capitalism, it already is capitalism + cronyism.

[@salomonlevin8288]

Cuba is actually moving towards Communism and are only temporarily adopting some Capitalist policies to keep them afloat while the United States trade blockade is still there

[@salomonlevin8288]

I've seen their economy improve not because of capitalism but because of communism

[@salomonlevin8288]

Sure they have a long way to go but they're making progress

[@CycleGirl-77]

Pretty good video. I disagreed with the statement that North Korea was too isolated to be a test case. South Korea has prospered enormously. If ever there was a real world test of opposing economic theories, it was North and South Korea. Two countries with everything in common except for the structure of their government and economy. Capitalism clearly proved the better system for creating wealth for the most people.

[@AkamiChannel]

Rhonda Good point, and they aren’t isolated either as they have had access to China’s economy for a long time.

[@marcze2525]

Good video but 1 thing is very misleading. Showing Denmark while talking about socialism. DENKMARK is more economic FREE than USA Countries who are more economic free than USA: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austrialia, Chile, Ireland, Estonia Heck EVEN CANADA is more economic free than the USA!!! and Sweden is the 25th most economic free country in the world!

[@zackerycooper1206]

Um, that's exactly what it equals, Socialism usually possesses what is close to a command economy. It is an economic system that entails regulation: whether that is negative or positive is irrelevant.

[@IlGiftedlI]

Zackery Cooper Socialism is not regulation of the businesses but owning those businesses themselves.

[@HEZELDO]

It's always weird for me to hear references to my country, Denmark. Usually it's so small that it gets ignored and nobody even knows it exists xD

[@rgaleny]

IT'S SO NICE TO HEAR HOW PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE ARE AND HAT THERE'S NO MORAL HAZARD AT ALL.

[@Lag22987]

Biggest "surprise" we're going to see is robots taking a good chuck of our labor.

[@quantumperception]

+Lui s Lol. No one else talks about this, and its already somewhat of a problem, and it is only going to get worse. Don't get me wrong, I'm for exploring robotics, but it is already increasingly replacing human labor, and that is likely to exponentially increase, as robotics advances, becomes cheaper, and is applied to more jobs. What will our unemployment rate be? Will our income continue to be tied to our job, when nearly all the jobs are filled by robotics? Will there still be tiers of wealth? Will we even still have economic systems or currency? I have always said that I am okay with slave labor, so long as the slave is robotic.

[@o76923]

+quantumperception Humans Need Not Apply from CGP Grey does an excellent job of discussing exactly why this is going to be a problem and soon. The if part of the question is gone because we already have the technologies that can replace 10, 20, or 30% of the workforce. It's just a matter of making them cheaper and making things that are a good investment cheaper is something that capitalism tends to be really really good at. We need to start figuring out now how to deal with an economy that is post labor (in that there will be structural unemployment that 30% of our workforce will be unemployable instead of just unemployed) but not post scarcity (in that we still won't have enough stuff to make everything free). The current solutions from capitalism of "let people starve until the market corrects itself" or communism's "kill the damn robots now while we still have a chance" are both pretty unappealing.

[@joshbobst1629]

+quantumperception I was talking about this with a Microsoft executive who was riding in my cab recently. I suggested that the best answer might be for the government to buy everyone a piece of the stock market when they're born, and put it in trust till x year. He responded that that was an interesting idea, but that his colleagues in the tech world seemed to be converging on the idea of minimum guaranteed income as the right response to the problem.

[@raymondsoto9045]

+Lui s Yeah Doubt it automation since its inception has merely shifted the focus of labor. This can be seen in the decline of agricultural labor jobs then factory jobs.We will merely shift our focus to something like STEM trade work or a completely new type of field altogether I find people are rather conventional and do not see the benefits of increased labor capacity.If robots become a cheaper source of labor this creates reduced input costs and cheaper goods.

[@joshbobst1629]

Raymond Soto You are right, as far as that goes. The problem is that robots will soon be able to do those STEM jobs as well. Cheap robots will reduce input costs and make goods cheaper, but only their owners will benefit, because no one will have jobs with which to afford the things they produce. Also, not everyone has the capabilities to do a STEM job. In the scenario you propose, what are they to do?

[@Scottd86]

Can we get a video focusing on Political Economy?

[@MisterCharlton]

James M. Buchanan is my boy!

[@jvp1286]

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS IS A STRAWMAN!!!

[@emilioriveroc]

Correct me if im wrong but Keynes and Hayek are not classical economists, they are neoclassical economists, also neoclassical economists aren't called neoclassical because the thoughts of Keynesian and monetarism followers are merged but purely because of Marx calling bulgar economists any economist who didn't follow David Ricardo's theory's of political economy and the value of labor, the "neoclassical" economist gave value to labor depending on the relation of the individuals with the utility of the produced good.

[@xStrikie]

In the video they never said that keynes & hayek were classical economists. Hayek is from the Austrian school, while Keynes is awesome enough to have his own name used; keynsian economics

[@saeedbaig4249]

+Strikie To be fair, "Hayekian school" doesn't have the same ring to it.

[@FonsecaStatter]

The contents of the «Manifesto», as well as «Capital», are about Capitalism, not about Socialism or Communism...

[@TheNavalAviator]

Malthus didn't say we would all starve and die off. He predicted that only the spillover population would starve to death.

[@pokoirlyase5931]

And he was wrong since "spillover population" is a scam

[@TheNavalAviator]

Pokoirl YaSe It's not, it's still very possible that population outgrows food production.

[@joshuatyler6984]

africa anyone

[@JamieTheTroll]

You are correct John, that he was talking a spillovers from the steady state population. Although his theory still does not work. Because he believed the main two factors of production was Labour and Land. Hence, he failed to account for capital accumulation - which can occur indefinitely and hence provide long run growth. This is why in the 60's, economic theory (at least the neoclassical side) began to follow the idea of the Solow Model, instead of the Malthusian model.

[@lavamatstudios]

Wasn't a scam in Malthus' time. It very accurately described populations before the industrial revolution.

[@njmudaliar]

Austrian economics FTW!

[@deepankdevate2183]

"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.

[@aaronpeta]

For Those About to Rock... We educate you!

[@planchadepiedra]

less Keynes, more Rothbard.

[@right-winglibertarian3896]

Plancha de PIEDRA now your talking 🖒🖒

[@richardfry5991]

Love the show, watched every episode! I even went as far as adding silly comments.

[@marieerikson]

The people listed on screen are great. I don't know them other than their names and that they had some part in making these videos and yet I know they're great because of the videos and Adrienne Hill said so.

[@Salokin92]

I expected so much more :/ I dunno, it seems the other crash courses give so much more detail of the subject matter...maybe it just seems like this because I study this? ^^

[@notmicrowavesafe]

+Salokin92 This could potentially lead to a deeper dive into each of these systems and how they were implemented, for now it's a brief overview of the various schools of thoughts and from there it could expand into something greater. Also, this is a show primarily aimed at high school kids taking AP Econ. If you're studying Economics at a higher level than this, maybe try looking for other resources that provide that deep dive you're looking for?

[@Salokin92]

You are probably right, but if you compare to certain aspects of other crash courses (History, Biology) they tend to be more "factual", especially when compared to Astronomy it seems much less, for lack of better term, "try hard". I have yet to find a sufficient Economics channel on KZbin, thus I wanted CC to tackle it. :)

[@notmicrowavesafe]

Maybe Khan Academy? Theirs is much more cut and dry and has less of the cheery animations but from what I've heard it's much more thorough and gives much more concrete examples. Again, with the caveat that I'm not terribly familiar with it save for a few episodes... To CC's credit, economics is an evolving science that has much more gray areas than many sciences and trying to paint it as a black and white "factual" science (bio, astronomy, etc.) would miss many of the issues that are still debated today. I mean hell, most of these new schools of thoughts emerged less than 50 years ago. Given that most of their audience is only going to want to focus on the classic Keynesian models; the fact that they took a look at this deserves merit.

[@ntrianta90]

Please don't mix Socialism with Social Democracy :)

[@Tom96Sutton]

ntrianta90 Social Democracy is still fiscally unstable

[@PearComputingDevices]

@@Tom96Sutton Inanely. MMT anyone?

[@Tom96Sutton]

@@PearComputingDevices Modern Monetary Theory.... neither modern, nor monetary, nor a theory...

[@PearComputingDevices]

Tom Sutton Yeah, it's not a theory and it's epically failed every time it's tried. You can't print your way to prosperity, growth comes from production.

[@badasunicorn6870]

@@Tom96Sutton correct, cause it keeps sliding right god damnit! Like everything else... But still, capitalism is unstable, profits fall and it keeps crashing.

[@flowknow388]

I'm a simple austrian. i hear austria and upvote. no srsly, great job :)

[@zse4cft6bhu8mko0]

Don't get me wrong, I love the whole crash course project, and I love tons of their series, but unfortunately that second commenter in the intro was more accurate than I wish were true. This series is pretty noticeably over Keynesian, with all too often scanty and arguably even shameful coverage of the Austrian view of any given topic. They pay it lip service for a moment only to attempt to discredit it a moment later, then ignore it entirely. A pattern I fear has become all too common these days

[@horsesrmylife78]

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!

[@LynnMcAllister]

yay I'm excited to see acdc economics team up with crash course!

[@generalphobia]

So was I the only one bothered by the descriptions of Supply-side Economics? I can't be the only one. "Trickle-Down economics/theory" is the name that critics who didn't actually understand or who outright wanted to warp what supply-side economics actually is. The fact that the section of Crash Course dedicated to teaching economics could take themselves seriously and still try to conflate Supply-side as Trickle Down, which is a complete mischaracterization of what the Supply-side camp even believes. So irritating

[@dzarko55]

Yep, you did better than most people talking about Marxism/socialism/communism, but still horrible. a) There has never been a communist country. Some have been close to socialism, but none have been communist. b) North Korea, the country closest to communism? Oh please. Juche is really weird, but it's not communist. c) The animation about Marx was a tiny bit wrong. Props for mentioning Engels, though - some people don't even know who he was.

[@Navak_]

Communism is the economic system attempted by governments which profess a communist ideology. The only people who think communism is actually an economic and social system described in a book are communists. When they attempt to translate their fantasy book into reality, the resulting economic disaster is known to the rest of the world as communism.

[@feynstein1004]

I had a thought while watching this video. Remember the circular flow of money from the first episode? If you examine it closely, you will find that businesses can't produce goods and services without labor i.e. common people. In a sense, the common people are producers too. Businesses and labor produce goods together and thus businesses compensate the labor for their help in the form of money. The people then use this money to buy the very goods they helped produce, loosely speaking. So what's happening is that businesses are indirectly sharing their goods with its labor i.e. the people. The whole economy is driven by this indirect sharing of production. But when robots finally replace all labor, businesses will no longer need to employ people i.e. share their produce with the people. But if people no longer have anything to exchange with businesses, how will they afford to buy goods and services? Won't the entire economy collapse?

[@wojtekthebear4958]

Well first robots won't replace all labor. That argument has been able since the beginning of the industrial revolution and yet we have never once seen unemployment rise to a no long term high. I mean even right now with all the cries of automation, the unemployment rate is sitting below the natural rate of unemployment. There will be displacement, sure, but that's not unusual in an economy. In terms of your thought flow, I see two problem with that. First, businesses aren't people. When someone is hired to work for a business, it is the manager or owner who hires them, not the business itself. Second, the economy is much larger than that. If I work at Ford or Microsoft, I don't work there to get a share of their goods, I work there to get paid so I can buy goods completed unrelated to these companies, like groceries or a new phone. Similarly the company only hires me because I increase their profits. If this isn't the case, I'll be fired.

[@feynstein1004]

+Wojtek The Bear You're forgetting one thing though. With the industrial revolution, most farmers did become unemployed but they were absorbed into the new labor market required by industries. With automation, however, this is unlikely to be the case. Of course, it is still possible that just like with the industrial revolution, as automation replaces workers, the displaced workers will move into other industries which aren't automated (yet) or that entirely new types of jobs will be created and thus prevent mass unemployment but I was talking about the worst case scenario, where automation becomes so effective that businesses no longer require *any* human intervention or labor. What will happen then? I don't see the relevance of your manager argument. So I'm going to pass over it. As for your second argument, you're taking my example too literally. Or you may have misunderstood it. My point was that people earn money because businesses need people. The economy as a whole is functioning because it requires people not only to consume goods but also to produce them. I hope this clears thing up.

[@kkool20]

I wish I had your videos when I was studying economics in business school, you guys definitely put everything into perspective very well.

[@iggsta3o5]

I would argue that the problem with Keynes argument is that it expects government to get of the way when the correction has taken place or even spend as it is recommended by economists to spend. Government are positions of power and they attract people whom seek power and wish to retain it. Therefore what is best for the people or the economy falls to the wayside to the interests of those whom seek power. This makes any intervention in a free market an unending intervention and the problem with Keynes arguments.

[@micric217]

Great video in these uncertain times.

[@garyraab9132]

Adam Smith’s position as a customs agent is full of irony. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued in favor of free trade. He endorsed the elimination of most tariffs and even wrote in sympathy of smuggling. Two years after his publications, in 1778 Smith actively sought a high-level government appointment, possibly to enhance his financial condition. Smith succeeded in his quest and was named Commissioner of Customs in Scotland, despite his previous writings on free trade and the words of his friend Dr. Samuel Johnson, who said that “one of the lowest of all human beings is a Commissioner of Excise” (in Viner 1965, 64). The job was a prestigious position that paid a handsome £600 a year. In a strange paradox, the champion of free trade and laissez-faire spent the last twelve years of his life enforcing Scotland’s mercantilist import laws and cracking down on smugglers. (The big three in economics)

[@FrancoCeriani]

Scandinavia is socialist? Damn, you really ruined the video on that

[@itsBEZZyo]

am I the only one that heard him say "they love these socialist policies" where exactly in the video did he say they were socialist?

[@EyFmS]

Social democracy...not socialist.

[@pangkouxiong1244]

I like the video. It's not meant to cover everything people. If you're so smart and knowledgeable already, then don't watch. No need to bash and push your opinions.

[@Lcavila94]

trickle down economics XD. The hope that rich people will forever re invest in their business.

[@alexturlais8558]

people who believe trickle down works are stupid. its like feedinf a cow until its fat, then hoping it will give you its meat

[@paul_chandler3082]

So what your saying is we need to kill the cow?

[@Lcavila94]

+ShedGaming no, we need to impregnate the cow with a bull

[@paul_chandler3082]

Luis Avila can i be the bull

[@alexturlais8558]

ShedGaming yes. i dont mean kill rich people, i mean we have to redistribute the money not hope theyll give it away

[@asfrmaster2011]

Keynesian economics was damaged in the 1970's not because of the theory's failure but due to the federal reserve not raising interest rates when government spending increased. When government spending increases which can lead to inflation, it's technically the responsibility of the fed to raise interest rates to deflate the inflation cycle. Austrian school on the other hand hasn't had a perfect history. You can look at the united states and Europe and see who fared better, the one who did stimulus (US) or the one who did austerity (EU). If free market lead to massive economic development then why does countries like Somalia, the central African republic, or the DR Congo has such abject poverty and economic stalemate? Schools of economic thought should be examined fairly and I think these two hosts do a fine job in introducing the ideas and concept of economics.

[@everflores9484]

*the one who did stimulus (US) or the one who did austerity (EU).* You're crunching 20-some countries into one block. Don't do that. Many countries went for austerity (Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the UK) and many more went for stimulus (mainly France, Spain, Italy, Greece). It's also fair to say the US has had the worst recovery from a recession in its entire history. It's also been one of the worst recessions period, but hey. *If free market lead to massive economic development then why does countries like Somalia, the central African republic, or the DR Congo has such abject poverty and economic stalemate?* Because they're not free, nor do they have political stability and protection of property rights. Take a look at the Economic Freedom Index done by the Heritage Foundation or the Fraser institute. Want a better example? Look at Maurice, Botswana and to some extent South Africa.

[@asfrmaster2011]

Yes, I can do that just like many economist due because they are part of the Eurozone and are part of the European Union which has a parliament, a set of laws and regulations which all countries abide by, and they organize trade deals as a group. So I'm not crunching 20some countries randomly. You comment about stimulus is simply false, I don't know where you heard that from but All four of those countries you mentioned literally did austerity. The protests in all four countries have literally been called Austerity riots. I think you are mistaking "bailouts" with stimulus. I understand the confusion. The European Union, IMF, and Germany lent money "bailouts" to Greece, Portugal, and Ireland; but they had strings attached. The strings were to commit to massive austerity. So far we have seen it has been self-defeating because by forcing austerity to happen, tax revenues drop, which in turn makes paying back the bailouts that much harder. The only part you mentioned could be true is France, that is because the newer President Hollande vowed to reverse the austerity policy pushed by the Germans. The Germans practically run the EU and France under Hollande was suppose to challenge them, at least that was his election mandate.

[@everflores9484]

asfrmaster2011 *Yes, I can do that* No, you can't. It's a group of countries, not a single entity. Each and every one of them is a sovereign state, the EU doesn't handle their economic agendas aside from some guidelines. *All four of those countries you mentioned literally did austerity* Yeah, running deficits and increasing debt is austerity (like all 4 of them did). Having the government spend 37 to 40% of the GDP too I guess? You may say they "tried" to do it, but they didn't implement it. Don't believe everything Krugman says. *The protests in all four countries have literally been called Austerity riots* For minimal cuts in spending that don't amount to anything. Most of all in France. Have there been massive cuts in public spending? No, there haven't. *So far we have seen it has been self-defeating* Nope it hasn't. All the countries who did "austerity" even if you include Spain have been growing at spectacular rates and with a downward trend in unemployment, much more than the European average. The UK's unemployment rate is among the zone's lowest, for instance, and before Brexit, its growth was one of the highest considering size. France, Italy and most of the continent still spend much more than the US, with tighter labor markets (specially France), burdensome regulations and high levels of corruption.

[@asfrmaster2011]

? I can: The European Union does have monetary policy which all countries of the Eurozone is part of since they all share the same Central Bank, the ECB. They don't have a fiscal union, but the have a monetary and political union so they are separate independent states to the point that we can't make an analysis of their economic progress. It's not like i pick 20 Asian or African countries, Europe is highly integrated in every sense of that word in terms of politics and economics. If that is your about austerity then you don't know what austerity means. Austerity means cutting government spending. That's it, if it results in a surplus or deficit is irrelevant to whether austerity happened or not. All the surplus or deficit tells us is if it was effective. Example it didn't work: Greece 2011-2014: Greek debt-GDP ratio went from 146% to 180%. I would not call that a success especially since the debt holders agreed to a 50% "haircut" aka default on greek debt. That was after the government made massive public spending cuts. Seriously just google "greek austerity" Example it did work: United States 1995-1998 As Keynes said, cut spending during good times. When the government started cutting spending in the mid 1990's the interest rate on government bonds dropped which allowed lending to be cheaper on top of pushing investors into the equity markets which fueled the stock and economic boom in the 1990's. France didn't do austerity? www.wsj.com/articles/france-ramps-up-austerity-to-hit-budget-targets-1460530226 Spain and UK are doing great? Check this out then: www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:ESP:USA:GBR&hl=en&dl=en They both dropped dramatically in terms of GDP per capitia and haven't had much success recovering. Granted the UK is better than Spain. They both are better than most european countries but that because everyone is doing so bad. The Euro zone barely just left recession like last year.

[@everflores9484]

asfrmaster2011 *Austerity means cutting government spending* Okay. Only 4 countries from the block have lower government spending than they did in 2009. *Greece 2011-2014: Greek debt-GDP ratio went from 146% to 180%* And government spending went up from 54% OF THE GDP to _only_ 55%. www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-spending-to-gdp Seriously, just google "Greece public spending crisis". *France didn't do austerity?* It didn't. In 2008, France spent 53% of its GDP. By 2015, that number went up to 57%. Austerity sure looks like government spending. *Spain and UK are doing great? They both dropped dramatically in terms of GDP per capitia and haven't had much success recovering.* That's a lie. Spain has breen growing at a 3% rate since 2014. The UK doubles the regional average and has been growing since 2013. They aren't at pre recession levels, but they are better than most. *They both are better than most european countries but that because everyone is doing so bad* Guess why. *The Euro zone barely just left recession like last year.* Due to their inability to adapt to recessions. The US has a much more freer labor market and quite fewer regulations, it's more dynamic. It's still facing the worst post-recession recovery in decades, granted, but it's doing relatively well compared to Europe.

[@bobsmythe9949]

Quite a good basic overview and it might have been worth mentioning that corruption, manipulation of markets and criminal activity have a part to play - helps to explain the unexplainable (see Confessions of an Economic Hitman and go on from there).

[@johnegan8616]

I love this CC series!