Institutions & Revolutions - Intro to Political Economy, Lecture2

sites.duke.edu...
COURSE OVERVIEW:
Introduction to Political Economy is a self-contained and nontechnical overview of the intellectual history of political economy, the logic of microeconomics, and the definitions used in macroeconomics. It introduces the notion of a political economy, emphasizing the moral and ethical problems that markets solve, and fail to solve.
LECTURE OVERVIEW:
1. Human beings are self-interested, but they are also intensely moral beings. Our moral sense evolved in a setting where trade and exchange were limited, however. As a result some of our moral reactions to markets may be atavistic, like the hips of whales.
2. Another way of thinking of this is that we have "lifeboats minds" but live in a "Walmart world." The actual function of price is explained. Munger argues that we can "never run out of anything," because if we start to run out the price goes up, and then three things happen: (a) consumers buy less; (b) producers make more; and (c) entrepreneurs invent substitutes.
3. Still, people object to these important functions of prices. Examples are given from the POW camp article by Radford, and in a remote area of Germany and "price-gouging" after hurricanes.
4. What's important to remember is that there are always two considerations in dealing with market processes:
a. Moral outrage/strong negative affect at being taken advantage of in the "lifeboat"
b. Expectation of material benefit from consummating exchange of money for needed products
READINGS:
Agriculture and the Origins of Civilization (history-world.o... )
Industrial Revolution (history-world.o... )
Radford, R. A. 1945. “The Economics of a POW Camp,” Economica.
www-rohan.sdsu....
Munger, M.C. 2005. “Everybody Loves Mikey.” (www.econlib.org... )
Video 1: Michael Munger, “Why Do We Exchange Things?” ( • Free Market Economics:... )
Video 2: Cosmides and Tooby, “Stone Age Minds,” ( • Stone Age Minds: A con... )
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel for more!
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Like us at / dukepolisci
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Produced by Shaun King, Duke University Department of Political Science Multimedia Specialist

[@denisssemusu7588]

The information is so relevant to what is going on in our society. Big up prof. Watching from Uganda

[@chelseagoals4276]

Hello fellow Ugandan

[@margaretsekinobe2428]

Omwaana weeka

[@lindaahimbisibwe7597]

Me too! 😊

[@scottxu3587]

A Chinese watching from Ethiopia, thanks to professor for making it possible.

[@winters5254]

thank you so much Professor I am feeling much more comfortable heading into college and majoring in Political economy.

[@nthperson]

Have you as yet read the great works of political economists? if not, begin with Richard Cantillon, move on to Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, then to Adam Smith, then to Karl Marx, and, finally, to Henry George (the best of the group).

[@winters5254]

@@nthperson got the list down. Thank you so much!

[@Muhammad-sx7wr]

He puts the general quality of life and social good; to the backburner.

[@RappRelevant333]

​@@nthpersonG.K. Chesterton ?

[@nthperson]

@@RappRelevant333 Not someone I have spent any time studying.

[@ghufrankhalid1719]

Interesting lecture but I have a few problems. The analogies used here might make sense in isolated individual cases. But price gouging doesn't just occur during natural disasters. During normal times, it occurs when a business or a group of businesses have a monopoly over a certain commodity in a given region. Price gouging laws are a (admittedly imperfect) mechanism to break that monopoly. Natural disasters are out of the routine of everyday economy. The economic mechanisms that apply during normal times don't apply during disasters. So why use examples from disasters to make arguments about government laws that regulate the economy during normal times? Secondly, in the hurricane analogy there seemed to be a reference to the "In the long run, prices decrease due to competition" maxim. As Keynes pointed out "In the long run, we are all dead". Everything we've observed so far suggests that the market, left to itself, tends to form monopolies rather than promoting competition. A few businesses make it to the top of an industry through ruthless competition, and once at the top they use their resources to actively undermine smaller businesses thus eliminating competition (See the methods Amazon has used for driving out competition). Government regulations exist to make sure that competition exists in the market. This the paradox of the free market: The free-er the market, the less the competition and the more the tendency for monopolies to be formed. At which stage, of course, the market ceases to be free. Rather than waiting around for the market to achieve equilibrium "in the long run", perhaps it's time mainstream economists returned their attention to the economy as it actually behaves?

[@TheDnegDegen]

I agree that the scenario isn't directly applicable to "everyday" economics. However, it's incorrect to assert that natural disasters and crises, in general, aren't a part of the regular economic equations and, consequently, policies. Disasters are inevitable occurrences that significantly impact economies and should be factored into economic models and policy-making. They disrupt supply chains, alter demand, and affect market dynamics, necessitating a comprehensive approach. Moreover, price gouging laws often fall short in preventing exploitation in modern economies. Consider the case of penicillin: while laws against monopolies are essential, laws against price gouging may not effectively deter monopolistic behavior. Monopolies can manipulate or bypass these laws, exemplified by the stark difference in penicillin prices in the US and Canada, underscoring the limitations of such regulations. I completely agree with your second point regarding the paradoxes of the free market, albeit with a caveat. Both systems-free markets and government intervention-are essential to strike a balance. However, in the scenario of a disaster, a more unbridled free market can be necessary and beneficial. In such scenarios, the absence of monopolies implies that the exploitative profits are a result of the disaster's seclusive nature, not a lack of competition. Hence, Mr. King's scenario doesn't pertain to the traditional notion of "In the long run, prices decrease due to competition"; rather, it underscores that during a disaster, this market maxim hasn't had the opportunity to settle due to unique circumstances. I like the push back though! Great thoughts, feel free to push back on my reasoning👌😇 ,

[@rayremnant]

This is the exact example on how being greedy and completely self-interested actually benefits the society. But let's zoom out a bit and really understand what we are saying here. If it wasn't for high profit margins people would rather let you die. Do you want to live in a world governed by this concept? Because I'd rather believe and push for the idea that we are collaborative creatures, that we have a moral compass and that given the right circumstances we would do the right thing without being self-interested. And so my answer to the example is that if you need random people showing up with resources after a catastrophe attracted by the high profit, then the government which is really meant to protect its people and provide for their human rights, isn't doing it's job. If we want to really mix politics and economy, then this, in my view, is an argument about government legitimization rather than economical freedom. If random people searching for profit are directly providing your basic necessities better than your actual government, then what's its use? People are rightfully angry, but not towards price gauging, but at the institutions that failed them when they needed them the most.

[@LutefiskSavage]

it's not even a case of "rather live in this world, or that world" we live in the world our species evolved in. there isn't any other so we have to deal with the evolutionary psychology our ancestors going back to lobsters, 320 million years ago, social mammals 50-70M ago and other primates and the differences our pre human ancestors created for us over the past 6 million or so years of our divergence from them. Our instincts are our instincts, and evolution didn't stop at the neck. So we have to accept that human beings have an inherent instinctual nature, which must be contended with as it is, rather than as we wish it were so. This doesn't mean as the transhumanists or social constructivists would have us believe that we should strive to be infinitely malleable and gaslight ourselves into corrective behaviour. The most recent manipulations of the politics in far leftist countries have all ended in disasters. We are indeed collaborative creatures, but we are cooperative collaborative creatures who have limitations as well as exactly that moral compass you were mentioning. We know through observation and instinctual cues when someone is slacking off and undeserving of our cooperative collaboration. So we stop cooperating with them. Specifically BECAUSE it's not socially, morally, or economically profitable for us, to expend resources on someone we know isn't going to reciprocate and which we haven't the ability to enforce their reciprocity in a tribal type of small community setting. It's not even the institutions that are failing in that situation, because the institutions not only weren't designed to operate in those conditions, it's actually right that they not be able to operate in those situations. Because for institutions to be able to operate in those situations it requires that they be totalitarian in manners which enslave EVERYONE participating. Which is a betrayal against everyone participating, and justification for the institution to be destroyed. Politics and economics are as inextricable as the concept of people making decisions in groups. You can't have one without the other at any fractal scale of analysis. From the elementary school yard, to the vagaries of the stock market, and global international politics. Doesn't matter if the negotiation is over knapped flint axe heads exchanged for access to sex, and barbecued meat roasted over an open fire, in 300,000BC or negotiated trade and political policies between nations in 2022. People have to be willing to exchange and benefit probably through multiple variables of analysis, or they stop cooperating in a fair manner.

[@nicorsar]

You're speaking far too rationally!!!

[@aman23t]

Fascinating introduction. Thank you, Prof Munger.

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Thank you a lot for sharing such amazing content !! watching from East Africa,Uganda 🇺🇬🇺🇬

[@mgthandi9760]

Thank you very much.

[@mgthandi9760]

Watching from Myanmar(Burma)

[@CarolinePearsall]

I learned so much from this lecture it’s just nuts!!! Really really interesting!

[@samchapman5718]

I have an economics degree from a well-ranked university and wasn’t taught a lot of this. I think that’s a massive failing of economics. Great lectures!

[@josimodacostaconstant4567]

I am from Brazil. I really enjoy these lectures.

[@fh2135]

In context of a market system where property is privately owned, price gouging during a disaster may be the lesser evil, but we shouldn’t forget that it is still an evil. Much like how in the context of past patriarchal societies where women weren’t allowed to live decent lives independently, many practices that would be morally repugnant now where still the lesser evil in those times. The solution isn’t to change rules, it’s to change power dynamics.

[@economics3544]

Thanks for your efforts professor, gratitude from England :)

[@mrgitau1985]

Heard you first in econtalk... Thank you sir.. All the way from Kiambu.. Kenya

[@cornetchan]

Very well explained with highly relatable examples. Thank you! -> From Singapore

[@pats6600]

Main argument for this lecture: "Market evolved much faster than the brain modules we use to evaluate morality." 4:20

[@bucketiii7581]

Actually the main argument is that markets and market transactions are natural, emergent properties of human nature. Which is, in my estimation and the estimation of every history outside of the far right, completely wrong.

[@jumanaimmap7679]

Thank you to give me this opportunity to attend this fruitful lecture from Iraq.

[@mikehoss7196]

What a wonderful professor.

[@arroxas]

In Southeast Asia, we have this trade practice called barter, a form of voluntary exchange.

[@anon-soso-anon]

Great lecture. Here is the problem with the argument that price gouging should not be illegal. Certain people will buy up as much as they can making the shortage worse so they can profit. During COVID-19 lockdowns, even with price gouging illegal where I live, there was no toilet paper along with many other items. The scarcity fed the fear. I can only imagine throwing on a speculative profit motive on top of that and how much worse things would have been. Another example is the PS5 shortage that persisted for around 2 years. Scalpers were buying systems they didn't need, only intended to resell, contributing to scarcity. This pushed prices up. You could argue they were providing a service but I suspect they also caused fomo and overall pushed up prices. I feel this topic could be investigated more.

[@simonkinsey1704]

I appreciate the free educational content, but watching him refer to examples of ice needed to preserve food supplies and a generator needed for crucial medicine in emergency situations as "voluntary transactions" was somewhat baffling. The buyer has no ability to refuse the transaction if the alternative is death (or to be a bit less extreme, rather than seeking to purchase a good to add value to their life, they are forced to purchase the good in order to avoid bodily suffering - certainly a less voluntary dynamic than he is proposing). Also, claiming that allowing for a higher price will result in the person with the highest need receiving the good relies on the assumption that everyone has an adequate supply of money. If you can't afford the good, it doesn't matter how badly you need it - you simply will not receive it in this proposed model of distribution. He identifies (correctly, I think) that our economic development has become conflicted with our sense of morality, but then uses this premise to come to the conclusion that we should rethink our morality to fit the current economy (as if the iteration of the economy that we happened to be born into is conveniently the one which deserves to shape our morality), rather than the other way around. He criticizes the model of the rational and self interested "homo-economicus" and then rather than applying those criticisms to his examples of economic transactions to better understand human motivation, he uses them to criticize people who have moral reactions to those transactions, in turn reducing a mother who urgently needs medicine for her daughter to be nothing more than the very rational and self-interested caricature that he initially rejected. Maybe I'm being too harsh or maybe I just don't understand something but this felt like a bizarre mess of ideas that ostensibly set out to complicate the claims of reductive orthodox economics only to end up reinforcing its basic principals through misapplication of his own arguments.

[@TheDnegDegen]

In my view, the lecturer refrains from making explicit claims or enforcing a specific viewpoint in this discourse. Instead, their intention seems to be to intricately challenge the tenets of traditional economics, encouraging students to delve into the subtleties of various economic matters.The lecturer aims to cultivate critical thinking skills, guiding students in analyzing economic issues and policies in a nuanced manner. For example, he appears to emphasize the importance of understanding human psychology, especially regarding notions of fairness, and how it unfairly interacts with the rationality or justification within fundamental economic principles(in the scenario of the hut in the woods). This is juxtaposed with instances where human psychology might be exploited unfairly within an economic system without valid justification(as the model of the insulin suggests).

[@faseyiayokunle988]

Thanks watching from Nigeria

[@becauseican5017]

Thank you for this!! Please keep up with educating us!

[@muhammadkhurramshabbir5321]

Thanks for sharing this video, sending you respect from Pakistan. Regards

[@philosophe5319]

Student on bottom right at 5:36, moving his ears

[@mihua757]

Jack Knudson i can only bend1of my thumbs >.

[@chenecaddell]

Thank you for putting these on here.

[@HershD]

Amazing

[@akashdeeproy6341]

Road rage in India is real. Personal experience. Such dynamic examples. Respect!

[@rustynalsinyoureyes]

“Nobody cares enough about you to disrespect you” golden

[@margaretsekinobe2428]

Thank you! If I can understand this, u are a super lecturer! I am at that stage in life when I want a career change. Political economy seems to be what I have been Looking for.

[@waynelast1685]

Please critique me: So lets say there is an emergency. Do NOT enact or enforce laws on price gouging. However, pass laws requiring proof of purchases, and allow the government to subsidize the price differentials , which of course is financed by overall taxes. That way the entire society bears a proportionate burden of bearing the emergency, but supply and variability is enhanced, prices are driven lower, and people receive their critical needs? Perhaps set some reasonable caps on price such as no more than 100% price increases to just prevent "mafia" activity.

[@TheDnegDegen]

I like that idea! I do not know it would operate outside a disaster or how it would be enforced. Maybe in a disaster a good way of enforcing it would be a law official needs to be present and hold the sellers accountable for records, the officials getting a copy as well. The officials there could also maintain order if necessary too.

[@loricorpuz7630]

Thank you for sharing this lecture!

[@sureshbhattarai4471]

is there a parallel between broken window fallacy to current virus fallacy ?

[@belfon5855]

Very good lecture.

[@ts.irwanmazwanibrahim1578]

Powerful lecture.

[@dyanasari1880]

good information...very useful

[@user-cv2se6mh5v]

Very interesting! Thank you.

[@akadike6190]

I wish I had the chance to study here I would have been a better person than I am today useful to the society instead of my current situation

[@g2theb_YouTube]

Imagine spending the time and money required to go to Duke and getting such a surface level analysis with so little nuance or room for creative problem solving. The complete disdain shown for those who recognize something as unfair, unjust, or otherwise not right demonstrates the weakness of this theory. Perhaps instead of seeing price gauging as "correct" under a perfect free market environment (which doesn't exist and certainly wouldn't following a disaster) we should instead look at how we can move away from profit motivations that result in needed goods, services, and aid being made available solely because someone can profit from it.

[@kunhu5797]

I’m astounded at the lack of intellectual honesty as well. There were so many logical fallacies committed. I’m not against teaching such concepts but the opposition arguments to them must be steelmanned too.

[@TheDnegDegen]

It is an intro course, if I am not mistaken. I do not see the reason to criticize an intro course for not going into all of the nuance when that is exactly what it is designed to do. I think the purpose of this course is to show things and economics from different perspectives and help you think about things differently, shattering manies paradigms per say, before you continue on the journey of exploring the nuances and formulating opinions. Moreover, He never made any claim in his teaching for "seeing price gauging as corect", he simply explained some of the nuances with this specific problem, exploitation in the free market.

[@AsadKhan-lu8kx]

Interesting lecture, however, the suggested readings on agriculture, civilization and industrial revolution lack substance. Should replace them with more detailed and sophisticated accounts of those transformative phases of human history.

[@nthperson]

A good book to start with is "Power and Privilege" written in the 1960s by Gerhard Lenski.

[@fmiller36]

Well, recommend these accounts of human history then, Asad Khan.

[@saorchros9386]

I'm still confused about how the life boat model works, can any one please explain to me more detailedly? thx!

[@تغريدةنسيمة]

Thank you for sharing

[@AfricanThinker86]

Most of the evolutionary psychological explanations given in this lecture sound more like "just so" stories rather than anything based in actual facts or evidence-based theory. They're plausible but debatable.

[@evanbergeron6233]

Imagine you try to buy a generator for almost 1.5 times the price so that your child can survive, but you can only afford slightly above the original cost of the generator. The person selling the generator refuses to cut you a deal, therefore indirectly condemning your child to death. You say "how could you be so selfish? Allowing my child to die so that you can make a greater profit?" and the seller responds by saying "This is actually good for you! If I decreased the price incentive for innovation and conservation would decrease as well." Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? How cruel.

[@farhadchaudhry]

Yes, the professor's notes on markets can actually be refuted. He himself does so when he makes the assumption of "voluntary transactions". Many such transactions are not voluntary, but involuntary. Including the ice. The problem there wasn't not letting people selling it for $11, but rather, people not being provided relief in the emergency. As the sale of ice in that situation is not an example of profit, but rather rent. And the situation is not so much a market, more a racket.

[@TheDnegDegen]

It is suggested that that scenario represents cruelty. The scenario is intended to prompt consideration of the possible drawbacks stemming from the harshness of an unrestricted free market and the potential necessity of price regulation policies. In this situation, it's difficult to envision a circumstance where a mother wouldn't gather the funds for her child. She could seek financial assistance from relatives or neighbors, who would likely be eager to help save the child's life. The lecturer argues for economic rationality by examining the broader perspective, where in a limited, self-contained free market, a higher price might actually increase the likelihood of saving the child's life. Bassically, showing both arguments for and against price gauging as all good lectures should. Wouldn't you agree?

[@aliniinvestmentsltd.6140]

Very interesting.

[@maxheadrom3088]

I think autruistic feelings might have played a role in their decision because there's nothing better than making money and helping people at the same time.

[@candaceterelle7969]

Facts.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

'Need more' is a cop out/flawed justification/argument - as a reason to buy the high priced goods; 'income' inequalities underpin the behaviour/response. That is, for those with more money the 'USD 1300 for the generator' is not a high price in the given circumstances and they can afford it (not because they need it more than the lady with her sick daughter but merely because the the size of the price increase means little to them). This is why the majority of the people which are on 'lower' incomes would get upset with the 'USD 1300 generator' and why laws have been enacted to prevent price gauging, usury, etc. which try to prevent those in need that cannot afford the asking price set by the 'free' market being exploited.

[@johnlemon6678]

+Dimitris Tsagdis Don't price gouging laws increase scarcity by creating a first come first serve situation? The price control allows people that don't value it as much, buy it at the lower price simply because they can. My question is would that prevent the lady from buying the generator as well? Or by increasing the price, would sellers encourage those who can do without a generator to economize allowing the lady to buy the generator at a higher price. The question here is, does not having any generators to buy benefit the lady, or does buying them at a higher price?

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

@@johnlemon6678 People do not just buy things because they can. Otherwise all of us would have tons of chocolate bars, bubble gum, and rice in our houses. Or maybe sand (which is not even perishable). And we do not. So the dichotomous question at the end is rather bogus. Nonetheless, it is well established that a few nasty people try to take advantage of other people's misfortune and try to profit on vulnerable unfortunate people in need. It is this predatory exploitative behaviour that gouging laws aim to minimise.

[@g2theb_YouTube]

I would add that this is not an either or scenario. In this example, generators could be allocated by need. They could be distributed to those most affected, or possibly loaned rather than sold. This is such a surface level and quite frankly false argument that the profit motive is the only reason generators could possibly be available in an emergency situation

[@chetanasin9150]

Thanks

[@ramiaels]

It seems like there's a reason capitalists use these very isolated hypotheticals to make their point, it allows you to ignore all the nuance and levels of material and social realities that underlie economies that deserve questioning. How did the person get to control the supply of generators? Who makes the generators and why couldn't more of them get there? What happens when most people just can't afford a necessary commodity, why does the person who can deserve it more? How would you defend price gouging that occurs in non-disaster markets?

[@thattimestampguy]

0:32 Human Nature? 3:53 Cooperative

[@valeriea8224]

How can we have access to the slides?

[@JamesVestal-dz5qm]

Student conduct hold was a statement of fact that triggered email rage.

[@ahmedardoof8629]

how could i get the book he is reading ?

[@goulchat1]

Thanks from Sweden

[@sadoxell5462]

I dont know... I expected a lot more from a professor from such an established college.

[@LutefiskSavage]

how complicated do you think economics have to be? and besides this is just the first actual lecture of the year, this stuff takes time to unpack.

[@Adil_Turysbek_TVRC]

Because he is a good professor from a good university, the lecture is easy to understand. Or would you rather watch a low qualified professor from an unrecognized university who speaks nonsense?

[@JSephH76]

@@Adil_Turysbek_TVRC this professor IS speaking nonsense

[@TheDnegDegen]

@@JSephH76 how?

[@pawbard]

35:00 "If prices are free to adjust we can never run out of anything."

[@pantheon777]

panglossian economics at its best

[@qingwei6970]

Too bad, ppl never give up manipulated the price, because by which they get huge returns

[@PHOTOGRASPER]

Meaning: demand matches supply.

[@PhoenixSirius]

@@PHOTOGRASPER yes but does not mean "if prices are allowed to adjust we never run out of anything" that is not what any of those words mean in real life.

[@PhoenixSirius]

so why are we running out of rhinos? pangolins? rosewood?

[@tiagopratescowan3845]

I'm not angry with Tony tbh

[@abusultan6488]

The last analogy is vague and doesn't explain the process of high and low price. The possibility: that the people out of emotional response does not pay higher for the same goods(generator) in an emergency as they are afraid the price may increase and they will be then buying the same goods (generator)for much higher prices after the emergency which they don't want. Because there is an unsaid consensus to pay the same usual price for same goods( generator )among the public.

[@nthperson]

What political economy teaches us is that economies are subject to cycles of boom-to-bust because of the governing systems of law and taxation. As the British Labour economist Ann Pettifor has extensively discussed in her books and lectures, key problem are rent-seeking privilege and financial speculation. Both occur because our laws and taxes favor taking rather than producing.

[@automan1591]

At 29mins he claims that in a voluntary exchange both parties are better off. This is not the case, it's just that they think they will be better off. That sneaky padre had access to information about further exchanges he could make, probably from all that itinerant wandering.

[@TheDnegDegen]

Your correct to assume that that is not always the case, but are you claiming that "involuntary exchange both parties are better off"? Because that would be the inverse.

[@smirnacosta5739]

Except that selling something for a very high price to someone who really needs it to survive is obligating this person to buy, and denying the object to such person because she or he does not have money enough to match the unusual price is the same as murder.

[@lloydredding3017]

I was thinking along the same lines. Less on the murder but needs are not singular, gouging would seem to just make the person in need go without something else they need.

[@johnmaris1582]

Look at the fact most people don't have farmland or river ownership yet these necessities are low price. High price is not an expression to deny people access. It's a signal of demand and supply assuming no Monopoly.

[@bucketiii7581]

This is lecture 2 and it's nearly unbearable to someone with an elementary education in political economy. Duke University should be absolutely ashamed that this man is representing their institution.

[@TheDnegDegen]

Unbearable in what way?

[@alfredhitchcock45]

This is how my professors in College speak. Speaking endlessly about their lives. I realized why people become professors is because nobody gives a shit about their life stories and work is so monotonous and boring

[@建萍刘]

Help:what is the textbook of this lecture?

[@bucketiii7581]

TFW Louisiana isn't right wing enough for your professor

[@bucketiii7581]

"If prices are free to adjust, we can never run out of anything." He repeats it three times as if that will somehow make it true. I could have told you in 3rd grade that was untrue. This "professor" is either a manbaby or a propagandist.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Wilson Kevin Smith Edward Perez Barbara

[@arroxas]

The NY Times headline is a paradox. 🤔🤣

[@valeriea8224]

Agricultural and Industrial links are spam.

[@Ronriko1]

I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

[@sumayahussein3795]

Bet most of the views here are from the actual students

[@salehinkhan6853]

who select the first selection ? 4 protein need to create 1 protein , then how the DNA has been formed ? evolution ! we shouldn't teach myth .

[@PhoenixSirius]

it is alarming how out of touch with reality academia can be. I think economics people need to familiarize themselves with the concept of the edge case, for starters.

[@fmiller36]

I am still looking for economic material better than this crap. Do you have any recommendations?

[@danciagar]

From a philosophical point of view, this pure ideological propaganda. He is preaching a very specific ideologic framework WITHOUT declaring I will do so and giving only pseudo-counterarguments to reinforce it.

[@TheDnegDegen]

What ideology is he preaching?

[@wabakoen5548]

If people like these are our professors, the academy is in a sad state indeed.

[@TheDnegDegen]

From a saints perspective, what is sad about em

[@bucketiii7581]

This guy actually, unabashedly, plugged MATT ZWOLINSKY. Seriously? Just read his Twitter feed if you want to know what a joke that guy is. It is absolutely ridiculous that this "professor" is allowed near young adults. I'll let you guess about his opinions about age of consent laws.

[@TheDnegDegen]

you are a very insecure person huh

[@Mohamed-cm3ym]

Higher prices can lead to more supply and thus less prices only if more suppliers get into the market to do this (i.e no monopoly). If there aren't more suppliers, govt. should enforce the old price and not halt the business and make people's lives worse. Economics is so right-wing, so exactly is the lecturer.

[@TheDnegDegen]

You is so uneducated, so exactly in the comment.

[@trollol_]

Logic hurts my feelings so logic should be illegal thanks

[@JamesVestal-dz5qm]

Trump produced a lot as a high priced guy.

[@frankm4243]

Dumpy, here, just lost me! hy bring in a theory of evolution into politics and economics? Evolution is strictly reserved for the confused souls who do not know or who do not believe in God. Going on such paths you will quickly run into a swamp. Terrible start, for according to academia 'evolution' is a 'science' and Humpty Dumpy here just mixed three disciplines into one: 1) politics, 2) economics; and 3) science. This is called WOKES lectures.

[@Leon-gp7qv]

That is a pity haven't been translated to Chinese,cause my English is poor

[@nthperson]

If you want to understand political economy you might find a Chinese language edition of Henry George's book "Progress and Poverty." George strongly influenced the economic ideas of Sun Yat-sen as he attempted to unite the Chinese people to force out the European and Russian imperialists.

[@tdreamgmail]

Consider it might force you to learn English, but your English isn't even that bad.

[@alessandroguasti5779]

Hardly heard so superficial analysis of economics since the 800 century. Having morals is an appendix... forgetting all the structural factors...

[@pantheon777]

What a staggering amount of the use false analogy and red herring facilities this guy uses to justify his claims. Ridiculous

[@pantheon777]

It is completely rational to be upset at someone manipulating or trying to take advantage of you, and anyone trying to tell you differently is trying to manipulate and take advantage of you.

[@ShidaiTaino]

pantheon777 please elaborate doctor