The Big Myth of Market Fundamentalism

Historians Naomi Oreskes (@harvard) and Erik Conway (@caltech) talk to Rob about their just released book, The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market.
Find the book: www.harvard.com/book/the_big_...

[@MrRay2499]

It depresses me immensely that this video has been out for over a month and has less than 20K views. It speaks to how effective these free market extremists have been in this country, as well as a bit of how far Americans’ attention span has sunk. We are suffering from an epidemic of intellectual laziness. Reversing that troubling trend is our only way out of the corporate authoritarianism we’ve been living under for 40+ years. I’m so grateful for the unparalleled research these authors have done for us, I just desperately wish the knowledge they’ve provided would be far more widely distributed.

[@victorzarenin9286]

This is absolutely correct. I really wonder what kind of country we'd be living in if the people could agree on a common set of facts, and had enough education to understand them. With the rise of Trump it looks like ignorance is king, but that's not everywhere. Young people are more knowledgeable than they're given credit for. Actually I'm Gen Z and I'm hoping to figure out how I can create a podcast or something similar to educate people. I do stand up comedy as a side hobby and I'm hoping I can use my skills with humor and entertainment to get people engaged. I've also spent a lot of the past two years practicing how to turn Trumpists into progressives. I'm saying this as a reassurance to everyone; more and more people are getting involved, and the truth of what's been done to the middle class since Reagan won't be hidden forever.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

"Too many markets" is a powerful idea. It really ties together things we already know individually.

[@Sarah-re7cg]

God, THANK YOU! Thank you for writing this book and compiling this information. Ugh! We’re living in this unbridled capitalist hellscape!!

[@yuriarin3237]

Poe's Law?

[@MrMarinus18]

44:12 That is socialism in it's most basic sense.

[@alanhehe4508]

We treat the elderly, the disabled, and even veterans like shit in this country. I'm disabled and on a fixed income and getting killed by this inflation. And whenever I get a slight raise in my SSDI benefit, they in turn cut my food stamps!! Understanding MMT, this is infuriating, as the austerity is completely unnecessary and just imposed for reasons of control. They want to keep a majority of people poor and desperate because that way they are easier to control. They do everything to suppress the power of labor. People need to stop thinking there's an electoral solution to this mess. Our government has been completely captured by corporate interests. We're not gonna vote our way out of this mess. I despise hero worship and partisan cheerleading. Congress is a corporate duopoly and all the rest is theater. Divide and conquer over social issues. The fact that the SCOTUS has determined that corporations deserve both the special protections and resources of a corporation AND all the rights of a citizen, and that money equals free speech, makes any attempt to reform the system pointless. There is practically zero regulation of these corporations. The ordinary citizens (like those in East Palestine) have no recourse to law. The corporate lobbyists write the damn laws!! They're heartless, sociopathic oligarchs that deserve anything that happens to them. We need direct action. But I can't even get people to sacrifice a little convenience by boycotting the evil corporation Anazon!! People seem to be spineless, and that tree of liberty is parched. #learnMMT #AusterityIsMurder Universal jobs guarantee!!

[@theageofgoddess]

Absolutely agree.

[@therealrobertbirchall]

The founders of the USA were very wealthy people who organised American society for their benefit to keep the peasants down and them rich. All the time lying about liberty and equality for them and them alone.

[@terriej123]

Second that.

[@libbyholt3863]

I 100% agree with your description of the problem. In fact, I'd say it's one of the best descriptions I've seen OF the problem! But, although your frustration is totally understandable and I share it completely, I don't agree with your ideas for solutions. I don't think every day people are spineless, even if our so-called representatives are, and I think that boycotting Amazon is like spitting on a housefire. There are more effective ways to win back our democracy. I disagree w/where you say, "...makes any attempt to reform the system pointless." I'd say all the problems you cited make any attempt to reform the system IMPERATIVE! I agree with you that voting is not enough and is, in fact, becoming a sham, but not only do I think we all should double down on our every effort TO vote, we also need to go above & beyond voting. Each of us needs to get active, locally, and work to SAVE and IMPROVE our voting system. It's not too late, folks!! We HAVE to do this if we want to pass down some kind of human friendly world to our young. Personally, I'm starting with a campaign to introduce RCV (ranked choice voting) to my local election system. To anyone wanting to learn more about ways we can save our election system, whether RCV or other means, a resource I like is a show that was on Netflix, of all things. I hope it's still there: Explained. There's a whole brief series on voting, comparisons of how USA and other "free" nations do it, and easy-to-follow analyses of the pros and cons of each strategy. There's a LOT we can do to save our voting system and it doesn't have to be divisive. Who, even self-described freedom loving MAGA school board presidents and such, could publicly argue against free & fair elections?! Might even be a good platform for some non-authoritarian, level headed local person to use as their bid for Mayor. Just saying.

[@jabaltariq4606]

What do military veterans do? They go around the world killing men, women and children in other countries so that the US can get unfettered access to the resources of those countries for pennies on the dollar! Obviously, that does not mean that the US government should not treat them well. But the notion that somehow being a veteran is something noble as if the person was defending the US from foreign invasion is shibboleth.

[@Sarah-re7cg]

The term “Market Fundamentalism” is so perfect

[@rolandnelson6722]

Perfect means it can’t be improved. Yes it’s perfect!

[@Sarah-re7cg]

@@rolandnelson6722 found the unhinged and delusional libertarian

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Democracy in the workplace (coops) and non market ventures in housing and the like are complementary and “regulatory” on private companies. One of the deficiencies of market fundamentalism is it ignores common good like prosperity and as a result is subject a tragedy of the commons phenomena. Corporations know that a higher min wage will raise profits in a region but none will abide raising theirs, to the detriment of all. This is why labor unions or coops are necessary.

[@geoffreynhill2833]

A fascinating and eloquent account of Ronald Reagan's PR career and the importance of research in the Universities from Naomi Oreskes; Rob Johnson quotes FDR and Bob Dylan and questions the domination of the Internet by commercial platforms; and Erik Conway recalls how 20th Century "free enterprise" acquired recommendations from church pulpits. Many thanks from Green Fire, UK! 🌈🦉

[@andreduncan4224]

The goods and services accessible in markets are wonderful. The affordability or cost of living is another constraints. Livable wages are rarely paid and the continuing struggle to earn a surplus.

[@scpatl4now]

The "market" fails in the absence of regulation. The government should support the creation of small businesses and protect them from the predatory large companies that destroy competition by buying political influence and access to the tax code to benefit themselves. The sell off of public assets to the private sector has been such a failure yet we continue to do it. Capitalism only has one goal. Profit. Any aspect of the economy where profit should not be the only goal...such as healthcare, electricity, broadband, and many others should be managed by the government without a profit motive.

[@SolidAir54321]

Agree. Those aspects that are considered necessities for a reasonable and normal life should not be for-profit. Health care being a major one. Housing is also necessary but may be a tougher one since people may want to favor living in some places over others. We can debate what is necessary and normal. Anyway, luxuries like cell phones and jet skis can be for profit.

[@stevenamartin]

@Scott P - As I’m sure you are all to aware Capitalism is often compared to a predatory White Shark that simply roams the seas eating anything it deems food. The Capitalist is imbued with mythologies of “free markets” that provide a form of moral righteousness to devastating workers and customers to the greatest extent possible.

[@apatrick51]

Agree wholeheartedly!

[@mtn1793]

Markets are stronger and more stable under govt regulation. Everything else is a greedy lie and that’s where we are held hostage. America is now a full blown kleptocracy.

[@MrMarinus18]

But also the idea of a slippery slope of socialism towards dictatorship is just false. Communist dictatorships came up in countries that ruthlessly suppressed socialism. Countries that embraced socialism like Austria and Denmark despite having history of absolutism never had any kind of communist dictatorship.

[@adeadgirl13]

Nice and important talk. Just one thing, you older people are really living in a bubble if you think media refuses to take sides. All they do is take sides. It's hard to find a single mainstream or alternate media source that's trully impartial. They just don't take sides when it's about money in poitics because they're corporations too. Don't want to upset the apple cart.

[@mionanik7508]

Phenomenal conversation. Very insightful

[@anavartalitis8425]

Quite remarkable food for thought! Thank you.

[@SolidAir54321]

Thanks! Very good, informative episode. I'd be curious to see how seriously New Economic Thinking might take something like the ideas that Yanis Varoufakis put forth in his book Another Now. Would it be considered just fantasy and not something to talk about seriously? Is it too drastic a change from what we have today to take seriously? What about "one person, one share, one vote"? How to get there?

[@gregederer6945]

Hey, Rob. Great program. For your son: Intel, Apple, Hewlett Packard and many, many other supremely innovative companies were founded pre-Reagan. It was a lot more fun, too! Cheers.

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

I’m reading the book and it is super great! A must read. It’s amazing how these myths are prevalent for so long. Hopefully this hook will be read widely.

[@margoyoder5657]

... this was fascinating... we need to mke sure we are clear about the "inner" influences now as we go forward in the creation of a better future... so helpful to look back and see the forces... thank you... takes a big book!!

[@menudobucket9837]

Capitalism can be a hindrance to wide ranging innovation because it restricts innovation to the small group of people who have the venture CAPITAL to do the research and development of an innovative idea. There are probably many people who have innovative ideas but lack the financial resources to develop them; and in a capitalistic structure, they’re not about to share their idea with someone who’s probably going to CAPITALIZE on it at their expense.

[@ivandafoe5451]

Indeed..its other major hindrance to innovation is from how it enables wealthy vested interests to stifle innovations by other companies through various means. The self-serving actions of the fossil fuel industry to suppress innovations in renewable power sources are a prime example of this, but only one of many, many others.

[@julianclover1663]

Yes, capitalism squanders human capability.

[@michaelandrews4783]

Not to mention many large scientific breakthroughs are/have been made with taxpayer money then given away to private industry to profit from. So the taxpayer is literally being exploited by private industries they paid to make possible. Just like capitalists expect other people to pay for the training of their workers.

[@mtn1793]

Greed squanders human potential.

[@joannagodwin-adamson4]

Very insightful, thank you! Helped me make sense of several things, that had been a bit of a fog. Empowering

[@nathanngumi8467]

Great insights, can't wait to read the book!

[@miguel5785]

Natural monopolies, pandemics, ecological catastrophes... there is no way market fundamentalism can survive. And despite the few talking zombies, most are already past that bullshit. But we still have to figure out how to ensure our wellbeing sustainably.

[@nickgharibian6935]

put this in every god damn college and university econ class- specially the ivy league!!

[@truthaboveall7988]

sorry to ramble - wonderful show & Ill def read ur new book

[@anhedonic-voting]

Thank you 🌎✊🗽🌹

[@BobQuigley]

No surprise GE is one of the largest Congressional Military Industrial Complex leaders nor is it shocking that GE owned NBC for so long.

[@mtn1793]

The Cold War was, and still is, WW3 against the global citizen/conned-sumer. It is resulting in a hoard of conned-servant zombies.

[@LambentIchor]

As a European who has often been confused when trying to understand 'the market' and how often when you try to get a handle on it it seemed to boil down to beliefs and faith, this whole episode has clarified a lot. As an English speaker who grew up on American media I've still always struggled with how religious Americans are, and how there seems to be such a religious framing on what is so secular in Europe. I've come across Americans saying Capitalism is god-given but I get it now that it was actually taught almost as Christian doctrine in churches.

[@MrMarinus18]

Europe is also capitalist and fascism is on the rise too. Fascism is a deflection of the failures of capitalism towards scapegoats. In the 1930's those scapegoats were usually jews while today they are usually Muslims. If you speak to fascists one thing you often notice is a strong double think. Where they actually want socialist policies but they say they hate socialism and see the rules of capitalism as sacred yet they also directly point out the places where those rules have failed. Fascism especially now is a result of capitalist realism. Where people can see the failures of capitalism but they feel they are not allowed to say or acknowledge them.

[@nash984954]

As I have said at my job at GE in 1970,where my long hair, protesting of things, the many groups, from Brotherhood, to anti-racism, to Pro-Feminism, to anti-war, that lost the job at GE, later electing Reagan and ever since actually predicted how the current debacle began with Reagan, since I described what was about to happen. Iran Contra S&L and USSR wasn't exactly the details I would've said, but China was a big accurate prediction.

[@foobar8894]

Erik very briefly mentions the two party system and the money in politics. To me that is probably the biggest deal. There is no real democracy to protect if you can choose between keeping the same president or one that promises that 'nothing will fundamentally change'. The way US democracy functions right now is fundamentally different from what it was intended to be. Firstly, elections are supposed to be used to choose who will represent a certain (geographic) group of people. I'd argue that today that is the wrong way to do democracy because people's convictions and interests don't follow state lines, but I'll grant you that a one man one vote system would not have been practical when it was conceived. But if this is the system you want, you should not have political parties. If someone is supposed to represent the interests of state X there should be no allegiance beyond that. In that approach to democracy membership of a party is a corrupting force in itself. The second huge issue is that the system intended to create a separation of powers. But because people in all branches of government are elected and generally belong to party this separation is broken down. These branches if government are not independent anymore, but all start to serve the interests of the party. So all checks and balances go out of the window. The result of all that is a ruling class that will always resist change (the current state is what brought them power) and that will protect their financial interests against any competition. There are loads of artificial monopolies and barriers to entry created by the government hampering competition. It's not that the free market needs to be preserved to save democracy, but the other easy around. Democracy needs to be fixed before there is even the slightest chance of having a properly functioning free market. Currently there is no free market, just huge state sponsored companies, anyone who disagrees with that should name me a single multi billion dollar company that has not had tax breaks, bail outs or protective legislation such as copyrights or patents...

[@maxheadrom3088]

Mr. Robert, how about an interview with Adam Curtis - who, as you told, once had a lunch with you. Thanks!

[@stephen_pfrimmer]

what is suggested is important. a sounded word begins a chain of sounds landing on a sound.

[@displacednaija]

When I was atudying exonmics in secondary school and undergrad, Adam Smith and free markets was da bomb

[@VladBunea]

It would be great if the guests spoke more than the host in these interviews.

[@nickgehmanproductions]

Excellent conversation. I wonder what these guests would offer as antidotes to the regulatory capture, vertical integration, and corporate governance practices that dominate American capitalism. I mean, clearly it would include meaningful regulation but that just simply is no longer a possibility in the US. I mean, the fed just raised interest rates again on the heels of a global banking crisis, which saw another transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to the top one percent. I mean, meaningful regulation of markets to manage externalities? Are these guests serious?

[@foobar8894]

The only antidote to regulatory capture is a functioning democracy, something the US doesn't have right now. If those interest rate increases are against the interest of the large majority but happen anyway, clearly something is broken. And realistically you cannot vote for a party that will not do these things, that option just isn't on the ballot. So there are elections, but a severe lack of choices. Must totalitarian countries have elections too, the US has two options on the ballot instead of just one but it's getting really close to the point where those elections are just for show.

[@mns8732]

Will she get onNPR?

[@marc-andreperron219]

The freedom to own firearms serves to protect individuals from tyranny. That requires explanation and understanding about what responsibilities are necessary when having guaranteed freedoms. One comment made here is the freedom to not live in fear, etc. I think this points to the challenge, difficulty, and dilemma living with millions of people, with different points of view on what freedom truly represents.

[@billappledorf]

Social media should be a public utility, and its mission should be to facilitate communication among and between people, not tracking users for targeting for ads, spying on users for paranoid military madmen, or functioning as a gigantic mail order catalogue. Platforms evolve, and whatever institutional framework would administer social media as a utility would provide hooks for integrating innovations. Open source platforms work like this in principle, as do communication protocols. A system like this would eliminate two battlegrounds in the current arrangement: one, entering the arena to extract billions in economic rent from the productive economy, as opposed to contributing to the health and welfare of the community; and two, fighting for billions in market share by driving competing APIs or protocols into obscurity. Today the motive for innovating is wealth extraction. In a public utility environment the motive is to improve the functionality of the system. No one needs billions of dollars. Trampling on one's fellow human beings to acquire that is a sickness and has resulted in the monstrosity social media is today.

[@norman_5623]

I think The Big Myth discussed the introduction of the telegraph. There was the question of whether the telegraph should be treated like the post office, as a government service, or as a private, profit-making venture. You'll have to read the book to find out who won.

[@billappledorf]

@@norman_5623 Are you suggesting that the Interstate Highway System be privatized? Every private contractor who built and maintains the IHS is paid for their work. The system itself is public infrastructure and its financing derives in large measure from fuel and heavy-trucking taxes. ISPs collecting outsized rents from subscribers for access to the Internet are paying CEOs and other corporate executives large salaries and distributing dividends to "investors" who speculate in their stocks and bonds. ISPs are financial plays, iow. The overhead swallowed by speculators and executives could with proper regulation be used to finance the maintenance and development of public communications infrastructure, including social media. Society does not need billionaires. The purpose of money is not speculation in financial assets but investment in public infrastructure and financing industrial development.

[@norman_5623]

@@billappledorf I basically agree with you. The book (and this discussion) describe in detail how the U.S. had to decide whether to provide electricity and the telegraph as a public service, like the post office and roads, or as a private, free-market enterprise. Interestingly, there were some towns and states that provided electricity as a public service, and they seemed to do well. I once made up a list of the most efficient power companies in the US, and they seemed to be evenly divided between public power, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the private sector, like Chicago Edison. I would have *liked* to say that public power was better, but there was no clear advantage. But the book explains the political campaign to privatize power. It wasn't a contest of who could best serve the public. It was millionaire industrialists using their power to get richer.

[@billappledorf]

@@norman_5623 From the economic perspective, for-profit infrastructure is by definition parasitic on the productive economy. This is so because operating for-profit infrastructure necessitates extracting rents in the form of executive salaries and investors' ROI. Public financing amortizes over a set period, while private financing is a gift that keeps giving forever to investors in the form of dividends and speculators in the form of derivatives. "Deindustrialization" -- the word -- projects a glorious future in which everybody enjoys wonderfully manufactured things and nothing is manufactured. No money is invested in plant, equipment, or educating tomorrow's workforce. You just bet trillions of dollars in the derivatives casino, and by magic, "wealth" is created. This, of course, is a socially destructive fantasy that serves the interests of a small, severely psychologically damaged minority. The purpose of infrastructure, including healthcare, housing, and education, is to maintain a physically and psychologically healthy and productive workforce, thus facilitating constructive social and economic activity. Extracting rents from the productive economy is entirely detrimental to society and has no redeeming qualities. This includes so-called capital formation, which is a euphemism for capital accumulation by the speculative class for the purpose of inflating financial assets. A sovereign state able to create its own money from thin air (a good thing) can loan and spend it in a democratically governed, rational, and purposeful manner and does not, therefore, need a rent-seeking financial sector. If a sovereign's Treasury injects too much liquidity into its economy in any period, it can restore price stability by taxing it back. The Federal Reserve, like for-profit infrastructure, works for speculative capital, not the productive economy.

[@norman_5623]

​@@billappledorf My intuition agrees with you. I don't know whether I could always find facts to support that intuition. I've never been able to understand why the USSR couldn't build personal computers. Some public housing projects are well-run, but some are not. Sometimes a private contractor does a better job of running a public housing project than the government. Joe Stiglitz said that the Chinese studied every major economic system in the world, and picked out good ideas. They tried out different management methods in different factories. The factory managers who were most efficient would be rewarded. They have a mixed system, with capitalist and communist elements. I'd like to see a comparison.

[@Sarah-re7cg]

The guy that said his son and the cohort of venture capitalists whining about innovation made me laugh out loud. My creative ideas and full potential is under the boot of unbridled capitalism. I want so, so badly to have the ability to be my authentic self and have my work done and owned by ME. But I CANT. And it’s soul crushing and I’m scared about big tech being on my ass pushing out what I want to put into the world.

[@tomofnorthcal]

The reporting you gave on propaganda from GE in the far past about not giving the rural markets electric power was great. Today the cellphone utilities also are not placing cellphone towers in rural areas on a consistent basis. I visited Thailand and 99% of the time I could connect to a cellphone tower which are well placed throughout the country. I assume placed by gov regulation. Basically I have better reception in a foreign country like Thailand vs the USA.

[@davidwilkie9551]

What is the opposite, in Anthropological terms, to the diplomatic projection of good moral intent in dealing with others, ie what is the underlying covenant or contract? Would that be a licenced Agent or Apointee enabled to project a biased, restricted bargaining position, that could use any means available to either support or demand cooperation from other parties, in consensus. Most histories of human enterprise assume that a Leader emerges from the tribe by natural abilities, and so do associated appointees etc.., ie the word "democratic" is more Situational than Transactional, because it "just happens" naturally in small groups. The Anthropological Observation that we are competent to deal with groups of 150 or less, administrative leadership in 3, 5 or 7s in cooperative partnerships, but everything usually degenerates when the numbers go up and/or leadership is an authoritarian substitute for appropriate diplomatic education and preparation. In short, "everyone knows" how to manage their own responsibilities, naturally. Education is essential.

[@mtn1793]

Where does energy fit in? What if government developed and supplied energy as its duty and as the basis of a modern economy?

[@kikolatulipe]

@39:00 she is right !

[@vthilton]

Sharing will save the world.

[@darkcnotion]

Share me your dollars please pesos are being devalued

[@schmidthj99]

its not a matter of economic or political discussion ... its a moral dispute we need to solve first...

[@norman_5623]

The Big Myth was reviewed in Science magazine, by Science's editor, H. Holden Thorp. Best line: "Astoundingly, although [Milton] Friedman's ideas have never been rigorously verified by experiment, they remain prominent in the field of economics."

[@stephaneg.8623]

What are you talking about?? 😂 Milton Friedman was as thorough as any economist you can find, alive or dead. All of his ideas are thoroughly supported by experiment, that was the basis of his process. Read his research, read his books, read the references and footnotes. The jokers on this channel are Marxists posing as economists, nothing to see here but propaganda for more taxes, centralized decision making, redistribution of wealth, and moralizing banalities. 👎

[@lyndonbarsten393]

Right!!!

[@davidluckens3479]

Thanks for this probative video,and for reminding me of many things,not the least of which is that in the wake of the grotesque market failure which set off the "Great Depression",The Gipper " was a "New Deal Dem",who later became president of a union dubbed the Screen Actors' Guild.Those of us who were around at the time are cognizant of the reality that Reagan could never been elected gov in Cali,let alone POTUS without the support of "Reagan Dems",who sold out so much of the "New Deal" for a few points off their marginal federal tax rate.I find it ironic that Prof Johnson taught a course at Union Theological Seminary on religion and economics.I'm confident that he knows all too well that BOTH organized religious doctrine and market fundamentalism are "tools" of the ruling classes.Prof Adolph Reed once quipped on a You Tube video that economists are social scientists who attend a church where the cross is upside down.Again,thanks for the video

[@vladdumitrica849]

Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

[@IM2L84F8]

That Reaganomics is the kernal to this free-market ideology has itself become ideological and at best chliché. It is well understood that Reagan's policies set the foundation for 'neoliberalism's' global push. My question is this: what about the Big Myth of Market Liberalism? Here's one example: on November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate"-- this does appear to be a bit fundamentalist, n'est-ce pas?

[@MrMarinus18]

Reaganomics was more so the crucial moment where market fundamentalism went from an alternative view to the dominant view.

[@shakenbacon-vm4eu]

Genuine question, not calling out the lecture. If we criticize capitalist monopolies (truly evil), how do we reconcile the government serving as a ‘potential’ monopoly if we make a service or sector public? I am totally with the ideology of the speakers but this is something I’ve never been able to reconcile and I think can be a weapon of the right if we don’t engage with it

[@foobar8894]

I'd say that is where a properly functioning democracy comes in. A monopoly is not in itself a problem, as long as it serves the interests of society. If all citizens are equal 'shareholders' in this monopoly they all benefit from it. It's not easy to get that right and does not fit everywhere, but it sure is better then a monopoly where just the few benefit.

[@shakenbacon-vm4eu]

@@foobar8894 thank you, I like this

[@katejudson8907]

Great conversation. I would like to comment as an Australian, ie non- American but steadily drawn into the pull of much Americanism, that the issue of so called conflicting freedoms is quite a blind spot for ALL colonial or slavery based based societies, becuz the presumption of freedoms to stealing lands and genocidal occupation has been practiced as routine. The enslavement of the Earth and all it's beings for profit, and the use of human enslaved labor has been practiced as a routine by the dominant , white, mostly Christian Patriarchal male class. What's missing in all the talks of freedom is that freedoms can't go on like that without being tethered to OBLIGATION or RESPONSIBILTY . You want a gun, you have obligations. You want to mine the minerals of the Earth, you have obligations. But this ' chosen one ' exceptionalism view that white colonial and empire nations take is that they don't have to abide by the cause and effect nature of actions, that they can endlessly pass off the burdens to someone else. Freedoms should neverbe discussed without their obligations. It's not a marketplace of competing freedoms it's responsibility for each one that is lacking in the logic here.

[@luissantiago5840]

I am dead worried that communities are so “ideology bewitched” that education will not break the spell fast enough in order to prevent a potential political debacle.

[@robertcartwright4374]

The "free" market is Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.

[@norman_5623]

Peter Kropotkin was a biologist who wanted to repeat Darwin's observations in his own country, Russia. In Mutual Aid, he wrote that the Hobbsean "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" is a misunderstanding of Darwin. The animal that is fittest is not the strongest, or even the cleverist, but the one that can cooperate with its fellows. For example, one eagle can search for food over a square mile. However, six eagles working together can cover six square miles, and when one discovers, say, a dead horse, it will signal to its colleagues and they will all join together in feeding.

[@nunoalexandre6408]

Only Love Remains...

[@Achrononmaster]

@15:00 it's not just a tension between "two freedoms" it is an absence of all other spiritual qualities you might desire: justice, compassion, honesty, trustworthiness, wisdom, and so on and so forth. "Americans" (or more generally libertarians) place too much unhealthy emphasis on "freedom." No one living in a physical reality is truly physically free.

[@marc-andreperron219]

A question for Naomi Oreskes; if market failure is so pervasive a risk, a reality, and a detriment to economic prosperity, is socialism the answer promised and why hasn't it delivered the harmonious utopia that has been promised by Marx and others? Why have socialist countries like the Soviet Union and Venezuela failed in delivering prosperity to its citizens? I even think of the socialist economy of Tommy Douglas in my native Canada, from the province of Saskatchewan. During his 17 years as premier, the provincial government delivered welfare, economic growth, and paid off debt, but... several of the industries nationalised (e.g., lumber, oil), which generated most of the revenue that allowed this prosperity, has to be sold back to the private market, because it was losing revenue in the end. This points to two things: one is that the government administers poorly, otherwise the utility sector would still generate revenue. Second, is the pattern seen often enough with socialism; "you always run out of other peoples' money" Margaret Thatcher.

[@watching99134]

The speaker around 42:20+ doesn't make much sense; he describes "...the liberal Protestant churches and the Catholic churches [sic]" as if Protestants are always liberal and that there is more than one Catholic church and they are all conservative (there are more than a dozen Catholic churches worldwide but he is assuredly talking about the Roman one).

[@davidmcculloch8490]

A rising tide raising all boats is the worst excuse of neoliberalism. In the storms or tsunamis caused by imperfect competition or financialization, many boats are capsized.

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

Quaker Capitolism vs. Vulture Capitolism

[@bertnijhof5413]

The old agreement between the elites (aristocrats or oligarchs) and the clergy. The elites keep the peasants poor and the clergy keeps the peasants dumb, nothing has changed in the last 1000 years :) :)

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Whats the alternative? Surely not liberal centrism or social democracy, they are contradictions imposed on capitalism. The only coherent alternative is socialism.

[@foobar8894]

Why does the alternative need to be coherent? It's the fundamentalism that's the problem. For some things free market capitalism works, for some others it doesn't. The correct approach is to use the right tool for the job, instead of thinking that there will be a single approach that will solve all problems. Socialized healthcare makes sense, socialized car manufacturing just gets you a Trabant. Other things might need something in between or something completely different.

[@ellengran6814]

​@@foobar8894 I totally agree. We need less idealism, and more realism.

[@JohnAllenRoyce]

@@ellengran6814 Why blame idealism? Is it fruitlessly "idealistic" to learn from the past and evolve? Not sure I get the argument. At ALL.

[@alanhehe4508]

The term "free market" has got to be the ultimate oxymoron. We used to have small business, stakeholder capitalism. Now we have huge, multinational corporations that only serve shareholders, create few real goods, and their owners don't think twice about destroying people's lives or even our habitat, as long as it increases their bottom line and stock prices. That's an internecine situation, and the idea of infinite growth in a world of finite resources, is insane. The system we have now, with the government having been completely captured by corporate interests, I wouldn't even call it capitalism, but rather "corporatism, " or "the merger of corporate and state powers" as Mussolini defined it..

[@stephaneg.8623]

When exactly was this utopic small business stakeholder capitalism??😂 The first public company(East India Trading) literally became the largest world company in a few years, and went on to own entire countries and shape world politics...Free markets reward someone how does something really well by incredible amounts....and then it's up to others to catch up. It's always been this way. Also, the world is infinite (at least to us), so there are infinite resources, hence no problem with infinite growth...There may be temporal issue which crop up as we figure out how to access those resources, for example a new continent, or new planets, but that's the pressure that builds the impetus to actually get there. It's all good man, humanity is a beautiful part of a beautiful world. In my mind at least 😅🎉

[@darkcnotion]

How are *legitimate* big corporations opposed to free market? If their product is detrimental to society the go bankrupt or adapt, we’re all constantly learning

[@sharondavid-melly1498]

Boy, the spiritualization of markets as diety hit home. I attend church regularly, don't know how much longer... and hypocrisy around the poor and the "other" is nuanced in a vague political agenda. Capitalism vs Socialism.

[@tomofnorthcal]

Thx for the video. Markets, freedom, multiple markets, and too much propaganda.

[@gregorybaillie2093]

Without the multiple associated disciplines to degree level minimum, including mathematics and especially modelling, the truth is, you CAN"T understand anthropogenic global warming man made or not man made. Never before apart from "the pandemic" have I witnessed so many people so stridently harbor opinions on subjects they do not understand, especially when these people are in government or news media. what does a historian or an economist know of several sciences, modelling and mathematics ? My guess is not enough to have an opinion that's worth taking on board.

[@paulkesler1744]

The very phrase "democratic capitalism" is an oxymoron, because there is no democracy for workers in the workplace, and precious little outside of it for an ever-growing portion of the citizenry. Big business has always prioritized the rights and freedoms of the rich, while limiting those of the majority. Capitalism and democracy can be made to co-exist for limited periods of time, effecting a precarious balance, but such a "forced marriage" cannot last. For roughly thirty years after WWII, the New Deal gave us a false sense of security, but the capitalist class despised it because they viewed its social programs as an "interference" with their profits. That provided the incentive for the privatization, deregulation, and regressive tax policies of the neoliberal project, but though initiated under the pretext of "reform," there was rarely significant reform of those in power. So we've come to an Orwellian pass, where markets run free, plutocrats rule, and words are "reformed" into their opposites.

[@idontagree9658]

The health, property management, and insurance industries are too abusive to the values of Americans. Americans used to pay MORE in taxes for less infrastructure, for more work and more responsibility. We paid adequate pay to employees, who had job security and reliable fuctionally adaptable careers. We could move between industries and still reasonably expect a living wage. Americans were not shoved into dead end work just trying to survive, with the productive value being scraped out of every industry maliciously for corporate and investors over labor. The same people who are trolling and poisoning the well of communication are legit abused by ill prepared medical care expenses, rent and owner housing costs, equitable pay for equal work, collegeiate education entitlement being disproportionally interested and resolute for rural Americans, especially when legal manipulations of universities make degrees like aristocratic titles of nepotism that the same people being replaced WHOLE SALE by automation, still beleive they are owed monies, for longer more expensive medical care lives than ever in history, all while their credit debts stand all but interest unpaid, parents and grandparents incorporating, very naievely, social media and embeded technological obsolesence to the obstruction of subsequent generations simply trying to ride the new waves of automation, instead of reliably turn their dollars to local businesses and infrastructure than returns those dollars very quickly to the areas we live. The debts and misappropriations of tax dollar subsidation by MULTI TRILLION DOLLAR not just industries, but individual companies, not just companies, but individuals. The taxes used to make the climb harder and more deserved. The market share a badge of honor and trust. Now its all rope and free climbing with barely room to move, by provacteurs with zero else to do but cut lines, manipulate the publics understanding of what is ACTUALLY happening. False advertising is RaMPaNT. In the public's team color sided, color coded to eliminate competition, to destroy TRUST and EFFICIENT spending. In a hostility to continutation, not just ethical business, not just business as ususal, but to reliable human function because the assumption is we would always get the straight dope explanation from a advertising driven journalism model? While its turning journalism into lipstick service dualistic pundit specious outrage. Not people. Not facts. We need the facts. We need the middle. An english speaking country needs a melting pot, amalgram of lots of perspectives of what is happening. Thank you for standing up.

[@rolandnelson6722]

@ 16 mins what to do? Create your own Ronald Reagan. Find a marketable somebody who you can send around America/world. The spread the message. Give them a kitchen sink of advisors.

[@menudobucket9837]

Protecting Capitalism to protect democracy seems to me to be fallacious and backwards!

[@harryecoffjr4666]

The host should keep his hands down out of the camera lens.

[@JohnAllenRoyce]

Commenters shouldn't distract from videos with pointlessly negative surface noise.

[@nathat4250]

Read Marx and Lenin

[@kentgorrell]

Does my right to own a gun trump your right not to be shot?

[@kentgorrell]

My rights extend so far as they don't infringe on the rights or others.

[@Zero11_ss]

how could our companies compete on a global scale if we don't have big companies like google or Microsoft though? We will just get dominated when the others use their larger scale to undercut and takeover.

[@jeffsmith9420]

Rational arguments about market fundamentalism. Sad though they adhere to climate fundamentalism.

[@aishdesai]

B grade Chimpanzees 🐒

[@asifmuniruniverse7732]

God words are not importance according to your thought? Are that useless and extras, and roadly less then impotence

[@lokayatavishwam9594]

Are you having a stroke?

[@zintlemvana7955]

Which God's words?

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

"don't believe a word of those things people say in my name" - god

[@ivandafoe5451]

You are misunderstanding what they are saying when they refer to a God. Perhaps your difficulty is from an insufficient grasp of the English language (no insult intended)?

[@asifmuniruniverse7732]

Is God new now? I don't agree to you

[@ivandafoe5451]

They are saying that uncritical devotion to capitalism is falsely treating it as if it were a God, when it isn't any such thing. Do you really disagree with that?