The Capitalist Manifesto with Johan Norberg

Will free markets save the world?
In this video, IEA Head of Political Economy Kristian Niemietz sits down with Swedish author and historian of ideas Johan Norberg.
In his latest book, Norberg argues that large sections of the political and economic establishment talk about the global economy as a geopolitical zero-sum game, where we have to fight to control new innovations, and introduce trade barriers. He states the case for capitalism and the vital role played by the free market in today's uncertain world.
To learn more, check out the full book: www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Man...
🔗 LEARN MORE:
TWITTER - / iealondon​​
INSTAGRAM - / ​​
FACEBOOK - / ieauk​​
WEBSITE - iea.org.uk/

[@thomasbentele2468]

The question, if the state lays the groundwork, from what private companies profit must be studied more detailed. Firstly its OK to profit from the state, when the private economy finances the state. Historically it was always the job of a non corrupt government, that loves its citizens to build the infrastructure people profit of, and if they really loved their people, the parliament spoke the deficit, instead of bowing down to the private fiat money creators. But without question, with the actual corruption, some privates and some switching state employees parasite, what the state creates and make their private patents and companies of it, for example. Corruption is a bad thing.

[@albionicamerican8806]

So what do we do when successful capitalists build up their piles of FU money, and then they start to fund socially damaging projects? Friedrich Engels was a successful businessman & investor, and he is the classic example of that problem.

[@DanHowardMtl]

WHOOSH

[@FreedomSpirit108]

I beleave that is more of a crony capitalism thing

[@albionicamerican8806]

​@@johnlind5563 So how do I make billions of dollars to stop the billionaire investor George Soros from using his wealth to undermine law & order in American cities?

[@kubricksghost6058]

We have all these increases in technology and "living standards" but actually people in the 1960s had more purchasing power and better quality of life. Why is gen z the poorest generation if capitalism is support to make everyone bettr off? Why do people feel the need to forego having a family so they can live comfortably hence birthrates r falling?

[@michaelhutchings6602]

The 60s sucked. Which aspect do you envy from then?

[@kubricksghost6058]

@@michaelhutchings6602 you could earn very little and still afford a mortgage. No illegal immigrants flooding the borders. List goes on and on

[@michaelhutchings6602]

@@kubricksghost6058 Housing costs are a direct result of the state hyperregualting housing and making it extremely difficult to build. America had open borders until the 20th century.

[@kubricksghost6058]

@@michaelhutchings6602 1. Gen z and millenials can't afford housing and rent cuts their purchasing power further. Instead black rock and vanguard buy single family homes. What you've described regarding regulation is only 1 aspect of it. 2. America, the UK and europe have never before faced mass illegal immigration on this scale. California has recently agreed to provide illegal immigrants with free health care costing the tax payer billions in an already struggling economy. People were not so Liberal minded in the 60s, another aspect which I miss.

[@michaelhutchings6602]

@@kubricksghost6058 1. Housing costs are only brought down by an increase of supply or a reduction of demand. Blame local governments who despise developers for restricting the supply. 2. If you find that a problem just make it easier to legally immigrate and abolish the welfare state.

[@thomasbentele2468]

We have to put aside all the robber-economy, the theft, the betrayal, the colonial exploitation and so on, that clearly exists, organised by the most powerful and the least moral people of the planet. But such bad things can and mostly will happen in every economic framework, if the most powerful are bad people. Then, there are other mechanisms, that are mixed in the meaning of capitalism, like distribution by markets, who are good, but not part of capitalism. Economies that used market mechanisms existed long before capitalism formed. Free markets only make production more efficient and the participants only profit of it, if all of them had full employment in their country, region, commmunity, as Rodrik showed us well. Markets can not increase the money supply of the market partners to increase production and wealth and welfare of the participants. Only capitalism ("creditism") can do so. To define capitalism in its core, its the fantastic, revolutionary possibility for a man to get rich, by making not only on other man poorer. The mechanics is money/credit creation for the productive economy only, and exactly to the extent, the participants need to grow up their business and with that the economy as a whole. If not corrupted, it is a very open system, where every innovative entrepreneur or start up, who wants to produce additional or new or better or cheaper products, can go to his local bank and (if the idea and the skills are good) get the newly created credit he needs. By investing the credit in his little or bigger fabrication plant, he increases the money supply of the economy, and prevents the risk of therefor rising prices immanently, by produce additional goods. If not corrupted, capitalism is the best thing that happened to humanity. Growing rich without hurting any other human being. The most powerful and evil Elites hate the fact, that people from lower classes can become rich, and do everything they can, to prevent it more and more from happening. The american dream: From a dishwasher to a millionaire came thru much more often in then past than now. Corruption works. To advocate capitalism we have to name all the bad things that comes along with capitalism as they come along with every other principle, as long as powerful, evil people force it to serve their interest. If we analyse well and show the beautiful core of capitalism, people will understand that blaming capitalism for the damage and the catastrophes, the evil powerful does to every economy is wrong. Capitalism in one sentence is credit creation out of thin air exclusively to build up additional production.

[@collin501]

I think it’s great that entrepreneurs and financiers trust one another and bear risk together. But Do you think it’s a negative that the money supply is more volatile because money is created out of thin air? Do you think there is a way to finance such projects without creating money out of thin air?

[@criticalthinker8007]

It is complete false to say global poverty is falling. Absolute poverty is falling but relative poverty is increasing, in some places exponentially. The number of people especially children suffering from malnutrition is almost at an all time high, half the world's population experience water scarcity. yet we have the technology to solve this.

[@criticalthinker8007]

@@johnlind5563 People are not become less poor the amount of people in poverty is increasing. The companies that are becoming more rich are the companies that do not produce anything of value. Companies in the pursuit of profit are disinsensitivised to be efficient, therefore stifles innovation. Importing food from improvised countries instead of improving agriculture at home. 40% of energy is wasted at source, cheaper to burn than to store and distribute. "can't demand that others give money to it because then everyone will end up poor" I am sorry but that is a very nieve statement. I for one am not demanding such things. Currently it is demanded that others give money that is how they become rich. The rich do not make money they accumulate it. All the money in the world is created through debt, the wealthy are by definition not in debt; their wealth is demand from others. It is not about the redistribution of wealth, it is about the proper management of resources - financial poverty and debt could be eliminated over night without any money changing hands.

[@Dbd_ryuk]

I agree 100%, developing lands are simply never going to develop. It is scary that only a few of us managed to live in privileged lands but at the cost of being enslaved economically. There is no such thing as liberty nowadays.

[@collin501]

What’s the problem and solution, in your opinion?