The Death of Economics 101 ft. Mexie

[@unlearningeconomics9021]

A comment clarifying a few things about this video (sorry it’s a little late, I was busy with work!): Firstly, is a $15 median wage justified based on the evidence I cite? I didn’t want to spend time doing this type of arithmetic in the video but perhaps I will in the future to avoid confusion. The EPI data shows that the current median wage in the USA is $19/hour and, using the Dube quote, we can take 81% of this as unlikely to create unemployment problems, and that number is over $15. Factor in the gradual implementation of the policy over time (and the corresponding rise in the median wage itself), and I really doubt there are going to be noticeable effects on employment overall. It’s reasonable to worry about difficulties in low-wage states, but to be honest the evidence just doesn’t show that minimum wage increases anywhere (including other countries, see the Manning paper) have had terrible effects, so I’m not holding my breath for a catastrophe. On Neumark and the minimum wage, their research generally uses fixed effects, which control for things that are different between states but assume these things don’t change. The issue with this is that states may experience changes (eg economic booms) which are associated with changes in minimum wage policies, and this will confound the estimation. The approach of C & K, Dube and others uses close comparisons of counties which are likely to be experiencing similar trends and so it accounts for this. Another method that’s been used by Neumark and others is a ‘synthetic control’, where you construct a comparison as a combination of existing states, but this is an opaque process that has a lot of room for tweaking to get the results you want. In the minimum wage debate synthetic controls have been used to show both employment and no employment effects, depending on the authors, and I just don’t trust the approach. The paper by Daniel Kuehn goes into all this in more detail. Secondly and importantly, there is a mistake in how I read out the graph at 28:26. The top left graph actually refers to renters, not rents, falling, which must have been a mistake in writing the script - my bad. What the whole graph depicts is a situation where some units subjected to rent control were redeveloped and converted to either rented but uncontrolled units, or to owner-occupied units. The number of renters falling is a reflection of this process. 2nd generation rent control is in fact designed to incentivise these types of investments from landlords, though they displace existing residents. Overall, the Diamond paper shows that this doesn’t occur in the vast majority (85%) of units, where there are benefits to existing renters, both financially and in their length of tenure. If one were concerned exclusively with the number of renters at existing market prices, they may not regard this as a trade-off worth making. Rent control - at least in this instance - seemed to benefit most people and prevent poorer residents from being entirely displaced from the city, but it did slightly accelerate neighbourhood segregation within the city through these redevelopments. It’s certainly not going to solve gentrification alone. The rest of the literature sometimes assumes ‘income diversity’ and house price rises are a good thing as they represent improvements in quality of neighbourhoods - see eg Diamond and McQuade (2019 ) on their preferred subsidy policy - but they are assumed to be bad here. The paper is even internally inconsistent on whether incomes in an area rising is a good thing - it’s a negative thing if it’s a result of rent control, but a positive thing more generally! The only reasonable conclusion is of course “its complicated” and if the redeveloped houses were previously low quality, one could argue 2nd generation rent control is doing its job. On the other hand, one could prioritise existing residents entirely, but that doesn’t seem to be what opponents of rent control are doing as (again) the policy still showed overall that there was medium term retention of existing residents. An interesting debate for sure, but not one that’s going to be solved by half-baked reaction videos 😉 I have posted references from this comment at the bottom of the video description. Thanks for watching everyone!

[@praneetpopuri4831]

I rewatched video to find this info out and you just posted it 2 hours ago, i am lucky lol.

[@lydiatolhurst3955]

Look everyone just needs to move on now I’ve had enough.

[@johnhiggins2696]

@@lydiatolhurst3955 what do you mean

[@adenjones1802]

The problem I have with this video is not that it is advocating for minimum wage so much as it is asking to get rid of the supply and demand model in order to advocate for it when you don't really need to. The theory is still useful for explaining the issue, its just that capitalists invoke it in the wrong way. The proper way to apply this model is to look at the workers surplus and the employer surplus. When you impose a minimum wage this model would suggest that the would be a dead weight loss to the economy (Big or small depending on the demand elasticity) but that the worker surplus ultimately increases, meaning workers are better of overall but this comes at a cost of some market efficiency and the employer surplus shrinks. This theory only tells you what the trade off is, not if the trade off is worth it. It only gives us descriptive information not prescriptive information. When it comes to government intervention there are positives and negatives. Its rarely a case of it being all bad or all good. If you don't care about businesses as much as you do consumers then its a perfectly valid choice even according to this model. The problem with economists and capitalists is not that they use the theory, but the fact that they only bring up the costs of minimum wage and pretend as if that is the end of the story. So you can still make the argument for minimum wage without getting rid of the theory. The theory still accounts for the positives and the negatives its just that the biased capitalists usually only look at the costs presented by the model. This model is also not meant to quantify other factors like if consumer spending increases as a result of minimum wage. Which it most likely will, leading to job creation. Again, you don't need to get rid of econ101 you just have to apply it properly and honestly and consider other factors.

[@robanson32]

“The loss of these jobs could actually be a good thing” is perhaps the most elitist comment I think I’ve heard in awhile. I think you’re selectively looking into the research that paints a the picture you want. Synthetic Seattle was a great approach compared to what came before to garner a more accurate picture. Its very likely the minimum wage examples in most studies are set right around or below market equilibrium thus the muddled results. The correct minimum wage is zero, the government need not interact in private citizens interactions

[@unstablepc5913]

People talk about econ 101 like if understanding physics 101 could allow you to understand general relativity.

[@EggEnjoyer]

People talk about Econ 101 as if they actually know anything about Econ 101. But really they can’t even explain themselves or counter your ideas. They just keep repeating “it’s basic economics bruh” as if that’s an argument in itself. But they can’t actually even explain those economics. It’s literally a truism that people just repeat over and over.

[@murilocelebi]

@@EggEnjoyer dogma

[@ibuetn9294]

Well, and they talk about it as if it was something scientifically validated over and over for hundreds of years like physics 101

[@travcollier]

Worse... Pretty much all (real) economics courses after 101 are about how what you learned in 101 isn't quite right.

[@flarebear5346]

@@ibuetn9294 I hate this part the most. Idk how economics went from something close to filosofy to something close to physics

[@samusfan2441]

As an Historian, I am offended by the economists who do not want to accept the truth that Economics is a Social Science. Denial won't do good for them.

[@taiyoqun]

The thing is that economic theory only works in a vacuum. As soon as you bring people into the mix everything they claim to be real turns out to be just thought. So they get away from reality and pretend they are studying the platonic ideal of money. That way they can claim how the economy works without a shadow of a doubt, and when they turn out to be wrong they can blame people for acting irrationality (when in actuality they just never accounted for the majority of the factors). In a sense it's a perfect "science", where there exists an ultimate reality you can easily comprehend, measure and explain. But on the other hand that reality does not relate to anything other than the fanfic they've been writing for generations. It's like a religion where if you believe very hard and study the text a lot you get to write new sacred texts. No, wait, that's every religion, they aren't even original. Hello zealots who are going to comment telling me how wrong I am, how are you?

[@Cyclobomber]

Most economists are first and foremost ideologues who try to justify the system as it is, one of the reason is that they believe that the system is good because it's based on hard science because it's maths and as such economists are the hardest scientists ever. Yes this is insane, and they have the gall to mock philosophy teachers who, at least, know they aren't the pinnacle of science.

[@crabbyalthegrump641]

​@@Cyclobomberdont forget, not only is it all good because it is 'hard science based on maths', it is also good because they get paid lots of money to say so ...

[@Cyclobomber]

@@crabbyalthegrump641 Indeed, they're products of that system and paid to say it's the only system.

[@SinistralEpoch]

@@Cyclobomber tbh, this is why I don't take most economics arguments seriously. The USSR had a completely separate system, and when it was at its economic peak, it employed a command economy, the state employed most people, and they managed to industrialize, fight off the Nazis, end cylical famines in Russia, get people into space, provide a living standard comparable to the US, became a world superpower from a backwards feudal peasant state in a matter of decades, among other things. Economic organization is more fluid than market-minded economists make it seem. This doesn't mean we ignore the facts our scientific studies on these subjects, however. But there's a clear divide between studies that are biased and meant to confirm common logic, and studies that are - while also biased - actually curious about the outcome.

[@UserJWR]

"Just like a physicist cannot claim that water will flow uphill, an economist cannot claim that employment increases as the minimum wage rises." If an honest physicist observes water flowing uphill, they will closely examine the phenomenon and QUESTION the respective theory. I think the fact that so many economists are so adamant that their theories MUST be true undermines Econ as a science more than any questioning of those theories.

[@VeteranVandal]

Water uphill i've never seen, but some people observe particles in water surface go against the stream. It is odd, but it can happen. Bet I could also so use a thermodynamics joke somewhere here.

[@kenfalloon3186]

Capillary action?

[@miaschambeck1530]

@@VeteranVandal Fun fact: There are liquids that actually pour themselves. You can look up superfluidity. On topic: It is really weird to me, how a scientific theory is considered anything but a useful tool. If one is not useful anymore it should just be replaced.

[@VeteranVandal]

@@miaschambeck1530 Forgot about superfluidity... Mostly because I was talking about water. But yes. Superfluids are a cool strange thing that exist.

[@VeteranVandal]

@@kenfalloon3186 well, there's also capillary action.

[@Sorenzo]

Funny thing - when I learned Economics 101, what really stuck out to me is how much it has been misrepresented. I'd heard "you can't do rent control, it just doesn't work" so many times, but the actual argument in economic theory simply indicates that it's not the most efficient way to set prices in a vacuum - but we don't live in a vacuum. In the real world, people don't always have alternative options, so they end up overpaying, or there's serious problems caused when people can't afford the price of a home. Additionally, the public may simply decide democratically that some things are more important than 100% market efficiency. This is what we SHOULD learn from Economics 101.

[@joesickler5888]

All things are not held equal.

[@calmkat9032]

When I learned about how rent control doesnt work in Econ 101, I remember telling my parents how maybe they were right about economics all along (I was something like a socdem while they were conservative). However, that was High School. In College I took Macroeconomics and got into left wing youtube videos like this one. I realized it was true that rent control didn't work, however, there was another, more holistic solution to homelessness and out-of-control rent: decommodifying housing. Make homes on the taxpayer dime, give them to those who need them, and the problem is 100% solved. That became a microcosm of how I think about economics. I realize the flaws and limitations of conservative and liberal solutions, then I look at the hidden leftist solution, then it just so happens that that one addresses the issues of both sides. (It also just so happens that the people who run this country would be the only losers. In this example, people who own hundreds of homes and dozens of politicians would lose equity if new homes were built. Hmm...)

[@gelinrefira]

@@calmkat9032 - decommodifying housing. Yes that's what Singapore did with their newly built public housing.

[@lazergurka-smerlin6561]

@@gelinrefira Man singapore, truly a interesting country

[@samsprague3158]

@@calmkat9032 similar for me. High school Econ was quintessential neo liberal, with all these cute little models and game theory. Then I took macro in college and it was basically like a refresher on micro and a bunch of reasons why it doesn’t actually work that way and we don’t know much tbh.

[@dairallan]

My high school economics teacher told us right at the start that high school economics was largely "rules for children" and the actual reality of economics was deeper and more complex. This is the problem most people with only a basic high school understanding of economics have. They don't realise that the economics they were taught was dumbed down and simplified in order to be taught at that level.

[@dudeman5303]

And what makes it worse, when it gets abridged like that it isn't even the same field, it's basically meaningless. It's just NOT the same thing as the broader study of economics, schools have a serious problem with this for most subjects. The history you learn in america is especially pitiful, it's just so wrong that you actually have to "unlearn' it to get anywhere.

[@hedgeknight3194]

at least you had high school economics. Where I live that is considered “too extreme/difficult/useless” to teach teens

[@Danielle_1234]

It's not just dumbed down, the theories taught are outright wrong. At least high school economics teaches some basic principals to think about the economy like supply and demand, elasticity, and so on.

[@dairallan]

@@Danielle_1234 Yeah I didn't make it clear enough in my initial post that its not just dumbed down but its dumbed down in a way that teaches things incorrectly. Elasticity is a great example of this. On top of that, elasticity focuses almost entirely on price elasticity which creates an undue fear of inflation and ignores the far more important cross elasticity.

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

This is worse than just being abridged. This is as if in high school chemistry, we weren't taught about atoms, but we still talked about "parts". Or hell, "elements". And we had to learn in university that actually atoms and molecules and chemical bonds are a thing. Econ 101 most of the time is outright wrong and doesn't bear out in reality.

[@fredflinsten449]

From my experience as an Econ grad who also majored in heterodox economics and statistics, I think the problem with orthodox economic majors (particularly Econ101/102/201/202) is that they don't deconstruct economics as a social science with its contexts and cross-disciplinary interactions. Instead, they treat it as if it were a trade you learn at trade school: "this week, we're gonna learn these tool called supply and demand, next week we'll learn about surplus, week after we'll learn how to use Nash equilibriums, next semester you learn about aggregate demand, etc...don't worry about the historical contexts behind them or how these ideas are constructed based on particular ideas of ontology and epistemology, or whether there are limitations and critiques on these ideas, or whether there are competing theories (ironic considering we want you to know perfectly competitive markets with consumers with perfect information generates the most Pareto optimal outcomes), etc...". Economics degrees need a full on restructure to stay relevant. Nothing wrong with being a neoclassical or new Keynesian economist, but an economics degree should be about economics, not economic dogma

[@AS-lm2yv]

yeah, economics education could be improved, but the field is still good

[@trixn4285]

Yeah, I recently read a very interesting book that is basically a collection of interviews with some prominent economists (mostly heterodox post-keynesian but also some mainstream economists) where they get asked about the opinions of the state of economic theory, heterodox economics and what they think about it, about interest rates and the nature of money (credit theory of money, state theory of money) and about their opinions of MMT. This book is veeeery insightful. It's called "Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference" by Phil Armstrong. Very good read. A lot of economists agreed that orthodox econ is way too dominant and dogmatic and a lot of assumptions have to be questioned more. As the questions are always more or less the same it's very interesting to see how they agree or differ on very fundamental topics.

[@alyssonfarris2223]

@@trixn4285 Thank you for the recommendation on this! I’ll definitely be checking it out.

[@alyssonfarris2223]

@@trixn4285 Good to know! I was going to pirate it, though, and found it on the website I usually use. My university’s business library also has an online copy apparently, so that’s convenient.

[@trixn4285]

@@alyssonfarris2223 If you read it I'd really like to hear what your thoughts were on that. I found it quite astonishing and telling, how many different views on key questions a lot of economists (most of them even teaching at universities) have.

[@allanjmcpherson]

As someone who has studied physics, I find the use of Econ 101 as an argument absurd. The clear reference is to the *very* *first* class on a subject a student would take-a mere introduction. Someone who has taken only a first year physics class will tell you that mass is always conserved and has no ability to explain the wave nature of light. But a student who has finished their second year should know that mass is not always conserved. Really, it's mass and energy taken together that are conserved. And (at least in my program) it's only in year 4 that you have the tools to see how light as a wave arises from theories of electricity and magnetism. Appeals to Econ 101 are a tacit admission that the speaker is making use of only the most basic, simplistic theoretical framework, and that they likely know no more about the subject than that.

[@oilslick7010]

I studied history, and it always baffles me that the Social Sciences, but especially Economics, delude themselves into thinking they're just as hardcore as STEM. The whole thing is based on the underlying assumption that humans are strictly rational beings who use that ratio to behave according to supposed natural laws without fault, like a celestial body would. Instead of taking that as an interesting philosophical point of departure, they flat-out accept that assumption as undeniable truth and proceed to base the entire system on it.

[@michaelm8265]

There is a viewpoint however, even common among practicing economists (despite the 'revolutions' on information , behavior, etc), that there exists a *consensus* on certain issues, on certain principles that still hold. Mankiw's 101 textbook usually features a section on how to 'think' like an economist, and a set of 'stylized facts' for which he argues there exists a fundamental consensus between serious economists. This is, in my opinion, an outright claim on scientific verification of the dominant thinking. The argument goes that; yes, in graduate studies you learn about finer points of economic phenomena and how, for example, the quality of contracts will influence behavior in the labor market, but generally the '101' predictions are a good tool for establishing 'intuition'. Professional economists know IS-LM models are flawed, yet would still argue they generally give a good 'intuition' of how the economy will behave (when in reality, the line of thought can become quite convoluted and its requirements of behavior are quite unlikely). Generally, economist professional would agree that the 'static' and 'frictionless' world of econ101 is just that, an incomplete model; but would use that template for tweaking and refinement. Even more 'liberal' or 'progressive' economists, who argue against these intuitions (and hopefully see them for what they are; ideological prepping tools), would use 'econ101' to say 'not-econ101'. As we have seen in this video. I think it is a good point to make that '101' economics should not be relied upon to 'win' debates, but realistically it is the only type of economics that the general public will (and can expected to) be familiar with until a widespread 'rethinking' of economics has completed itself. In principle 'econ101' is 'democratic' knowledge. That is why the fight for a *better* econ101 is so important, and why a complete overhaul of economics education is necessary. That I think is a position the Great Recession made clear *even if* one believes economics at the graduate level is fine. That said, I am one of those who think it is not. If you would like to delve deeper into this, Samuel Bowles has a worthwhile recent (2020) paper on what students learn in Econ101.

[@luisluzania9713]

I think what you have described here is the most frustrating part about engaging with these kind of topics with anyone who ascribes to the 101 framework. You can explain precisely how their interpretations are flawed and overly simplistic, and can point out that they are relying solely on econ 101 and ignoring stuff you'd learn in upper division classes but they'll insist you're wrong and that the framework can be relied on without question.

[@TemplarOnHigh]

@@luisluzania9713 Are there solid Khan, MIT, or other courses on the KZbin platform for more than 101 / 102?

[@luisluzania9713]

@@TemplarOnHigh honestly, that may be hard for me to answer for you as I have the benefit of a complete undergraduate economics education. As far as channels go, this is the best I've come across but other media I'd recommend are the book misbehaving by Richard thaler and thinking fast and slow by Daniel kahneman and Amos tversky. For me personally it was the behavioral economics stuff that broke the hold of the dogmatic 101 framework. I am currently taking the khan academy courses for econ right now as a refresher for CFA prep so I can let you know how that goes later but the most important thing is I realized that econ man, or the economic actors as described in classical theory are economic behavior under ideal conditions whereas behavioral helps you understand the deviations from a system working in perfect order (which is basically every aspect of the economy). Seems simple and intuitive almost, but it flies over people's heads. People in theory make complex calculations, people in reality use rules of thumb.

[@smegleymunroe863]

Econ 101 day one: “The economy is why we have ice cream” Econ 101 day ten: “And that’s why it’s okay for poor people to die”

[@SeeJayBeEll]

@@007kingifrit I see you under that bridge, Mr Troll, hope you're having fun down there. Or... perhaps... you do actually believe that brain fart of a comment? In which case, I'm so sorry you have to suffer through living in such a fearful, confused, angry and helpless state of mind. I do hope you can recover someday; you're off to a good start by watching this video (assuming you did that, of course).

[@007kingifrit]

@@SeeJayBeEll only children call others trolls. it is a sign of the narrow minded . enlighten yourself

[@007kingifrit]

@【a forgotten friend】 1. you're elitist for not caring about the working class, high school dropouts matter. 2. you're wrong. according to a 2018 study by the bank of england every 10% increase to immigration is a 2% drop in wages 3. legal immigrants tend to take jobs primarily from college grads at this point so. get fucked by knowledge dummy

[@DeepakPal-tg7hy]

Again why not raise the minimum wage to a $1000 an hour?

[@RedSkyYT64]

@@DeepakPal-tg7hy because that's an arbitrary number you pulled out of your ass as a gotcha, and not something that would actually address the fundamental problems with wages themselves

[@frenchy1138]

I'm reminded of a comment the Australian economist Richard Denniss makes regularly in his writing, that economics can't tell you if a policy is "good" or not. It can predict the impacts of a policy on an economy, but whether those impacts are desirable or not is a political question. Anyone telling you that we "must" do something because of economics essentially never has your best interests at heart.

[@MrMarinus18]

I think it's also important to ask the question: What do we want? I think economic growth for the sake of economic growth is a really stupid thing.

[@jamieclarke321]

Also bear in mind that predicting the impact and verifying the impact are two different things. Any theory can predict anything. Doesn’t make it true

[@MrMarinus18]

@@jamieclarke321 But we also have to acknoledge that the amount of pressure to favour billionares is gigantic so sometimes we have to just ignore it and help people.

[@natbarmore]

I seriously question the ability of Econ to predict the impact of a policy on an economy, too.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

"It can predict the impacts of a policy on an economy..." Ah-ha-ha, no. It most definitely cannot.

[@katepriest346]

4:45 'Employment will be high at E3' Finally, economics for us gamers.

[@LimeyLassen]

Scientist: The data showed overwhelming correlation when controlled for every conceivable variable. We tentatively draw no conclusions and recommend 10,000 additional trials. Economist: The data, confusingly, does not conform to theory. Our faith is being tested, we must increase our fasting and prayer.

[@VeteranVandal]

Hahahahahhhah

[@winner78222]

Man, if that isn't true.

[@EconExistential]

Economists don't have laboratory conditions like traditional scientists do. This allows them to do simple statistics to find causation. The laboratory environments alleviates bias in their results. Economists have to use natural experiments that can have messy data that leads to biased results. We can't make people do experiments, and we can't trick people into performing experiments. Because we don't have laboratory environments we have to have a framework (model) that helps us identify causality. If the model is bad it gets thrown out of peer review. If it is logical then is survives peer review. It isn't faith. Economists are scientists too. We just don't have access to laboratories like biologists do.

[@SteinCodes]

I took an Economics 101 in college, and when I read about Demand & Supply curve my first question was, Apple iPhones keep getting more expensive yet they keep selling more, then they said luxury goods are an exception. Then I asked necessities won't decrease if we make them more expensive, then they said necessities are an exception. Then I asked shampoos, medicines, and such items are not bought in excess when they are cheaper(I don't think people buy 10x of pain meds just cause they are cheaper)... Then well I was kicked out of the lecture.... And apparently I got a near perfect score in that course. LoL! And I still have no idea how D/S Curve works. Also why do companies use bundles to make things cheaper under buy 2 get 1 or similar schemes. How does that fit in Econ 101? How the hell does making something cheaper for only those who can afford to pay extra make demand go up? Shouldn't 50% discount after first purchase always be better? Oh don't tell me buy 2 get 1 is a more psychological then Economics, I thought Economics was a better and an exact science. Somehow I find general Economics and Law to both be wayyy to vague and bullshitty to help anyone, it can only harm people. Alright enough sarcasm, but hell it really is bullshit.

[@theblackherald]

@@EconExistential Ah, but the key is that models should get thrown out when disagreeing with observations. As the video showed, only recently have economists even thought to test their models with anywhere close to sufficient rigor. And, again as shown in the video, even when well-constructed studies disagree with the data, economists are likely to turn at least a bit of a blind eye, lest they have to reconsider their core assumptions and bring disrepute to the discipline as a whole.

[@bgiv2010]

Especially after Mexie's part, I'm beginning to think economics statistics literally cannot derive realistic conclusions for non-rich people. Taxes reduce demand therefore income taxes will encourage people to earn less income. WHAT?!

[@robinpage2730]

Exactly this. Higher taxes increase the cost of living, which drives people to earn more to compensate. That's intuitive.

[@bgiv2010]

@@robinpage2730 apparently the better assumption is that people are selfish and greedy so they would boycott higher taxes by earning less purely to avoid supporting others via public spending. People don't really need more money to survive, I guess. Workers have so much extra cash that they'll just negotiate a lower wage because they hate taxes more than they need to budget for food and rent.

[@MrMarinus18]

It's important to keep in mind the level of corruption in this field. You have billion dollar companies that try to either directly or indirectly influence people's perception.

[@موسى_7]

​@@bgiv2010 the best assumption is that everyone is middle class. If taxes were raised on the poor, they would become desperate. However, the middle class may indeed become lazy. Perhaps right wing economics is so popular among the 20th century generations because the middle class was abnormally large back then.

[@bgiv2010]

@@موسى_7 the "middle class" is a fairy tale. Maybe it was a decent assumption but the policies derived from that assumption has led us to a place where it is no longer a good assumption.

[@jackramer]

As someone currently going to a school very well known for neoclassical economics and that many people cite as “Econ 101” to make disingenuous arguments without regard for data, I am very glad your channel exists.

[@evanoc]

Lol what's up Jack

[@OhWellWhatTheHell1]

uchicago? total shot in the dark

[@jackramer]

@@evanoc I’m an avid commenter. What can I say?

[@BDCTheSloth90]

To paraphrase someone who has already been rectified by UL, economic theories are like arseholes: everyone's got one, we use it every day, but you very rarely look at your own unless something's gone wrong.

[@coda-n6u]

​@@alexanderdvanbalderen9803 I understand your framing here, but it also frames economics as even analogous to a "hard science", which it absolutely is not. Yes, there is simplicity in Newtonian Classical physics that students learn in Physics 1, but the problem with "simplicity" in the classical and neoclassical economics taught in universities around the world is that it is inherently ideological. Economics is NOT a hard science - it is a social science trying to give itself prestige from its complex models, to distract from the fact that it is inherently unquestioning towards capitalism. The world is far more complex and has far more stakeholders than what lots of economic theory presents it as.

[@weaponxreject]

I'm really loving the longer formats, video essays are my ASMR yo

[@fh404]

How is this relaxing? Mexie's commentary in this was DENSE

[@kalebmark2908]

This is so true

[@dmoneyonair]

its like music

[@weaponxreject]

@@fh404 while not implying a single negative thing, her commentary offered me nothing new to process within the context of the video. tl;dr old news, i sleep

[@Romeo-le2ez]

Yo nr wgitw

[@cerumen]

“It’s basic economics!” “It’s basic common sense!” “It’s basic biology!” “It’s basic human nature!” “It’s a basic historical fact!” If everything you know is basic, you might be basic.

[@007kingifrit]

if we need to keep explaining basic things to you. that says something about your low intelligence, not us.

[@cerumen]

​@@007kingifrit Things are sometimes complicated. If you need that to be explained to you, you are less acquainted with 'basic things' than you assume.

[@007kingifrit]

@@cerumen but if people keep needing to explain the basics to you.....then it isn't complicated , it's your low intelligence

[@ChandlerBecker]

​@007kingifrit You've missed the point, entirely.

[@ukkisragee9983]

I ain't an expert or anything, but "basic human nature" almost sounds like an oxymoron.

[@HobbieStuartMusic]

You put a lot of work into this video and it was really worth it, well done buddy

[@jimcrelm9478]

The combination of depth with a handful of memorable takeaways (low elasticity, inflexible demand, etc..) is fantastic. If he can keep the quality this high I would definitely watch similar length videos. May I ask does it harm a video's ranking to watch it over several sessions or to rewatch only specific sections? One possible improvement might be to simply list the key concepts at the end as an aid memorisation.

[@gillsmoke]

I agree, I really liked that he stuck to the 2 main factors the supply curves use for the model used in the ECON 101 books. It first describes it as a theoretical product then uses the curve to say the same thing happens in the Labor and Housing markets.

[@varisleek3360]

@Noe Demetrius seems.legit

[@alexc9372]

Iive on 10.25 an hour. After my first year finishes I'm going to get my first raise. 2 Employees hired after me have gotten raises. Im getting my 2nd job

[@Coastpsych_fi99]

Didn’t you produce this?

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

The "study economics 101!" starter pack: 1 Have a predetermined conclusion 2 Find a pet theory that supports your conclusion 3 Ignore any other theories or relevant variables that may interfere with your analysis 4 Ignore any empirical evidence against your conclusion 5 Claim that any criticism of your reasoning is "shooting the messenger"

[@johnwalker1058]

More generally, I think you could apply this to anyone who believes firmly enough in a notion they are dogmatically unwilling to question or skeptically scrutinize and is steeped enough in confirmation-bias style thinking.

[@ptkiller26]

Empirical evidence is open to abuse of all kinds. Especially in economics as there is no independent/constant variable against which to test certain claims. Humans are not independent variables

[@tomymelon6293]

@@ptkiller26 so I work in modeling using ai and I can confirm that while humans are independent variables, there are some clearly established irefutable patterns that are confirmed again and again. Yet people attack them and say it's inconclusive because they just don't like it.

[@trixn4285]

What triggers me the most is that whenever somebody questions mainstream views on an ontological level they say: "It's not scientific because there is no rigorous mathematical model". Math is a language. It's a very helpful tool but only if you get your assumptions right beforehand.

[@ptkiller26]

@@tomymelon6293 The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action. To pursue quantitative analysis implies the possibility of the assignment of numbers, which can be subjected to all of the operations of arithmetic. To accomplish this, it is necessary to define an objective fixed unit. Such an objective unit, however, does not exist in the realm of human valuations. There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible. In other words, There are no constant standards for measuring the minds, the values, and the ideas of men. This is because People have the freedom of choice to change their minds and pursue actions that are contrary to what was observed in the past. Because of the unique nature of human beings, analyses in economics can only be qualitative.

[@thadiusbarnelsnatch3665]

“It’s basic economics” is the modern hand wave equivalent of “because the gods made it so”

[@rey82rey82]

Basic economics is a total myth?

[@nickthompson1812]

@@rey82rey82 no, but it certainly doesn’t explain anything beyond surface level analyses. “Supply and demand hurr durr” doesn’t explain economics in 2023, ya know?

[@OatmealTheCrazy]

​​@@nickthompson1812 it's also by the cult of "basic biology." It's effectively just an very vapidly made appeal to authority....based on a teaching that was deliberately omitting many things.

[@florentin4061]

neoclassical economics is a monoculture with the gods names as „economic growth“ and „job creation“

[@lawrencium2626]

i'd prefer someone invoke their faith in a higher power when trying to discuss social policies than economism, it's closer to the truth of "because I just feel we should/shouldn't fix things", and it's far easier to poke holes in than an ideology that pretends it's hard science regardless of tangible results and published peer-reviewed evidence.

[@ducokniepstra8217]

I allways felt so angry when someone would tell me to "learn economics" while explaining away human rights violations as: "well the market needs slaves or we can't have chocolate". I never really knew how to put in to words the obvious disconnect between that argument and reality. Thanks for broadening my understanding.

[@gengiz80]

The issue is that America has tried to separate politics from economics and you can't. There is always underlying ideology to the economic environment. The people you argued with just showed you their political ideology which is pro slavery because it offers economic benefits to them. Never argue economics without mentioning the subjectivity of the political landscape .

[@TheSm1thers]

You're not one of those guys who claim wage-based contracts to be equivalent to slavery, are you?

[@ducokniepstra8217]

@@TheSm1thers sorry the quoted part is just a hypothetical example. My frustration is with the response, regardless of specific context.

[@TheSm1thers]

@@ducokniepstra8217 Yeah I understand. People should explain or point to why others are wrong rather than just say "go learn x".

[@Taeerom]

I too was tired of that argument. So I learned economics, found it a stupid fucking field, and studied human geography in stead. But I still know enough economics to call bullshit when faced with economism, while also knowing enough economic geography to explain to them why their theories are bunk. Mexie quoted David Harvey, and I can follow up on that recommendation.

[@Demonskunk]

“This experiment will prove whether minimum wage increases are good or bad.” *Experiment shows minimum wage is at best good, at worse neutral* “I don’t like these results” - Economists.

[@TheLucasbr152]

When did that happen?? Yes, minimum wage is bad on itself, and there is experiments showing that.

[@SpectrumDT]

@@TheLucasbr152 : Did you watch the video?

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@SpectrumDT Yes, why?

[@PhenomUprising]

@@TheLucasbr152 Because it seems you need to rewatch it.

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@PhenomUprising I don't need to re-watch just because I disagree. His video won't change the fact that minimum wage laws cause unemployment, raising the costs of production thus raising prices, and worst, it interfere on the freedom of two adults making contracts with other people. People can't even choose to work for a certain amount of money because government subjectively judges the wage "way too low" .

[@mattmadman6728]

Adult KZbinr owns 14 year olds about economics.

[@davitdavid7165]

Trying to convince himself his degree was worth it.

[@gabitheancient7664]

14 year olds and 80 year olds lmao

[@NeroVuk]

you mean completely destroys with facts and logic

[@DeepakPal-tg7hy]

@@NeroVuk If you call rhetoric as facts I don't know what to tell you. Stop with Marx and read Adam Smith. Maybe you'll actually learn how the world works. 😂

[@jaceybella1267]

@@DeepakPal-tg7hy homie was making a joke. "Destroyed with facts and logic" is a meme. You're embarassing yourself, my dude

[@andriypredmyrskyy7791]

Could not get over your portrait of Joe Biden, famous for appearing in: Die Hard, Die Harder, Die Hard 3, Die Hard 4, The Whole 9 Yards, and The Roast of Bruce Willis.

[@BiscuitGeoff]

@Troll Bait you should probably replace the ‘you’ in your post with ‘I’.

[@arcdanis9747]

Being a graduate of an econ major, thank you SO much for this video. I see so many people acting like complete smartasses bringing everything down to the simplest of supply-demand models and "analysis", thinking real life works like simplified economic algorithms of some videogame. They tend to conveniently forget that concepts like elasticity of demand/supply or public goods even exist when it doesn't fit their narrative. The utter self-righteousness and disregard for multi-variant analysis of empirical data is truly nauseating. They always have the right answers, because their 50-year-old (or older) models say so. Hell, some people say that the Say's law of Market (TL;DR: supply creates demand) still applies to modern economies of abundance, where things like marketing exist to contradict it. What they also seem to have in common is worshipping the claims of Mises, Friedman, Sowell and the like as some sort of divine truth. I found myself alienated during econ studies because I asked the "wrong" questions. You're expected to listen and ask: "How can I make money from this?", not "Does it really make sense? Do those assumptions still hold true given contemporary knowledge? Is this even fair and resistant to exploits? What about failures of distribution?". Those Econ 101 people you talked about don't like this kind of questions. Almost like religious people when you blaspheme against a dogma...

[@Pinkyton]

Found you on Reddit and I clicked the video by accident while scrolling. I ended up staying for the whole thing - you did great on this. I've subscribed. Keep up the good work

[@unlearningeconomics9021]

Thank you

[@truecatholic1]

@@unlearningeconomics9021 You have a heart. But you don't know, yet, how deep the rabbit hole goes. I offer you truth. Red pill or blue?

[@jacobweill7512]

I recently got a masters in economics and I began to notice this phenomenon early on but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. This was the first time I’ve ever seen this observation put so clearly, I had no idea so many people also recognized this happening.

[@FPSIreland2]

Not an economist, but I gather you mean that there’s a distinct level of dogma in the economics literature?

[@MrBriwolf]

I took a single econ class in micro econ and almost gouged my eyes out with how dogmatic they were.. Political science generally holds some things as in a "public good"- that is roads, healthcare, institutions that if expanded can bring broad positive change when managed properly. My econ professor literally said "we need to privatize roadways and i don't have kids so why should I pay for a public school system" on day 4. It still brings me chills.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@MrBriwolf Yup. They handwave shit away and bald-faced tech things they know are not true.

[@MrMarinus18]

But I think we are also sometimes too hung up on the GDP dick measuring contest. Having a high GDP just for the sake of a high GDP is pointless.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

I think it's so popular because it's very simple to learn due to being very intuitive. So it makes people feel supieor when they think they can tell you how an entire economy works using a graph. It's a mixture of dunning kruger and a sad desire to seem indifferent to other people because you'll seem "intelligent" and "rational".

[@krombopulos_michael]

I don't think it's very intuitive, it's just one level removed from being intuitive, but like the Keynes quote says, that actually lends it some intellectual gravitas. Its unintuitive enough to that it makes you feel like you're smarter than most people, but still simple enough that it's very easy to learn.

[@ldm8393]

That actually explains so much with what is wrong with armchair economists, Marxists and other ideological people talking about econ online.

[@Alex-fu3mi]

@@pygmalion8952 I'm thinking they're referring to a 15 y/o who's watched one or two videos explaining the Marxist conception of profit or exploitation and feel they can diagnose world economies. Dunning Kruger at play on the left.

[@50733Blabla1337]

@@Alex-fu3mi Ye the vast amount of 15 y/o that go on researching Marx you are delusional my friend.

[@Alex-fu3mi]

@@50733Blabla1337 it's way easier to learn about anti-capitalism / Marxism today than it ever has been. There are tons of zoomer leftists. Being a teen just lends itself to feeling like you know more than you do.

[@bluntbangs]

One of the most weird concepts that's addressed in this video is when billionaire apologists will talk about how taxing the wealthy will somehow reduce wages, or if you prevent that by raising the minimum wage, they'll have to cut costs in other ways like raising prices or hiring less workers. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. First of all, massive companies have more than enough extra cash to handle increased taxes without doing any of these things and still run at the same size. Secondly, the idea that all these companies will raise prices in response to a minimum wage increase or taxation betrays their own model of supply and demand in the marketplace. Just because you increase costs in another area doesn't mean that increasing prices will suddenly make them more money. What they forget is that consumers still have their own supply and demand curve, and increasing prices will ultimately result in less consumers. Trust me, if companies could be making more money by increasing their prices, they would have already done it. This relies on some kind of false assumption that companies weren't already trying to operate in the most profitable ways, which unless they're purposefully running at a loss to out compete other companies, is obviously ridiculous.

[@sigmamaleaffirmationhypnob7340]

Let's be real here, companies already increase prices on a whim

[@River-mm2lj]

That last line..... Do you actually understand how economics works? Businesses don't run at a loss to out compete other businesses, it's more profitable to offer a lower price than your competitor because you'll attract more customers. This market keeps prices as low as they can reasonably go while maintaining profitablity.A tax, which is just an additional cost, jeopardizes this profitability and results in price hikes. I don't know what kind of voodoo economics youre learning but this is a ridiculous view of the world. The lost output has to be recaptured somehow, and market wide you're going to see price hikes therefore there is no expectation of outcompeting your opponent here, they're all usually experiencing the same cost issue. If what you were saying had any weight at all why doesn't some company lower their prices by the rate of the tax and attract even more customers? That seems like a great way to win over the market and clearly you seem to think they can just eat the tax.

[@emrazum]

I think economism can be largely explained by McCarthyism and neoliberal financialization. Also, the field is increasingly trying to STEM-ify itself instead of accepting its roots in the humanities.

[@beezusHrist]

ding, ding, ding... econometrics

[@jackspurlock9201]

Yeah, economics is properly a sub-discipline of moral and political philosophy. There’s nothing wrong with using statistical methods per se, but anytime you’re dealing with the behavior of human beings there is going to be an ethical component. Furthermore, economic laws necessarily must be of a different quality than natural laws such as those in physics or biology, because of free will and the ethical component to the study of human beings.

[@nunziocicone9556]

Strongly disagree. Economism was already going very strong in the early 20th century long before there was a "neo" before liberalism

[@beezusHrist]

@@nunziocicone9556 that's what neoclassical economics is.

[@nunziocicone9556]

@@beezusHrist I don't follow. neoclassical economics is what?

[@TheJumboBurrito]

such a fantastic channel. i love channels that go through studies that are worthy of this kind of analysis rather than channels that cover news headlines because i don’t have a lot of access to peer reviewed academic journals. thanks for making these subjects more accessible king!

[@skepticfilmbuff3885]

If you have an issue accessing peer reviewed academic journals due to paywalls, might I recommend sci-hub? Just find the doi of the article you want to read and copy paste it into sci hub and you should get a pdf. I’ve gotten most of the studies cited in this vid that way.

[@TheJumboBurrito]

@@skepticfilmbuff3885 thanks for the info!

[@MrMarinus18]

Many, many also say that Europe is choking out on it's welfare state. Europe has indeed many problems such as it's squabling small nations, the oil and trade embargo, an aging population, a strong and growing sense of xenophobia and so on. But it's welfare state is not one of them.

[@Sam-yg1lt]

I wish I could explain concepts like this to my parents. I am not smart, but I’ve often been frustrated that my parents have always suggested that there is no way to improve life for everyone. That things are always going to be bad and any attempts to change the system will make it worse. This helped me to solidify my belief that we can make a brighter more equal future. One where people don’t starve to work, and children don’t live in poverty. Thank you.

[@istvanpraha]

Well I am from NYC and I sort of agree with your parents. Anytime they increase benefits or raised minimum wage or salaries in general, costs always adjust like two weeks later. It feels like a hamster wheel

[@nickthompson1812]

People like that have been defeated by life. Hard to be around people like that. Keep fighting the good fight.

[@gus29361]

Well I mean you can make everything better for everyone but there's only two ways. 1. Make a profound technological discovery along the lines of germ theory, electricity, or running water. This will drag everyone up eventually but always starts with the rich who have access to developing technologies. 2. Force people to act like their lives are getting better

[@icemine2418]

@@gus29361Can you elaborate on the latter?

[@nathanielbenfey5824]

I really liked the longer video and the increased depth. I think the feeling of learning "Econ 101" and then accepting it wholeheartedly is widely applicable. Sometimes it takes a deeper understanding of a thing to be able to find critiques.

[@bovinejoni4243]

This seems to be a nearly universal instinct on the right. It’s not just Basic Econ, but Biology 101 and middle school history and on and on. It’s an ideology built on a mastery of the most dumbed-down iteration of every field of study. Like, take a 200 level course in SOMETHING already.

[@MrMarinus18]

Another thing that breaks it is the fact that the rich can abuse their power. They can use their power in one thing to force change into another thing.

[@controlmonkey]

Me at the start of my Econ degree "economics is great!" Me at the end of my Econ degree "economics isn't a science fight me!"

[@ASingh21112]

Can you elaborate?

[@M0stlyHarmless9]

@@ASingh21112 I imagine he means that most economic models are entirely based on specious assumptions about how humans operate; like rational choice theory. And also that model assumptions fail to account for tons of other variables.

[@Danielle_1234]

@@ASingh21112 When people say science like, "Physics is science." they're saying shorthand for, "Physics is a physical science." Physical science is hard fact from fiction, like that an apple falls at 9.8 meters squared. But there are other kinds of science that most people do not consider science, like soft sciences and social sciences. Economics is a social science that sells itself as a physical science. A social science is theories of how people react to certain situations. However, social sciences are not strongly regulated like physical sciences. In Physics you can't just say, "I think the planet is flat." and it will be blindly accepted. You have to prove it. In economics you can say, "I think people respond to increasing minimum wage laws by firing people." without validating or testing it and it can be passed off as if it is the rule of God itself. Teachers omit this fact and teach economics as if it talks about proven facts. It does not. It's a bunch of theories a group of very rich people pushed for to encourage the general masses to believe certain lies about the world, or at least econ 101 is, which is what this video is about. It's propaganda, not truth. There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies to disprove the theories taught in econ 101, but despite this lies continue to be taught.

[@ASingh21112]

@@Danielle_1234 Econometrics is very useful through. I think a distinction between Economics and Econometrics needs to be made. One is a social “science” and the other is just a set of statistical tools that can be used to study many things.

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

Economics is like hotdogs, you'll be a lot more skeptical of it once you see how it's made.

[@mattd2371]

I love the phrase, "the extremely online among us"

[@bruhbruhdo5462]

MAKE IT STOP

[@Inressa]

Terminally online.

[@Flow86767]

Mogus

[@nunkatsu]

When the imposter is extremely online

[@cakeisyummy5755]

@@nunkatsu When thine Impersonator is indeed Murderous!

[@novuswojtek9346]

I do like the longer form content BUT i and I think many would appreciate it if you could add time stamps if your talking about different topics like in this case. I believe this would also allow you to satisfy both types of people, the long form lovers and the more 10-15 mins but size type. P.s I’m an a level eco student and I absolutely love you keep up the good work. Would love to see something about decentralized planning artificial markets or worker cooperatives and worker control like that seen in Germany.

[@unlearningeconomics9021]

Fair point, I've added time stamps!

[@worstelldaniel]

@@unlearningeconomics9021 An excellent, extremely helpful addition. thank you!

[@casmalilopez4479]

Do you have any recs for reading about decentralized planning?

[@LowestofheDead]

Videos on cooperatives and decentralized planning would be awesome!

[@MrMarinus18]

There is actually a real world test of economics 101 in Ireland and we all know how well it turned out as it let to the Irish famine.

[@grimloncz3853]

I didnt know even Adam Smith thought supply/demand theory was flawed

[@howieisbored]

Thank you so much for this! I can't fucking stand people constantly quoting Thomas Sowell as if he had these revolutionary economic ideas.

[@alexj7440]

Sowell is a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person. He also acts as their black friend.

[@murilocelebi]

@@alexj7440 world would be much better if dunning Kruger didn't exist

[@callidusvulpes5556]

@Don Shepard it’s also being the token black economist for the right.

[@em7894]

@@alexj7440 such an intellectual thing to say. And by intellectual I mean the worst kind possible. You must be seething because he's black and you can't use your usual buzzword of racist sexist misogynist to him.

[@em7894]

@Don Shepard anything that helps poor people actually doesn't help them but makes them in a significantly worse position than they were before like majority of leftist policies.

[@cassiepruski1728]

The excitement I felt when I saw this title after just signing up for econ 101 next semester is unparalleled

[@alexj7440]

Micro or macro?

[@generischgesichtslosgeneri3781]

We in Germany and many other countrys watch your movies and tv series and there is one special theme coming into my mind. "The Batman", "Ambulance" and "Breaking Bad" would be over in 5 min. or never happend, when you just had social healthcare and infrastructure.

[@seekingabsolution1907]

This guy is English I think. Those films and television are set in the USA. Different countries.

[@Pinkie3Point14159]

As someone who has universal healthcare, I totally agree and I often think the same thing watching US media. However Breaking Bad is a bad example because Walt is offered full coverage for his treatment in episode 1, he just turns it down due to pride. He isn't driven to do what he does because of desperation, but for greed/lust for power/ambition

[@senthordika]

@@Pinkie3Point14159 if you felt that universe health care is a right you would feel far more inclined to use it where as if you have been indoctrinated to believe free health care is a handout and handouts are bad you would be less likely to take the help. There would still be some that are just stubborn but for the most part it would remove the stigma of taking a 'handout' to the stubborn ones.

[@JesusofPhilosophy]

@Pinkie3point I don’t think that was like that from episode 1. He does it because of the cost of healthcare in the beginning. He just refuses to get help from his rich friend sometime in season 2 or 3. I think if he had been able to afford it in the beginning it wouldn’t have happened.

[@FlakAttack0]

@@Pinkie3Point14159 He refused their help because he hated them. It wasn't just pride.

[@20noble]

The Indian name “Dube” is pronounced as “Dubay” (I’m not trying to be pedantic just to point out a flaw, I’m trying to help you understand it)

[@xwarrior760]

And the Turkish name Cengiz is pronounced Djeng-is.

[@anguishingquark]

Dubaby?

[@20noble]

@@anguishingquark not “du-baby” 😅, it’s pronounced as “dubay” or “doobay”

[@lil_tistic]

very noble of you

[@20noble]

@@lil_tistic 😇

[@jonasthiel2282]

I like the long-form content. If you ever want to make a Shaun-length video, I'm on board.

[@Halfwithero314]

Unlearning economics, the movie

[@AlbertoGarcia-wd7sc]

A parrot could learn to repeat the words "demand and supply" and get graduated in economics

[@Arcenus237J]

I quite like this style and the jokes peppered in.

[@whythelongface64]

Seeing vaush's face makes me go 😂😂😂😂

[@robertwinslade3104]

This has rapidly become one of my favourite KZbin channels and is the reason I decided to use some of my spare time in lock-down to take an Economics A-level through an online college

[@OhMeGaGS]

This is quite fascinating. I am shocked at just how many things in my higher education I simply accepted as true without ever bothering to question most of it.

[@YZFMANIAC08]

Same 100%

[@enjoythelife1]

Go as long as you need to chop those complex topics into understandable bits. This is gold

[@felipedaiber2991]

As a chilean I have to say we do have a really nice minimum wage

[@franciscopoblete5854]

I would really have to disagree. The current minimum wage in Chile barely let's people rent a place and buy food and basic needs, at least here in Antofagasta. Though I have heard that in the south of Chile rent and housing is less expensive, I do know that many places in the country also have problems with getting enough money to survive, let alone manage some Items for personal enjoyment without a credit. The way I saw that statistic is that it only shows the relation between the median, which I dont get. It might be the average, as I know that the 326k pesos is really close to the wage range between 500k and 800k pesos that I think most jobs give, though those are also not so great, and the 620k average wage in 2019 (quick google search). Most rents in my city go between 300k to 600k, and 700k isnt unheard of for the "bigger" departments, plus about 60-80k for food, and not counting living expenses like water, electricity or gas, the current minimum wage is very lacking, as are most job's wages, even when renting with a roomate. With everything in mind, I do think that is better having this minimum wage to no minimum wage, but saying that the current one is "really nice", I think paints a very different picture from reality, or at least from my reality. And that is exactly why a bill was trying to get passed so the minimum wage was raised, but I dont think it went far since I havent heard about it recently. Edit: Sorry for the long comment.

[@julesdudes853]

@@franciscopoblete5854 ^ this. another chilean here and it's really astounding how much some of these figures shown outside of the country make it seem really good and something to aspire to, but it's hardly ever echoed in the experience of the people who actually live here. the factors mentioned by francisco, plus several sources of debt, plus rent, plus living day-to-day, unable to have chances to save money contribute to a pretty shitty situation.

[@simiolonga]

¿Me estái webeando?

[@guillermonicolasdemartinid5572]

@@franciscopoblete5854 hermano, la mediana significa que la mitad de la población gana menos que ese número, por lo que revise recién esta en 401k. Por otro lado, el promedio es la suma de todos los sueldos divido la población, el problema de eso es que siempre se infla ese número por la gente que gana cantidades exorbitantes.

[@TwentySeventhLetter]

(For anyone who missed it, the joke is that it's 69%)

[@13silentpoets]

Ive been telling people for years the world was ruined by business and econ majors, the conversation about econimism was the missing piece I've been trying to vocalize for so long.

[@paddyokearney]

"It seems to me that both more affordable housing and lower rents might be considered a good thing" No, actually economics 101 tells me that my shoebox should be as expensive as possible because then landlords are making loads of money and then the economy is in good shape or something I don't know.

[@suppositorylaxative3179]

Well you see, poor people don’t deserve to eat food because they haven’t worked sufficiently.

[@paddyokearney]

@@suppositorylaxative3179 exactly!

[@Nimish204]

Build more houses. How hard is it?

[@danarves7452]

Due to elasticity, most people are happy with a bit more length! :D

[@latifoljic]

"we should reduce wealth inequality" Yeah, that's nice, snowflake. These two lines with opposite slopes say that you can't. That's just economics. 😎

[@007kingifrit]

inequality is the result of free people making their own choices. to be against inequality is ultimately to be against freedom

[@latifoljic]

@@007kingifrit read marx

[@007kingifrit]

@@latifoljic real adults don't read marx. we know he is wrong from listening to you children

[@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos]

@@007kingifrit If you mean "the freedom the be impoverished", sure, I guess? Not all freedoms are a good thing. And it's not really because of choices. Not the important stuff, anyway. It's because of initial conditions and systems. If you can't recognize the thumbs on the scale, I am pretty sure you are too inattentive to reality to be part of the discourse.

[@007kingifrit]

@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos since people are born unequal (yes, they are) a free society will naturally have inequality. inequality means people are allowed to make their own choices, pursue their own talents

[@joecassidy2887]

The demand curve for your content has not be met yet. MORE MORE MORE ! ! !

[@DiegoCandel]

Comment regarding what's said at 8:45 I'm from Chile and even with that 69% [minimum wage/median full-time earnings] score, we know our minimum wage is "shite" and doesn't amount to all monthly expenses. And the USA [minimum wage/median full-time earnings] percent is even lower??? Holy sh*t!!!

[@jogeller5731]

As someone from CR: same here. Our countries are insanely expensive to live in

[@VeteranVandal]

I really thought a "69% nice" joke was going to be made and I came here to self fulfill my prophecy.

[@RunningOnAutopilot]

“The politics of trauma and why cPTSD will never be in the DSM” is a great video about the political backlash on facts that are scientifically solid, inconvenient, and, indisputable (at least when fully informed and in good faith).

[@gengiz80]

Remember you can't have economics without a political ideology so when you unlearn economics you also have to challenge the idea of capitalism.

[@filmcameras4evr45]

So, rent control.. I appreciate that there may be more demand and lower availability as a result, but in my mind, focusing primarily on research and the financial effects ignores the fact that we are talking about people here. In my opinion, It doesn't matter if wealthy individuals / companies loose money. Nobody deserves to be without housing, or food, or any other basic necessities we need to survive. Edit: Mexie nailed it. The powers that be are too busy concerning themselves with keeping the system as it is and funneling money into the pockets of those higher up the ladder. 'The rich get richer'

[@krombopulos_michael]

I think this is missing the point. Opponents of rent control do not argue that the downside is rich people losing money, they argue that it is worse for renters in the long term by reducing supply and decreasing their mobility. Nobody is arguing in favour of some abstract over the lives of real people, the disagreement is about how to actually help people long term.

[@filmcameras4evr45]

@@krombopulos_michael which is fair enough, though ud argue long term and short term could be seen as separate arguments. As I said, this is about people's needs. So long as there's always housing available for everyone

[@Taeerom]

@@krombopulos_michael People need houses, houses need people. Rent control lowers cost of renting, lowers willingness to speculate in housing properties, depressing housing prices, increases ability of people to buy their own homes. All good things. As long as there is profit to be made building houses, construction companies will build. It doesn't matter how profitable it is. In most cities, at least in the developed world, worrying about the profits are not the bottleneck. Space and regulatory status is. In the US, the only hinder is regulation. Not the amount of it, but the ass-backwardness of it all.

[@constantineergius1626]

housing is a commodity the problem is per housing regulations where you cant pack people in like sardines , if people cant afford a large house they should downsize and the government doesnt let them downsize... same with food not everyone can afford a steak... we have an unemployment crisis we have lots of lazy people and not enough people working. japan has capsule apartments which is something we need seriously if you cant afford an apartment let people just rent out a bed its too much money to risk im trying to start a business i couldnt care less about those who lack the ambition to start an enterprise or get a job. housing, food even air is a commodity and everything should be as commodified as much as possible

[@antlohable]

Longer videos = hooray! I would love a series of videos on what you think SHOULD be happening and which policies are good. Will sure become a patron, sorry for not doing it sooner.

[@sithyuu7696]

Just finished the video and just wanted to say that I really liked the way you explain not only data but the different theories of how to interpret the data. Found it very interesting

[@michael83479]

Love the extra detail! Makes me understand stuff better and be able to argue my side of things much better with people

[@Choooncey]

I think the major issue people ignore is that employing people in the US is expensive not due to the wage that they are paid, but the other mandatory things that employers need to pay(unemployment, workmans comp, etc) it can often far surpass the wage paid to a worker in a small business

[@daggerdan12]

A long one today huh, stay killing it king! 👑

[@kayodesalandy]

This was a great video! I found you because of Shaun so trust me when I say video length is the least of worries. The information was definitely not too much and honestly very helpful. Love your stuff man.

[@theblackherald]

Loved the video. It seems rather ridiculous that economics as a discipline, while adorned with all the mathematical regalia of physics and chemistry, has only recently even thought to check its basic theoretical assumptions. Empirical rigor and explanatory and predictive power are the hallmarks of good science. Perhaps economics would do well to achieve those before calling itself one.

[@kv4302]

The subtitles are also super duper appreciated!

[@somafiora]

I've been taking a macroeconomics course these past few months, and it was weird to here the teacher and most of the students just go along like these features of economics and capitalism were faultless laws and facts. Some things my professor would say would leave me scratching my head, honestly. This video has done a really good job of putting those confused feelings and thoughts of mine into perspective, so thank you for that! "Socialism is just high-tax capitalism." -my Econ Professor

[@robinpage2730]

"Entrepreneurs assume the risks so everyone else doesn't have to." How many office workers lost their shirts when Enron folded?

[@bertrandturcotte5000]

As an econ student, I really appreciate that type of video. So much misunderstanding comes from econ 101 and is usually what most college student will learn at most in their academic career. I think economics is unique in the social sciences in the way in which people have a lot to gain from paradigm/prescriptions that emerge from it. Love the Marxist analysis in it and I think you could probably expand the topic by discussing the philosophy of science and the implication of a dialogic/monologic approach in the field of economics. Also if you could make a video about behavior economics, I think that would be great, I really think that could revolutionize how economics is taught by incorporating psychological biases in classical models instead of dismissing them completely.

[@Hiri8]

This is the type of content i'm looking for from you, I'd enjoy the shorter format regardless. Thanks for the content.

[@TheSerfTimes]

Consistently impressive channel

[@gaeel330]

As AOC points points out that in a desperate situation, you'll accept any wage and any rent, the other end of the spectrum is also somewhat true. I visited the Twitter offices back in 2015. The person who was showing us around explained that they invested heavily into making the place an enjoyable workplace, because they found that offering more money didn't help with worker retention. This means that on the other side of the spectrum, when your wage is more than sufficient to suit your lifestyle, what keeps you working for a company is that you enjoy working for the company.

[@MCandCarriecf]

As a person who is interested in knowing more about economy, because education failed her in that regard, thank you so much! It's really great to have this!!

[@007kingifrit]

eh i duno. seattle raised its min wage gradually 5 years ago, they found that in their own research the average worker lost money by losing hours. so i dunno where his numbers are coming from but he sounds like he has a goal to push

[@pacman9785]

Definitely enjoy the longer form videos

[@Lindsey-m6v]

I 😊earned an MBA from an Ivy League school and learned more about the Real World,now that I have lived in it for 63 years, and it’s real economics to say whole heartedly that this is much more Reality than anything ever discussed in school. I don’t mind the length and I am grateful for the very real wisdom. Keep going going going and maybe someday the world will make a lot more just and humane place to really live. Bravo!❤❤❤❤❤

[@jake______]

Can you make them even longer, but also the more frequent? I'm willing to pay one dollar.

[@SC_Pilot]

37:45 really resonated with me, unbelievable how often this crops up in these kinds of conversations and how obvious it is that fiscal righties love saying stuff like "oh you sweet summer child, that SOUNDS nice, but if you knew econ101 you'd understand that that's just not how the world is!" and I honestly feel like this sentiment applies to an enormous amount of political discussion and right-wing appeal-to-common-sense arguments. There's such an allure to the feeling that you're part of a few that understand the harsh TRUTH that most people are scared to admit.

[@lc1565]

I think you struck a great balance between discussing academic theory and making it accessible. Would love to see more videos like this that strike a balance between getting into the details of the relevant research and providing commentary and context.

[@barryhilliard909]

agreed!

[@artemkanarchist]

Thanks for featuring Mexie❤️🖤 The change in length and format is also good I think

[@shelbypowell9919]

I’ve always liked the phrase, “a strong economy is a byproduct of effective governance, not its objective.” A person who argues for policy for its economic impact has missed the point.

[@graystone2802]

Economy is the entire point of society. The world is too complicated to truly know the most efficient possible way to utilize our available resources, the ones we need to survive and thrive. A “strong economy” is one that is meeting the needs of the most amount of people the most efficiently. I don’t know what is up with people just associating the word economy with money, as if it’s a secondary objective and that there is something more important than considering how we distribute the livelihood of every individual.

[@Szcza04]

@@graystone2802neoliberal propaganda

[@雷-t3j]

@@graystone2802 that makes no sense. Yes, society needs an economy to function. You need food to function. Does that mean food is the entire point of your life? Yes, the world is too complicated to truly know the most efficient possible way to utilize our available resources. That doesn't mean Laissez-Faire economics is correct or good. We have to accept that we're not going to know if we're being the most efficient or even very efficient, because like you said we can't, which also means we don't know if neoliberalism is the most efficient. But why is "efficiency" the goal of the economy? Are meeting needs and wants, and being prepared for the future not also important? And how do we know if the economy is "strong" or not? Should we just listen to what we're told? And yes, there are more important things than how we distribute the livelihood of everyone at least in my opinion, like upholding good moral values and making the world a better place. I don't know what you're actually saying here, but those are my thoughts.

[@razzberry1262]

​@@Szcza04 Refute the calculation problem.

[@VultureXV]

I'd argue that minimum wage debate is essentially a culture-based debate. The reason we, in the US, must constantly fight for higher minimum wage is because companies will set the minimum wage as a constant standard of which other job's income is derived. In other nations, which may value their communities and workers more than the US, minimum wage is not something that must be fought over. However, the rampancy of neoliberalism in the United States has given the worker base very little choice whatsoever, and Union Busting is still see as a beneficial thing.

[@0witw047]

The typical US worker is paid more than workers in almost any other country in the world. How are they valued less?

[@VultureXV]

@@0witw047 Paid more, but the cost of living is even higher. Imagine getting paid $20/hr in some spots but having necessities and essentials take up 60% of that income, then another 10% goes to a student loan, then another 25% goes to taxes. That's what a lot of American young adults are dealing with right now. Rent, in the busier places of the US (namely cities) is close to $1600~$2000 a month for the basic box and no utilities. The money just gets eaten almost immediately by basics, leaving very little if none at all to save or invest or utilize for the self.

[@Maxarcc]

I learned more about economics than ever thanks to this channel.

[@danimaster01]

It's that time of month again: when I send this video to my economist father and he tries to semantics his way past the critiques instead of admit that mainstream economics has giant gaping holes

[@alexj7440]

I hate that Econ is taught as if it is science. It creates generations of adults who have “learned” economics and brush off critiques because they think it is an objective science, not propaganda.

[@datvo3076]

This dude completely misinterpreted the rent control paper. Anyone familiar with the rent control paper knows that unlearned economic present the information in such a disingenuous way. But yes send it to your economist father so he can slam dunk you.

[@PsilentMusicUK]

@@NU-ph1zx Ways bro, trust me I read an economics book once.

[@dadbodenvy4247]

@@datvo3076 still waiting for your slam dunk response here

[@danielbat9887]

I have a feeling that Post-Modern thought and "Zeitgeist" has completely missed the economic academia. Philosophy, history and even law have gone through a major shift in the 70's and 80's, yet it deems economics is only beginning to feel the paradigm shift.

[@worstelldaniel]

I'm looking forward to the more reliable, reproducible, well-designed studies to come out so we can push this paradigm shift even further.

[@maxha9082]

I'd say economics and associated research and policy is directly responsible (among other forces) for the paradigm shift most people associate with postmodernism

[@mrheart4873]

Great video, love the new format

[@simonsmatthew]

Studying economics was a huge waste of my youth. It's basically designed to make people not think and ask questions.

[@AS-lm2yv]

maybe that was just you...

[@trixn4285]

@@AS-lm2yv At most universities this is sadly the truth. The smart people quit early because they find it to be very silly and the others stay because it can be very easy and you can get well-paid jobs just reiterating textbook knowledge.

[@rakerk6458]

@@trixn4285 WHAT? I studied at economics university, specifically Financial and accounting, first year sift students so HARD, and statistic based subjects are one of the hardests you can have. VERY EASY xD. You are studying there to know how to interprete data, but ofc, you dont need to think, calculating standard deviations and other EASY STUFF is just not thinking bruh.

[@trixn4285]

@@rakerk6458 Whatever you say, for me that math stuff is easy and you literally can get A grades without having to think at all. Most people that study economics obv do not think otherwise they would recognize that almost all of mainstream economics is modeling a fantasy. It's a degenerative research program, as Imre Lakatos coined it.

[@rakerk6458]

@@trixn4285 you can Say that about everything, especially socio based subjects

[@maliivan1993]

I love the longer form video and would like these kinds of videos in the future from time to time

[@minivergur]

I really like this long format

[@chrisj4545]

UE: "Was it too much? Do you want even more?" Me: More! UE: "(I hope not)" Me: More... please?

[@hijonk9510]

Longer more detailed videos are where it's at.

[@r2ubuntu815]

I love the long format and I hope they get longer if anything

[@trevordillon1921]

Economics is, in a way, philosophy masquerading as science. Theory is a word that carries much more exact weight than it is often given credit for. A theory, scientifically, is an idea with incredibly significant observational weight behind it. The theory of plate tectonics is not a hypothetical idea of how continents might have formed or how they function, it is a unification if a great many knowns, into one idea backed by an overwhelming mountain of evidence. While we cannot directly observe the plates, we know them to exist based on the simple fact that no other alternative remains that is nearly as credible, and that it is backed by sufficient evidence to leave little question of its validity. The same could be said of gravitation. A theory is one step short of law, in that it leaves just enough room for variation while still being incredibly rigid. Our understanding of it may evolve, but the facts remain regardless. Modern economics was at the time of its conception based on an incredibly shallow pool. It hypothesizes, it does not theorize. In invoking the language of theory, it evokes an idea of a definitive known, a well supported representation of an absolute reality. It however lacks the rigors of a scientific theory in practice. Modern economics is in truth a well educated guess as to a possibility of the workings of economics, yet time and time again it has shown itself no more than that. Countless times throughout its history has aspects of it been proven false. It has adapted to fit new knowledge, an aspect theories do not share. Hypotheses change when we find them to be errant. Theories cannot be such until their errancy has been sufficiently investigated and found to be minimal or nonexistent. My point is that the field of economics has painted itself as alike to many disciplines of science, a study of knowns. It is however much closer to a philosophical investigation, an exploration of its own ideas within the bounds of its own inherently limited knowns. Economics acts like we know more than we do. It’s all just a great hypothesis of hypotheses, which leaves the possibility that much of it is false. It should be treated as such.

[@CrazyF1r3f0x]

Love this kind of content

[@Ledabot]

The length is fine. I think many people, me included, are quite happy listening to British people sounding smart for hours on end.

[@SourSpark.]

I think this length is actually perfect for your videos. I did feel that like I wanted previous videos to dive just a tiny bit deeper (although I didn't say anything about it) and this video really hit that sweet spot, for me. I also thought you did really well at knowing when to refer the audience to a source instead of letting the video get derailed and go on for too long in one direction.

[@akernis3193]

I thoroughly enjoyed the additional length and detail. 'And Mexie's segment added something nicely complimentary to the rest of the video. It became a little technical for me to keep up with in regard to some of the finer points of economic elasticity, but I still highly enjoyed the video. Excellent work.

[@Lambda_Ovine]

This level of detail and length was just fine. It's where the supply and demand lines meet or whatever.

[@logandubas2085]

This might be the happiest accidental find of a channel. Especially as I'm a moron with more then 1 year studying economics at university, It's nice to see thorough videos on the topic by someone with clear familiarity of the deep bullshit spewed. Ez sub, hope anyone who finds this comment has a great day.

[@jamestang1227]

As a total layman in economics, this video remained easy to follow and highly watchable. I'd love to see more long-form content in future.

[@kv4302]

Can I give a suggestion? I watch all my stuff with subtitles, even with audio as clear as yours. Could you use graphs in such a way that the subtitles don't overlay the graph? No biggie, but it would be a really nice touch!

[@Cibershadow2]

Yes please!

[@burrito5673]

agreed!

[@unlearningeconomics9021]

Noted.

[@gian3458]

On your end, there are ways to change the size, font, transparency, etc of your subtitles so the video behind it is easier to see. Click the gear, then "Subtitles," and finally click "Options" to see the multitude of options you have. Changing the subtitle position is a simple click-and-drag too. These settings will apply on the mobile app too, if I'm not mistaken. Edit: many changes to my wording.

[@hesseldekraai]

As a physcisit, he quote at 41:30 drives me insane. A science observes the world first and writes laws and heuristics about it second. You don't go writing the laws and then go and find the evidence to go with it. Water can run uphill in the right circumstances. Economic laws can break in the right circumstances too.

[@TheLucasbr152]

Natural sciences ≠ Social sciences. We need theories to explain a priori all the experiences. Human beings are not exacts, and variables can't be isolated on a perfect model of "ceteris paribus". True economic laws (such as scarcity, time preference and supply/demand) are universal and can't be relativized, otherwise we have those populist policies we see failing every time. It could be avoided by fixing the theory before applying it.

[@cyphermasq7870]

@@TheLucasbr152 I saw your replies on another comment on this video and I really really appreciate the effort you put forth. Is there anyway for an economics laymen to get in touch and get some reading recommendations?

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@cyphermasq7870 Sure. Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" is a good one. He not only explains the theory, but also gives some references to empirical studies.

[@TheLucasbr152]

@@cyphermasq7870 Also, the video of the "Just the facts" channel about this. It's called "Unlearning Economics is stupid and here is why".

[@cyphermasq7870]

@@TheLucasbr152 not quite that much of a laymen. Adamant fan of sowells and have read a lot of his works including basic economics. I have an M.A. in history and studied a lot of economic history. Really I was hoping to just meet a kindred spirit online that might wanna chat or play video games and chat while we discuss certain topics for fun :)

[@archon458]

I would actually be interested in a video on Sowell. Because I've heard so many mixed things on how good/bad his ideas are. I think an in-depth look into him would be interesting for both left and right people as his name gets tossed around so much.

[@florianb2329]

Agreed.

[@misterchoc123]

His book "knowledge and decisions ", which I believe he wrote in the 80s, is one of the best books I have ever read and definitely influenced my way of thinking about the world. That said, in recent years he seems to have become more of a grumpy old man who hates democrats for a living.

[@gabe.6273]

@@misterchoc123 he’s gotten into a grift

[@randomjunk2131]

His books are decent. His view on economics is sound and logical.

[@apersonlikeanyother6895]

Great video. The supply and demand curve for wages is obviously rubbish because employers will employ the fewest employees possible almost regardless of wages. Decreasing wages does not increase number of employees.