What Happens When Economics Doesn’t Reflect the Real World?

Anwar Shaikh, Professor of Economics at the New School, explores alternatives to economic orthodoxies, and the findings of his book Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises.

[@johnmeyer2072]

"You'll get thrown out of the bar because people will think you're a lunatic [for advocating an Anti-Social Personality Disorder position], but actually you're just being an economist.": The signature quote of this episode. I love it.

[@marsmotion]

yes that was brilliant.

[@Kobe29261]

The problem is most people aspire to be successful capitalists [profit off accumulated capital and strategy]; until that changes little besides will.

[@davidmoutray2644]

Which illustrates the insanity of conventional economic thinking. Per Jonathan Haidt, the (so-called) great philosophers are mostly autists or psychopaths, because these unfortunate, twisted and deformed people are great at creating systems. It is time to reject "systems" and "systemetizers" such as John Stuart Mill and return to true morality. The Catholic Church is more right than it is wrong. Capitalism is just the domination of the weak by the strong. Philosophically speaking, we should roll history back by at least 800 years.

[@newagain9964]

For the slow: thats aka for sociopath.

[@tomasinacovell4293]

He sounds like another form of Straussian, and he actually tried to conflate Bernie with Trump which is right next door to saying ANTIFA was at MAGA 1/6 et al.

[@styleyK]

This guy is really good. Most economist are so disconnected from the real world that what they believe and work on, becomes fantasy.

[@user-zy9nd2ei2j]

I stopped at bachelor degree, by the 2nd year, you realise economics today was absolutely governed by finance and financial services industry.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

@@user-zy9nd2ei2j nope, it is totally controlled by the government. economics is useless since only the government can control and influence it.

[@user-zy9nd2ei2j]

@@alfredhitchcock45 we don't have governments, we have donor controlled proxies.

[@user-zy9nd2ei2j]

@@alfredhitchcock45 do you realise how powerful the banks are? In Australia, our bank's reserve rate of 4% is not mandatory. So even if the bank follows the rule, CBA can give you a loan of 10000 AUD with less than 400 in collateral.

[@dstr1]

@@user-zy9nd2ei2j we have corporate servants posing as government.

[@manpreetchouhan7250]

This economist was able to figure it out because he studied other fields and thats the problem with all other so called experts in their own field,they don't get the whole picture of how dire the condition of world is.

[@Nine-Signs]

Neoclassical economics education will only ever teach from the perspective of those who like capitalism Vs those who love capitalism, it misses the critics of capitalism and so most modern economists never have a fully systemic understanding of the economy. They also usually lack systemic ecological information and so the damage to the planet caused by capitalism just doesn't factor into their thinking which is why they simply fail to understand an infinite growth system is incompatible with what physics requires of humanity for humanity to have a future.

[@scotthullinger9955]

Yes, and that is also the problem with Noam Chomsky, a brilliant linguist. But his political opinions are way WAY off base, just out in La La land.

[@Nine-Signs]

@@scotthullinger9955 Such as? I usually find them quite salient but I am always open to discussing another point of view.

[@tonedowne]

Yeah, nature, the source of all wealth, is viewed as an externality. Until nature becomes priced in, economics is nonsense. Possibly even dangerous nonsense.

[@tonedowne]

Chomsky May be a bit on the utopian side in the big picture, but his political critique is to be taken seriously. Manufacturing consent is very far from la la land. I would say that it is trying to drop a bomb on la la land.

[@VinnyWilk]

“Correct in the observation, false in the foundation.” This is a paradigm shift.

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

To rephrase - Start from axioms, or risk interpretive errors.

[@jump9104]

I am very much reminded of Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". We keep having these ruptures in a mode of economy that purports itself to be the end all of human advancement. I am personally struck by the necessary framework it uses of humans as strictly and narrowly defined by their own self-interest. On examination, on its face, any human should know that this is unrealistic and not true. Any neighbor you've known to adopt a stray kitten, a stranger giving money to a pandhandler, a passerby rendering aid at a car accident they come upon, heck, someone crying at the distress of an actor in a film, should disprove this lest it somehow gets pressed into pretzel-like logical contortions to produce an equation in which altruism is actually not a thing. Generally speaking, such people are regarded in personal interaction as toxic, or roundly SOCIOPATHIC. It is an ex post facto explanation to provide support for something it does not accurately reflect, and we are seeing the rivets pop off and the metal moan as its poverty to contain that which it was purpose-built to contain inevitably fails. I am also tired of hearing how we just aren't doing capitalism strictly enough and that's why it fails because there is some admixture of socialism present in modern economic policy. It is no coincidence that the far-right is reemarging as a prominent political force as a result, replete with all of the red herrings of how the "usual suspect" of their choice is the secret gremlin disassembling what should have been by now, a near perfect machine. This will never work and we heedlessly approach the destruction of the habitability of the planet in its pursuit. Although, I'm sure, capitalism has an answer for that, just so long as the upper echelon doesn't suffer and no point in worrying about the disempowered and their suffering---they're just as selfish as the elites and would do the same if they had that position of power and authority (sarcasm).

[@raymundogonzalez6450]

What you mean?

[@rabokarabekian409]

@@raymundogonzalez6450 If you don't have a workable foundation for observing something, you cannot make sense of what you see.

[@liam3284]

You can see what is going on, you have no idea why.

[@ncooty]

Not yet having read his work, I can at least say that was probably the most efficient, coherent, integrated explanation from an economist I can recall ever hearing.

[@pillmuncher67]

You should watch a few talks by Mark Blyth. I predict you'll like him.

[@realrobinhood2day]

Try Thomas Sowell for some common sense Economics. This guy sounds like he might be a proponent of AI regulated consumerism based on Stochastics, (and Soros): “you will own nothing and be happy”.

[@MrMarinus18]

11:00 Though a more important reason the profit of German firms didn't fall is because Germany was plundering all the countries that it was conquering. You can pump up your economy as much as you want if you use that economic strength to plunder other places. The US did the same thing as it took over a lot of the European empires after WW2. They also prevented an economic shock at the end of the war via the Marshall plan.

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

The fact that people will routinely buy useless items because a beautiful person is pitching them is all the evidence you need to demonstrate that consumers do not make rational decisions. Businesses are very aware of this, otherwise they wouldn’t bother investing in these beautiful marketers. It’s funny that most economists don’t take this into consideration.

[@liam3284]

Another example, the hoarding of toilet paper in some countries. There was no problem with manufacturing.

[@MaoTseFunkadelic]

Anwar Shaikh is a legend. Wish I had half this man's chops.

[@iforget6940]

Wait you want his pants I'm selling his pants at 100$ a pop plush 20$ shipping

[@lights473]

Why do you think Marxists are legends

[@localman9063]

@@iforget6940 Ah yes, sweet capitalism.

[@iforget6940]

@@localman9063 yes sweet capitalism indeed

[@PumpkinSpicePretzels]

He seems to put the most importance on profitability, with sort of a consideration for wages... so I'm not convinced his framework is adequate. Putting profits over people turns countries into hellscapes.

[@karimayoubi74]

This man gets it. To argue that macro economics must be built on a foundation of micro economics, ie. that understanding the economy as a whole must be built on an aggregation of individual behaviour, is like saying you must understand how the various parts of a car work in order to drive one. Well, we can all drive a car, but few of us are mechanics! A macro model works if it describes the real economy. That is the ONLY test of its validity. Neoclassical economics was written to idolise unfettered capitalism. The fact is, try as they might, they failed to prove unfettered capitalism was the optimal system.

[@itssteve6018]

Unfettered capitalism doesn't accurately describe our economy because unfettered capitalism is not the economic model we have today. The United States has large, unelected, Federal agencies that heavily regulate several major industries. Every one of these industries is heavily monopolized or cartelized not despite the regulation, but BECAUSE of the regulation. Add to that the fact that the monetary system and central banking system isn't even remotely a capitalistic system. It's extremely centralized, mandates and sets prices of interest rates, and intervenes in the market with literal trillion dollar injections. Add to that that government spending (with massive deficits by the way) is the HIGHEST portion of GDP ever. This is, literally, one of the least capitalistic times in United States history. Winners and losers do not compete. Winners and losers are chosen and mandated by regulatory fiat.

[@ZetaMoolah]

Steve Coyne No government would allow for actual free market capitalism because of how incredibly unstable the system is. Even without government regulation monopolies would still form, former competitors are liquidated and bought up by the winners. Even further, new competitors in the market would quickly be bought out and become subsidiary brands. When monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies form products and services increase in prices, then speculation sets in- and boom! The company’s growth decelerates, investors pull out, the company begins to shutdown locations and slash departments asunder. All to save profitability. Unemployment spikes, and remaining wages stagnate while executives get bonuses for ending livelihoods. No government intervention necessary.

[@karimayoubi74]

@@itssteve6018 hi Steve. I very much agree with you, although one can easily argue (because it is what has actually happened) that free markets inevitably lead to the current situation of crony capitalism that you correctly describe, because success in business yields money, and money yields power, and those with money will always use that power to buy political favour. So perhaps the political system has to honestly admit to that problem, and then find a way to at least mitigate, if not solve it. FWIW govt spending is the highest % of GDP in all countries compared to history, but the US is still one of the lower ones. You will find this talk by Ha-Joon Chang interesting, he covers this point explicitly. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nH_cgoCIf62lgMU

[@itssteve6018]

@@ZetaMoolah Instead of watching businesses fail, we have a system where the government guarantees and bails out businesses which commit fraud to the tune of billions of dollars allowing executives to keep bonuses, sending no person to jail, and doing nothing to help those affected by the fraud. Everything done by the government after the 2008 financial crises served to benefit the super-wealth fraudsters and speculators. Everyone who had their home foreclosed got the pleasures of having to file for bankruptcy. And everyone who had a 401k had the pleasure of watching their retirement evaporate. The government and government alone decided to reward the fraudsters. Because the government is run by the same fraudsters.

[@karimayoubi74]

@@itssteve6018 this is true. You are absolutely correct. However the answer in this case is not "no government." Because even without govt you still have the problems of externalities, market failures, under-provision of public goods and grotesque inequality, which eventually becomes destabilising. On top of that you have the problem of money supply - you can't have growth in the economy without growth in the money supply, and someone has to manage that. So "no govt" is not an option. The challenge is to find a form of govt that is immune to corporate influence.

[@hamza3065]

As an economics undergraduate student, I also struggle with these questions, Economics needs to incorporate more from Sociology, Anthropolgy, Psycholgy, History and Politics and Philosophy. Economics shouldn't be too mathematical as it is today, it needs to have a human touch to it.

[@SS-xl6lo]

💯

[@franksomarriba6719]

Economics it’s economics. It is not the task of economic schools to teach you about other sciences. The greatest economists were all polymaths. If you are implying that economic school should teach calculus, sociology, biology, psychology, physics (it takes knowledge of these and more to be a good economist) you’re WASTING your time. Maybe you should choose another profession. You’re are a terrible student of economics, I’m curious as to what school you’re getting your degree from and whether you graduated.

[@perhaps4242]

I think your opinion is only partially correct. From what I understand, the purpose of incorporating mathematics is because it is the highest form of language that can explain Economic sciences. You should know, Economics is basically applied mathematics and we only use 1/4 of topics from the field of mathematics.

[@jimsykes6843]

@@franksomarriba6719 Good lord, dude, something tells me that you're the one who's wasting your time. You're right, great economists have been - and can be - polymaths. Such folks will show creativity and curiosity towards other disciplines. To shut down this commentator as your are doing is not only to be rude, but to be incredibly rigid in your thinking. Which is exactly what a bad scholar does. I wonder where YOU got your degree from and whether YOU graduated!

[@anmolt3840051]

First economists should admit that economics is a social science

[@DanLeahfort]

Every day we have a new problem. It's the new normal. At first we thought it was a crisis, now we know it's a new normal and we have to adapt. 2023 will be a year of severe economic pain all over the nation.. what steps can we take to generate more income during quantitative adjustment?I can't afford my hard-earned $80,000 savings to turn to dust

[@GarrettDills]

Me too. I thought about investing in the financial market, I heard that people make millions if you know the tricks of the trade, but I lack good knowledge and a strategy to outperform the market and generate good yields. I have $160,000 but it's hard to bite the bullet and do it. Money is hard to come by

[@velayuthman]

Avoid too-good-to-be-true scam schemes. Seek advice from a fiduciary counselor they provide personalized advice to individuals based on their risk appetite, placing them among the best of the best. There are bad ones, but some with good track records can be very good.

[@TeresaBrickle]

@@velayuthman Absolutely, Fiduciary-counselor have exclusive information and data paths that are not disclosed to the public.. I've made north of $260k in raw profits from just Q3 of 2022 under the guidance of my Fiduciary-counselor "KATHERINE DUFFY BURKE". Am I selling? Absolutely not.. I am going to sit back and observe how this all plays out.

[@DanLeahfort]

@@TeresaBrickle How can I count with Katherine, what are her services, is she verifiable, do you think she can help me, I live in Canada?

[@TeresaBrickle]

@@DanLeahfort Katherine covers things like investing, insurance, making sure retirement is well funded, going over tax benefits, ways to have a volatility buffer for investment risk. many things like that. Just take a look at her full name on the internet. She is well known so it shouldn't be hard to find her.

[@7swordmary649]

*Sadly Corporate America teaches our children "ABOVE ALL ELSE LOVE MONEY and USE PEOPLE AS TOOLS TO YOUR SUPREME HAPPINESS, 'Economic Security.' "*

[@cyberblock7619]

Let's spend other peoples money!! And watch TV all day 😂🤣😃

[@7swordmary649]

@@cyberblock7619 If it's good for Fake POTUS, it's good for ALL

[@cyberblock7619]

@@7swordmary649 what are we gonna do after we spend everyone else's money? 😁😂🤣

[@lextacy2008]

@@cyberblock7619 Ask a corporation/business what will happen when they spend other peoples money. Then get back to me with a parallel answer to you short-sighted question.

[@cyberblock7619]

@@lextacy2008 Corporations dont spend other people's money, the Government does.

[@Achrononmaster]

"The best teachers ...presenting a framework that made no sense to me as a description of economic life". Maaaate!... BY DEFINITION they are not good teachers. A good teacher does not merely impart knowledge, they explore truth, observe the world keenly and question their understanding of reality, are ALWAYS prepared to change their mental models, and allow you to develop your own understanding. Sounds like Anwar was his own best teacher.

[@philgwellington6036]

Bijou. I hear u, and agree. Well said. You are not alone. BS will always smell like like BS, unless it's MSM😏

[@casenumber]

What? The best teachers are the ones that are generally recognized as such by their peers and results. When humans didn’t know facts as they are today, it doesn’t mean they were bad to teach what they knew. His teachers created an environment and gave him the tools to get to where he is.

[@burner1303]

I think he's being somewhat facetious, he's talking about the most prestigious economics professors.

[@franksomarriba6719]

Agree

[@zhubajie6940]

A great explanation of the wage productivity gap

[@Michael-qy1jz]

Wants permanent suppression of wages, Interest and prices?? Lol ; To achieve continually higher profit rates. Yes, This will end severely BAD as well. All these crazy economists think that they can manipulate the economy forever to eliminate the Business Cycle and Mal Investments. Rediculous, but they sure have stretched business cycles out much longer and created Massive Bubbles and Crashes. This next cash is the mother of all world debt bubbles crashing!!

[@tonedowne]

How else do you stop gains being eaten up by inflation and financial rent seeking? It’s not like these things will never rise, but it is surely better if they rise in a way to be sustainable for the economy of people rather than just the economy of money.

[@zhubajie6940]

@@tonedowne Lower the rate of return and increase R&D. You make money faster by innovation and having consumers with greater buying power than just trying to bankrupt a company by raising stock prices that impact at best 10% of the economy. All is balance, in the 1970s there was too little investment for demand. in the last 40 years, there is too much paid for returns that cause cyclical crashes. See Greenspan's Fraud by Dr. Ravi Batra specifically chapters 6, 7 and 8.

[@tonedowne]

@@zhubajie6940 True, balance is everything. But I would maybe counter by shifting the tax burden away from production and towards speculation.

[@sirpancho]

@@Michael-qy1jz you did not undestand a word ofbthe video. It wase an explanation and notna recipe

[@winger468]

Would like to see him and Professor Wolf talk about real world econmics.

[@paranadasimple7087]

Wolf comes from a different angle. Anwar S. is on another level

[@ajedi1034]

I'm glad that Mr. Shaikh was able to stay focused and give an amazing interview while the interviewer was just sitting there watching and texting on his phone. Also, there are a lot of good points mentioned in the comments below.

[@logarithmic7]

Yes I thought that was rude too. Perhaps I'm not reading the situation properly. The man in brilliant, something we need more of right now.

[@VitorMadeira]

@@logarithmic7 yep, it really seems that he was texting (or reading Facebook posts) on his phone. Pretty rude.

[@waqarahmad636]

His use of phone was distracting and irritating me so much that i put a finger on that part of screen

[@tm92489]

Nah mate, the interview is edited by removing the original questions but the final output has turned out to be an excellent video because of the continuity of the building blocks.

[@logarithmic7]

@@tm92489 good point. I'm probably just reading the situation wrong. I'm really judgey lately lol

[@seamusmcfitz913]

Economists are winning Nobel prizes now adays for using equations first-year physics students use on a daily basis.

[@zahid1909]

As usual what Anwar is; extremely talented, real-world-application oriented, drawing on the entire history of the past centuries of economic thinking --- not taking any idea or ideology for granted, but questioning those dissecting re-assembling and synthesizing distilling to create a new analytical framework of modern economics, that not only provide you with an integrated framework for 'understanding' of it, but also leave with you the framework that works as an application tool. Long live professor. Bring out economics from the spell of competing cobweb of preconceived ideologies, into the realm of the everyday world. Great job!

[@ujean56]

The trouble with economics these days is its habitual reliance on extreme abstraction. So many theoretical moving parts can never be accurately defined. So doing economics is doing theory. And sadly, it is habitually based on two fundamental players - "investors" and "consumers". If globalization works for some and not for others, it doesn't work. This introduces the only problem that matters - investors (capitalists) don't want an economy that works for everyone. Where does that idea come from? It is a moral concept. There is a reason that, in more honest days, economics was called moral philosophy. So think and do your math but at this point nothing will change. After all, isn't that what drives the effort toward new economic thinking?

[@jmitterii2]

"If globalization works for some and not for others, it doesn't work." Think that's why he characterizes the current system like "war". In war, you have a loser and winner... sometimes both become losers. There is not mutual beneficial exchange between everyone; you never have a win win in war. Thus current economic models don't work. But monetary policy has long not worked completely that was demonstrated after the Great Depression 1929.

[@tylerbotzon7174]

ujean56 I’ve been singing a similar tune here at Cornell but calling is “Investor Class” and “Working Class” vs capitalists and consumer...for a multitude of reasons

[@ujean56]

@@jmitterii2 The observation that classical economies are "like 'war'" is hardly new. It's baked into most current theories including the vilified Keynesian theory. What's at the core of all of these are the original position of ownership and the abominations that stem from the idea that individuals should be able to own as much as the system allows, which today is an insanely disproportion amount of resources. Conventional theory says there are winners and losers in any economy. Reality clearly shows an increasing majority are losers and an a small group closer to the top of the income/owner/power structure are winners. Moreover, these two groups have become pre-defined across generations. Economies are inseparable from politics and all the theorizing in the world won't change that.

[@ujean56]

@@tylerbotzon7174 Keep up that effort. I use the contemporary economic-speak of "investor" and "consumer" but let there be no mistake, I'm talking about the capitalist class and the working class. The shift in nomenclature is simply a function of academics'' fears of using Marxian terms for fear of being cancelled. It's a sad sign of the bourgeois times in which we live. At the end of the day, what removes inequality is genuine unfettered opportunity for everyone. What eliminates homelessness are homes. What defeats hunger is food. What destroys ignorance is education. The only questions economists need to pay attention to is why do poverty, homelessness, ignorance and hunger still exist in the 21st century and how can they be eliminated? The mechanics of how the wealthy manage their billions is clearly already well established.

[@easyeconomicsprofsubhashini]

Divorcing morality from economics makes the understanding of economic behavior incomplete. Divorcing it from history sociology or political science and other such disciplines makes it worse makes it meant for mathematical analysis whereas real life economics is accepting that economics works in social franework . great lecture

[@Floxflow]

Anwar Shaikh at 6:21 " Im writing my new book. I'm going to make the point that the description of consumer behaviour in economics is identical to that description in psycology called sociopathic behaviour " . The rest of that point is well worth hearing.

[@ShinYaguchiSama]

I mean…I thought that was the point

[@killshxxxt5147]

this 15min of him had me buying the book! Changed my so called *i think i know economy* narrative into *able to comprehend the experts narrative and expand from that dimension and beyond* ❤ may you all succeed in your endeavors!

[@niranjanamaheswari]

The smartest talk on the channel. The way he interlinked everything with full proof and logic is osm.

[@jerryjones7293]

I'm very impressed by Professor Shalkh. His books are on my wish list.

[@shumailmalik3618]

Great talk! Addressing the very foundation of the way Economics is understood, studied and taught.

[@koljoy]

Fantastic Professor. After a very long time, I came across such a narrative on the economy. The narrative is 2 years old and I'm sorry I missed it earlier times. I think in today's world, professor, you need to add another aspect, which is the technology and how it changes behavior in society and people. how it alters their thinking pattern, Differentiating them with people just a hundred years ago

[@Wulf425]

"You can't predict individual behaviour..." I was already thinking of Asimov's psychohistory and the Seldon Plan, and then he nailed it.

[@conradbielicki774]

still boggles my mind he wrote then so young

[@vincentanguoni8938]

Wulf....nice.....Asimov fan here!!!

[@Wulf425]

@@vincentanguoni8938 cool! Interesting to see real world examples of his ideas.

[@vincentanguoni8938]

Wulf I'm back! How do you do that highlighted thing????

[@Wulf425]

@@vincentanguoni8938 click on the three dots to the right and options come up

[@kmakiable]

We Africans and the people of the Global South are finally getting Economics being articulated in a language we understand. Thank you Prof Shaikh.

[@lunatik9696]

I love this channel. Straight real talk. I am not an economist, but have surmised some of the points conceptually, not mathematically. An equation approximating reality would have to be a higher order polynomial. This guy explains the concepts clearly, concisely and thoroughly. Conventional economists are divided into 2 false groups Keynesian vs Monetarist. Both are right, partially, and both are wrong in aggregate. It is not a one or the other, it is both and others, within specific confines.

[@ernestmwape]

when i was a student in a third world country, i used to lose marks because of this line of thinking. i almost failed high school history too (administered from Cambridge, England😏) i ve assembled a book with a few of these observations - kudo to Prof Shaikh

[@GrimReader]

That smirk about Cambridge does you no favours as it shows you’re as pleased with the status quo and problems he’s talking about. Cambridge doesn’t teach you a better more secret form of law than any other uni. What it does do is be self satisfied by this idea of being prestigious when the majority of alum are bought in and heritage attendees from already wealthy families going as a way to propagate their elite status.

[@ismaelramirez4803]

It got him poor marks because he’s just an idealist not a real economist

[@LanaaAmor]

@@ismaelramirez4803 who?

[@ronalddash6520]

Brilliant economist and economic observer this fellow is 👌👌

[@mechanicjobs]

Seems like a real smart man with a unique perspective blending engineering and economics. This allows him a broader perspective.👍

[@johnd.5601]

That was the most exciting interview I've wanted in a long time. Thank you for sharing

[@lolongubeni1748]

Goes to show, most who claim the title "expert" don't even come close. Prof Shaikh takes the complex,, shows the connections, real life applicability while crafting a new framework to help us understand our complex current reality. An honest scholar. Great listening to him.

[@mikeoneil7537]

I love that you have a plug for econometrics. I took that class over a quorter of a century ago and seldom hear others reference it. Great plug, great topic and you are spot on. If more economists spoke clearly and concisely and stopped hiding behind mathomadics we would see an explosion of interest in the dismal science.

[@LFPMultimedia]

Who'd have thought that an interdiciplinary approach to economics would realise such actionable results.

[@anitarose1122]

Amazing 😉

[@StopWhining491]

What a great interview and explanation of what the field of economics should be doing.

[@mannymsena6796]

The best talk ever on Economics. Truth be told! Contrary to what people may think, the interdisciplinary approach (in his case, engineering - how things work, how the pieces fit) is the best. You see things and reason differently. May many students in Economics watch this and learn.

[@sprayphone]

This was incredibly informative.

[@wadap0]

NOTE TO EDITOR: The wide shot is counter-productive

[@garyroberts8279]

Cutting to the wide to show a “behind the scenes” feel seems to be getting more common from from I am seeing.

[@garyroberts8279]

empbac he is looking over notes and making sure he has his next topic set up.

[@AnonYMouse-ky4sg]

Is there a full version of this? I could listen all day.

[@driver8sk]

Young econ majors are so lucky to have this level of thoughtful, multi-discipline approaches to the Dismal Science. When I studied in the 90's in a department obsessed with Chicago school that gave me a walled-off, math obsessed education.

[@peterwright9934]

I studied economics at university in from 1962 to 1967 and neo-classical and Keynesian theory were the two (conflicting) orthodoxies, both very reductionist. The "micro- economics" as it was called was clearly nonsense but any alternative was verboten. One professor said that if anyone didn't believe in neoclassical theory they should go off and study metaphysics in the philosophy department! The irony of that! Only after the mid-sixties did anyone teach anything that mattered and he was a marginalised Marxian associate professor and an ex -WW2 veteran who has seen something of the "real world".

[@BigMoPrepper]

In order to understand economics, one must understand human nature. To understand human nature, one must grasp philosophy and psychology. This is where the moral foundation, rather than logical foundation, is of how humans make decisions in an economic framework. I've been reading Jonathan Haidt and his team's work on this field of moral foundations. They show why people can have a different point of view on the same information. What seems to be the reason for the conflict, is that some don't understand the moral foundations that makes up human nature (political left), while others do (political right). It's why economic theories based in the political left, fail time and again.

[@at5286]

John Smith hmm

[@peterwright9934]

John Smith Well John you seem to have it worked out. A neatly reductionist view of the human moral universe and a little short on analysis but smuggly appropriate. People can and do arrive at different viewpoints but whether they are looking at the same “facts” is debatable. You seem to be oblivious of the teachings of many moral philosophers not to mention religious teachers who as moral critics you might label as “left”. But go no further than here where the speaker is holding up the founding father of economics (or rather political economy) Adam Smith and later classical economists who had as one great aim to rid the world of the parasitic rentier classes and reward instead productive labour, particularly. That sounds like a very strong moral purpose. Yet someone who proposed ridding ourselves of the rentier class today is considered a dangerous left wing radical. But I guess anyone who talks about “human nature” as something producing some sort of rigid moral framework that aligns with right wing thinking might find this hard to digest.

[@thevindictive6145]

@@BigMoPrepper it's not human nature to put profits higher than the value of human life, at least if you are a healthy mind human. This is the existence of corporations that diminishes the value of life. All life regardless of the environment and human life. Maximising profits has always been its goal. The failure of government to regulate these companies due to corruption is a key point of failure.

[@sojourner99]

This guy very thoughtfully dismantles the idea of modern Keynesian economics that has captured all Western governments for the last few decades, aka pointing out the actual reason why mass government spending doesnt work in the longrun without extreme compensating measures. I'm glad he is getting a voice here.

[@mikaailahmed5679]

Great interview, love Anwar's journey through engineering, psychology, anthropology, business, consumer behaviour and economics, looking for answers. Just one problem though, the interviewer on the left is making the most basic mistake when interviewing someone; stop constantly looking at your phone and better yet, throw it away. Print your questions on a paper and use a damn pen. Not only does this look disrespectful, constantly looking down when someone is answering your question, this is an interviewing 101 fundamental.

[@slagoona1790]

"The description of consumer behavior in economics is identical to that description in psychology called sociopathic behavior." -- why our economies set us up to fail and be "greedy." The claim that humans are naturally greedy enrages me. Sure, greed is a human impulse, but we are also so many other things. What the system rewards is what you will get. Great talk.

[@ismaelramirez4803]

This guy a real piece of work projecting his own delusions of grandeur on the reat of us.

[@waynemcmillan5970]

Thank you Anwar for all your hard work over many years.

[@PyroMancer2k]

Back when I took economics I got a good laugh when our Professor went over the Ultimatum Game. Mostly because he talking about how it confused Economist and that it showed people were illogical. I find it amusing because it only seems like an odd outcome if you are a robot and know nothing of human behavior. For those that might not know the Ultimatum Game is You have $10 and you may split it any way you want with the other person in the game. Then that person chooses to accept or refuse the amount offered. If they accept you both keep what you agreed on, if they refuse you both get nothing. Well the Economist thought the other player should accept any amount other than 0 because it would be a net gain for them regardless of how little it was. Turns out people would rather force the selfish player to suffer with nothing if too little was offered even though this hurt them. See the problem with this example and many others is Economist tend to view things in a vacuum and as single events. Being selfish works in the short term but economic activity is an ongoing set of transaction. If someone gives you a bad deal odds are you aren't gonna keep going to them. So sure they might win in the short term but in the long run they will potentially piss off enough people they can't do business anymore. We see this behavior in the animal kingdom as well. For example curtain species of bats will share their food with out bats who might not have been so lucky hunting that night. Once again you got researching talking about how this makes no sense as giving away food would seem to hurt their survival. But actually by working together it helps ensure a few bad nights aren't the end of you. The bats also remember who shares and who doesn't thus not helping the ones that don't share which reduces the selfish bats survival and they get weeded out by good old natural selection thus leading to a large percentage that help each other in hard times. So this behavior is not illogical or counter productive. It is an extremely valuable survival trait that just so happens to fly in the face of those who view humanity as little more than a bunch of self serving individual set out to grab the most stuff and screw over everyone else.

[@georgeokello8620]

A good misunderstanding that most economists do not even get is when ppl forgo the most extremely optimized solution for over centuries just to collect a reward in one small point in time because human beings (like all species) are trying to maximize their survival in order to buy more chances to play certain games rather than risk extinction yet in mainstream economics that would be labeled as irrational for some strange reason. Weird enough economists expect humans in their theory to be Nostradamus to have complete information of a market to exercise outcomes in "perfect competitive markets".

[@rahzaelfoe3288]

I think Economists confused by that behavior are unfamiliar with the 'Tit for tat' strategy in game-theory, which is usually highly effective. In isolation, a retaliatory response to an unfair deal doesn't make sense, but if the scenario is repeated, the person who initially offered a bad deal is much more likely to offer a fair one, knowing that the other will refuse to co-operate if they don't.

[@PhilMoskowitz]

You get 2022. I watched a video from a prominent economic research institution that suggested that the way to beat inflation is for companies to "eat they're costs" to lower prices. That's living outside of the real world for you.

[@kilogram3538]

Dr. Shaikh touched upon a central problem in the modern practice of Economics that has been known for some time now. There is a push in Western Graduate Economic Departments to make Economics into a STEM discipline, ignoring its central classification as a SOCIAL SCIENCE. Just like political science, and anthropology, quantitative methods are TOOLS to explain causal phenomena, they are NOT the phenomena in and of themselves.

[@duncanmckeown1292]

What happens when profitability comes not from capital expenditure in new projects, but from share buy-backs propping up stock prices, and from asset (largely property) speculation? i.e. now! Wage driven inflation not a problem when you don't need workers! I largely agree with the professor's viewpoint...but the conditions of modern capitalism (if indeed it can be called that, when fiat money handouts have replaced capital accumulation)are alarmingly unprecedented.

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

That is the "Achilles heel" of executive profit/compensation coming from stock price manipulation. It structurally creates an incentive for executives to abandon long term growth for short term share price. Structure is everything.

[@josemvacar]

5:56 "We cannot predict individual behavior, but we can predict pretty well what people do in the aggregate. Now this breaks down if people choose to not do that." *cue curb your enthusiasm theme*

[@XtremeZone578]

I find your exposition very interesting I will investigate and find out more about your work thank you very much

[@smarsville]

Very good, very articulate. I will be following your work.

[@sourabhs14]

As an engineer I really appreciate what Mr. Anwar is doing in his research. When I started learning economics, I was baffled to see why economist cant clearly and accurately predict major economic events such as 2008 financial crisis, rise of china, rising inequality and varying effects of globalization.

[@patrickrankin4476]

The Lords of Finance do not want the masses to have reasonable economic models which will prevent cycles which are opportunities for the game masters, Isaac Assimov's foundation is a great story.

[@burner1303]

Great video, I'll have to check out his book.

[@TheJamgirl]

Breath of fresh air. Thank you

[@canalsocialismocristao4605]

economists still trying to explain crisis in rich contries in the 20th century without taking into account the colonialism, all the revolutionary wars, the conflicts with middle eastern countries for the control of their nations and their resources, ignore all that and try to undertand 70s crises without political events, just economics

[@tonedowne]

Don’t you think that the fact that a handful of rich countries had colonised or controlled the rest of the planet and it’s resources, should have been an economic boost rather than a problem? I would say that if nations that held the rest of the world in their hands, couldn’t satisfy the basic needs of a huge chunk (in some cases most) of their own populations, then that represents a broken economic system. MLK realised that fighting for rights in an economic system that has over exploitation and automatic consolidation of wealth and power at its core, is not really a fight for liberation. Legal oppression just gets replaced with economic oppression.

[@garyweglarz]

@@tonedowne - Thank you. When one pulls back from current events, and takes a broader and longer historical view of them, what one sees is that U.S. foreign policy (supported openly or covertly by Western Europe), is simply a continuation of the colonial plundering of the rest of the planet that has gone on for the last 500+ years. If you look at the West's assassinations of Third World leaders, their overthrow in coups, or at the invasion of their nations since WWII, it is not typically because these people were "dictators" or "human rights abusers," but because they were considered too responsive to the popular needs of their own people - which threatened the wealth of Western corporations and thus Western oligarchic power. The colonial era simply morphed seamlessly into the current neocolonial era which continues today - yet nowhere will you see the term used in MSM to discuss current events in the world. Western propaganda needs prohibit such honesty. The West no longer defends it's exploitation of other nations with rationalizations such as "bringing Christianity," or "bringing civilization," - now the West invades your nation, slaughters your people and steals your resources because we are so very concerned about your - "human rights," or access to "democracy," etc.

[@tonedowne]

@@garyweglarz Yeah, and don't forget freedom, which only really means the freedom for multinationals to profit from a countries natural resources and own its financial sector. Like the crowning glory of the new US China trade deal is the opening up of Chinas financial service sector to American companies.

[@JosephKulik2016]

The real problem with raw Capitalism is that it is amoral at best. There is no such thing as a "Capitalist Code of Conduct" or a "Capitalist Ethic". The only moral imperative for Capitalism is to maximize profit any any cost, even any human cost. This guy here is no different because even for him the average worker/consumer is merely a cog in the economic machine, not a real human being. PT Barnum infamously said: "There's a sucker born every minute." And it is this cynical attitude that is the real driving force behind Capitalism. The consumer/worker is conceived to be just a "sucker", someone who is easy to manipulate for any Capitalist as way to maximize profit. Obviously, this denial of the basic humanity the worker/consumer eventually catches up with Capitalism, as it did in 2008 when giving home loans to people who couldn't afford them in the first place finally caught up with Capitalism. In the movie "Wall Street", Michael Douglas' character proudly proclaims: "Greed is good !!!" And it is this perennial attitude of valuing financial profit over human life that will eventually land Capitalism into the trash heap of history. ... [e-mail]

[@tonedowne]

@@JosephKulik2016 Yeah, the legal obligation of a company to put its shareholders first, has to go. Even Milton Friedman said so. That was the idea of the social market economy, to obligate companies to contribute to society as a whole.

[@jesselarsen6852]

The problem with economic theory is that you only consider one kind of profit - money. That's not what the majority of people believe when they are being their best selves.... You are right that these theories lead to practices that encourage sociopathic beliefs and practices. I wish you could use your gorgeous smarts learning by heart...

[@dwardt1]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

[@atxmuney]

Anwar Shaikh is the man!!!

[@ItHadToBeSaid]

More like "how shocked would you be if economics reflected the real world?"

[@srishtibanzal4824]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't his framework for how to create a lasting boom is immensely favorable for the owners of capital? What he says is 1. Increase money supply in the economy 2. Prices of goods and services will rise in nominal terms, leading to profits and expansion of the economy while the nominal wages are still the same (due to contracts or whatever) 3. Prevent those wages from rising more than "productivity" of the wage earners and suddenly the owners of capital don't have to face a reduction of their profitability and will continue to expand the economy. My question here is, the positive economics is well and good, but what about the massive inequality of distribution of that new wealth? I sure hope he's not expecting something like Trickle Down Economics to work here. In that sense, his theory (while supposedly explaining the real world better than math-heavy models) is just as bad in welfare terms (for "real" common people you know :p) as the most capitalistic systems.

[@josetortos5037]

You did not get what he was talking about.

[@tonysu8860]

Actually, on each of your points I heard him hedge his position. I don't know if his book is any clearer, but frequently he'd say something like "profits drive sustained growth" but then follow that up with "but not all the time." Hmmm...

[@hummanmass]

as I understand it, he was describing how to make the system work in the way it is described to work, and then he is allowing the subtext to inform us that if the system worked in the way it is described to work it would not benifit everyone in general, and so we probably need a new description of how the system should work.

[@AstroBlack143]

Gotta buy one of his books now. Thanks!

[@gdavidelliott]

He makes sense and looking forward to reading his book. When an economic system does not reflect the real world then that system is flawed. The paradox of economics is that people do things for a variety of reasons, some selfish, some community, some liberal or conservative, but all under one economic system, experiencing the impact based on their actions, not as a unified collective. It makes economic theory counter-intuitive to real life.

[@christopherkettler8727]

I have a hard time understanding all of this but its got me curious

[@christopherkettler8727]

@Bumblesnuff buffallobath yes thats wher in at

[@andrewhonestly]

If u have an apple that u sell for $1.00 but costs u $0.50 to grow. Mathematically you have $0.50 profit. John likes Larry. Larry likes Debra. Debra likes apples. John sells apples. Larry has a dollar. Larry doesn't like John. Debra doesn't like John because he didn't give her an apple. Larry stabs John , takes the apple and gives it to Debra. Debra loves Larry. John was murdered. Larry is a lawyer.

[@anitarose1122]

Just keep on reading. Google his name, find open access papers. Go for it

[@Juanillo1-1.1]

Interesting. Wonder if he would play a part in Bernie Sanders and Stephanie Kelton’s economic team

[@eroceanos]

Wow, this guy is realy intelligent! Nice channel here. Subscribed.

[@PeterrAre]

Having done a diploma in classic economics, this guy really rings true as, likewise, I came to study the subject after many years in business and in building construction and ideas such as profit maximisation, the theory of the firm, duopoly, perfect competition, have no significance outside the lecture hall when you enter the real world. How could it, you only study relationships between idealised 2-good models that can be represented on a simple graph. We asked our professor, given all these theories about how everything works, how come you didnt see the 2008 crisis coming?

[@ZachComa]

Curious about his thoughts on MMT

[@hishamgornass4577]

I don't think he's so fond of the theory, if you go through his book he has two chapters dedicated to money. It seems like he leans more to metallism side. He disagrees with randall wray and other advocates of MMT

[@jagp007]

He attempts to understand and explain if education can truly be applied to reality and I think he finds out its a pure illusion that has to be sold as reality!

[@rafehiqbal]

real world application, understanding of diverse backgrounds. what a wholistic approach, i have yet to observe with such simplicity.

[@ricardoguzman6444]

What a beautiful mind you have and the quite delicious way to explains the needs of a change of perspective in the global economics, taking care of other more important factors that should be existant to achieve a real quality of life. Fantastic 🙂🙂🙂🙂

[@JB-vb6dh]

This is a great way to teach smart, rich people what poor people already know. Economics is a lot of big words to explain and justify mistreatment of poor / uneducated people. The time spent theorizing could be used to make sure everyone has enough to eat and no one goes to bed hungry. I like this guy though 🙂👍🏾

[@robfromvan]

Everything you just said is nonsense. That is not what economics is. It is true that anyone who studies economics tends to become more fiscally conservative, but this is because they see that economic freedom tends to bring millions of people and whole countries out of poverty. Virtually 100% of economists agree on this. This doesn’t mean they hate the poor. On the contrary they see that the overall net effect of economic liberalization is actually a reduction in overall poverty. Your analysis is incorrect sir.

[@ismaelramirez4803]

This could not be further from the truth and this guy knows it. Economics is the study of allocating scarcities that are inescapable in any economy. If you make everything cheap and affordable, there still wouldn’t be enough to go around. Do you have any idea what rationing looks like? Long food lines, corruption, black markets etc. Do you think a bureaucracy of a small group of people can coordinate millions of price levels that the free market does in real time? How would you know how much food to grow? Or fertilizer to produce? Or plows to make? No body could accomplish this task sensibly. I get it you’re a good person but what you’re asking for is socialism. When you surrender economic freedom to the state you give up your political freedom as well. You wouldn’t even have a choice in which toothpaste to buy

[@ismaelramirez4803]

Halefuckingulla this guy gets it

[@DaveE99]

“Perfect competition dosent exist”

[@TankEnMate]

Anwar's thoughts remind me a lot of Steve Keen and his book "Debunking Economics".

[@JSGolan]

The real difference in approach is that trying to predict individual behavior is basically 18th-century "mechanistic" thinking -- X causes Y. By looking at a stochastic approach you are using a 20th-century "field theory" approach (or, if you want "quantum theory" approach). This is a very big shift in economics paradigm and should really be analyzed per se in greater detail.

[@modvs1]

What Happens When Economics Doesn’t Reflect the Real World? You get economics.

[@k.ganesanganesan6825]

Remove real estate from valuation.

[@Minney-Me]

@Thomas Headley It needs to be regulated heavily

[@IizUname]

@Thomas Headley Have you ever heard of software?

[@andrewmarkmusic]

Absolutely YES! Or, at the very minimum, 500 S/F of land should be a birthright to every single human accessed upon the age of consent. So the first 500S/F of any home should be taken out of market systems. Beyond that, there also should be some mechanism for limiting speculation on housing and make them hones again...See more in my Four Pillars Of A New Earth Commons! It's complex, but it's achievable and should be a part of Climate and Economic Emergency Protocols... BTW: under this sustainable model Bill Gates and his ilk still get to own their megamansions. It's just that this would solve the issue of 400,000 living homeless in places like Kali.and the world over. I have bad news for the capitalists: the world doesn't and should not exist for the sole purpose of guaranteeing your profit. Economic predation should be challenged by EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. on earth that still has a heart! SAY NO TO CASINO ECONOMICS!

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

What a brilliant man. I love him.

[@janicetone1624]

Finally, thank you for showing me the thread through Theory to Nuts & Bolts to Reality. The compartmentalization of labels, titles, fields, disciplines is artificial and destructive. I too began my journey as an engineer.

[@hariseldon3786]

Also, in reply to a comment below, "This economist was able to figure it out because he studied other fields and thats the problem with all other so called experts in their own field,they don't get the whole picture of how dire the condition of world is." Please read 'The Voyage of the Space Beagle' by A. E. Van Vogt, (1950) referring to the discipline of Nexialism. Sorry to school all you guys, and it amuses me to use science fiction examples, but I presume you get the point; imagine my sad life - being surrounded by people who think think ideas are original and that they are smart - but I know different... incidentally, if you want to build a pyramid, put 4 sticks in the ground and fill the space inbetween with water - and you'll be easily able to establish a level base... if you want to prove the Earth is round or the distance to the moon, have a slave (about 2500 years ago) walk for 100 leagues and then at midday put a stick in the ground and measure the inclination of the shadow - could go on but have to go back to playing video games...

[@squeegeedee]

The interviewer is constantly playing with his phone. Really?

[@carolgiangreco6548]

He can't possibly be understanding what is being said unless he's genius on the subject lol

[@carolgiangreco6548]

Not to mention, extremely rude!

[@wadap0]

He is not really "interviewing" and probably did not realize they would use that wide shot, which is think is rather pointless.

[@IdleBystander1]

Likely the questions asked by the interviewer were on the phone

[@BreathingCells]

He's not an interviewer; he simply set up the mics and cameras, and read some (edited out) questions from some unknown person(s).

[@pazitor]

At the end of the day, a firm grasp of the issues in realism/anti-realism and what mental models _actually_ do and do not represent is where you find the most interesting work being done. "Perfect" markets, pricing, etc are abstractions that do not pertain to observation; rather, they are the models themselves, and thus they can be mistakenly taken in prescriptive form if care is not taken (or purposefully, to support a partisan political economic view). Not sure how this author frames things exactly, but I think I will pick up this gentleman's book and check it out.

[@redshifttrucking4537]

This is the best lighting on a KZbin video I've ever seen. I wouldn't show it as here.... better to let the magic remain behind the curtain.

[@damham5689]

Rude of the guy to keep playing with his phone during the interview.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

@Scooters Videos it is porn because he was bored listening to the guy

[@slaytanic921]

Or candy crush. It was probably candy crush

[@jorgegomez524]

Perhaps the guys was just a frontman for the real journalist

[@ashthegreat1]

Economics isn't a science... it's western shamanism.

[@finnmungovan8772]

What

[@ashthegreat1]

@@finnmungovan8772 It's astrology

[@ipdavid1043]

agree. we cannot prolong the unlimited growth of gdp and production. anthropocene with demanding slow growth is the only way to save the world and environment

[@ashthegreat1]

@@ipdavid1043 'saving the world' and 'anthropocene' are both notions steeped in human vanity. The world doesn't need us to 'save' it. Nor do we have any means to completely destroy it. We only occupy 29% of its surface and sure we can make a mess of that little piece... and maybe destroy ourselves in the process. But that will be a very tiny blip, on a vast geological time horizon. 99% of all species go extinct. The average lifespan of a species is 1-10 million years. Its a cycle.

[@AlienLivesMatter]

We need balance and symbiosis in action. The strengths of free market reasoning applied where they work best and a counterpoint in social policy when profiteering doesn’t incentivise positive outcomes.

[@gerrys6265]

Thank you for airing this. I'm not sure I agree with everything here, but the core idea is something like what we need in this nutty world where economics trumps 'socioicts'.

[@manhoosnick]

We are taught business in business schools by teachers who never had their own businesses and economic by economists who never went out of academia..

[@pjpierce13]

Go to a better school then big man. Ain’t like that everywhere

[@TobeornottooB]

Decentralized framework with free trade and no "middle man?"

[@snowballeffect7812]

Too much has already been horded by those who horded wealth before satoshi nakamoto's whitepaper.

[@TobeornottooB]

@@snowballeffect7812 The horde ing? Tis' nothing but smoke and mirrors. Someone gets a statement on paper or binary signals say they have an off shore account worth "z." Try and access the account is another issue. Besides Islands are easily diminishable. Example, the Cayman Islands cound disappear very suddenly.

[@snowballeffect7812]

@@TobeornottooB I'm talking about crypto, because I assumed that's what you were talking about because that's exactly what your original comment described.

[@TobeornottooB]

@@snowballeffect7812 Cryptocurrency = " crypt" dead. It is concentrated private central authority, it stems from the City of London. Paper currency "notes" are direct peer to peer transactions. Private. The "Cryptocurrency" Sphere is part of the totalitarian tip toe. I use my debit card a lot by choice because it is convenient, but, CASH is KING for privacy. The crypts are NOT PRIVATE nor will they ever be. The only reason for the desire of "secrecy" is if something "immoral" or untoward is at play. Some 3rd party ALWAYS knows, even if it is just the hooker.

[@snowballeffect7812]

@@TobeornottooB Paper currency is subject to central authorities. You described in your original post is very clearly cryptocurrency based on a blockchain. Both share the same problem of capitalists and financial institutions hording and controlling the currency.

[@brexistentialism7628]

This is brilliant!

[@FlippidyDippidyPaeni]

Nice points, saying similar things to Ole Peters. It would be great if this channel could interview him also.

[@oliviaralston1]

Keeping this to myself isn't a good idea, I decided to tell everyone so you guys can all benefit from this. People keep talking about Stacy Griffin but I never knew how her software works until she show me, I will forever be grateful for her strategies of making big profits in income for me.......

[@hauwaahmad9606]

imagine investing in Btcoin earlier.... You could have been a multi millionaire precently

[@kelseyeadelmarr6109]

Investment is the key to achieving success with the current pandemic slowing down so many businesses aww

[@vivandrel7530]

@Luther Filbert I have also experience her great work too, she is good I can assure you of that

[@kiyotofujita2178]

She have changed my life and financial status for the best. All thanks to my aunty who introduced me to her. She is obviously the best, trading with her gives me joy of earning

[@kirstenraedmund7346]

I came about Stacy by a friend of mine and that is how I keep on trading over three months now. She had really made name for herself

[@billhanna8838]

Nothing on the Gangster Bankers ????

[@Jazzmarcel]

Absolutely brilliant !.......... Totally agree

[@michaeltorris5675]

This was fantastic.

[@Soleilune1995]

Just give workers at a company ownership and control of the workplace and the accumulated profits. Ta-da, the ratio between wages and profits are already regulated by the workers themselves, in their own best interest. Works even better if everyone is educated. You could even have a system to tax the profits of businesses instead of individuals. More money for them to spend, and revenue for government spending. You could have a UBI.

[@SeanONilbud]

Such a dumb idea. Why should some douchenozzle putting crates on the back of a truck have a share in the profits? Should their wages be cut because management has fucked up?

[@Soleilune1995]

@@SeanONilbud Because if they weren't there to load the crates, then that work wouldn't get done. The company would not make the profits that it does. It is necessary for that work to get done in order to make profit, so the person who does it should make some of the profit. Of course, you are also ASSUMING that profit can't accumulate at a business without an individual to singularly own it. It can exist, and jointly belong to all of the workers. They can democratically make decisions about what it should be used for. And they can all collectively participate in the decision about how much to be paid, while preserving a portion of it for necessary expenses. Workers should also have a right to make decisions about their own physical, workplace environment. They have to make a living for themselves. They have no choice. Why should they be subjected to authoritarianism, just because they have no choice but to sell their labor and freedom for access to needed resources? Your argument is really no different from a monarchist argument for the "need" for a king. You don't need a billionaire. Democracy ensures that everyone has an equal say in the decisions that affect them. Work is necessary to access resources. No reason not to have democracy.

[@douglasphillips5870]

Basically it's a more comprehensive version of profit sharing. If all the workers have a stake in the company, they will have an interest in its profitability. At the same time the company owners have a greater stake in worker job satisfaction.

[@kinghassy334]

@@douglasphillips5870 that's exactly what socialism is about, right now shareholders decides what happens with the profits, they hire CEO's and give them massive bonuses for using profits for stock buy backs instead of buying new equipment or raising wages. Workers should be paid proportional to profits, how is this a radical idea?

[@flannel2699]

Soleilune - there are co-op businesses that have been running successfully in the UK for generations. They are solid and stable as everyone has a stake. I would also like to see a country experiment with a UBI for say 50 or 100 years just to see what happens. It would be interesting and possibly super cool!

[@ibenzawla]

Renegotiate global trade to benefit the poor and middle class instead of greedy Western corporations. Make room for the poor on the table.

[@individualm6712]

We know they should, but they won't. What to do about the is the question that keeps me up. 😤 know what mean? (smh)

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

I think this why there is so much global interest in United States presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Setting aside his UBI proposal, his whole platform seems to be about changing the metrics by which we judge an economy. The metrics he proposes seem to imply a kind of default focus on the condition of the poor by judging a whole economy on how well off a populace is.

[@ThePanopticon1]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXOUeoSPeZmIm9k

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

@@ThePanopticon1 😆

[@SeanONilbud]

@@christopherchilton-smith6482 Absolutely no one gives a flying fuck about Yang and his Disney bullshit. No one's that interested in anything the WASP's have to say. There will be no "Wisdom of Trump" or "Principals of Boris". Malfunctioning countries which have managed to produce a vast uneducated underclass of book burning cretins.

[@Gogalen789]

When you can control and predict human behavior you can make economics and reality mirror each other.

[@willielin6107]

Deep. Thoughts, good historian knowledge