Economics summarized in 10 minutes | Steve Keen and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 07. 2022
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Steve Keen: Marxism, C...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Weights & Biases: lexfridman.com/wnb
- Skiff: skiff.org/lex
- Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
GUEST BIO:
Steve Keen is a heterodox economist and author.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
9:33 I've been bingwatching a lot of Lex Fridman videos and I have to say he doesn't listen to respond but he listens to understand and I have to respect that about him.
I try to do that in conversation. It’s hard - both because you have to really be paying attention to recapitulate properly and you also have to risk seeming stupid or ignorant. It’s ultimately worth it, though, I think
I'm at the point where the only economic model that interests me is the one where parasitic politicians can no longer steal the fruits of my labour to fund and legislate their personal ideas about the economy/investment/labour/business/poverty etc.
You mean corporations right? Who do you think buys the politicians?
Anarcho-capitalism
@@gionthomas7160 what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Term limits for a start
@@gionthomas7160 you can only buy a politician who doesn't mind being bought
Is he really claiming that 1. Adam smith’s WON is a book about the labor theory of value? 2. He didn’t have thoughts on money and banking? He has hole chapters in WON on money and banking AND argued against a barter system.
Milton Friedman a quote on quote neoclassical, wrote an entire book on money and inflation.
This is one issue I have with economist who are heavily influenced by Marx, they almost always distort or straw man their opponents
He talked about the subjective theory of value, about the neoclassical school at that point. And you don't learn the labor value theory that Adam Smith, Ricardo and other classic economists represented in college. Classic and neoclassical theorists are very different. And the teachings in college are different again.
Can you not listen? Listen to him again before you make a pointless argument.
Adam Smith has a whole section of On The Wealth of Nations dedicated to the labor theory of value. He was a great economist, but missed the mark on value and helped contribute to a lot of death and misery in the 20th century.
yes Adam smith maintained a labour theory of value, not the same as Marx's but a different, he didn't say Adam smith didn't have thoughts on money and banking. oh and Adam smith was not a neoclassical economist. this is my issue with non-Marxist economists. they not only hopelessly history and strawman their opponents, but they also get basic facts wrong, and are incapable of coherent thought.
Yep, the monetarily school think money is irrelevant... what rubbish, and I'm no monetarist.
3 years of economics at Uni without a single mention of Ludwig von Mises
that is crazy yet not surprising
What uni do you go to? If I may ask
Unfortunately, Steve Keen won't help in that respect either. I've watched one lecture of his on Austrian economics and, although he does mention Mises once, he never explains any of his ideas. He only goes through a bit of Hayek (some misrepresentations) and mostly of Schumpeter (who is, at most, an Austrian fellow traveller. He was in Böhm-Bawerk's class, one of the main early Austrians, but, as Böhm-Bawerk acknowledged, he didn't get much from it). So, call me crazy, but if one of the main topics he covers in the lecture is the Austrian critique of maths in economics, he should at least go over the guy who's written 4 books that touched on the subject. In addition, when he talks about entrepreneurship it's all about Schumpeter, when the real main theoritician of entrepreneurship is Kirzner (following in the steps of Mises).
@@adrianrg75 Well, there you have it. To talk about Austrian Economics ignoring Mises is like talking about Romantic Music ignoring Beethoven.
or Karl Marx. Haven't heard a single lecture on him.
i'm an ecnomics phd and i hope this video exisited when i was in school. it gives the purpose of these studies.
Saying that equilibrium never exists because of change is like saying temperature doesn't exist because of fluctuations in heat. Theoretically correct but in any sane practical situation temperature is almost always well enough defined. The lesson of physics is that *scale matters*.
Its not like saying that at all. Its more like saying the clinate will change.
@@edwinurey4927 whatever floats your boat. The crucial thing is that temperature is defined *at equilibrium*. And yet we have no problems in tracking changing temperature.
Temperatura es a measure. Equilibrium is a state of a system. The equilibrium is DEFINED by temperature. (Is temperature is stable, the system is ar therminal equilibrium).
So, no it is not the same, it´s apples and pears.
@@sebamtorres No real system is at equilibrium, and yet we find temperature, which is only defined at equilibrium, to be incredibly useful.
Comparing economic flux to temperature is a gross oversimplification and one that is both disingenuous and lazy. Congrats on the gumption....You must be of the Austrian economic herd
Can you have Philip Mirowski on? I consider him the fore leader in economic history and he has some very novel/ interesting ideas to bring to Econ
During the past years we had a boom in the racket sport Padel. At year 2021 we had 700 padel courts all over the country. Some correction is taking place. Court are being converted into warehouses. Padel court investors seems to have predicted that the boom would be over and there would be a future demand for warehouses.
Their definition of equilibrium is different from the statistical mechanics approach . What they are referring to is better thought of as attractors
reading these comments... everyone else is pretty damn smart lol
dont worry youve got my love
trust me, they are not
they mostly talk gibberish if you really speak "economics"...
(1) Neoclassical economics, with subjective value theory as its basis, was NOT developed as response to Marx---in some sort of defense of capitalism. Instead, it was an extension of classical economics, with important theoretical corrections.
(2) Marginal costs of production don't determine sales prices of final goods/services. Instead, it's the exact reverse of this---that is to say, the value of final goods/services (as subjectively determined by consumers) determines the value of the capital goods and labor inputs required to produce them. Or, stated differently, capital and labor inputs aren't inherently valuable, but instead reflect the value of the final good/service they produce. See, e.g., Menger's _Principles_ (1871) for the first theoretical elaboration of this insight.
Cost theory of price is the errant view of Smith and Ricardo.
Your second point is incoherent. To suggest cost of production is not a factor of sales price completely contradicts supply and demand. Price is an indicator of both supply and demand. That is it fluctuates in accordance with both. Therefore, cost of production is an inherent factor of sales prices.
@@solusgamer164 Only to the extent that the good is a discretionary purchase.
@@solusgamer164 _"To suggest cost of production is not a factor of sales price completely contradicts supply and demand."_
I don't follow. What do you mean, exactly?
The only recognized great neo-classical economist is Leon Walras, who was a socialist and wanted to develop a social market economy like Oskar Lange another general equilibrium theorist
@@SafeTrucking , no. It is in every case. The cost of essential goods/services are factored into the price. That's the purpose of a price. It indicates multiple things, including the cost of production, since the demand for more production is regulated by consumer discretionary in either case of essential and non-essential.
Like another comment mentioned: Ludwig Von Mesis for the win! Austrian school is the most down the earth & free economic system
Yeah cause the crypto hype is "down to earth"
@@cameronblack7984 It’s debatable whether or not crypto fits into the Austrian school
@@cameronblack7984 the only reason cryptos exist is because governments cant be trusted with issuing currency.
@@charleswalker2484 but random dudes who just wrote some code can be?
@@charleswalker2484 I'm not saying current Central and Private Banks are the optimal solution at all, but crypto doesn't get rid of all the problems created by the current banking establishment.
thank you Lex, for your brilliant mind
This comment thread has been very interesting and after some googling seems to be mostly correct. Nice to see some intelligent and pertinent dialogue.
Without a doubt, the most outstanding capacity to think was manifested by Ludwig von Mises. Without a doubt. You just have to see the ease with which Marx and Keynes get refuted applying Mises thought and methodology and how much further the implications of his thought go compared with Schumpeter.
Sounds a lot like a modern day western economic structure applied to intellectual property 🤔
@@alectronicmail they know he’s smart this guy
Marx all the way
Thanks for the source, I'll have to read this shit myself.
@Down with Corporate Amerika reality refuted libertarianism? What an absurd statement. Care to elaborate?
What a brilliant.man. Great episode
we have been doing this value determination thing as a species since egyptians and akkadians had balance scales
Yes! Yes! Yes! I've been crowing for years in economics classes that neoclassical economics breaks the laws of thermodynamics! Forever growth is *not* an option for humanity.
Watching this clip is a lot like watching the movie TENENT. I wish I was smart enough to follow this because it sounds fascinating.
That’s precisely why I don’t buy it. Economics makes sense, he is basically trying to muddy the water with jargon and throwing around different measures of “value”. I’ve seen that classical economics works and provides real-world decision power. This is nonsense
Don't stress. That was an embarrassingly stupid movie that did not understanding entropy in the slightest.
Incredible breakdown
Plz call naval ravikant once... would be greatfull to you .....
His criticism of indifference curves is just wrong. economists are completely aware that indifference curves aren't identical for every level of income but with models "the map is not the territory" we're looking to structure our thoughts in regards to optimisation, preferences and trade-offs not unveiling the complete truth. money is not taken into account in the model because it's not what we're looking at. if it was it would be accounted for. it's the whole point of 'ceteris paribus' and isolating relationships. Keynes and Friedman have given money a place in modern economics in their own distinct models.
Value comes from the soil (matter) and the sun (energy), some passing through the human body to be translated into application of energy to extraction, transportation, and processing of matter. When automation substitutes for or substantially supplements human labor, energy serves as the primary input to value creation. Post-scarcity will arise when the sun's energy is harvested in sufficient quantity to attain the matter from the solar system which is in short supply on Earth. Human labor will become substantially obsolete as a primary input, so economies will require alternatives to employment as an income source.
He seems to be saying that the Austrians didn't believe in expansion via credit but that was absolutely not true. The credit just has to be extended privately and not by debasing the currency. This was difficult to do before but now that we have blockchains its actually pretty routine. You stake the tokens so they can be lent out, you're given another different token in exchange that represents your fraction of the available credit, and the longer you leave it locked in the lending platform the more you accrue of your portion of the fees and interest of each loan.
You can't do this when you disallow free competition between currencies though.
Really exciting stuff. I suspect we will all learn a lot of new things about economics vecause of blockchains. Al of our economic orthodoxies will likely be challenged. I still think a slowly inflating fiat currency alongside a bunch if experiments is a good idea for now.
Why is debasing the currency inherently bad?
@@edwinurey4927 because the group who has the ability to debase the currency has an extremely unfair advantage. They also never know exactly the correct amount to debase a currency at a given time so they're always either oversteering or understeering the debasement process.
@@shittychicken2095 doesnt mean the alternative is better.
@@edwinurey4927 a system without this type of privileged access to the money printer is more fair. More fair systems are usually better.
Does this perhaps mean that coconut water is beneficial to awareness?
4:49 still hasn’t brought up Keynesian 🧐
Could this “instability” also be viewed as the ability for someone to move up and down the economic ladder?
I don’t think a utopia is possible. What I want is to live in a system that actually rewards hard/smart work and leaves room for charity to be possible.
Mises is Moses compared to Keynes
bananas and coconuts. got it
I think it is econ 101ism to think that the most interesting thing is the equilibria. My interest in economics and indeed economic thought is generated through the mechanisms that generate this equilibria. I would differ from Steve in that Neoclassicals only care about the equilibria. Friedman (milton) spent a major part of his life discussion political economy and incentives. Markets are a way to generate equilibria but that is not the most important point in itself.
Mises is one of the greatest economist that ever lived. far greater than anyone else in this video.
No. Neolibs can't be great. They're pretty petty thinkers. Simpletons.
Can you make a video about him I will watch it
@@justins5756 sorry I don't have the capability to properly edit a good video at the moment. But I would suggest watching some content about him on the mises institute youtube channel.
Does that mean that labour is conversion therapy? (bada boom!)
This clip needs to be at least on hour long if not more. Didn't even mention Austrian Economics.
Maybe try the companion clip titled "Austrian Economics Explained"
@@raein2853 Unfortunately, most academics today basically don't acknowledge Austrian Economics as legitimate.
Why would you want to listen to someone talk at more length about economics who genuinely thinks Marx was the greatest intellect in the history of economics? There's an "Austrian Economics Explained" clip as well, btw, and it's clear he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about (who's "Ronbard"? no mention of Mises?) This guy is not worth listening to.
@@_.Jon._ the Austrians simply won't win though. The idea that you can have the economy run on a deflationary reserve asset is simply not going to happen. Not gold, not bitcoin etc...I'd recommend you listen to the entire podcast.
@@edwinurey4927 1) Your post addresses nothing I said in my previous post, so I'm not sure why your post is directed at me, and 2) "[they] simply won't win" and "[it's] simply not going to happen" aren't arguments.
The uncontrolled, ungoverned use of thought and feeling has brought about all kinds of discord, sickness and distress. Few, however, believe this, and keep going on and on continually creating by their ungoverned thought and desire, chaos in their worlds; when they could as easily as a breath face about, using their thought constructively with the motive power of divine love, and build for themselves a perfect paradise within the period of two years.
Value is situational. Embrace the duality.
Missed the one who got it right - Henry George
This guy is very macro focused. When he talks about who the great economic thinkers were, they're all macro oriented. Total neglect for the Micro side of the house.
Dude, microeconomics is just another name for much of the neoclassical economics crap he is describing, with bullshit indifference curves etc.
@@MrNights-is8mx Those are genuinely useful mental models for personal/professional decision making. It's not a hard science like it can be interpreted to be, and definitely people aren't the perfectly rational homo economicus depicted in the theories. But those are useful mental models for decision making in market environments and understanding markets. I think it's when you get to the macro level of using public policy as a lever for driving economies that stuff gets screwy. That's more macro
Ive studied all the theories. I started out as more of a socialist/keynes follower. I started studying economics. I read a ton of books on it. I turned over to the Austrian school of economics. Specifically the Rothbardian school. Its the only 1 that makes the most sense from every angle. The most logically consistent.
so in studying economics you actively got worse at it
@bernges7228 No, I got better in it. I didn't understand incentives. Supply and demand. Inflation. Recessions. Profits/losses and how it affects the economy. Tariffs. Price controls. Etc the list goes on. We all know the intentions but intentions and results are 2 completely different things. Something many people don't understand including myself back then. It wasn't until I started studying economics I learned the economic principles. The facts. The logic and reasoning.
"If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"- Friedrich Hayek.
I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. I used to be more of a socialist until I started studying economics.
When I first started, my arguments were getting refuted. A portion of them. I never heard the other side out because again, these policies sound amazing on paper. So I came across the opposing side and they refuted it. I couldn't believe it. I've never been much of a bias person, I can change my mind when evidence is presented to me. Which is why I jumped from socialist to capitalist. So when I got these ideas refuted, I looked to my side for the responses. What can I say back? What's your argument in response? I was met with mostly criticism for even questioning their stance which was my stance. I was still on their side but I was questioning things. They went after me despite being on their side just from me wanting a stronger argument to address this. I knew something was very wrong because it was an emotional reaction and not a logical one, they gave me nothing but personal insults. So I started studying economics. Looked up all the book recommendations from the opposing side. Stumbled across a few and those few led me to tons more. College textbooks. The whole 9 yards. I became thirsty for the right answers. I found them after many, many, many thousands of hours of research because I became obsessed with finding the correct answers.
Even to this day, I can't discuss economics with Keynesians/socialists because anytime I try to engage i am met with personal insults. It's because I can refute them very easily. The facts/logic are indeed on my side. So if they're on my side, the only thing the other side can do is insult me.
When I went over to this side, the Austrian side along with the Chicago school, I had all my questions answered. They don't hurl personal insults at me for questioning them. They answered my questions in a logical/factual way. I came in as a socialist so I questioned their side same way I did mine. The reactions were 2 completely opposite reactions. The socialists/keynesians were hostile with zero argument. The chicago/austrian schools did not do that and they answered everything.
Own nothing and be happy. 😢
But let's just keep making billions with pharmaceuticals.
Would be feckin great, essential, to watch proper debates between this guy and the people advocating our current dominant system: Hypercapitalism. Lex for moderator!
The unspoken premise upon which all study of economics is founded is that once this knowledge is gained, the masses can subsequently be manipulated for the benefit of the few in the know.
All university study of economics, yes. The stuff they teach at the undergraduate, and graduate, levels is nothing but mere apologetics for the central banking system, on the one hand, and big government interventionism on the other. The former is a giant wealth transfer scam, and the latter a scam to keep an elite political class and their cohorts fat and happy. The two work hand in hand, as the central bank monetizes the spendthrift government's debt, and subsidizes the enrichment of the elites and company.
Right. I have had the thought recently that the proper role of the economist is not a specialized adviser for those trying to manipulate anything, but more like a weather man. Analyze, report, give heads up and warnings. The weather man doesnt try to control the weather. They merely try to report and predict.
As Lex said and I certainly share his belief in stupidity. But, in my view an important element to economics is who controls the commanding heights (military tactics terminology), i.e., energy, food & shelter! Worth bringing into the conversation. It’s very relative to our contemporary economic situation.
And, from now on, when anyone drags me into a discussion on economics I will define it as how much one loves bananas!
I’m just sayin..
You said a whole lot of nothing in your comment.
@@DardanEmini Did I? How sad!
Poor leaders in any system makes a bad system.
Supported Jeremy Corbin... 'nough said
What about Mises? Or Menger? Marx is brilliant for curing insomnia.
It's just like what is a glass of water worth... "Nothing, it's free from the sky." 30 days later, the person is lost in the desert, how much would that glass of water be worth to them?
And then there is the "screw the state, I am the one that creates the market" school
Less Marx, more Mises
Not a huge fan of Steve Keen he tends to stereotype current economics ignoring more recent developments like experimental economics, behavioral economics, economists running trials of alternative ways to improve health or education in poor countries etc, but in terms of giving a quick overview looking back
In terms of looking back he does a very nice lucid job of summarizing schools of thought and he is very correct in pointing out how uncertain the future is so another good choice of guest for this show
Economics is just bananas
And biscuits...
He didn't talk about Austrian economics and therefore will miss out on the global future money called bitcoin
Human population was 1 billion in 1803. Today it's 8. A lot of growth and unpredictability comes from this explosion in customer count. It is theorized that population will stabilize at around 10-11 billion. Markets will be much more stable at that point.
I highly doubt that... Markets factor in growth and if the population isn't growing.... Well that would be a problem, wouldn't it?
Keynes, Schumpeter, Marx -- is he joking or...?
He believes in money printing 🫠
Wtf ok says a lot
only one comment in two weeks? how can this be?
Can someone please name the actor that lex sounds like? It’s driving me insane- he sounds exactly like somebody…..
I hated economics in school...but still did really well 🤷♂️
Very sad Lex had someone explain economics without even dabbling in the Austrian theory. Value comes from supply and demand, Friedman and Hayek are by far the greatest economist I’ve come across with Mises in 3rd
yes 👍
czcams.com/video/QMJ0cf84g0k/video.html
So true!! The only thing that gives anything it’s value or price is what someone else is willing to pay for it. This is normally determined by supply and demand, not by the prices of its inputs. However if the cost of producing it is greater than what someone is willing to pay for it, it won’t get made.
austrian school economics is unbelievably irrelevant to modern economics and does not represent and important chapter in the development of economic thought. also yes people agree price is determined by supply and demand. the fact that you think the comment you typed out brings any cohernt thought to the discussion or levys any actual counter argument demonstrates that you know nothing about economics. anyone who sites the austian school economists as their choice fore greatest economists aren't actual economists, they are prepubecent ben shapiro fans who try deseprately to make incoherent arguemtns as to why capitalism isn't inherently flawed
You guys completely missed him describing you and explaining that neo-classical economics reduces value to marginal utility and focusing on the most interesting feature of the world being equilibrium….. but the economy is not an equilibrium system
Conceptually these simple curves are too simplistic to explain a complex system.
“If you don’t have the critical background, that’s what you think is economics”
😂
The only school of economics that make most sense to me, and that is most aligned with freedom and individual liberty, is Austrian School of Economics; aka Free Market Economics/laissez-faire.
Joe Rogan on the left
What is the genius of Marx?
Considering the amount of predictions Marx made that very clearly were wrong, I have a great deal of difficulty taking seriously anyone who calls him a great mind. Indeed at this point ti be a Marxist is to be a man of faith rather than reason.
I love how he just talks about literally nothing
Funny way of saying I don’t understand big words
Marxist, so no surprises here
@@erlingaamodt1964Did you listen to him at all? He's school is post-Keynesianism which is pretty different from Marxian school of economy.
@@iachtulhu1420 Ok, fair. Not a marxist. And no, I did not finish listening. I never do once I know someone's thinking is bad. I was pointing to the ranking of intellect and his putting Marx all the way up there. That is enough for me to know that this man is out of whack, and that nothing he says can be of any substantial value.
@erlingaamodt1964 consider reading Marx.
*Stop* *wasting* *time* *and* *money* *on* *things* *that* *doesn't* *matter,* *invest* *it* *so* *you* *can* *have* *multiple* *streams* *of* *income* 🔴🔴
This season has been really great I’ve been making massive returns on my binary investment all thanks to my expert Samuel Richard
Am going for a long term trade.
Austrian Economics are the lessons that you need to understand but don't want to hear.
Austrian Economics is retarded gobbledygook. They literally reject the concept of evidence. Never hire an Austrian as a lawyer.
Who wants a banana?
How you cannot mention Milton Friedman
He's a marxist.
Listening to anyone who finds Marx to be a genius, is a waste of f’ing time. Why do you waste your time Lex, talking with such delusional fantasists.
There is a difference between being intelligent and being correct. Sowell pointed this out in his writings on Marx and he obviously disagrees with Marx's economic theories. Intellect is the ability to pick up on ideas. But it doesn't do you good if you pick up bad ideas. Marx was an objectively gifted intellectual, an autodidact who learned multiple languages and studied philosophy at a young age, his theories on the other hand have been complete disasters.
Listening to Marxist ideas about economics is like listening to an astronomer from the same time who thought the sun was made of coal.
Pretty much
gaurentee you know nothing about marxit economics, but instead are blindly jibbering on the interent to try and debunk a man who effortless demonstrated the fact the society that you live in today is fundementally flawed and will collapse. because you worship endless cancerous production and mindless conception your infantile withered brain cannot cope with this
@buffcommie942 So what do you agree with Marx on? Or what do you disagree with capitalism on?
Indeed
Marx was primarily an economist. Much of what he forecast has come to pass.
is he talking about Karl Marx?
The Austrian School is the only worth studying.
Lulz
Lex gets these Marxist thinkers on here and I learn nothing and I leave hungry and disappointed. There's a reason they do his podcast and not others where they would be challenged by the Socratic method.
The worst part is I am really open to Marxism (I'm a historian and Marx and Engels work on the German Peasants War is still seminal) but Critique only gets you so far, it just seems shallow to me.
It sounds like you already know all you want to know.
@@scoobedoo1008 I know that if I'm wrong it's good when people tell me I am. Other than that I know pretty much nothing.
@@SerZachariah sounds OK to me. Of possible interest to you: czcams.com/users/results?search_query=steve+keen
_"Lex gets these Marxist thinkers on here and I learn nothing and I leave hungry and disappointed"_
A big reason for this is Marx never says exactly how, once socialism is established, it actually works to produce wealth.
Marx simply assumes prosperity in the socialist society.
I gotta say when he rank ordered the most brilliant minds in Economics I lost a lot of respect for him. Not necessarily for who he mentioned (you can be a genius and still be wrong), but for who he left out.
Who did he leave out?
@@chongomwila4242 Milton Fridman.
Nouriel Roubini or Dr.Doom is known for his adverse position on bitcoin, which he has described as "the mother of all scams." -accurately predicted the 2008 financial crisis.
Conversely; Keynes was almost bankrupted by the stock market crash of 1929,(not too smart)
It doesn't take 10 minutes to explain "people need food, only a limited number of people are willing to produce food so everyone else either steals food or does something in exchange for the people who produce food either directly or indirectly."
at 3:11 he calls Marx the greatest economic thinker....c'mon.
Think "Animal Farm" with vaccines
This is the dude Gonzalo Lira dislikes.
Who?!
Thank god for Ayn Rand.
Marx published volume 1 of Das Kapital in 1867 and then couldn't finish the rest despite living for another 16 years. For a man who matured during the 1840s, the Capitalism of the 1870s and 1880s had simply become too complex. Marxism is one volume of one book, he was brilliant, but his disciples tried to turn him into a god.
Brilliant, ah yes I agree he was brilliantly racist and antisemitic. Also reprehensibly cruel to his wife, oh and his socioeconomic theory has repeatedly failed every when even just single ideas are slightly implemented. Only political and social theory I know of that has no track record of clear-cut success one can point to yet alarmingly continues to be promoted by a large number of people who are coincidentally in the same profession as one another but that part is pure coincidence.
@@Zappappappappa That's some "ad-hominem". Where do you got that info? And the other question is: is the fault of Marx or the people who tried to implement Marx's thinking? Is always good to remember that, for example, Lenin and, particularly, Stalin reinterpreted a fair amount of Marx theory -taking in account the political and economic context of Russia at the moment.
On the other hand, a lot of people regards the implementation of neoclassical economics in Chile by Pinochet's dictatorship as a miracle. In reality for Chile in a mediocre economic growth and the total obliteration of the economic wellness of the medium and low class. And various people where involved: the school of Chicago, Von Hayek, Friedman. Direct assessors and brains behind the economics and politics of Pinochet. An incredible failure.
@@FarencioChile ended up the richest country in latin america, while communist countries consistently end up the poorest.
But sure communism is the approach we should be trying more of and Chile the abject failure.
“Economics summarized in 10 minutes”
*video **10:59*
Currently I'm just being smart and frugal with my money, I'm in the green 47% over the last 15 months and l've accumulated over $700K in pure profits from DCA’ing into stocks, ETFs, dividends and futures. However I’ve been in the red for a month now. I work hard for my money, so investing is making me a nervous sad wreck. I don’t know if I should sell everything, sit and just wait.
Nobody knows anything you need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.
I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by a fin-advisor, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying off risk as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, coupled with the exclusive information/analysis they have, it's near impossible to not out-perform, been using a fin-advisor for over 2years+ and I've netted over 2.8million.
@@MarkFreeman-xi3rk I actually subscribed for a few trading courses but it didn't help much, been getting suggestions to use a proper financial advisor, how did you go about touching base with your coach?
I absolutely dislike giving such advice because every person's situation is different. However, there are a lot of independent advisors you might look into. Margaret Johnson Arndt and I have been working together for nearly four years, and she is excellent. You could proceed with her if she satisfies your discretion. I support her.
I just checked her out and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
Marx?! REALLY????
Hmmm always a bit skeptical about guys dressed like they’re not allowed near primary schools….
I love how the biggest defenders of capitalism don't take money into account.
Even notice how none of these people ever acknowledge that the indigenous people of the America's had this all figured out with seashells etc. Then we showed up......
Reading through these comments, it's apparent that some of those commenting never actually read/studied Marx lolololol.
Read mises please.
@@kurtjohansson1265 No thank you!
I thought we wrote off the Austrians decades ago lolololol.
If they had they would be Marxists.
First
Nice
These ideas are just gimmicks they work great for a little while but when everything goes belly up becuase of them being fundamentally flawed like his complete disregard of not even going into detail about Ludwig von Mises. "When you want to help people you tell them the truth." - Thomas Sowell
Lost all credibity when he said keynes is close to Marx in economic brilliance.
Guy sounded smart until he thought Marx was the most brilliant...
I'm a diehard capitalist who agrees. Marx was transcendentally smart, he really is the father of economic theory. It's pretty disappointing that there are so few fair honest critiques of Karl Marx.
@@saladtnogs I really struggle to understand what possible intellect or value people see in Marx. Read his works, and I can't find absolutely anything of value. Am I missing something?? All of Das Capital is 100% his fantasy-land ideas, completely removed from reality, with no truth to it whatsover, and proven wrong multiple times over. Am I crazy here? What do you see as his contribution??
@@saladtnogs I struggle to see why his books are put in the economics section rather than the fiction section. How can you call him the father of economic theory?? 🤯
That he thinks that Marx was the most intelligent and brilliant mind , speaks volumes as to how much credibility this person should be given. That and his espousing of Keynesian policy.
That is to say not much.
He is not an economist, he is a communist, or socialist, potato, potatoe.
Marx as brilliant? Not sure he even had an original idea. He was quite the ripper offer...
And how can someone get credit for most brilliant when they were the most wrong?
Marx is not the most brilliant economist by any stretch my guy lol
This guy seems to misrepresent quite a bit. The Neoclassical school doesnt care about money? What? Trending towards equalibrium isnt real because things change? What?
I don’t know much about economics but im pretty sure I will disagree with this guy if he thinks Marx was brilliant.
Marx was brilliant, but he was wrong also.
What's with all the Marxists recently on this podcast recently. why not refute the idiotic statements people make on your podcast ?
this guy is being dishonest with himself and the audience when he doesn't mention austrian economics/von mises on purpose.
Just stop joining their corporations, fighting their wars, being a souless merchant, and following their orders pretending you don't have a choice.
This guy is so wrong on so many levels. Anyone who takes basic college level courses would know hes wrong. Economics doesnt think things are at equilibrium. Equilibrium is under perfect circumstances which we know doesn’t happen. Therefore, there is an ebb and flow around it as sellers and buyers gain leverage. He’s super disingenuous. Theres more but too much to leave here in a CZcams comment.
Clown show
I’m confused. Proponents of capitalism assume equilibrium but are wrong. Equilibrium of what exactly?
It sounds like the economic philosophy this man supports doesn’t assume equilibrium, or is it that his philosophy does promote equilibrium in the economy?
There can be equilibrium and instability at the same time, can’t there?