Yanis Varoufakis - 'Political Economy: The Social Sciences' Red Pill'
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 05. 2016
- A lecture given by former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, at the University of Sydney, to celebrate his appointment as Honorary Professor in the Department of Political Economy.
Thank you Morpheus! This is exactly how I felt when I studied Econ. It was unbearable sitting and listening to the fantasies of the orthodoxy. And it was sweet yet frustrating to have to challenge lecturers through Economic history, philosophy or basic logics.
One of the things that has always entertained me is that the World Bank's research units have some of the greatest professionals in their field and produce some of the standard works on participatory economic development and environmental sustainability ..... whilst the World Bank itself ignores everything they propose in favour of practices and policies that they have proven to be damaging.
That only seems bizarre, if you think they are SUPPOSED to help.
This Man is Brilliant!
The hope for the Next Generation.
Thank you for sharing this.
The EQ was horrible! People don't realize good audio gear is fundamental for a clear understanding.
Damn, I think I have watched too many lectures and talks by Yanis, and I'm too high on the red pill, but I start to strongly believe that historians in the future will point to him as a person who might have changed the history, if only people could have listened to this man and took him seriously. I could be wrong, but I have a quite good bulshit detector, and it never registers anything when Janis talks. It might be my bias though, as I am a left leaning (more libertarian than left, but still left) too, but damnit the EU had such a good chance in 2015 to drop the dogma, and listen to this man... Oh well, history will show who was right, I'm only afraid that it might be too late then.
"I could be wrong, but I have a quite good bulshit detector, and it never registers anything when Janis talks." says that you're biased and if your 'bulshit detector' is quite good then it shouldn't fall for that bias.
When it came to facism his talk just became reductionist. Facism wasn't defined (it's quite a fragile term thanks to the media but has many different faces, and these differences are crucial). This just tapped into leftist biases, which makes it anti-intellectual. Confusing nationalism with facism is a first problem. Confusing different types of nationalism is another. US, China, Japan, Germany, Russia (before revolution was gaining speed - Sergei Witte), UK (Corn Law was abolished in 1850s but then it just took 20 years for US to surpass England) built its power following nationalist ideas of home market protection.
Facism and nationalism became dirty words. When someone talks about these things without clearly defining them first and makes some judgments one bought into reductionist ideology, is trying to fool you or doesn't really care, which makes him anti-intellectual in this sense. Not to say that I think Yanis Varoufakis should be discredited, he's bringing valid points.
Just as a rule of thumb, if you think that everything someone says is right, you're probably worng. Sitting down and writing his ideas down and trying to debunk them is a great critical thinking exercise.
"if your 'bulshit detector' is quite good then it shouldn't fall for that bias." - scio me nihil scire mate , I know that I have biases, so I don't fully trust my bullshit detector. Being sure that you are right, or that your 'bullshit detector' is perfect is what gets you into trouble.
"US, China, Japan, Germany, Russia UK built its power following nationalist ideas of home market protection." Remind me how all this ended? What happens when countries become nationalistic and protective, compared to cooperative and free. And yes, I understand, tribalism (which is basically what nationalism is) is natural for primates, but we have transcended evolution in so many aspects, we should shed this part too. Cooperation (most probably) is what made us the most successful species, we should exploit this and flourish even further. "Facism and nationalism became dirty words." And they should be, same as communism or anarchism. We know what extreme ideologies do, we still have scars to prove it.
"Just as a rule of thumb, if you think that everything someone says is right, you're probably worng." that sounds like a good rule.
What I'm saying is that you're aware of the exact bias that plays a part in 'I can't disagree with Yanis' and Socratic method can help you overcoming that. Also, I didn't think that you're competely blind to it but I had to assume something about you to say anything.
Did you know how Russia, Germany and Japan learned about this method of development? Through a network of Benjamin Franklin and Henry Charles Carey from US. There were against imperialist England and Franklin when lived there for a while was disliked by politicians and helped to build canals close to Manchester and managed to changed a town in a short time (which partialy lead to Industrial Revolution). Nationalism is anti-imperialist in many aspects (but remember that I said there are different faces of it, so I'm talking about particular nationalism).
[Remind me how all this ended?]
I assume you're talking about WWI and WWII and I assume that you think that globalization is good from what you've written. Just because nation is powerful doesn't mean it's going to use it to destroy another nation. Nationalism can lead to cooperation if you think that nationalism always = nazis then you've been misguided. Human capital (mental abilities, scientists) is what powers the machines and transforms land. It can be best developed through education. Only a wealthy nation (wealthy in a sense of Daniel Raymond's Political Economy, equality is part of the wealth, education, land etc.) can provide decent education for its citizens. To have a wealthy nation its interests can't be neglected. Decent education + good standards of living doesn't people would want war it can easily lead to strong nations sharing ideas and developing. If globalization will lead that a nation will make most of it's GDP through selling agricultural products, the nation will become weak and its people unhappy. You can check crituque of the Green Revolution, it's available for free. It will have no way of producing added value trough manufacturing. That's what England did with Navigational Acts - not saying it was fair as colonies suffered.
My point is, why do you assume that globalization will lead to peace? Big inequality plays a good part in creating conflict. How would globalization avoid that? You can't assume that all countries in the world would want to cooperate fully. I get what you mean, if we all as humans will share same beliefs and values and stick to them we will be better of but I'd say its utopian thinking. Humans are irrational for most of their life and it's impossible to be rational and not rely on belief often. We need to keep in mind these huge obstacles in our minds to develop a good model. That's how balance of powers led to no more nukes after Japan and there were possibilities. During Vietnam War nukes were considered by Kissinger and Nixon. Also, American System which I talked about favors immigration but knows that immigration is inspired through better prospects in another country. There weren't closed to others.
[What happens when countries become nationalistic and protective, compared to cooperative and free.]
Lastly, protective vs free as you stated is too vague. I don't think these fight with each other. If being protective will lead to better distribution and laborers getting money for their labour then it's a criteria to be free. I'm of course talking about positive freedom (being able to do what you want) which always needs labour.
Also, when nationalism and facism become dirty words and will not be part of an honest public conversation it makes them show their ugly faces. Nationalism if we check wiki is preserving national identity (I know it's not a whole picture but I use it just to get one point across). I don't see a reason why a nation should sacrifice national identy and what identity shall rule the world. Everybody would want their ideas to come out.
These terms are never defined and different people have completely different ideas (just like in religion, which is a useless term now) about them. This leads to people that feel attacked beacause of the critisms of nationalism (as defined by them) while the intention of the speaker was different, he just aimed at bad aspects of it. If someone feels attacked, it's harder for a rational discussion. It will make a job for people that want to manipulate others easier, not critical thinking is developed. If left is throwing shit at right why right shouldn't throw shit at left or vice versa. Discussion dissapears and the wors is brought in both camps. Just look at the public debates. Politicians will even argue that peope don't need oxygen if the other side is saying that they do. Especially, that intelectually honest discussion is hard to perform due to our biases.
I hope you get a better picture of what I'm saying. Sorry for lengthy posts, just want to get rid of as many misconceptions as possible.
"Nationalism can lead to cooperation if you think that nationalism
always = nazis then you've been misguided." No I don't think nationalism
= nazis, but it can be. It can also be fascists, or it can be a singing
revolution in the baltics, or the colour revolutions in Georia, Ukraine
etc. Nationalism is good when you are occupied. But it becomes
cancerous when you are free. And I cannot square that circle that you
are seem to be squaring about nationalism being cooperative (this could
be to my left leaning bias). Nationalism is synonymous (for me) with
protectionism of your own nation in direct competition to other nations.
So I do not understand how you can get cooperation and collaboration,
which requires you sacrificing some of your interest in order for all to
flourish.
"Only a wealthy nation can provide decent education for its citizens". I disagree - we can argue about the definition of decent, but even soviet union, or cuba or my country (Lithuania, which is not wealthy) managed to provide decent education to it's populus. So being wealthy is not a requirement here. Willingness to have an educated populus is what's needed. Prioritizing educated populus over profit is what needed IMHO.
"My point is, why do you assume that globalization will lead to peace?" It's a very broad question - I have one utopian (hippy-dippy:) answer, that I think we should be striving for, and that's - because we are one species in a vast and, for what it seems now - mostly empty universe full of resources and possibilities. And these localized conflicts for materials that might seem scarce here, but are abundant even in our cosmic neighborhood are just silly. If we just put all the energy we spend fighting over the specs of dust here, into building means to reach and extract them - we would laugh about those silly conflicts we had in the past then. But that should be a global endeavor. More over threats like global warming, asteroid impacts, Mega volcanoes do not care about our nations - they are threat to us all and we should all try to solve those problems. And the projects like ITER show that we can work together for a better future...
And then I have the cynical realistic answer that came to me after the hillary emails leak - because as long as the money is flowing between the shadowy upper echelons of society, the bombs are rusting in the silos. And yes, they are still bombing mostly defenseless sand people, because you need to make more bombs, because the moronic infinite growth paradigm, and those poor voiceless people cannot do anything. And this is fucked up... and I hope this is just a transient state between our tribal and violent past and our possible peaceful and united future... Or I am full of shit and we are all doomed =) Sorry, that was a long answer..
"Big inequality plays a good part in creating conflict." - I think big inequality is not a given is a byproduct of unrestrained capitalism. And I'm not against capitalism, but I think as everything is else created by humans - it has to be managed. Look at Nordic states, their blend of socialism, capitalism and nationalism has created wealthy nations with very healthy inequality - so this can be done. By blending different ideas and ideologies, but not going for one extreme.
"Lastly, protective vs free as you stated is too vague." - agree, I could not find a good word I should have used 'open'.. even though it's too vague also.. And too much openness is not that good either - you don't want to pull a Merkel on your lands either =)
What I got from this is that ideas don't arise from the abstract. They arise out of the material circumstances experienced by their associated thinkers. Essentially a demonstration of historical materialism.
This man is great
audio is too low!!!
Except for the clapping...
@libohove.... i bet the 'crypto'-feudal financial fascist Vids have the Audio right....
I would very much like to see a discussion between Yanis and Michael Hudson, I hope that at some point they agree to do that.
Great lecture!
A greater appreciation for the perspectives shared by Yanis Yaroufakis can be found in the book "Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas," by Professor Frank Stilwell (emeritus, University of Sydney).
In other lectures he explains carefully the gap in 30:00, somewhere there's one with Chomsky where he says so.
At precisely minute 30 the video skips cutting out Varoufakis' telling of the second half of Kenneth Arrow's response to the person in his, Arrow's, 1992 lecture audience who suggested that taxation of land values might be optimal. The idea of taxing land value lives in the arena of what is good for society as a whole which Varoufakis says Arrow proves is not possible to determine and thus does not matter or is never to be considered once one has taken the blue pill. Thus taxing land value can only be seen and appreciated when one has taken the red pill? I am guessing the part that was skipped might have indicated that Arrow was admonishing the person to stop talking about taxing land values if they expect to make it in economics as a career and not be marginalized.
Brilliant lecture...
and a wonderful, critical crowd.
he is a great lecturer
19:54 Hearing this joke made me think that this lecture was more recent than it actually was. Things are not better now.
Something I have never understood about other academics is this unmatched self-indulgence for hearing ones own voice. How can people be so addicted to hearing themselves speak that they insist on giving a 10 minute lecture "to introduce the next speaker" as if an entire crowd of people had gathered to hear Prof. Intro's introduction instead of the actual speaker. Of course this has the natural extension of Prof. Intro needing some prior speaker to introduce them. I've even seen chains 3 or more such pompus twits each one simply introducing the next who's only purpose in speaking is to introduce the following speaker. How does this go completely unnoticed in academic circles? Nobody ever talks about it openly and hardly ever in private either.
The whole recording has been fucked up. You better ask some professionals to improve the volume of the speech. The whole thing is a disgrace for the university of Sidney.
It has been uploaded by an individual, not the organisation.
Varoufakis explains, why “premature mathematisation” (a term used by Schumacher in his book Small Is Beautiful) dominates the Church of Economism (mainstream economics).
Brilliant as always, but what about solving political economies NOT from polítical thought or economic thought but from factual and especific resolution of problems.
For example:
1- Separate Financism from Capitalism of labour and production, so as to take finances to what it should be... a multiplier of the "real stuff" -real economies- and not a subjugator of every bit of gains produced by our mother land, goods, products and services.
2- Take away "labour and production" qualifier and start using a more rooted definition as Human Capitalism and start working on it.
3- Frame "capitalism" to maximum and minimum limits that can be "minimum satisfaction of human needs" or "maximum explotation of world resources" or what ever M&m elements to incorporate that could be thought.
4- What about "dislocating" capitalism from the open boundries and liberties of "democracy", or upgrading -advance- democracies to DDP -Democracies of Direct Participation- and DDR -Democracies of Direct Representations-, where DDP IS NOT Direct Democracy as in old goody-good 2.600 year old Greece.
5- DDP and DDR using FULL technology to expand usefull and open human creation over public decisions, and limit political and public representations on time, place, modes and circumstances, limiting public burocracies and reducing its financial weight to an acceptable relation with the effective and potencial economy -i.e. Greece, Argentina, etc.-
6- On specific grounds. Simplify the fiscal mess -that justifies itself on "equality", "fair shares", etc.- to a single and only tax, with an open function -or extension- to organize or regulate markets or segments of it with "plus" to be applied due to social or political needs.
7- Or another "way out" of these dialectical worldwide discutions on political economies, changing from the present financial and especulative retirement pensions -that survive from financism and corrupted public decisions- into a social and real economy system- easy to work.
8- These and many other changes are feasible and "in no time possible to implement" from an open mind and open participation citizenship if we free ourselves from the illussion of abiding -with no restriction- to the mandate "of the law" -that in most cases, on a worldwide and irrestricted basis- is containg our needs of very profound and deep paradigmatic changes of our livelihood human systems.
9- Definitively UNDERSTAND that in the same way that Marx talked about labour surpluses, Capitalism -financism on top- gains and grows on the SURPLUSES of the mother land and its explotation, and we´re well advanced into the XXI Century, with no serious worldwide human reaction about it, leaving the few to get away with the destruction of our planet.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein in some way: "we can´t make real changes of the visions of our world and lives "standing" and "thinking" from the same platform and minds that have created all these social, institutional, polítical and economic systems -that most of humanity and the planet suffers-.
To OPEN these we need to understand what "especialization" has made on us: changing from inteligence to stupidity, changing from broad and open minds to limited and close minded fellows -especialized for sure- but absolutely out of comprehending the diversity and beauty of human life and the world themselves.
So let´s ALL GO for a UNIVERSAL HUMAN RE.EVOLUTION.
Thanks for the always usefull conferences you upload on CZcams.
Mauricio Jorge Yattah. From Buenos Aires. Argentina. 9/9/2016
I might have been the only person to read this comment. Its too bad I understood very little because of my lack of vocabulary and understanding of economics.
Thank you for posting these ideas, they were eye opening. Can you clarify about the first point you made?
Actually, the speaker recording is clear for anyone who wants to listen. There is a weakness of recording during the Q & A period after the first 55 minutes or so.
The lecture reflectively and entertainingly presents the option of choosing the blue pill or red pill for students interested to pursue seriously the subject of political economy, beyond conventionally imposed constraints to contemporary thought.
For those interested in practical consequences of these limitation in ability to think of options, see other You Tube videos in which Yanis Varoufakis describes in terms that many can understand, his experience as Finance Minister of Greece.
This is fine on regulsr audio, but unlistenable through airpods.
I thought Honourary was give to those not already Professors in the field.
Thank you for the video. Please, take the video into an editor and fix the audio track. Normalize (boost to full volume) Yanis Varoufakis' voice, just Yanis and the other speakers. This is too important a video to be cranking the volume up and down. Thank you.
I don't want to sound abhorrent, but why don't you do it and put it in your channel? You'll be doing the world a favour
Nooo we had a really interesting anecdote at 30m cut out! Aww.
The sound is awffully low!!.
To: Matthew Ryan
Per a suggestion from one of your commenters, I downloaded this video and amplified the audio without re-encoding the video. I've uploaded it to my channel so you can see the result. Link czcams.com/video/FvS46oY72ws/video.html
Let me know if you want the amplified video file, or what you think. --Sincerely, Bruce Considine
At 35:35 got me to listen to this lecture again. And again. And again.
To continue my point, I argue that Henry George was a better economic historian than was either Marx or Keynes. One of Henry George's great contributions to political economy as a method of scientific investigation was to separate nature (i.e., land) from human activity (i.e., labor) and the goods (i.e., capital) we produce from land with our labor, without or without the aid of goods previously produced. Land is defined as the source of individual wealth but in the realm of the commons, available to all as our birthright. This analysis of how the world works led George to argue the case for a labor and capital goods basis for private property. The taxation of income and assets so derived he argued is an unjust confiscation of private property. That portion of wealth belonging to the community is derived from locational advantage enjoyed (and protected by law) granted to individuals and entities. Such advantages yield rents that must be fully collected by the community in order to secure equality of opportunity.
so it was an analysis of a world that has no resemblence of our reality as we experience it. great work!
I love the red pill dispensers like Associate Professor Varoufakis - unfortunately they are in short supply.
disagree. the supply of red pill profs is abundant. in economics: Thomas Ferguson, Marianna Mazzucatto, Greta Krippner, Stefania Vitali, Thomas Piketty, Emanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman, Thomas Herndon (debunked Reinhart & Roghoff). In political economics Martin Gilens, Larry Bartels, Robert Dahl, and lately, even Larry Summers! (check his latest article in Foreign Affairs, current issue, calling for deficit spending and raising labor's share of income to escape secular stagnation). In political economic propaganda, see Elizabeth Fones Wolf, Alex Carey, Edward Herman, CW Mills, Guy Debord. These are all red pillers who published red pill books. But as Varoufakis said, red pill profs don't get billboard advertisements, for obvious reasons, and thus few people know about them. but they're there. still, on some accounts I disagree with Varoufakis. most people i suspect just want a job that can provide for their families, and you can't force them to take the hero rambo route. besides, blue pillers aren't all true believers. some are decent people who just try to do the best they can given the conditions. besides, economics isn't the only part of academia that's fallen astray. In communication you have the "individual agency blue pillers" and in sociology the "postmodernist blue pillers" who still believe in French theory 20 years after Sokal & Bricomont demonstrated their charlatanism in their book "Fashionable nonsense". blue pills, blue pills everywhere!
Thank you for the glass of water!
He still doesn't provide a reason for why economics is necessary at all to begin with.
+Alex Khalif No. That makes no sense.
You haven’t read the book. Can’t recommend it enough. Postmodernism never recovered from the Sokal & Bricmont critique; because it’s gibberish, demonstrably so. And an unfortunate waste of time for so many phd students.
Interesting
Arrow became a hero to mathematicians instead of economists, it seems
starts at 3:22
Economist that beat the red pill. 28:42
Limits of rational arguments. 1:17:20
Yanis...you see how bad the nonfarm payroll was 38k for may.. Instead of increased val of us dollar, it tanked against all currencies like there was no tomorrow. doesn't look good for us dollar or economy. us dollar will not go up. I disagree with your assessment there. As the consumer demand required to move the economy is shrinking even before technology as you said will eliminate it. I think the "consumer shrinkage" has begun far far ahead of schedule, and ahead of technological replacement of labor as you once suggested. Which I do agree with that. Always wonderful to hear your talks. keep up the good work. From Austin, Tx. Fx currency speculator and trader
looking back at your comments and those of Yanis, it seems you need to take a Yanis class and do some further homework.
I cannot hear
Yanis-Run for president of usa!
stfu immigrant bitch
MrVinnyable shame on you
2021 whats the view?
Acropolis
what did he said at 46:57 ? "marxist, kaynsians, postkaynsians and the last word i can't hear. "
Maybe "Sraffians"?? I looked up Post-Keynesianism on wikipedia & the intro lists Piero Sraffa as one of the most influential figures to develop Keynes' ideas. (His article says that one of his books founded the neo-Ricardian school of economics. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Keynesian_economics)
@@nataliaturner4845 Yep Sraffians :)
Skin dem a come!
!!!!!!!!😮
Ngân hàng trung tâm European có thể in tiền qua phát hành trái phiếu cho chính phủ mổi nước để đầu tư qua số trái phiếu người dân ở mổi nước mua sau đó phân phát cho chính phủ mổi nước
How the fuck I'm supposed to listen it 🤔
Terrible sound: so loud when people clapping but not possible to hear the speaker well enough
We swallow pills, no “biting”.
Aah, I see you are. still interested in Marx and Keynes Dr Varoufakis 😃😃
13:15 ok someone explain to me why Yanis is criticising a model of consumer choice and hence economics as a whole by claiming that consumer choice may not bring about an ideal society? It's totally irrelevant, no? Utility functions work fine for modelling the market for tobacco consumption even if we, as detached onlookers, may say that those individuals who have preferences for tobacco are consuming tobacco at their own detriment. The model is meant to model whether consumers will buy tobacco or not, not whether they ought to buy tobacco. 12:28 he completely takes away the aspect of choice from the thought experiment, making it completely redundant.
It's a really terrible critique of economic theory unless I'm missing something
What if it is not a choice? The argument of choice fails to consider the consequence of said choice.
He's critiquing the aspect if the theory that suggests that utility maximization in all transactions leads to some kind of optimal state of economic activity in a society. But a society in such a state would not be optimal in our own eyes(and our choices and the relative pleasure we derive therefrom are the raw data of any such model) We actively prefer a state in which people typically make suboptimal choices partly because of incomplete information or because we don't always consciously calculate optimality(which is always true but the assumptions ignore) but because we would not even prefer to just do the optimal thing every single time. So it is not only that the assumptions of the theory are removed from reality but that even granting the assumptions, what the theory suggests as optimal is not what by our own choice we would think of as optimal So the theory fails even if we grant its assumptions
And the machine eliminates choice because it already knows our personalities and what we like and dislike and in what relative proportions so that beyond that point, utility maximization uniquely determines our optimal(according to the theory) choice. The theory actually posits that not having choice beyond the makeup of our personalities and the relative pleasure we get from different choices is optimal. That's the problem with it
Pantheon Parthenon Coloseum Acropolips Parteon Parsonage Parsonag Parsona Parson Templ Temple Templer Templera Templerat Templerate Templerater Templa Templai Templait Temps Sosiete Sosietet Sifi Sifit Cifi Cifit. Have a good time. I insist.
Good... if you can lip read
DIVIDENDS AND EXTERNALITIES, FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN
sound 1/10
Was starting to enjoy the talk until the Hegelian BS kicked in 14:20 and turned me off
Conspiracy! The discussion on taxing land rather than income has been craftily edited out @ 29.50 - it cant be coincidence that an endorsement of the most radical idea has been accidentally edited out!!!!!!
I wouldn't brag too much about being the finance minister of Greece.
That's like saying, "I was the chief engineer at Chernobyl", or "I designed the Titanic AND the Hindenburg".
No, it is more like he was the chief engineer of the Chernobyl clean up.
Have a look at the timeline of the Greek financial crisis and when Yanis was in office.
Do you think he caused the crisis? Are you that stupid? Cause that’s what your analogy suggests
Sociatiffacropolis. Game Over. Would you like to play a game?