Myths of Neoliberalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2015
- In this talk at Imperial College London, Economics Professor Robin Hahnel explains the origins of the financial crisis of 2007, and exposes the popular myths behind the free-market and laissez-faire capitalism.
The talk is based on a new version of his book:
The ABCs of Political Economy - a modern approach
A lively introduction to modern political economy, providing the essential tools needed to understand economic issues today. This revised and expanded edition covers the origins of the financial crisis, the ensuing recession, and why governments have failed to improve matters for the majority of their citizens.
"Lucidly written, comprehensive in coverage" - Noam Chomsky
Order online from Pluto Press:
www.plutobooks.com/display.asp...
This event was hosted by Participatory Economics UK:
www.participatoryeconomics.org.uk
Facebook:
/ parecon
For an alternative economic system, find out more:
www.participatoryeconomics.info
Neo-liberalism was best described in Depeche Mode song "Everything counts". "...The grabbing hands, grab all they can. All for themselves after all it's a competitive World. Everything counts in large amounts..."
🤣😂😅.. hmmmm.. you're too funny.. 😂.
Very clear thinking.Should be compulsory for all politicians.
Define "very clear thinking".....does that mean blind zealous support for collectivizing everything in the most authoritarian manner possible while pretending to be a "liberal" ??
27:00 "the property rights system distributes economic freedom so that those with less property have less economic freedom and those with more property have more economic freedom"
This deserves 100x the views.
everything he said was obvious to me by the time i graduated high school. i couldnt have explained it using the language of a college economics professor, but the core ideas are pretty obvious to anyone with a pragmatic view of the world.
Tell it to all the free market zealots. I find it hard to believe how naively they think about the world. As if you just get rid of government everything magically solves itself. Adam Smith would rotate in his grave... rapidly.
I'm one of the eldest millennials (USA) and the only economic system I've ever lived under is neoliberalism. The same thing happened to me before I left High School: I figured most of this out but I didn't have the vocabulary to efficiently describe it.
Simple and logical explanation of the malfeasance behind the criminal behavior of the banking, finance, and insurance industries. The "Wizards of Wall Street" deserve to be stripped of their privilege of working in these sectors-- their punishments should be to work at a service sector minimum wage job and have to survive on $7.25/hr (with no ability to see a doctor if they get sick-- 'cos that would be SOCIALISM 'gasp!!!!!').... thank you for the post, Good Sir!!!!
I think the functional problem with civilization is the need for institutions which have a pathology that the wealthy take advantage of, turning a society into a host for the parasitic wealthy. Wealth seems to act as a character altering effect on people turning them into privileged, narcissistic, entitled risers in the hierarchy that is engendered by institutionalism. Institutions have a pathology all their own of maximizing resources and serving the self. The economy becomes routed through parasitic institutions that drive the behavior of the society. Is there an economics that takes these things into consideration yet? The pathology of capitalism seems to be to direct the most resources to the fewest hands in the shortest time. At least in the sense that capitalism is the overarching policy to support the accumulation of capital. The two major problems seem to be wealth stratification, which drives further stratification of hierarchy. At least, that's what I think I'm seeing so far. I suspect most failed civilizations in history are victims of this constant process. The wealthy, never being satisfied, draw more resources from the society they exist within to the point where the resources needed to sustain the society are depleted, hence the collapse. I'd side with a socialist society if the overarching policy was to aid in the sustaining of society. Of course, it's just as easy to turn that into a collectivism that must sacrifice for the good of the society, but that's due to the encroachment of another despot. The danger is always there. And I think it's something that always needs to be kept in mind while designing a social system.
Just some thoughts from someone who doesn't have the experience that may be hiding obvious things from me to take into consideration.
Thanks for the lecture. Very much needed, I think.
I think we can alleviate some of that problem by organizing institutions and power structures as bottom-up methods of organization, chiefly democracy. We don't have to vote on every decision, but we can certainly vote on whether we want to dedicate resources to a committee to do something like road repair, healthcare, facilitating social programs like social security, funding endless wars overseas, funding local terrorist organizations that overthrow democratically elected socialist leaders, etc (all things america does, btw). But this requires that we change how we see power. Currently, too many people think there needs to be some chief or leader where the power to make decisions flows from. We could instead assume that the power to make those decisions flows from the mass of people, not from some individual. You see this most egregiously in those monarchies that still claim religious proclamation for their power base. The king is ordained, so their power is theirs to decide to use, not use, extend to another, retract from another, etc. To them, they have power, and any power lent out will elastically return to them when that power is no longer under the care of the receiver of that power, for whatever reason. We instead must assume that power flows from the people, and any power given to an individual is power lent from the people to that individual to accomplish that task or steward that system, whatever THAT is. When that individual loses that power (loss of position, dissolution of committee after the work is completed, death of the individual, etc), that power snaps back to the people, for them to spin up and give out to another if they need to at some later date. Each position outside of worker is democratically elected and has term lengths. You get to be a manager for x years, after that, you need to be re-elected. Be a good manager and you'll get re-elected. If we adopt this assumption, we start to see new ways to organize our systems that are focused towards the needs of the people instead of the accumulation of wealth for the few. Managers/executives don't need to accumulate wealth. They need to help workers get work done more efficiently, on time, and under budget. So we the workers elect the best person for the job, not relying on some king, i mean CEO, to appoint a governor, i mean manager, to keep us in line so that the king/ceo can profit as much as possible from our cheap labor....
Great video! Thanks for the upload!
Thanks, I have a degree in Economics but I've learned very much from you class. I would love to take your Micro Economics course. My mentor in Economics did a lot of work in this area, and about neo liberalism at the time of Reagan -Thatcher.
You sound dumb. Did your mentor champion Neo Liberalism or not.
Nice lecture. Thanks for the upload.
It seems that neo-liberalism is just a euphemism for Laissez-faire capitalism . - Gary
on the case of these loan/mortgage bonds: I recall a charakter from the big short calling them "dogshit covered in catshit" and i think that described it perfectly.
wow i really want to know more about team work and productivity in manufacturing
Not too tedious and very informative. Thank you.
Pleaseadd subtitles!All this is so interesting!
Auto generated English subtitles are available (viewing in Mar 2024 on iPad) from the app
Neo Liberalism did okay while there was plenty of the old Keynesian structure around to supplement it.
At that early stage in the Neo Liberal era, the economies of Britain and America were something akin to China's One State/ Two Systems policy.
Not by design of course, just by the fact that the cuts and privatizations had not reached their optimum level due to political resistance
However, as that resistance was increasingly subdued, the 'two systems' gave way to something approaching a single system of capitalism, with all its poverty, inequality and political instability.
Neo Liberalism basically became a victim of its own success, in that it cut away too much of the state that was sustaining it.
What are you on about? Neoliberalism was an attack on Keynesianism. There was no "early stage of success".
I'd like to know how this ties in with the fact that housing prices blew up duringn this time.
+Nona Martone Simple answer. First the Banks never let the full inventory of foreclosed properties to ever hit the market with the exception of a few "sacrifice zones". Crushing markets strategically is also part of their general program. Since then hedge funds have been buying up vast swaths of housing in various markets keeping prices stable if not re-inflating the bubble.
The problem is: we don't KNOW the social cost of a new technology until we have to pay for it. So how can we price it in advance?
Just as we know the amount of calories in a litre of milk, we can test the by-products of any fuel and energy source before releasing on a market.
It's called testing.
discovered Date : 2019-11-28 th - - Time : 14:55:43 (-5 GMT)
24:53 Neoliberalism doesn't want to only abolish restrictions on movement of goods and investments but also on movement of workforce: mass immigration is the neoliberal way to lower wages and higher profit rates.
Escorpion Venenoso Your comment and your thumbnail don't match
Well, it's quite difficult whether it is neoliberal to stop migration or let it go.
You say it's neoliberal to keep immigration going. Well, leftists (I am simplifying it - those who opose "neoliberalism") are the ones who say "refugees welcome".
And on the other hand - stopping immigration? Well, I think that's more neoliberal, because it protects home companies from competition, any restriction on borders is help for home companies.
And on the third side. If immigration and offshoring is going on, people in third world countries have much higher wages.
The best explanation of why Austrian economics doesn’t work. But if you’re wealthy, the volatility it creates is great for making even more money at everyone else’s expense.
They work really hard to externalize all costs and internalize all profits. That’s the meaning of the saying: ‘behind every great fortune is a great crime’.
We have had U. of Chicago economics, same thing, right?
@@johnstewart7025 Yeah, it's a derivative.
Cornelius Vander Starr founded AIG. (ties to OSS)
46:09 bail out fail bank is not free market
It would be great if Starmer ( hopefully the next UK PM) would say neoliberalism is dead. However he won't of course .
The professor's closing comments that social democratic capitalism is just rapacious capitalism ameliorated is still not good enough to save the planet or rid us from gross inequality.
We can and should agree with him that we have the wherewithal to reorganise our socio-economic models not based on greed and outright competition where ultimately it's a zero sum game.
There is no Planet B.
Will homo sapiens make that choice?
Not at the moment where the owners of capital call all the shots.
There's no doubt we can't afford the 1% and capitalism.
At 45:25 the first two bullet points of those slides are committing the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. The second bullet point simply does not follow.
English please.
One question" What are your thoughts on the current economic system that exists and has been economically efficient and has done wonders for getting people out of poverty?
It has not been efficient, you are confusing economic systems with technological evolution. Stalin could make the same argument. Under USSR Russia saw industrialization and a huge increase in calorie intake per capita.
So does that make it a good system? No.
Under slavery, markets were _very_ efficient in many regards and living standards increased, so slave owners could use the argument as well.
Neoliberal, a polite way to tell someone they're a bastard.
Very nice! I do disagree with him in some points but I know he is an American and that is the land of the free and most people exercise their freedom to not care about their own people. Don't think Americans are bad people, though - remember that it was Christian Missionaires who helped the Cherokee and managed to get their case against the State of Georgia to the supreme court. Since the 1960s, complex cultural transformations received a booster shot from neo-liberal prophets that caused over half of the US population to believe that helping people is the evil thing.
Unrelated but not that much: is there a lecture by Prof. Hahnel about Yugoslavia? THanks
There shouldn't be supreme court in other people country in the first place.
The most dangerous myth of neoliberalism is the myth of ethics. According to the fathers of neoliberalism, it would be unethical for the State to tax the producers of goods and services and use the money to take care of the poor population. This would encourage laziness and vagrancy. Reducing the State would not only guarantee economic efficiency, but mainly restore ethics in political relations between people, as each person would enjoy only the product of their work, commitment and genius.
Time passed and organized crime increased and became richer and less repressed by state authorities.
Would financial sophistication and the expansion of organized crime be possible without national States having been dismantled by neoliberalism? This is the most pertinent question that this documentary suggests. When money becomes the only value that structures a society, the line that separates licit and illicit money disappears. There is no such thing as dirty money and clean money for neoliberal ideologues, only money (and the profit that its more or less legal banking circulation provides).
"Let's forget about the Rockefellers [i.e., the uber rich] for a moment" is the most important statement he makes in the first part of this presentation. The people who own the world are not going to give it up willingly, so I can't wait to find out what else he says.
I thought Imperial College was strictly for the hard sciences?
Prefer to hear which nations or systems of gov't offer a viable choice to neo-liberalism... ex.... former Yugoslavia... the Arab Baath party style system... practical examples rather than theories presented in a seminar
The government wanted to be more fair and give home ownership and the American dream to all people. They put in the policy that had Fannie and Freddie government agencies. That the banks bought into. Who started the policies. Government or Wall Street.
#GreenEnter gp dot org
This guy sounds like Jordan Peterson haha
This guy thinks that if the bad mortgages had not been sold to Wall St and bundled into bonds for re-sale to investors, there would have been no financial crisis. The truth is, when the bubble burst and the 'sub-prime' borrowers all defaulted, it didn't matter who held the bad mortgages, they would have had huge losses. And the insurance policies (the infamous Credit Default Swaps) sold by AIG were a zero-sum game, meaning the losses of the losers were the winnings of the winners, with no net loss whatsoever to the overall economy.
Without the financialization, the fallout would have been contained. Besides the bundling of the bad and good loans also made the problem worse. Further, the mis-alignment of the initial debt issuer and secondary market participants added fuel to fire. The criminal behaviour of the rating agencies added gasoline to the blaze and also given the rubber stamped of approval to the toxic non assets to be bought by foreigner institutional investors. Which increased the contagion and severity of the collapse. It's not a question wether it the still happen. The question is: would it has been as damaging to the world's economy as it was.
@@generationgap416
Correct
Nice views man on all your videos man, glad your awesome equality-progressive ideas are catching on & totally aren't a huge joke. I cannot wait to live in the future & go into the trans-friendly bathrooms while I vote for companies to do things that I barely understand on my iPhone12. Diversity is strength & totally not a crutch at all for getting things done (like going to the moon or inventing things). Someone who has a different skin color other than white means their vote should totally mean more too.
***** "Inncorrect" "resonding"? Are you trying to be funny?
***** Look lad. Bernie isn't even going to beat Hillary, much less Trump. Insulting people online isn't going to make it happen. It just isn't going to happen. You should probably seek help if your life has come to attacking people online because your political views are in the minority (those without any practical education, liberal arts nonsense).
***** I'm not the one crying online because someone made fun of degenerates. Maybe you can start a go-fund-me for your PTSD.
***** The act didn't pass. Are you going to cry? There will never be any trans-bathrooms because gross perverts use them like you. ´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´ LOL
***** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston,_Texas_Proposition_1,_2015
Are you unable to use google? You lost. You & your freaks lost.
Government incompetence isn't a myth. I've seen it in action.
The myth is that government is ONLY incompetent and that the private sector is ONLY competent.
The truth is that government and private sector are about the same levels of incompetent. The reason is because both are run/managed/operated/built by people.
Why did those securities were rated triple A when no one knew how good they were? Because government protections on the rating agencies. On a free market they could have been valued better and downright avoid the crash. This is a critical piece of information missing from his though process. Also, working property rights are also protections for property. You may do what you want with your property, but you are not allowed to ruin my property. Justice system arbitrated these disputes quite succesfully over 100 years ago. Like soot from a factory ruining peoples laundry in the city nearby. They were forced to pay up and fix the factory so it wouldn't dirty in the future. Or steam engines shooting sparks in the field lighting farms in fire? They were forced to modify the exchaust to stop the sparks. Then it came time for new deal and progressive era and laws were drafted to protect the industries from these kinds of externalities costs in the name of greater good for economic progress.
CO2 is another matter, as it's not really a pollutant anyway, it makes plants grow faster no less. Managing the warming effect on the otherhand, or the cost therein is something we do not really know how to do. Governments won't do it. They drive most of emissions with deficit spending anyway. They are the solution in only so far as going away, and stopping the deficits. That alone would cause more emission reduction that any tax incentive scheme that they could ever even imagine.
Another professor with many cherrypicked facts, arriving at all the wrong conclusions.
I'm not sure I follow, but I think there are 3 positions -- government owns all or practically all; government regulates business; government regulates no business.
Incomplete. Government regulates no business, but enforces property rights and protections and resolves disputes. Like 100 years ago. In the other 2 options, government is actively breaking property rights. Managing what people are allowed to do, and on top dictates what they additionally have to with their properties. Something they wouldn't otherwise, because it's not profitable and waste of work, in their estimation. Does the regulator central planner 1000 miles away, 20 years ago, know better about what should us do? No he does not.
"Resolves disputes" and "enforces property rights" covers a lot of ground. For instance, it would allow anti-trust action, such as breaking up the big banks that are "too big" to fail.
Anti-trust action is btreaking of property rights and should never have been allowed. Rockefeller's market share had dropped from the 90's percentile in to the 60's trough free market competition, before his cutting up. So that's how effective that "domination" was in a free market. When one invents an industry, he'll naturally own the industry, in the start. Then the marketplace catches up, and natural monopolies disolve naturally. Only laws, regulation and gov licences tend to make them more resilient or downright permanent monopolies. As we see with the internet service providing companies, electrical grid and water. "oh the horror of having of extra set of wires or pipes, how can the humanity survive that" bs.
Those banks on the otherhand? Meh. They were not too big, gov action not allowing them to fail, made them merger and even bigger. What is there for the gov to do? Nothing. They will fail in their own time. Maybe discontinue gov insurance on the deposits on all banks as a move towards stronger property protections. Taxpayer insuring deposits is again, breaking of property rights of the taxpayer. Get private insurance or pull your money out in to more responsible banks. We are not owed an gov insurance, and it corrupts price discovery.
Property rights can't be sacred. What if the city needs to build a road through your property? What if your company and few other companies are combining to screw the public and the other competition? To me that is what anti-trust should be for. Even Adam Smith explained there is a role for government in regulating business.
Funny, this is basically socialism but says he isn't advocating socialism
+Morten Andersen well dipshit Marx wasnt in favor of corporate welfare, nor state capitalism. Neither was he particularly agreeable to the financial system, creating commodities with no use value.
In other words , the same shit this guy is talking about.
+The Brain regulations cost money, you need an organization to perform these regulations. this creates inefficient bureaucratic economy.
+The Brain eventually regulations become so problematic, and also redistribution of wealth. at this point socialism is supposed to blossom according to marx. the cost to regulate these ever increasingly more complex systems keeps increasing... without fail
Yea, the regulations are the problem ... not the actors who hate the way regulations can get in the way of them redistributing more of the wealth to themselves.
Capitalist structures afford actors more or less resources to start with ... structural privilege defines the extent to which actors can turn the market to objectives that subvert the market ... the market is full of price makers. Capitalism itself is a hierarchical structure with politics in the boardroom. People don't need government to use game theory to take advantage of economy of scale and economy of scope.
So surely some regulations are needed? So, we should really debate the pro's and con's of each regulation and make an informed decision?
What do you think would happen with natural monopolies without price ceiling or rate of return regulations? What do you think would happen without Antitrust laws? Surly it is worth supporting an agency to enforce these regulations?
Situations of dependence that are natural to capitalist structures make agencies heavily coercive.
It is not hard to see these dependencies. Take the farmer for example. Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides, creating a chain of dependence right there. These products are heavily dependent on oil ... so up the chain we have price makers and we are back to being ruled by oil barons, whose empire will of course naturally acquire a monopoly over fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides production. So we have a natural monopoly with the economy of scale and scope to be extremely coercive.
And surely the financial sector needs regulating ... bankers can't stop themselves from being greedy c#*ts. It is in the DNA of their organizations, to take massive risks, to pay themselves ridiculous salaries, to collapse.
Neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of the last 39-40 years is THE problem.
Yeah exactly, fuck capitalism. Let's run up the deficits and go full Mussolini. Don't call me a fascist, I'm just staying true to the entirity of Keynes' thought, I'm not cherry picking some economics fragments here and there
Fascism is a product of capitalism and not it's opposition.
The reason for the housing collapse were not the banks. It was the governments insistence that the poor should have the same access to home loans as those that could naturally afford it.
banks would deny the risky loan, ensuring safety. But the government demanded that they issue loans to the unqualified in the name of "fairness". The government forced the banks to create toxic assets.
the banks just acted logically afterward. their own survival was at stake.
but lets just play identity politics and blame the rich banks lol.
It was both. The mortgage backed securities were making the banks a lot of money. They were borrowing money to buy more securities. So, it was in everyone's interest to sell houses, buy houses -- churn mortgages.
Absolute nonsense.
www.businessinsider.com/why-banks-bought-so-many-toxic-mortgage-bonds-2009-8 Article describes how holding securities instead of other kinds of loans allowed the banks to do about 3 times as much business with the same amount of reserves.
Disappointing. This lecturer left out the fact that the U.S. Congress initially mandated that risky loans be given to minorities. Banks did oppose it at first, but government concocted the idea of packaging and selling the mortgages in the first place to alleviate the banks concerns. I'm not going to defend either group as they were both wrong; but the takeaway from the crisis should be that people need to watch government and the people handing their money far more closely, as well as not take loans they can't pay for.
Some sources say the loans mostly targeted middle to upper middle class i’m more inclined to believe that then people using minorities to blame the government.
So he hates banks. He wants them regulated a lot. I get it. Not really a new idea.
Was that the only thing you got from this lecture? Re-watch it
He sounds personally offended and kinda whiney. His knowledge could better be portrayed to the audience if it was more objectively delivered.
When will you do it?
Great argument
Capitalism is perfect