"Governments will want to know what have we got at home, what can we make at home, and what do we need to make at home." That is a totally accurate summing up of our futures. I love Mark Blyth, he so cuts through the BS and explains economics simply and thoroughly.
@@alloomis1635 "who decides -the usual suspects; what they usually want. That is, autocrats want power, social democrats want social democracy, business wants money, fill in the blank . . . I'm assuming that whatever steps government and corporate bodies take will be in line with their historical antecedents; and we can dispose of the fanciful idea that 'everything is going to change', it's a new world order etc.
The future needs to be a humane. Stop the endless growth, fair wages and conditions globally, and global eco-awareness where we don't send e-waste to poor nations. It's time to care about our future.
There seems to be still this idea we can have continual growth in a finite world. Its not possible. We have to look at our planet differently, we have to rethink everything we have learnt in the past.
Todd Stevens I’m just pointing out an obvious objection. If the world growing depended on people eating more cheeseburgers every year, that’s a bad area to focus our innovation. However if you look at the gasoline engine, a gallon used to get you 10 miles, now it can get you 40. You have not created more gas, however you have quadrupled the utility of gas. Keep that up and you no longer need use gas.
@@cf6713 We don't tend to focus our innovation, the market does. And it follows the wisdom of commerce, not the wisdom of humans beings. As to your point about the infinite set - this may work in the idealised world of mathematics, but does it transfer to the real world?
L P Markets are manipulated by policy which are manipulated by the “wisdom” of people. It may, it may not. I would never say it’s an absolute, same as I wouldn’t say it’s an impossible reality. After all I’m just some bum on the internet. I guarantee though, that anyone, at this moment answering that question with full certainty, is full of it.
The nice thing about America's Mustang is that it has all the food and fuel it needs even in a depression. The rest of the world? It won't be nearly as pleasant.
2020 may be different. The American Midwest is 'dumping' food due to the lack of processing. There is also a question over how many farmers are planting this year.
Had we been in 1980 I would probably have agreed with you, but much has changed in the world though the perception in the USA, has not. It would be possible for the US to turn inwards and live of its fat - liked that post a lot, you had me laughing out loud, but got to reply to your main point. The USA has been asset stripped for at least the last couple of decades, resulting in the current, hollowed out, situation - sagging inefficient infrastructure, huge rise in low paid, de-skilled service sector jobs, 19C levels of income disparity, avoidance of paying tax in the geographic locations of the major US based corporations (global kickback already gathering pace), lack of R+D in key global growth sectors eg, "Huawei, which previously pledged to invest $10 billion to $20 billion annually on R&D, spent 89.7 billion yuan ($13.23 billion) on it in 2017, accounting for 14.9 percent of its total revenue" source :- Reuters-. . you are no longer the nimble, factory to the world - the huge Tax break given just a couple of years ago did boost employment briefly but most of that money went on share buy backs and the opening of factories outside of the US, the GDP of the US is bolstered by ownership the global payment system, which forces everyone else to pay in $US, rooted in oil and commodities, making the purchase of $ denominated assets essential if you want to trade. The US has been used to leaning on those who dont play ball by leveraging this power. With global demand tanking, especially oil and commodities, the realisation that a non $ world is possible, etc is gaining traction. I suspect we will see a very big change over the next 20 years, even without the current crisis changing the business landscape, it scares me, but I cannot see how it can be avoided.
The strategic manufacturing was something I was thinking about as well. It seems far more likely that we need to include the items for global pandemics into the reserves since everyone everywhere needs the same items at the same time.
If for instance we were to bring textile and clothing manufacture back to the UK, this would mean Bangladesh will see mass unemployment and real poverty and death. The aspirations of the poor of the world to have enough income to afford 2 children, rather than have loads of children since many will die before adulthood. The way out of poverty is through commerce. If we take away their oppoirtunities for commerce, do we halt their progress out of poverty. If only there was a way to imporve the lot of the worlds poor, without some trans national making huge volumes of money out of it. Profit is good, but the N'th degree of profit for profit's sake seems as evil as any despotic regime, and its killing world habitats and species
Mel Royale They can make their own products. Feed your own people first and then trade your surplus is better than displace your rural residents convert your forests into plantations to export food to developed countries and let your own people starve. Let them create and market products for export that the developed countries can’t produce themselves. They have been able to do that with some illegal drugs, no reason why they cant do it with legitimate products. I think it is Eurocentric to suggest that only developed western countries can come up with new ideas and innovations or that we are the only ones with anything to offer. They can do it and when they do they will have a lot to be proud of. My kids love Indie education and apps and films for example. The jungles of the word have tremendous biological resources most of which are untapped
@@persebra I can see you have not been riding public buses much. You may get of at a bus stop, but the bus stop does not nesseserly be close to a place you want to be at.
@@MaskinJunior I don't have a car, so its the bus for me. you sound a bit lost trying to twist that analogy, but that's what makes you happy, carry on.
@@persebra No I'm not. I just think the analogy whit the Chinese economy as a bus is valid. It is big, it will do stuff, and most other people cant do anything about it, and most of those riding that economy will not be driving it, just be along for the ride.
Funny how Mark at first says he hopes there'll be some growth and then goes on to illustrate how there won't be any. Could you credit it, economists! Learning to cope with less growth could be the best thing to come out of this.
Mark says the United States used to identify industries that were important to the country's welfare and controlled production as strategic to our welfare. case in point, machine tools and resulting industry. Try to win a military conflict without owning the industries to produce guns ,and butter.
An end to doubling down, tripling down, quadrupling down, etc. on the present system, and attempting to throttle people for money they don’t have, and demanding a degree of slavery from the populace that it has not the life force in it to give (let alone will stand for).
I think your last point about globalization 2.0 is the crucial one. What we have seen starkly revealed by this pandemic is the profound weakness - if not the utter failure, of the neoliberal core-periphery globalization model especially with regards to its heavy and uncertain reliance on fragile global supply chains. The future going forward, and I fully acknowledge that it is going to require a HUGE fight to get there, is going to be the exact opposite of that model. For safety and security reasons, the focus is going to shift to a return to self-reliance and resilience at the individual, local community, state, region and national level - which is what America once had and what made us great. Large numbers of people are going to DIY make things again, buy local, buy regional, buy National and LAST buy global. There is going to be a big move to radically decrease dependence upon big business and big government (who are both now universally seen as self-serving and unreliable) and a big move towards local production and consumption and decision-making, especially with regards to critical life-support infrastructure such as food and energy. The era of globalization and global elites running and controlling things is over!
As though the dependence on China occurred on a whim or for no reason. It is truly one of the greatest ironies in all history that just to survive, capitalism has had to transfer most production to socialist countries. China is becoming too prosperous and independent, so the response by western capitalists is to move production out of China and into... Vietnam, another socialist country led by a Communist Party. And idiots still believe the laughable propaganda tropes about how socialism doesn’t work.
Tyler Brown, capitalism would be fine without socialist countries. Capitalism uses poor countries to maximize profits. It just so happens that some of the poorest countries are socialist.
@@rathelmmc3194 what a load of BS. Most countries turn to socialism because their resources are pilfered by the industrial world via comparative advantage aka neocolonialism, and then to stop the hemorraghing of their valuable resources, they nationalize them, thus becoming socialist countries. You got it backward.
No that's inflation. "have to buy it today, because I can't afford it tomorrow, just in case I needed". That's the stated economic driving factor of all government economists and central banksters. Capitalism works fine with deflation and growing savings. Government finances however absolutely do not.
Latin America exports people. Renumerations are it's largest profit centers. It costs them little to make a body to export and with an exchange rate favorable to it's economy I'm surprised that's not included.
They also contribute billions to state and federal coffers that they'll never collect. The Congressional Research Service has done a good research report on this.
Mark Blyth: "What are the Europeans going to do? It's going to teach them not to be afraid of deficits." Huh? Kinda like Italy and Greece? Are the weakest, most struggling European economies not also those most burdened by debt due to deficits? I am watching to see how all of this Keynesian economics plays out across Europe and North America. My guess: terrible. My prediction: the least indebted countries are the best off in ten years.
my china analogy..old style landrover. crash it into a wall, drive it over rough terrain. it will keep going..you can bash out the dents with a hammer and the mechanics are so simple, a child could could repair it. south america..clowns car.
How will it destroy the health system? it will just be like to many people showing up at a restaurant you can't serve them all but it doesn't destroy the restaurant it still there after.
"Governments will want to know what have we got at home, what can we make at home, and what do we need to make at home."
That is a totally accurate summing up of our futures. I love Mark Blyth, he so cuts through the BS and explains economics simply and thoroughly.
unfortunately, pr blyth is an economist/political academic. he left out the psychological component: "who decides, and what do they want?"
@@alloomis1635 "who decides -the usual suspects; what they usually want. That is, autocrats want power, social democrats want social democracy, business wants money, fill in the blank . . .
I'm assuming that whatever steps government and corporate bodies take will be in line with their historical antecedents; and we can dispose of the fanciful idea that 'everything is going to change', it's a new world order etc.
The future needs to be a humane. Stop the endless growth, fair wages and conditions globally, and global eco-awareness where we don't send e-waste to poor nations. It's time to care about our future.
There seems to be still this idea we can have continual growth in a finite world. Its not possible. We have to look at our planet differently, we have to rethink everything we have learnt in the past.
The fact is you can have an infinite set within a finite set. It is the type of growth that needs to be talked about.
@@cf6713 Not the kind we have now, what do you suggest?
Todd Stevens
I’m just pointing out an obvious objection.
If the world growing depended on people eating more cheeseburgers every year, that’s a bad area to focus our innovation. However if you look at the gasoline engine, a gallon used to get you 10 miles, now it can get you 40. You have not created more gas, however you have quadrupled the utility of gas. Keep that up and you no longer need use gas.
@@cf6713 We don't tend to focus our innovation, the market does. And it follows the wisdom of commerce, not the wisdom of humans beings. As to your point about the infinite set - this may work in the idealised world of mathematics, but does it transfer to the real world?
L P
Markets are manipulated by policy which are manipulated by the “wisdom” of people.
It may, it may not. I would never say it’s an absolute, same as I wouldn’t say it’s an impossible reality. After all I’m just some bum on the internet. I guarantee though, that anyone, at this moment answering that question with full certainty, is full of it.
Last time i was this early to a video...Corona was still a beer brand
9876karthi ...what?...did Corona beer go out of business?
That was an excellent discussion . Thank you very much .,
The nice thing about America's Mustang is that it has all the food and fuel it needs even in a depression. The rest of the world? It won't be nearly as pleasant.
2020 may be different. The American Midwest is 'dumping' food due to the lack of processing. There is also a question over how many farmers are planting this year.
@@jamesp3902 Luckily, I, like many other Americans, carry weeks, nay months, worth of "food" around our mid-sections. Hey, I'm finally wealthy.
Had we been in 1980 I would probably have agreed with you, but much has changed in the world though the perception in the USA, has not. It would be possible for the US to turn inwards and live of its fat - liked that post a lot, you had me laughing out loud, but got to reply to your main point. The USA has been asset stripped for at least the last couple of decades, resulting in the current, hollowed out, situation - sagging inefficient infrastructure, huge rise in low paid, de-skilled service sector jobs, 19C levels of income disparity, avoidance of paying tax in the geographic locations of the major US based corporations (global kickback already gathering pace), lack of R+D in key global growth sectors eg, "Huawei, which previously pledged to invest $10 billion to $20 billion annually on R&D, spent 89.7 billion yuan ($13.23 billion) on it in 2017, accounting for 14.9 percent of its total revenue" source :- Reuters-. . you are no longer the nimble, factory to the world - the huge Tax break given just a couple of years ago did boost employment briefly but most of that money went on share buy backs and the opening of factories outside of the US, the GDP of the US is bolstered by ownership the global payment system, which forces everyone else to pay in $US, rooted in oil and commodities, making the purchase of $ denominated assets essential if you want to trade. The US has been used to leaning on those who dont play ball by leveraging this power. With global demand tanking, especially oil and commodities, the realisation that a non $ world is possible, etc is gaining traction. I suspect we will see a very big change over the next 20 years, even without the current crisis changing the business landscape, it scares me, but I cannot see how it can be avoided.
@@Cheeseatingjunglista what money supple will they us is the big ?
Great. Concise and realistic. Thank you
I thought it was Mark doing an impression of Thedros at the beginning!!
The strategic manufacturing was something I was thinking about as well. It seems far more likely that we need to include the items for global pandemics into the reserves since everyone everywhere needs the same items at the same time.
If for instance we were to bring textile and clothing manufacture back to the UK, this would mean Bangladesh will see mass unemployment and real poverty and death. The aspirations of the poor of the world to have enough income to afford 2 children, rather than have loads of children since many will die before adulthood. The way out of poverty is through commerce. If we take away their oppoirtunities for commerce, do we halt their progress out of poverty. If only there was a way to imporve the lot of the worlds poor, without some trans national making huge volumes of money out of it. Profit is good, but the N'th degree of profit for profit's sake seems as evil as any despotic regime, and its killing world habitats and species
Mel Royale They can make their own products. Feed your own people first and then trade your surplus is better than displace your rural residents convert your forests into plantations to export food to developed countries and let your own people starve. Let them create and market products for export that the developed countries can’t produce themselves. They have been able to do that with some illegal drugs, no reason why they cant do it with legitimate products. I think it is Eurocentric to suggest that only developed western countries can come up with new ideas and innovations or that we are the only ones with anything to offer. They can do it and when they do they will have a lot to be proud of. My kids love Indie education and apps and films for example. The jungles of the word have tremendous biological resources most of which are untapped
This is how John Oliver will look when he grows old.
🤓
In the analogy China is a public transport bus, it will do something about the crisis, but you have very little control of it.
bad analogy. on a public bus you have to option to get off whatever stop you want.
@@persebra I can see you have not been riding public buses much. You may get of at a bus stop, but the bus stop does not nesseserly be close to a place you want to be at.
@@MaskinJunior
I don't have a car, so its the bus for me. you sound a bit lost trying to twist that analogy, but that's what makes you happy, carry on.
@@persebra No I'm not. I just think the analogy whit the Chinese economy as a bus is valid. It is big, it will do stuff, and most other people cant do anything about it, and most of those riding that economy will not be driving it, just be along for the ride.
@@MaskinJunior ok junior.
Growth have to be based in the valorisation of the 5magic Ts ( Talent, Tradition, Tourism Tech, Transfer of know how.)
Funny how Mark at first says he hopes there'll be some growth and then goes on to illustrate how there won't be any. Could you credit it, economists! Learning to cope with less growth could be the best thing to come out of this.
Mark says the United States used to identify industries that were important to the country's welfare and controlled production as strategic to our welfare. case in point, machine tools and resulting industry. Try to win a military conflict without owning the industries to produce guns ,and butter.
An end to doubling down, tripling down, quadrupling down, etc. on the present system, and attempting to throttle people for money they don’t have, and demanding a degree of slavery from the populace that it has not the life force in it to give (let alone will stand for).
Make Dundee great again!
Shut up bitch.
What a great question green economy here we come
What's the reason behind the forced economic reset ?
Can anyone explain please?
Awesome
I'm guessing that automation will be what corporations turn to as a solution for a lot of this.
Automation requires capital.
There will be none left after all this plays out.
I think your last point about globalization 2.0 is the crucial one. What we have seen starkly revealed by this pandemic is the profound weakness - if not the utter failure, of the neoliberal core-periphery globalization model especially with regards to its heavy and uncertain reliance on fragile global supply chains. The future going forward, and I fully acknowledge that it is going to require a HUGE fight to get there, is going to be the exact opposite of that model. For safety and security reasons, the focus is going to shift to a return to self-reliance and resilience at the individual, local community, state, region and national level - which is what America once had and what made us great. Large numbers of people are going to DIY make things again, buy local, buy regional, buy National and LAST buy global. There is going to be a big move to radically decrease dependence upon big business and big government (who are both now universally seen as self-serving and unreliable) and a big move towards local production and consumption and decision-making, especially with regards to critical life-support infrastructure such as food and energy. The era of globalization and global elites running and controlling things is over!
Oooooooo .... Mark said something nice about the EU!!! What has he been smoking???
Meth.
@@MrB1923 Nah, he's still got all his teeth.
@@MrB1923 ???? You can smoke meth ???
I think this has been a great wake up call for the US to become more self-sufficient and rely less on China.
can't. must maximize profit. they can take specific steps to control pandemics, such as temp wands, swab kits, pop-up isolation barracks.
As though the dependence on China occurred on a whim or for no reason.
It is truly one of the greatest ironies in all history that just to survive, capitalism has had to transfer most production to socialist countries. China is becoming too prosperous and independent, so the response by western capitalists is to move production out of China and into... Vietnam, another socialist country led by a Communist Party. And idiots still believe the laughable propaganda tropes about how socialism doesn’t work.
Lar …. America will not be self reliant because the corporate world makes too much money from the Chinese cheap labour.
Tyler Brown, capitalism would be fine without socialist countries. Capitalism uses poor countries to maximize profits. It just so happens that some of the poorest countries are socialist.
@@rathelmmc3194 what a load of BS. Most countries turn to socialism because their resources are pilfered by the industrial world via comparative advantage aka neocolonialism, and then to stop the hemorraghing of their valuable resources, they nationalize them, thus becoming socialist countries. You got it backward.
Next qrtr numbers will be so bad that growth will look ok after that.
No that's inflation. "have to buy it today, because I can't afford it tomorrow, just in case I needed". That's the stated economic driving factor of all government economists and central banksters. Capitalism works fine with deflation and growing savings. Government finances however absolutely do not.
Jargon
Latin America exports people. Renumerations are it's largest profit centers. It costs them little to make a body to export and with an exchange rate favorable to it's economy I'm surprised that's not included.
They also contribute billions to state and federal coffers that they'll never collect. The Congressional Research Service has done a good research report on this.
Mark Blyth: "What are the Europeans going to do? It's going to teach them not to be afraid of deficits."
Huh? Kinda like Italy and Greece? Are the weakest, most struggling European economies not also those most burdened by debt due to deficits?
I am watching to see how all of this Keynesian economics plays out across Europe and North America. My guess: terrible. My prediction: the least indebted countries are the best off in ten years.
my china analogy..old style landrover. crash it into a wall, drive it over rough terrain. it will keep going..you can bash out the dents with a hammer and the mechanics are so simple, a child could could repair it.
south america..clowns car.
youd think hed know how to answer the china questions by now but still no
what was he missing?
How will it destroy the health system? it will just be like to many people showing up at a restaurant you can't serve them all but it doesn't destroy the restaurant it still there after.
Our healthcare system is shit.
Zieeeeeeeeeeeegler.
Jeez, get a proper mic.