thank you for all your efforts to educate the masses...I am 74, grew up poor, never found a way out of poverty despite working hard from the age of 11 to 70 (hard not smart obviously). If your head is down working at the best job you can find and raising kids who can be better educated, and become productive citizens.....you never get a chance to go to school (made it through 10th grade)...so when someone of your abilities offers free education to folks like me, it is a treasure!! Thank you!! I love you newsletter and have learned so much from you!!
It's nice to see older people talk about this problem. I'm quite young and my generation is afraid of having to work our entire lives due to the mistakes some powerful people from your generation made. We work harder & longer but get paid less. It's awful.
... I have been on both sides of it. My family was wealthy when I was younger and we lost everything. And I saw the difference between privileged and underprivileged kids having additional opportunities It was an unreal disparity. Wealth does make a difference especially inherited wealth. So fighting everyday and working hard like you did to help your kids is amazing. Very similar to people claiming that race has nothing to do with economics which it absolutely does. Because as a white person like myself we get more opportunity simply what it is you can't dispute it and it's sad hopefully it is changing which it seems like it is. I've also seen that firsthand
Yeah sounds much like my experience though different vintage, also that of some of my ancestors. One of them was recorded in US Census at age 13 being an apprentice (either industrial pottery or textiles), at 78 died penniless in an American alms house. Is that "fair"? Is that laissez-faire? What folks do with their time is no one else's business unless they are committing crimes, like someone we saw last afternoon, for example, right?
I'm a retired teacher, and I see this in the "school choice" movement, as well. To me, "school choice" is just financial "separate but equal." Public schools were once one of the great achievements of our democracy. Ever since the explosion of private schools in the late 1970s to avoid racially integrated schools by some, our public schools have been slowly eroded and starved of much-needed resources. Those who have so much want their share and your share, too, and don't even try to hide it anymore.
Adam Smith wrote that as freely as capital moves across borders in the world economy we have to allow labor (people) to move across borders otherwise the result is huge wealth inequality from people stuck behind political borders. You won't ever hear pro-business Republicans quote that bit from the Wealth of Nations.
It's true and it's funny the American lower class complains about equality when they're on the good side of the border. If they got equality they'd be even more poor.
@@DaveMace-ux9cm Except, of course, it;s clear that neither of you ever read The Wealth of Nations and the stance taken by the original poster is factually wrong. Smith never opined about the mobility of labor across *INTERNATIONAL* borders. This is an all-too-common misconception. Rather, the issue is brought up in Smith's opposition to the poor laws which restricted the migration of labor from parish to parish within the country. This is not to say that the free migration of labor across international borders is necessarily a bad thing (and Smith's logic could apply as readily).but the idea that he expressed this opinion on international borders is inaccurate. Of course, no one familiar with Smith's actual writings would ever take anything Reich says seriously. The "corporations" he wrote of bear no resemblance to corporations as we understand them today but instead resemble modern unions (then via the guild system) and he opposed legislation designed either tio promote *either* the businessman *or* the laborer believing (correctly) that neither was in any way necessary or justified.
To be totally fair, the Cato Institute regularly advocates for loosening immigration restrictions for the benefit of businesses who want to hire foreign labor.
@@camronmcleod3249 From Smith's Wealth of Nations Book 5 Chapter 02 (Part II p.1): "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
@@camronmcleod3249 Your question is legitimate because he *NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.* The endlessly repeated quote by people who never read The Wealth of Nations and wish to portray him as a progressive is this: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." In actual context, however, Smith was not arguing for progressive taxation or anything like it (and would be appalled by our current system and, particularly, taxation of capital gains at all - but that's another matter). Rather, he was discussing alternate methods of taxation. It must be remembered that no concept of income taxation existed at the time when Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and none was implemented until after his death. The point he was making is that a tax should not be rejected out of hand because it fell more heavily on the rich. Note that he did not say such taxation was "desirable" but rather that it was "not unreasonable".
Thank you so so so much for this! I did an art history degree (with quite a few philosohy courses thrown in) before doing my MBA, and was shocked that during my MBA economics classes, there was virtually no acknowledgement of how these things are intimately intertwined!! It drove me bananas how it was taught in such isolation, and I shudder to think how many of my fellow MBA students may still think that economical decisions are totally divorced from ethical quandries or considerations.
Corporations have Human Resource Departments because their employees are often seen as little more than a resource like wood or iron ore. Humans are seen as just another category.
Funny how liberals also hate human resources but for very different reasons. Your reason is idiotic, like when people say of the three-fifths compromise "they should be considered as whole people".
Boot Straps Tax free inheritance. Conservatives always say 'pick yourself up by your boot straps and don't rely on the government hand out', but continue to lower the tax rate of the rich. I'd love to have a 10 million dollar boot strap!
I think I've put this comment before, but a great book on this is The Capital Order: How economists invented austerity and paved the way for fascism, by Clara E. Mattei. She does a great job in explaining how English and Italian economists in the post war (WW1) period were terrified of the bolshevik movement sweeping across Europe, and they devised plans to crush those movements using economics as a "science" to shield themselves from political accountability. They basically tanked the economy using austerity to prevent workers from demanding more rights after they realized that state control of the economy was possible, since they experienced it during the war. It's really helped me see the lie of the "independent central bank" and how the financial system really is just another tool of the investor class to enforce hierarchical capitalism on the masses.
This video plays into the best definition of economics I've ever heard: it's the study of people's obligations and interactions regarding limited resources. And I like this definition because much like Professor Reich's video, it allows for the necessary inclusion of questions about who gets what, why they get what they get, how much they get, when they get it, etc all of which are necessarily issues revolving around choices and power dynamics.
As long as corporations are beholden to increasing revenue for shareholders, anything and anything will be done to make number go up. This is the ultimate perverse incentive. I look forward to watching this!
Yes, thank you! As I was leaving the military and preparing to go back to college, I read the Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street by Tomas Sedlacek, tracing the development of the underlying assumptions of modern economic thought through the history of western philosophy, and was excited to discuss these ideas as I undertook a minor in economics, but of course I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little questioning or discussion was allowed.
Poor morals is why the majority of Americans are in a "paycheck to paycheck" cycle. Wealthy people should not have an outsized voice on the politics and economics of the working class.
I would refer it to as "The goals, the means, the ends" 1. What kind of society do we want? 2. How do we get there? 3. What are we gonna do next once that is achieved?
describes the political schism perfectly. inclusive or exclusive? democracy a Greek word “of the people’ (demographics where the people are…) . the reality of homo sapiens as a species, that there IS NO Race, either ethnicity or capitalist, gotta majic wand?
I want a social order that is fair and just, no super rich, no poverty. I want equity for all. How do we get there? Get money out of politics. Tax the rich the way we used to. Keep it, and keep improving it.
I love how when workers demand a raise, conservatives are quick to say it will cause Weimar Republic levels of inflation. Meanwhile when a CEO gives him/herself a giant raise (usually after a mass layoff and stock buybacks) conservatives go 👏
As usual, Reich is great. But I wish he would be more feisty. For example, here instead of just saying economics began rightly as a moral endeavor but has lost its morality, he should also point out WHY morality has been shut out - - because the wealthy class has taken economics over, changing it to increase its own wealth even more. at the expense of ordinary people.
Do you not understand that wealth is NOT a zero-sum endeavor? Just because person A grows wealthy does not mean that he took that wealth from person B. Well, unless person A works for the government.
Agreed that in principle wealth is not zero sum. But there are ways of generating wealth which increase the overall well-being of the people and those which decrease it. In general, the wealthy have protected their wealth over the last 40 years by consolidating market share and either increasing prices or forcing producer prices down. Or by externalizing the true costs. And because these things can be hidden for a while, and running for elective office is expensive, the wealthy are able to collectively control who has access to government to prevent any accountability.
As long as wealth equates to power, we are not on the right path. When offerings relate to the person or entity it is coming from are the norm, then we can start looking forward. A penny offered by a homeless man is worth so much more than a silver dollar from Bill Gates.
Here’s something for Econ majors to ponder. At least one edition of Alfred Marshall’s book has a graph showing the Supply and Demand curves intersecting in two places.
Marshall could not be honest so far as "land" was to be treated as a distinct factor of production. He had to find a way to justify adding nature to produced assets (i.e., capital goods). Absent the public capture of the rent of land, the supply curve for land is leftward leaning. The reason is simple. As the value of land increases owners have a strong financial incentive to without land from the market or to acquire land purely for speculation rather than development.
I honestly have no problem with some people having significantly more resources than others. I do have a problem with them impoverishing others by the thousands to get that way. Every person deserves healthy food, clean water, air that is mostly air, safe housing, basic medical care (especially preventative care for the young), and a well-rounded education. To say otherwise is to wish misery and an early demise on other people. I would like to hope that most people don’t think that is cool. We should work to be able to live without family/roomates, or so we can travel, or have our own car, or enjoy fancy restaurant dinners, or have an extra kid or two, not just to survive and be able to go to work again tomorrow, or only have one child who will turn around and do the same thing. Some people don’t even really get paid enough to do that! 😒
The battle has been waging since the beginning of recorded history -- the people vs the wealthy, an egalitarian society vs a hierarchic society, left vs right. Economics is a big part of that battle.
You’re absolutely right: this is a subject that goes back 10,000 years to the Cradles of Civilization (largely believed to have sprung up independently around the world). The invention of money-a currency that always has the same value no matter who’s spending it, and doesn’t depend on merit or contribution to the community-changed the way the world worked. Alas, we let the djinn out of the bottle without a plan to manage it, and have been paying for it-literally-ever since.
I lost over $70k when everything started to tank. Not because I was in an exchange that went belly up. I was just stupid to hold and because that's what everyone said. I'm still responsible. It just taught me to be a better investor now that I understand more of what could go wrong. It took me over two years of being in the market, I'm really grateful I found one source to recover my money, at least $10k profits weekly. Thanks Natalie Strayer
I'm surprised that you just mentioned Natalie Strayer here also Didn’t know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, i'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been super.
Natalie Strayer has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Her good reputation already speaks for her .I’m also one of the beneficiary of Natalie Strayer. So happy I gave it a trial after being skeptic of the process.
100% agree with todays video! Jacque Fresco (R.I.P) was an economist but he called himself a "American futurist" and aptly so with his life's work "The Venus Project" and had very similar view points. (you may recognize Jacques name from documentary like award winning Zeitgeist series by peter joseph or "what the bleep do we know" or "the choice is ours" all of these are documentary relevant to todays video)
But the idea was not to try to separate economics from politics or morality, but to try to understand how politics works. To try to get beyond simplistic nonsense like America became rich because most Americans were Protestants whom God loved best. "
I think the distinction here is analogous to the distinction between pure and applied science or engineering. Understanding the systems of economics and how they related to society would be pure, objective economics. Using economics to define policy towards a goal would be the subjective application of economic theory. This is where morality and ethics come into scope.
This is An amazing video. And it’s just about getting people to ask questions about what they believe. That’s the first step. Thank you rob. Thank you and your team.
Thank you, Professor Reich, this bodes to be a great and fascinating series. I only took two classes in Economics in college, but I did read the Wealth of Nations during the first course. I agree, it does not promote unfettered capitalism as we see today. Adam Smith believed in regulations.
Dr. Reich, if you were a presidential nominee I would campaign my heart out for and vote for you! Those currently running aren’t even worthy to be compared to you. Either in terms of morality, integrity, intelligence, insight and foresight . So I won’t be voting for president until there is a man or woman of your caliber. God bless you, sir, with long life and health.
@@jmalexander131 This is America. Where if you want me to vote for a candidate, you put up one I can enthusiastically vote for. Neither party has done that. Democrats should have known better.
@@michaelenquist3728 I agree with your conclusions. While there are observable facts to be had, the whole of the economy isn't exactly all that objective. There are trends, mostly because corporations run on a ton of distinct ideologies but a few shared values and a handful of rules they've managed to buy into law. If there was true objectivity, there'd be predictability, and the one thing our economy just is not, it's predictable.
Economics is a creation of humans, with human desires and values and logic systems as part of its creation. Economics *can't and can never* be objective. We decide what shape our economies take. We decide what end result we want.
An equally-insightful political economist of Adam Smith's era was A.R. Jacques Turgot, of the French school known as physiocrats. They originated the concept of laissez-faire, laissez-passer, which meant "clear the way, then let things alone." By clear the way they meant to eliminate all types of monopoly privilege, most specifically landed privilege in the form of the private appropriation of the potential rental value of land. The physiocrats argued that rent should become the "impot unique" -- the single tax to pay for public goods and services. Robert Reich started the story of what is wrong with the pseudo-science of economics. In 1994, Professor of Economics Mason Gaffney (University of California) co-authored a book with Fred Harrison and Kris Feder that provided the full details: "The Corruption of Economics." Get this book for the full story.
The most scientific economist there was, the only one that used the scientific method and didn't decide the conclusions before reading the data and exploring every explanation... Is karl marx, but you wont be hearing that from most "economists"
The revered Adam Smith had much to say about morality; that is widely ignored. I like what Warren Buffett reportedly said: he will leave his family enough that they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing.
I'd say economics can be a science, but you'd have to divorce "what we want to accomplish" from "how to accomplish it." So the politics and morality would be "we need universal housing and health care." The economics would be "how do we figure out how to get the money to pay for that."
I'm certain you can find a conservative imbecile who believes that too. The very same kind of imbecile who only ever read Thomas Sowell, and thinks they know "Economics the science..."
When I studied history at university in the literature department I specialized in modern and contemporary history as well as economic history and international relations. So I took compulsory courses in the department of economics and social sciences. The most important course was political economy (macro and micro economics). Oh yes it was at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. Studying economics outside of related disciplines (for example statistics or notions of psychology) is considered, how to put it politely... intellectual laziness. Uh the course of political science still exist... The problem with American students is they're too over specialized... Very good on narrow field not so good on broader views...
To rephrase this for certain... _sensibilities..._ "Economics intersects with Geopolitics and Sociology, if you don't believe me, watch the stock market the day after a war breaks out, or how Private Equity investors react to the news that a child died because they closed down a hospital to liquidate it's assets..."
Webster defines economics as "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". Where is morality in that definition? Economics doesn't tell you the morality of an action, just the effect.
I wouldn't exactly call 16 & 17 young children, sure it doesn't help that I JUST turned 18, but I still personally believe 16-18 is a singular age bracket despite not being the case legally.
250th anniversary of the founding of the United States and also the publication of the Wealth of Nations which was written in 1776 by the Scottish philosopher by the name of Adam Smith. That year will be 2026.
Economy comes from work and trade, which are integral parts of society. You are completely right. People who say economics aren't connected with politics or morality just don't want to be connected with them themselves. They want to perpetually run the factories which the grand majority of the people work in for most of the day, not getting a cent richer from the fruits of their labor. However, wasn't Adam Smith a really terrible person who held some of the earliest fascist beliefs?
He was very fiercely against what he called economic rent which was the lords taking money from the peasants. Though he failed to fully grasp how this would translate to factories too.
I so enjoy your videos and e-mails! Please know that you are appreciated well beyond the feedback you're actually getting. I've learned so much, and pass it on!
I think if the population of the world were to vote, keeping the monetary system, they would vote that every human on earth would get 7,000 per month, from the time one was born to the time of sunset. This way the system works, the system can take the time to do projects without forgetting the importance of all other living things that share this earth. The f job of keeping this diversity is enormous. The system as we know it is not at the moment equal. So why not? Thank you for reading this. Have a great day.
This all happened primarily because after Newton, unless an academic field held itself to a similar kind of rigor and mathematical exactitude, your "academic field" was mostly just gonna get laughed at and not be taken seriously. And because morals and ethics simply resist the formulaic rigor a science needs to be taken seriously - it's just never gonna get taken seriously... Unfortunately.
@@michaelenquist3728 so if you're refuting me then by extension you're also refuting the video right? Because what I said is basically in support of the video.
Wow. The intertwining makes sense. I think of morality and government being a part of what I like to call an ethical aspect. Morality and ethics are basically the same thing. Government is essentially the institution that makes moral rules official in society. These official rules are laws. Economics is tied in there too. I generally think of it as in the physical aspect instead. Physical has material and and any tangable stuff. It is less about thoughts and feelings. However economics is a huge part of government. The biggest difference among ideology is the diffetence in the economy. That is bigger than other controversies like social issues and war. Economics is actually social studies just like government. It is not a science. This video makes a good point in describing ethical issues surrounding capitalism. These are ideas of how much exploitation of workers is deemed morally acceptable. The ethical controversy of economy can get really emotional and heated at times. That is anything but objective. I was thinking about conservatives. They are a lot more emotional and irrational. They can be emotional is upholing thier immoral exploitation. First I thought of Wal Mart. I have heard some crazy stories about Wal Mart union busting. Some worker would have the slightest suggestion of forming a labor union, and suddently the corperate head honchos fly to the specific store. These head honchos would then scrutinize the store in thier investigation and crush the hints of a union. That is really overeacting. Then there is the Red Scare and McCarthy Trials. That is conservative emotion being so intense it goes into paranoia. I wonder about this case. Maybe I am being too cynical here. Maybe the most threatening thing about the Soviet Union was not the ineffeciency of commununism, the tyranny of the dictators or the invasion of nearby states. It is none of the things that are actually bad. The most threatening thing is that it may be too successful and inspire American workers to do the same. Why else would people demonize the heck out of the Soviet Union and never acknowledge anything good? I think the biggest success is abolishing monarchy in the Russian Revolution. That isn't praised as much as it should be. Even if communism was no good, it doesn't justify the over-the-top witch hunt. That hunt is really overreacting. Liberals can be really emptional too. They are just less so than conservatives. Maybe the claim of liberals having "bleeding hearts" has a bit of truth. The emotion is the moral outrage against the capitalists and the explotation of the poor. The harshest Anerican critics I have seen are Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. They can rip capitalism to shreds. Such harsh criticism is bound to cause an emotional rise. I have even seen Bernie Sanders give speeches. He can be really passionate when he wants to. Bernie Sanders? More like Burn-ie Sanders. That guy can burn capitalism to the ground. The most notorious critic of all time is Karl Marx. People can debate on whether his ideas of socialism or communism is good. Personally I thonk of him as a guilty pleasure. At the very least, Marx is at least good at exaplaning why capitalism is a failure. That criticism can get an emotional rise, even without Red Scare. The Russian Revolution was probably an extreme case of the moral outrage. That would motivate the communists to fight back and take over. They can go totally berserk, and it would make sense in context. Those giys even went as far as to assinate the entire royal family with a firing squad. There is plenty of heated emotions on both sides. So the econimc controversy is not objective. Not even close.
Science is its own thing. I put that in the intellectual category. That also includes studying, education and technology. However even scientists should still have some morality. This morality is not an inherent thing in science itself. It is just used to keep science in check. Otherwise people would become mad scientists and run cruel experiments. Jurassic Park is a good fictional example of scientists screwing up ethics. Making the park is immoral mainly because dinosaurs end up killing people. I think there are other moral problems. The park is an animal welfare nightmare. It is cruel for circuses and marine theme parks to keep large wild animals and exploit them for entertainment value. This cruelty can drive animals crazy. The main result is zoochosis. In extreme cases, animals commit homicide or suicide. If dinosaurs would be captive, that would be so much worse. They are so much bigger. They also lived at a time when there are no humans at all. Putting them in a park is so cruel and messed up if one thinks about it. No wonder dinosaurs broke free when the power went out and the security systems shut down. Even before that happens, one park employee explains that the raptors have been testing the electric fences and trying to to get out. The park does have a strong component of economic explanation as a tourist trap. So that does tie into the issue of capitalism. There is a scene in Jurassic Park where the human characters discuss the moral issues over a meal. In the debate, there is an absolutely brilliant and memorable quote. It is about the scientists and other workers at the park. I have just realized something. It applies to capitalists perfectly. Just because someone is into business or science that doesn't mean they can opt out of morals altogether. "Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should" -Ian Malcolm
Indeed! You cannot separate economics from politics. Economics is what politics is mostly about and the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. When the word economy started being used, the activity and behavior for the innovation, production and exchange of goods and services was also included in the definition. The stories that economists started telling may have been a little bit more realistic than the stories religions were telling but, the imagination of these story tellers got the better of them and too much of their ideas where based on magical type thinking and they were not always honest with themselves or to others. The stories were always fascinating and we can always learn things from good stories regardless if they are true or not but there are limits to progress if the story tellers continue with the fabrications and the myths and magical thinking and are not able to transition into truth, reality, honesty, accuracy, reason, rationality, critical and evidence based thinking. Religions are master story tellers and to compete for wealth, status and power have literally convinced people that there are magical authorities that live in the sky. Economist can keep beating the same drum as Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall and keep telling the same stories or they can start making the effort to educate people that the best ways to continue to exist on this planet is to stop believing in nonsense and start to be much more truthful and honest with each other and to build up a little more trust with each other. The idea and thinking that the economy always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity may have worked well when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and their environment seemed limitless. For quite some time now, we know that we live on a finite planet with limited resources and the focus now needs to shift to sustainability not on growth! Presently if the economy is not growing, it is still considered a failure. This type of thinking cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure. The contraction needs to be just as prosperous and productive as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there needs to be some new economic stories told based on economic sustainability not on economic growth. I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness is somehow a good thing and is rewarded needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness is not good in any economy and capitalism needs to correct this thinking. If this is eliminated from capitalism maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore and that should acceptable. We could be taking the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from socialism and calling this something else. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have had some success doing this. A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. If people are struggling to survive, they will not care about anybody else or about the devastation of the planet. Here are some books that I read or listened to where I learned about these new economic ideas and models on how to build economies to be able to continue to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress when competing for power, status and wealth without discrimination, abusing, conquering or killing each other and without the mistrust that causes nations to spy on each other and to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet. 1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth, 2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson, 3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins 4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly 5 “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” (not a book but good information) The responsibility is with our wealthiest and smartest and brightest among us. To achieve this type of progress we have to keep talking about it and start presenting these new ideas. Committing crimes and making up stories about magical authorities with supernatural powers that live in the sky is not helpful.
"The Monopoly board game is an objective science. You see, my superior understanding of dice rolling results in greater initial yield, and I am so wise that I reinvest the excess dividends." - most scientific, rational, and objective business student
As tongue and cheek as this is, theres psychology studies that demonstrate agency bias in humans. Even when it comes to a coin toss, where the chance is fifty fifty, those that win will try to convince you that “it’s all in the wrist.”
Just so. Humans, by default, cannot be amoral. They can be moral or they can be immoral. "It's only business, nothing personal" is the statement of a criminal.
Politics is something that people identify with and we talk about it 24/7 but morality and humanity isn't something that the majority of people (including Christians) want. It's very unfortunate.
Economics as a science kind of sidesteps the moral question. It treats the economy that we have now as natural, just like the forces of nature rather than a human construct.
@@michaelenquist3728 Right now it's treated as a hard science like physics rather than a soft science. But even as a soft science I still think the implication is there. That capitalism is natural rather than just a system that was created due to circumstance.
It's really not. It's an economic theory meant to explain how money moves in an economy. It works really well for that and that's why people in the finance industry use it to predict/calculate things. But it was never meant to be the guiding principal of your life. Capitalism was never meant to be a religion.
Capitalism for me is all the great options you have in the market, like going to the grocery store and looking at all the options. Supermarkets for example are very competitive and have low profit margins. I see government interference has having bad unintended consequences.
Capitalism is not that bad. US govt selling its people out to corporations is the problem. And corruption. I mean political bribery is just legal in the US, as long as you call it lobbying and write it down somewhere most people won't find it. There's capitalism is Denmark as well, but it'sregulated much better and people are taken care of.
thank you for all your efforts to educate the masses...I am 74, grew up poor, never found a way out of poverty despite working hard from the age of 11 to 70 (hard not smart obviously). If your head is down working at the best job you can find and raising kids who can be better educated, and become productive citizens.....you never get a chance to go to school (made it through 10th grade)...so when someone of your abilities offers free education to folks like me, it is a treasure!! Thank you!! I love you newsletter and have learned so much from you!!
It's nice to see older people talk about this problem. I'm quite young and my generation is afraid of having to work our entire lives due to the mistakes some powerful people from your generation made. We work harder & longer but get paid less. It's awful.
Loser.
I hope you don't feel guilty for that because you deserve a lot of respect
... I have been on both sides of it. My family was wealthy when I was younger and we lost everything. And I saw the difference between privileged and underprivileged kids having additional opportunities It was an unreal disparity. Wealth does make a difference especially inherited wealth. So fighting everyday and working hard like you did to help your kids is amazing. Very similar to people claiming that race has nothing to do with economics which it absolutely does. Because as a white person like myself we get more opportunity simply what it is you can't dispute it and it's sad hopefully it is changing which it seems like it is. I've also seen that firsthand
Yeah sounds much like my experience though different vintage, also that of some of my ancestors.
One of them was recorded in US Census at age 13 being an apprentice (either industrial pottery or textiles), at 78 died penniless in an American alms house.
Is that "fair"? Is that laissez-faire? What folks do with their time is no one else's business unless they are committing crimes, like someone we saw last afternoon, for example, right?
I'm a retired teacher, and I see this in the "school choice" movement, as well. To me, "school choice" is just financial "separate but equal." Public schools were once one of the great achievements of our democracy. Ever since the explosion of private schools in the late 1970s to avoid racially integrated schools by some, our public schools have been slowly eroded and starved of much-needed resources. Those who have so much want their share and your share, too, and don't even try to hide it anymore.
It's getting taxpayers to pay for private schools.
Adam Smith wrote that as freely as capital moves across borders in the world economy we have to allow labor (people) to move across borders otherwise the result is huge wealth inequality from people stuck behind political borders. You won't ever hear pro-business Republicans quote that bit from the Wealth of Nations.
Chances are they've never read it.
It's true and it's funny the American lower class complains about equality when they're on the good side of the border. If they got equality they'd be even more poor.
@@DaveMace-ux9cm Except, of course, it;s clear that neither of you ever read The Wealth of Nations and the stance taken by the original poster is factually wrong. Smith never opined about the mobility of labor across *INTERNATIONAL* borders. This is an all-too-common misconception. Rather, the issue is brought up in Smith's opposition to the poor laws which restricted the migration of labor from parish to parish within the country. This is not to say that the free migration of labor across international borders is necessarily a bad thing (and Smith's logic could apply as readily).but the idea that he expressed this opinion on international borders is inaccurate. Of course, no one familiar with Smith's actual writings would ever take anything Reich says seriously. The "corporations" he wrote of bear no resemblance to corporations as we understand them today but instead resemble modern unions (then via the guild system) and he opposed legislation designed either tio promote *either* the businessman *or* the laborer believing (correctly) that neither was in any way necessary or justified.
To be totally fair, the Cato Institute regularly advocates for loosening immigration restrictions for the benefit of businesses who want to hire foreign labor.
@@FletchforFreedomborders are borders, whether you define them as a county border, a state border, or a border of a country
Adam Smith also thought that the rich should pay their share and a bit more, because they were most able to bear the expense.
When he said that?
@@camronmcleod3249 From Smith's Wealth of Nations Book 5 Chapter 02 (Part II p.1):
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
@@camronmcleod3249 Your question is legitimate because he *NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.* The endlessly repeated quote by people who never read The Wealth of Nations and wish to portray him as a progressive is this:
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
In actual context, however, Smith was not arguing for progressive taxation or anything like it (and would be appalled by our current system and, particularly, taxation of capital gains at all - but that's another matter). Rather, he was discussing alternate methods of taxation. It must be remembered that no concept of income taxation existed at the time when Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and none was implemented until after his death. The point he was making is that a tax should not be rejected out of hand because it fell more heavily on the rich. Note that he did not say such taxation was "desirable" but rather that it was "not unreasonable".
@@FletchforFreedom ok I get it he basically wasn’t against taxation of the rich he just knew it wouldn’t be popular but knew it might be justified
@@FletchforFreedom you are a joke
Thank you so so so much for this! I did an art history degree (with quite a few philosohy courses thrown in) before doing my MBA, and was shocked that during my MBA economics classes, there was virtually no acknowledgement of how these things are intimately intertwined!! It drove me bananas how it was taught in such isolation, and I shudder to think how many of my fellow MBA students may still think that economical decisions are totally divorced from ethical quandries or considerations.
Corporations have Human Resource Departments because their employees are often seen as little more than a resource like wood or iron ore. Humans are seen as just another category.
Funny how liberals also hate human resources but for very different reasons. Your reason is idiotic, like when people say of the three-fifths compromise "they should be considered as whole people".
Boot Straps
Tax free inheritance.
Conservatives always say 'pick yourself up by your boot straps and don't rely on the government hand out', but continue to lower the tax rate of the rich.
I'd love to have a 10 million dollar boot strap!
That's why it's a myth. NO ONE 'picks oneself up by your boot straps.' The rich got that way on the backs of others- the workers.
I think I've put this comment before, but a great book on this is The Capital Order: How economists invented austerity and paved the way for fascism, by Clara E. Mattei.
She does a great job in explaining how English and Italian economists in the post war (WW1) period were terrified of the bolshevik movement sweeping across Europe, and they devised plans to crush those movements using economics as a "science" to shield themselves from political accountability. They basically tanked the economy using austerity to prevent workers from demanding more rights after they realized that state control of the economy was possible, since they experienced it during the war.
It's really helped me see the lie of the "independent central bank" and how the financial system really is just another tool of the investor class to enforce hierarchical capitalism on the masses.
This video plays into the best definition of economics I've ever heard: it's the study of people's obligations and interactions regarding limited resources. And I like this definition because much like Professor Reich's video, it allows for the necessary inclusion of questions about who gets what, why they get what they get, how much they get, when they get it, etc all of which are necessarily issues revolving around choices and power dynamics.
As long as corporations are beholden to increasing revenue for shareholders, anything and anything will be done to make number go up. This is the ultimate perverse incentive. I look forward to watching this!
Yes, thank you! As I was leaving the military and preparing to go back to college, I read the Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street by Tomas Sedlacek, tracing the development of the underlying assumptions of modern economic thought through the history of western philosophy, and was excited to discuss these ideas as I undertook a minor in economics, but of course I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little questioning or discussion was allowed.
Sounds like a fascinating book! I'm going to try to find and read it. Thanks for the tip!
Thank you for the reading tip!
@@craven5328 You'd better hurry before it's banned...
Poor morals is why the majority of Americans are in a "paycheck to paycheck" cycle. Wealthy people should not have an outsized voice on the politics and economics of the working class.
I would refer it to as "The goals, the means, the ends"
1. What kind of society do we want?
2. How do we get there?
3. What are we gonna do next once that is achieved?
describes the political schism perfectly. inclusive or exclusive? democracy a Greek word “of the people’ (demographics where the people are…) . the reality of homo sapiens as a species, that there IS NO Race, either ethnicity or capitalist, gotta majic wand?
I want a social order that is fair and just, no super rich, no poverty. I want equity for all.
How do we get there? Get money out of politics. Tax the rich the way we used to.
Keep it, and keep improving it.
Great topic! Eager for hearing more myths debunked
I love how when workers demand a raise, conservatives are quick to say it will cause Weimar Republic levels of inflation.
Meanwhile when a CEO gives him/herself a giant raise (usually after a mass layoff and stock buybacks) conservatives go 👏
As usual, Reich is great. But I wish he would be more feisty. For example, here instead of just saying economics began rightly as a moral endeavor but has lost its morality, he should also point out WHY morality has been shut out - - because the wealthy class has taken economics over, changing it to increase its own wealth even more. at the expense of ordinary people.
Do you not understand that wealth is NOT a zero-sum endeavor? Just because person A grows wealthy does not mean that he took that wealth from person B. Well, unless person A works for the government.
@@Mustapha1963 No, we don't understand your position because it directly contradicts recent history.
Agreed that in principle wealth is not zero sum. But there are ways of generating wealth which increase the overall well-being of the people and those which decrease it. In general, the wealthy have protected their wealth over the last 40 years by consolidating market share and either increasing prices or forcing producer prices down. Or by externalizing the true costs. And because these things can be hidden for a while, and running for elective office is expensive, the wealthy are able to collectively control who has access to government to prevent any accountability.
@@Mustapha1963 A central concern of current economics is the allocation of *scarce* resources.
As long as wealth equates to power, we are not on the right path. When offerings relate to the person or entity it is coming from are the norm, then we can start looking forward. A penny offered by a homeless man is worth so much more than a silver dollar from Bill Gates.
Here’s something for Econ majors to ponder. At least one edition of Alfred Marshall’s book has a graph showing the Supply and Demand curves intersecting in two places.
Marshall could not be honest so far as "land" was to be treated as a distinct factor of production. He had to find a way to justify adding nature to produced assets (i.e., capital goods). Absent the public capture of the rent of land, the supply curve for land is leftward leaning. The reason is simple. As the value of land increases owners have a strong financial incentive to without land from the market or to acquire land purely for speculation rather than development.
It is forgotten that Adam Smith's first book, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) connects morality and economy,
Any time someone tells you that something is "objective", laugh at them. True objectivity does not (and cannot) exist in a world with people in it.
Superb. I'm looking forward to seeing the remainder of this series.
I honestly have no problem with some people having significantly more resources than others. I do have a problem with them impoverishing others by the thousands to get that way. Every person deserves healthy food, clean water, air that is mostly air, safe housing, basic medical care (especially preventative care for the young), and a well-rounded education. To say otherwise is to wish misery and an early demise on other people. I would like to hope that most people don’t think that is cool. We should work to be able to live without family/roomates, or so we can travel, or have our own car, or enjoy fancy restaurant dinners, or have an extra kid or two, not just to survive and be able to go to work again tomorrow, or only have one child who will turn around and do the same thing. Some people don’t even really get paid enough to do that! 😒
The battle has been waging since the beginning of recorded history -- the people vs the wealthy, an egalitarian society vs a hierarchic society, left vs right. Economics is a big part of that battle.
You’re absolutely right: this is a subject that goes back 10,000 years to the Cradles of Civilization (largely believed to have sprung up independently around the world). The invention of money-a currency that always has the same value no matter who’s spending it, and doesn’t depend on merit or contribution to the community-changed the way the world worked. Alas, we let the djinn out of the bottle without a plan to manage it, and have been paying for it-literally-ever since.
I lost over $70k when everything started to tank. Not because I was in an exchange that went belly up. I was just stupid to hold and because that's what everyone said. I'm still responsible. It just taught me to be a better investor now that I understand more of what could go wrong. It took me over two years of being in the market, I'm really grateful I found one source to recover my money, at least $10k profits weekly. Thanks Natalie Strayer
I'm surprised that you just mentioned Natalie Strayer here also Didn’t know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, i'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been super.
Natalie Strayer has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
The very first time we tried, we invested $2000 and after a week, we received $9500. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.
I'm new at this, please how can I reach her?
Her good reputation already speaks for her .I’m also one of the beneficiary of Natalie Strayer. So happy I gave it a trial after being skeptic of the process.
100% agree with todays video!
Jacque Fresco (R.I.P) was an economist but he called himself a "American futurist" and aptly so with his life's work "The Venus Project" and had very similar view points.
(you may recognize Jacques name from documentary like award winning Zeitgeist series by peter joseph or "what the bleep do we know" or "the choice is ours" all of these are documentary relevant to todays video)
I studied economics in college from a freshman until graduate school. I learned the economics was more about psychology than money.
But the idea was not to try to separate economics from politics or morality, but to try to understand how politics works. To try to get beyond simplistic nonsense like America became rich because most Americans were Protestants whom God loved best. "
Not long enough. Go deeper.
Come back next Friday for part 2 of 10!
I think the distinction here is analogous to the distinction between pure and applied science or engineering. Understanding the systems of economics and how they related to society would be pure, objective economics. Using economics to define policy towards a goal would be the subjective application of economic theory. This is where morality and ethics come into scope.
I'm reminded of the jeopardy scene from Billy Madison: "I choose... _Business Ethics"_
This is An amazing video. And it’s just about getting people to ask questions about what they believe. That’s the first step.
Thank you rob. Thank you and your team.
Thank You Robert = AND ALL Involed !!!
Your videos are always fantastic as are your posts thank you
Thank you, Professor Reich, this bodes to be a great and fascinating series. I only took two classes in Economics in college, but I did read the Wealth of Nations during the first course. I agree, it does not promote unfettered capitalism as we see today. Adam Smith believed in regulations.
This is BS. He has no idea what he is talking about, economics has nothing to do with politics.
I suggest that this be sent to every member of Congress. Have them comment on this and why is this correct or wrong!
Dr. Reich, if you were a presidential nominee I would campaign my heart out for and vote for you! Those currently running aren’t even worthy to be compared to you. Either in terms of morality, integrity, intelligence, insight and foresight . So I won’t be voting for president until there is a man or woman of your caliber. God bless you, sir, with long life and health.
If you don't vote at all this November, you may never have a chance to vote in a free election in this country ever again.
@@jmalexander131 This is America. Where if you want me to vote for a candidate, you put up one I can enthusiastically vote for. Neither party has done that. Democrats should have known better.
@@jmalexander131The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
No one believes you
@@rack9458 Wrong. If you let Trump win by not voting, @jmalexander131 is right.
Put another way: economics exists to serve humanity, not the other way around.
Science deals in objective facts. Does anything in our economy seem objective to you?
@@michaelenquist3728 I agree with your conclusions. While there are observable facts to be had, the whole of the economy isn't exactly all that objective. There are trends, mostly because corporations run on a ton of distinct ideologies but a few shared values and a handful of rules they've managed to buy into law. If there was true objectivity, there'd be predictability, and the one thing our economy just is not, it's predictable.
Economics is a creation of humans, with human desires and values and logic systems as part of its creation. Economics *can't and can never* be objective. We decide what shape our economies take. We decide what end result we want.
Excellent as usual Robert.
An equally-insightful political economist of Adam Smith's era was A.R. Jacques Turgot, of the French school known as physiocrats. They originated the concept of laissez-faire, laissez-passer, which meant "clear the way, then let things alone." By clear the way they meant to eliminate all types of monopoly privilege, most specifically landed privilege in the form of the private appropriation of the potential rental value of land. The physiocrats argued that rent should become the "impot unique" -- the single tax to pay for public goods and services. Robert Reich started the story of what is wrong with the pseudo-science of economics. In 1994, Professor of Economics Mason Gaffney (University of California) co-authored a book with Fred Harrison and Kris Feder that provided the full details: "The Corruption of Economics." Get this book for the full story.
The most scientific economist there was, the only one that used the scientific method and didn't decide the conclusions before reading the data and exploring every explanation... Is karl marx, but you wont be hearing that from most "economists"
I think if I was immoral I would have more money. I should have been a criminal.
Another good question: What are corporations but labour unions for the rich?
Economics kinda like money. Money has to do with power, which leads to politic. And politics leads to morality. Everything is connected.
I always enjoy what you have to say. Thank you for speaking up for America all of America
The revered Adam Smith had much to say about morality; that is widely ignored.
I like what Warren Buffett reportedly said: he will leave his family enough that they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing.
Excellent idea for a series!
I'd say economics can be a science, but you'd have to divorce "what we want to accomplish" from "how to accomplish it." So the politics and morality would be "we need universal housing and health care." The economics would be "how do we figure out how to get the money to pay for that."
"Economics is objective" lol!
This is like saying you can
measure peoples' attractiveness objectively on a numerical scale.
I'm certain you can find a conservative imbecile who believes that too.
The very same kind of imbecile who only ever read Thomas Sowell, and thinks they know "Economics the science..."
When I studied history at university in the literature department I specialized in modern and contemporary history as well as economic history and international relations. So I took compulsory courses in the department of economics and social sciences. The most important course was political economy (macro and micro economics). Oh yes it was at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. Studying economics outside of related disciplines (for example statistics or notions of psychology) is considered, how to put it politely... intellectual laziness. Uh the course of political science still exist... The problem with American students is they're too over specialized... Very good on narrow field not so good on broader views...
To rephrase this for certain... _sensibilities..._ "Economics intersects with Geopolitics and Sociology, if you don't believe me, watch the stock market the day after a war breaks out, or how Private Equity investors react to the news that a child died because they closed down a hospital to liquidate it's assets..."
2:01 2:03 To monopolize or not to monopolize, that is the question, to paraphrase Shakespeare. 2:36
No wonder it's known as the dismal science.
Economics is business by other means. However, Business is Politics by other means.
Thank you for sharing this important information for all to hear and learn.
Well said sir. You are someone who gets it at most fundamental level. 👏👏
Myth #2 to be debunked on the 7th. Stay tuned!
Stop spamming this channel!
THANK YOU‼️😂
Bob, you need to talk more about Henry George. I don't know how you can talk about poilitical economy without mentioning Henry George.
Webster defines economics as "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services".
Where is morality in that definition? Economics doesn't tell you the morality of an action, just the effect.
Narcissistic yes , Fascist ? No . The word is thrown around loosely while many don't even know what it really means
Economics and (unfettered) capitalism cannot remain zero sum hellscapes.
I wouldn't exactly call 16 & 17 young children, sure it doesn't help that I JUST turned 18, but I still personally believe 16-18 is a singular age bracket despite not being the case legally.
250th anniversary of the founding of the United States and also the publication of the Wealth of Nations which was written in 1776 by the Scottish philosopher by the name of Adam Smith. That year will be 2026.
Thank you. Spot on!
0:10 Bunk!
Economy comes from work and trade, which are integral parts of society. You are completely right.
People who say economics aren't connected with politics or morality just don't want to be connected with them themselves. They want to perpetually run the factories which the grand majority of the people work in for most of the day, not getting a cent richer from the fruits of their labor.
However, wasn't Adam Smith a really terrible person who held some of the earliest fascist beliefs?
He was very fiercely against what he called economic rent which was the lords taking money from the peasants. Though he failed to fully grasp how this would translate to factories too.
So when do Democrats start working hard instead of demanding handouts?
tbf everyone back then held terrible beliefs.
@@APaleDot Yeah, but do we still follow racist teachings, for example?
That's why I ask about Adam Smith.
Great sound effects, though! 2:55
Back in the classroom . . . LOVE IT! THANK YOU!
Channel GodChristLord: Excellent.
1:56 1:58 1:59 2:00 2:01
Lie #1 “Economics is an objective science that has nothing to do with politics or morality.” 0:07
IS ANYONE still fighting the 'Salty vs. Freshy' battle!?! Represent in the likes and comments!
I so enjoy your videos and e-mails! Please know that you are appreciated well beyond the feedback you're actually getting. I've learned so much, and pass it on!
I think if the population of the world were to vote, keeping the monetary system, they would vote that every human on earth would get 7,000 per month, from the time one was born to the time of sunset. This way the system works, the system can take the time to do projects without forgetting the importance of all other living things that share this earth.
The f job of keeping this diversity is enormous. The system as we know it is not at the moment equal. So why not?
Thank you for reading this.
Have a great day.
1:02
Everything is mortality
You can’t make money without betraying good values
Thank you
1:32 1:34 1:35
This all happened primarily because after Newton, unless an academic field held itself to a similar kind of rigor and mathematical exactitude, your "academic field" was mostly just gonna get laughed at and not be taken seriously.
And because morals and ethics simply resist the formulaic rigor a science needs to be taken seriously - it's just never gonna get taken seriously... Unfortunately.
@@michaelenquist3728 what doesn't? What I said or what the video said? Cuz what I said is in support of what the video said.
@@michaelenquist3728 so if you're refuting me then by extension you're also refuting the video right? Because what I said is basically in support of the video.
Wow. The intertwining makes sense. I think of morality and government being a part of what I like to call an ethical aspect. Morality and ethics are basically the same thing. Government is essentially the institution that makes moral rules official in society. These official rules are laws. Economics is tied in there too. I generally think of it as in the physical aspect instead. Physical has material and and any tangable stuff. It is less about thoughts and feelings. However economics is a huge part of government. The biggest difference among ideology is the diffetence in the economy. That is bigger than other controversies like social issues and war. Economics is actually social studies just like government. It is not a science. This video makes a good point in describing ethical issues surrounding capitalism. These are ideas of how much exploitation of workers is deemed morally acceptable. The ethical controversy of economy can get really emotional and heated at times. That is anything but objective. I was thinking about conservatives. They are a lot more emotional and irrational. They can be emotional is upholing thier immoral exploitation. First I thought of Wal Mart. I have heard some crazy stories about Wal Mart union busting. Some worker would have the slightest suggestion of forming a labor union, and suddently the corperate head honchos fly to the specific store. These head honchos would then scrutinize the store in thier investigation and crush the hints of a union. That is really overeacting. Then there is the Red Scare and McCarthy Trials. That is conservative emotion being so intense it goes into paranoia. I wonder about this case. Maybe I am being too cynical here. Maybe the most threatening thing about the Soviet Union was not the ineffeciency of commununism, the tyranny of the dictators or the invasion of nearby states. It is none of the things that are actually bad. The most threatening thing is that it may be too successful and inspire American workers to do the same. Why else would people demonize the heck out of the Soviet Union and never acknowledge anything good? I think the biggest success is abolishing monarchy in the Russian Revolution. That isn't praised as much as it should be. Even if communism was no good, it doesn't justify the over-the-top witch hunt. That hunt is really overreacting. Liberals can be really emptional too. They are just less so than conservatives. Maybe the claim of liberals having "bleeding hearts" has a bit of truth. The emotion is the moral outrage against the capitalists and the explotation of the poor. The harshest Anerican critics I have seen are Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. They can rip capitalism to shreds. Such harsh criticism is bound to cause an emotional rise. I have even seen Bernie Sanders give speeches. He can be really passionate when he wants to. Bernie Sanders? More like Burn-ie Sanders. That guy can burn capitalism to the ground. The most notorious critic of all time is Karl Marx. People can debate on whether his ideas of socialism or communism is good. Personally I thonk of him as a guilty pleasure. At the very least, Marx is at least good at exaplaning why capitalism is a failure. That criticism can get an emotional rise, even without Red Scare. The Russian Revolution was probably an extreme case of the moral outrage. That would motivate the communists to fight back and take over. They can go totally berserk, and it would make sense in context. Those giys even went as far as to assinate the entire royal family with a firing squad. There is plenty of heated emotions on both sides. So the econimc controversy is not objective. Not even close.
Science is its own thing. I put that in the intellectual category. That also includes studying, education and technology. However even scientists should still have some morality. This morality is not an inherent thing in science itself. It is just used to keep science in check. Otherwise people would become mad scientists and run cruel experiments. Jurassic Park is a good fictional example of scientists screwing up ethics. Making the park is immoral mainly because dinosaurs end up killing people. I think there are other moral problems. The park is an animal welfare nightmare. It is cruel for circuses and marine theme parks to keep large wild animals and exploit them for entertainment value. This cruelty can drive animals crazy. The main result is zoochosis. In extreme cases, animals commit homicide or suicide. If dinosaurs would be captive, that would be so much worse. They are so much bigger. They also lived at a time when there are no humans at all. Putting them in a park is so cruel and messed up if one thinks about it. No wonder dinosaurs broke free when the power went out and the security systems shut down. Even before that happens, one park employee explains that the raptors have been testing the electric fences and trying to to get out. The park does have a strong component of economic explanation as a tourist trap. So that does tie into the issue of capitalism. There is a scene in Jurassic Park where the human characters discuss the moral issues over a meal. In the debate, there is an absolutely brilliant and memorable quote. It is about the scientists and other workers at the park. I have just realized something. It applies to capitalists perfectly. Just because someone is into business or science that doesn't mean they can opt out of morals altogether.
"Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should"
-Ian Malcolm
2:37 2:37 2:38 2:40 2:42
Watch the documentary "Finding the Money". MMT is an accurate description of how American money works for us.
1:17 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:24
I think we need to examine what true capitalism is, not what we have now.
Indeed! You cannot separate economics from politics. Economics is what politics is mostly about and the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality.
When the word economy started being used, the activity and behavior for the innovation, production and exchange of goods and services was also included in the definition. The stories that economists started telling may have been a little bit more realistic than the stories religions were telling but, the imagination of these story tellers got the better of them and too much of their ideas where based on magical type thinking and they were not always honest with themselves or to others. The stories were always fascinating and we can always learn things from good stories regardless if they are true or not but there are limits to progress if the story tellers continue with the fabrications and the myths and magical thinking and are not able to transition into truth, reality, honesty, accuracy, reason, rationality, critical and evidence based thinking.
Religions are master story tellers and to compete for wealth, status and power have literally convinced people that there are magical authorities that live in the sky. Economist can keep beating the same drum as Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall and keep telling the same stories or they can start making the effort to educate people that the best ways to continue to exist on this planet is to stop believing in nonsense and start to be much more truthful and honest with each other and to build up a little more trust with each other.
The idea and thinking that the economy always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity may have worked well when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and their environment seemed limitless. For quite some time now, we know that we live on a finite planet with limited resources and the focus now needs to shift to sustainability not on growth! Presently if the economy is not growing, it is still considered a failure. This type of thinking cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure. The contraction needs to be just as prosperous and productive as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there needs to be some new economic stories told based on economic sustainability not on economic growth.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness is somehow a good thing and is rewarded needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness is not good in any economy and capitalism needs to correct this thinking. If this is eliminated from capitalism maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore and that should acceptable. We could be taking the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from socialism and calling this something else. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have had some success doing this.
A good starting point would be to begin with the understanding that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the basis for morality. If people are struggling to survive, they will not care about anybody else or about the devastation of the planet.
Here are some books that I read or listened to where I learned about these new economic ideas and models on how to build economies to be able to continue to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services to prosper and progress when competing for power, status and wealth without discrimination, abusing, conquering or killing each other and without the mistrust that causes nations to spy on each other and to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet.
1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth,
2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson,
3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly
5 “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” (not a book but good information)
The responsibility is with our wealthiest and smartest and brightest among us. To achieve this type of progress we have to keep talking about it and start presenting these new ideas. Committing crimes and making up stories about magical authorities with supernatural powers that live in the sky is not helpful.
Should any human be a billionaire ?
0:59
"The Monopoly board game is an objective science. You see, my superior understanding of dice rolling results in greater initial yield, and I am so wise that I reinvest the excess dividends."
- most scientific, rational, and objective business student
As tongue and cheek as this is, theres psychology studies that demonstrate agency bias in humans. Even when it comes to a coin toss, where the chance is fifty fifty, those that win will try to convince you that “it’s all in the wrist.”
0:47
I agree with Robert 100%!
2:18 2:19 2:20
Can't hear the music over Robert's talking. Can't hear what Robert is saying anyway.
1:11 1:12
Just so. Humans, by default, cannot be amoral. They can be moral or they can be immoral. "It's only business, nothing personal" is the statement of a criminal.
Politics is something that people identify with and we talk about it 24/7 but morality and humanity isn't something that the majority of people (including Christians) want. It's very unfortunate.
Economics became an apology for fascism as the bourgeoisie's reaction to Marx
Economics has been called "the dismal science." It's more like a dismal excuse for a science.
❤❤❤
Economics as a science kind of sidesteps the moral question. It treats the economy that we have now as natural, just like the forces of nature rather than a human construct.
@@michaelenquist3728 Right now it's treated as a hard science like physics rather than a soft science.
But even as a soft science I still think the implication is there. That capitalism is natural rather than just a system that was created due to circumstance.
2:23
Capitalism is a fancy name for greed.
It's a fancy name for the use of greed
It's really not. It's an economic theory meant to explain how money moves in an economy. It works really well for that and that's why people in the finance industry use it to predict/calculate things. But it was never meant to be the guiding principal of your life. Capitalism was never meant to be a religion.
Capitalism for me is all the great options you have in the market, like going to the grocery store and looking at all the options. Supermarkets for example are very competitive and have low profit margins. I see government interference has having bad unintended consequences.
@@jeffrey1312 Like a religion of greed,
Capitalism is not that bad. US govt selling its people out to corporations is the problem. And corruption. I mean political bribery is just legal in the US, as long as you call it lobbying and write it down somewhere most people won't find it.
There's capitalism is Denmark as well, but it'sregulated much better and people are taken care of.