Dambisa Moyo | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2017
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
Dambisa Moyo is a Zambian-born international economist and author who analyzes the macroeconomy and global affairs. She currently serves on the boards of Barclays Bank, the financial services group, Seagate Technology, Chevron Corporation, and Barrick Gold, the global miner. She worked for two years at the World Bank and eight years at Goldman Sachs before becoming an author and international public speaker.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
This woman is such a force. I love listening to her.
I want to be Dambisa Moyo when I grow up. Im grown already, but I still want to be her lol
It is hard to combine beauty and brain
Me too. I've wanted to be her ever since I saw one of her interviews in late 2014
From a Chinese perspective, individual freedom and societal benefits are two-sides of the same coin. The point is how to balance them in real life rather than emphasizing one aspect only.
Thank you so much Dambisa 💚
great scholar, reasonable, not religious fanaticism.
democracy is the new bible for many westerners.
Excellent, my congratulations, from Mexico 🇲🇽, working in Manitoba Canada 🇨🇦..
Excellent perspective!!!!
On voting, I have been questioning it for a long time. Thank you, you are great.
Individual liberties are prized above all else to our detriment says Dambisa Moyo then in 2020 the West struggles with a global pandemic because mandating masks is blocked by individual freedoms. Lets Go!
Basically she argues for a stronger banking autocracy. Being on th board of various financial institutions this technocratic ideology makes alot of sense to her. She is a representative for banks. I imagien she knows the banking memos that are warning of climate collapse and is following through with an autocratic 'solution'. Her arguments fly in the face of every move towards successfully achieving freedom in the last century. Also, she is completely counter-enlightenment.
A great and Eloquent Scholar
I love this woman although I disagree with her on a couple of points but she is so profound
great speech! Individual freedom indeed needs a certaun degree of harnessing, for the sake of the greater picture.
*waves to China*
Democracy is Overrated, is no prerequisite for Economic Growth. A Lot of countries Prioritise Individual Freedom Over Economic Growth. That's why Too many Countries are Poor and getting worse. Especially in developing countries. The So-called Developed world blackmail Poor countries to copy their blueprint of individual freedom to guarantee aid. what works in America won't necessarily work in Nigeria. I believe countries should practice a system of government that works for them. a lot more people will prefer economic growth to individual freedom.
My new idol!
Great scholar
Wow make us proud
freedom first.
Fat me sitting in the crowed feeling attacked
Who gets to decide what is true vs what is opinion? Our politicians? Our journalists? Our business leaders? Where does that moral leadership come from Dr. Moyo?
Depends on what is being asserted.
Please excuse my poor English because I am still learning and you know when you learning a new language the hardest part is the writing, I know that because I speak ,read and write fluently two other languages.
Some.leaders.use
Emmotional.thinking
For.logical..thinking..
I am African and I don't agree with this clever lady because I experienced the life without any kind of freedom and that is why I left my mother land and I never look back because it was a horrible life . It is a bad think to advocate to give more power to these all already have to much . And well she answer if she says her options about her country she will refuse entry what a contradiction from her part. I will take any day the price I will pay for freedom in any level because I lived in a country which I couldn't hand any freedom in any level as human or as a woman . So please don't laugh at me I am a simple African woman. I am really feel sad she is African the way she is thinking when she educated because she came from a sheltered rich background so maybe she can't understand how we life in Africa without any freedom ( personal, Political, Economical ) so thank you lady
Ruqiya xasan well said lady! I agree with you ... those who haven’t experienced oppression spit on freedoms
White wig is embarrassing.
31:00 pope Francis 💒❤💒❤
Intelligent smart strong beautiful black woman....very proud of you
But pls ditch the wig you don’t need it 😫
She would look sexier without it
The video is about economic growth.
What does her appearance have to do with it?
Maybe she or her spouse likes it.
@@balaclava1483 makes her easier to look at.
Why is it that its always the African experts who are in a hurry to a 'prior' engagement!! The hussle muscle is strong in African blood
Normally I enjoy this wonderful lady's talks but on the issue of individual freedom, I couldn't disagree with her more. I argue that we need diversity in governments in our world. There is already a country in the world where 1 billion people lack much individual freedom. That country also suppresses reporters, they certainly kept the New York Times out among other newspapers during Covid, yet the world is suppose to take the economic growth numbers coming out of China face value, and world economists continue to crunch those numbers comparing China to the rest of the world, highlighting massive growth and not taking into consideration that the Chinese government may in fact be fabricating much of the growth of their country. Who is checking what they tell us when reporters are limited in their reporting and when they censor? Individual freedoms is not why Americans are overweight it's only because the government subsidizes corn and does not educate their people. There's a lot of misinformation out there in terms of health. She is completely wrong on this one.
in so many ways I am definitely a fan of Dambisa. but where she goes excruciatingly in the wrong direction is where she talks about 1. juries voting based on evidence and not on their subjective positions of the evidence presented to them. Does she not know anything about the Judicial Systems??? How so many 100% innocent people have been sentenced to death, or life in prison, without ever committing a crime that they were accused and convicted of!!!?? Gtfoh with that silly shit! and 2. this Ridiculousness that the world is overpopulated... Human beings take up only 5% of the world's land...! WTF are you talking about!??? the reason that are medical Systems have a hard time keeping up with population has little to do with growth factors... It has everything to do with mismanagement of infrastructure issues! In sooooo many way she hits the nail on the head and in other ways she completely swings so wide she doesn't know where the hell the bat is going
she is looking at the population growth. She starts out with consumption of European and western countries and goes into the population. We cannot sustain that many people since crop yields are getting smaller and natural resources are running out.
Also in regard to her statement about the juries. She is using voting in government elections should be done the same in the sense that juries should vote on evidence-based information rather than subjectivity. You cannot look at that statement in the context of those scenarios where people have been committed due to many flaws. She is talking about the ideal scenario would be that juries vote based on truth rather than a feeling based judgment.
Is she really advocating for totalitarian political system?
Seems to but that's not her point. Her point is public management should be oriented not by individual biased freedom of choice, but by what really works for the specific economic context. She thinks individual freedom is a great barrier to free trade for example.
@@YgalSharon Well said.
No.
Civil War occurred in the 1860's, not the 1840's.
You inaccurately began on another premise as well, China succeeds economically due to their low living conditions, low wages, and therefore cheap labor. They use the huddled masses to garner massive profits from first world nations, which they consistently trade with. China itself is not very prosperous, they are relying on nations with free populations that can afford high expenditures and maintain a stable, relatively high standard of living. The goods are cheaply manufactured due to the malformed populace not having any political say, rights, or ability for self-determination. Socialists see this as success, whereas the free world denigrates it.
Beyond that, the idea that growth itself is infinite is a flawed ideology. Just like anything else, there is a constraint on the economy for potential growth. As you said, there are finite natural resources available, and they are the fundamental source of prosperity. The development of these resources, from not being used to being at perfect efficiency, is what determines the current economical situation, and potential economic situation. We use systems that are not based in reality to approximate the system, which eventually fails as it is inherently inaccurate. It is when the system becomes overtaxed, the available resources overdrawn, that the flaws in the system can be seen, and what follows is scarcity as the development of resources has to catch up to the current deficit. This is what we call a recession or depression. They occur every time a system that is not based in reality, is used primarily for the economy, which inevitably results in a decrease of available goods, and ultimately leads to shortages. Credit in the 1920's, when it first gained prominence, shows us exactly what will occur in the years to come. As people begin to use funding that they do not posses, 'credit', to make purchases in and expand their approximate wealth in an artificial manner, the deficit unless closely managed will ultimately lead to the collapse of whatever system is using it. Whether that be an individual, a business, or a nation.
Natural resources, are by their very essence, in limited supply. First you begin to develop ways to cultivate the resource, then you sufficiently expand the amount of the resource in use and available for use, eventually becoming more and more efficient as time goes on. At first that expansion can be great, but eventually increasing the efficiency leads to consistently diminished returns, which will eventually taper off (or the investments will stop as it becomes fiscally irresponsible to continually increase the efficiency of that specific system anymore; it becomes a better option to invest into cultivating a different resource and expanding it's availability). However, there is a limit to the potential growth of all things, technology and the economy both have a limit, though it may not be easily foreseeable as to where exactly that limit is.
You start off your first example stating that obese and overweight people put a growing economical strain on the overall population, when that is not how healthcare works at all. On the non-national plan, meaning anything except Obamacare, premiums did not increase by much over time. Private premiums did receive a very significant increase when Obamacare was passed, and there became a direct tax for not paying the Government or a Private Healthcare firm to have health insurance. Why is this important to note? The baseline premium for each and every person is calculated on a similar level as car insurance, there is the base cost that is added onto by age, and risk factors. With car insurance, the base premium is higher for someone that is newer to driving than it is for a seasoned person, as they are assumed to be more likely to cause (be found at fault) for a car crash, as they have less experience than someone several years old (who has several years more experience at driving). However, having a bad history of driving (frequent crashes, intoxication, etc.) will result in a much higher premium, regardless of age. Medical factors may also influence your car insurance premium, if it puts you at risk of causing injury to others (your license may even be revoked for certain risk factors). Medical Premiums are very similar, conversely for age, the older you become, the higher the risk for medical complications to arise, and therefore the higher chance for needing medical care. Risk factors may also raise this premium, as it becomes more and more likely that you will need services than otherwise (the potential risk rises while the potential gains decrease).
Industrialized Nations have a consistently slowing population growth, with Japan serving as a prime example. In The US, people are marrying much later in life, and have fewer children than ever before. You switched from Industrialized, first world nations as a 'prime concern' to a focus on third world nations for this point.
Part 2:
You consistently talked as if you had a point to make, but never actually spoke to the point itself. What freedoms are infringing upon the ability for free nations to expand economically, and how would you go about rectifying those without subsequently losing their foundation that has guaranteed prosperity and success for so many years now? You give blind examples, and I can only assume that you countermand your own points. You directly state during a question that you are not opposed to freedoms, but have simultaneously suggested that such freedom should be expressly denied. The right to free choice in terms of products, which products to consume, when to consume them, and also subsequently, the right of free choice at all. This is furthered by your demands to end free choice in terms of paternity or maternity, your points suggest that people should not be allowed to freely procreate (alternatively, or have the freedom to choose to NOT have children if the situation were to be reversed).
Societal growth can only be restricted if it is inherently based on and entwined with the economical prosperity of a nation, at least in terms of the governmental level. You seem to be suggesting that there be more inherent governmental control, a bigger government, whose reach extends far wider than ever before, which would also then create and apparently validate your own points. A free society whose government extends only the softest touches to the free market does not have a great effect on it, the government in a society is the representation of it's people, whether that be the common man or the special interest groups who stand to benefit from it. The direct government you suggest to create is a radical change from the inherently true socialist government that is 'freedom for the people', to one that is the flawed misnomer that is a Socialist Government, which is in fact a Special Interest government formed for the sole intent of providing further gain for it's controllers, rather than for the people who support it. A free market-based government inherently relies on the people who live under it's domain for it's nourishment, as do all governments, but is also directly reliant on them for it's success. It makes decisions that protect the assets and further improve it's workers over all else, as that is what will ultimately keep it a healthy government. It exists to continue it's own propagation, which at first might seem corrupt, but it also ensures the safety and prosperity of those living under it, since it's own health is directly tied to them. A special interest group government is comparable to a corporation that has share holders, it's first duty is to those who own it. This is why all 'Socialist' governments inevitably end up malnourished and unsuccessful, the just fruits that the people provide, which are given to the government, which under a free-market then reciprocates to those who provided for it (by staying out of their affairs as much as possible, while also ensuring that they remain relatively safe and healthy; free from other denizens, other governments), these fruits that are owed to the workers themselves, are then impeached by those in power, who control the power, the military arm, coercion by force. This inevitably ends up with the government continually taking more and more from the people it should be protecting, so that it can give more to those who 'own' it. Look at North Korea, any nation in Africa, and all of the misnomer Socialist States. You can be Socially Liberal, but you must remain Economically Conservative if you wish to succeed. China succeeds only because they are economically Conservative, they accept investments from denizens of their rivals, while also producing and selling goods to and for those rivals. If they were to completely cut off outside economic investment and trade, their nation would collapse in no time at all. It is one of the great reasons that the USSR failed, why most Third World nations are economic catastrophes, and why it's hard for a developing nation to turn into a First World nation. You need to provide goods for trade that are desirable, produce them in great quantity with reasonable quality and consistency. There is rampant and unchecked corruption at all levels in every single third world nation, and in every nation that does not have a free population. There is a cost for forfeiting freedoms, and that is the eventual collapse of your nation by economical means. You can not have a successful economy without having good trading partners, not unless your nation is big enough by itself is a proponent of free trade within itself, which the 20th century Socialist nations do not posses.
Freedom of choice is what drives the selection of productions, innovation of technology, and ultimately what drives the economy forwards. You can not have free trade, the stimulant for economical growth and prosperity, without having free choice. This is not opinion, this is a fact, take it from someone that studied history, political and economical, for long enough to know what year the American Civil War began.
Blaming the failings of developing nations on the success of developed ones is a flawed basic premise. They should be first creating goods for their own citizens, which is how towns and cities first became successful. The baker didn't make bread for the town 10 miles away, he made it for his neighbors. The farmer made the produce, milled it, gave it to the baker for bread, baker used excess resources to provide goods to others, who then reciprocated with services or other resources of their own. This is precisely how free trade is formed, it is not formed by the baker feeling bad for a different baker in a far away town, sacrificing his own fulfillment so that the other guy can sell bread in his town. Why isn't their baker selling bread for their people? They are starving, but have successful farmers? They have a relatively competent military, but aren't capable of dealing with rampant drug lords and cartels? It would be one thing if they were struggling to sell their goods, but were economically competent in their own nation. Your ideals would leave us in the same state that they are in, impoverished and unsuccessful.
She doesn't want a moral education, she wants a Despotic Hegemony instituted upon the entire Earth, where all people would be equal, in slavery. Where your own abilities aren't recognized or used for you own benefit, as that would be unfair to others who lack those abilities. It would be a world without a future, without progress. Her ideal world is one that is ruled by few, whose power would be absolute and without challenge. They would coerce the populace by threat of force, and would monitor every thought you have for disloyalty, for which the price would be death. Don't be a blind fool, that's no Utopia, it's the textbook definition for a Dystopian Society. She wouldn't be satisfied at the bottom of that totem pole, what she suggests is Communism, which has historically always failed, and she is foolish enough to believe that she'd be in the higher echelons. What happened to the original communist rebels of the Soviet Union? They were all killed by Stalin after he took power, he eliminated the people that truly believed in the cause, and became the dictator for his new nation, he ruled absolutely, and with terrible military force.
I totally support her assertions. Aid does not help the poor but instead perpetuate poverty. The big questions are:
Has Africa benefited from Aid?
Is democracy the lense through which we can measure economic growth and can democracy guarantee growth?
The short answer to all this is No
Your so called first world nations took away the treasure and freedom of the rest of the world, colonization, opium wars, black slavery trade, etc.
@@mingao5181 In one level, I don't know if I should even reply to what I perceive to be a 五毛, on the other, yours is such an ignorant take that I personally don't believe anyone could agree with you, unless they are being being willfully malignant. But I'm a cynic, and i think that there are people out there that going to believe it, so I'm going to reply.
Just by the looks of it, you start with not even reading what the other person was arguing about, the argument made was about modern democracies, not even about western ones, and obviously not about old democracies such as imperial france.
Second, you list a series of nonsensical criticism which has no bearing on what is being discussed; not every western power was a democracy and not every powerful nation was western, -in fact- only the minority was democratic, and in that minority, only men could participate in it. So that leaves you with pretty much monarchies doing the majority of the dirty work (such as colonisation) and then hypocritical nations (which would latter improve) doing the latter minority of that work.
Incredible. I didn't know you are such a coward #DambisaMoyo. How could you sharing your opinion on Zambia's fast declining civic space amidst a sustained clampdown on media and human rights represent an existential threat to you?
She talks about freedom and yet refuses to directly answer the question about her own country, Zambia. Hypocrisy is not limited to African dictators .
She said she might be barred from going home. Does that mean nothing?
Someleziwe Ngqasa no, it means nothing when you say one thing and do another. She is not speaking the truth, so why listen to anything she says?
Perhaps you rewatch the speech so you can understand her point. she did not answer the question directly but her point of freedom is delivered more diplomatically. Remember not everyone is giving direct answer, some people have different styles to describe answers.
Is Moyo Zambian ?
Well I mean If you are an American you cannot forget our history. We didn't earn these freedoms by a loving and caring government. We got these freedoms by protest and people dying. She can speak on an issue regardless of where she is coming from. She is well educated and has much evidence-based arguments, and you have one petulant criticism.
Is she a man?
Your mother is. Thanks