Can we Fix Capitalism? Yanis Varoufakis vs Gillian Tett
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 жов 2021
- Yanis Varoufakis and Gilian Tett came to the Intelligence Squared stage in a conversation chaired by Anne McElvoy, to debate whether capitalism is broken and if it needs to be fixed. Tett and Varoufakis both agree that the current model of capitalism needs to change but they differ radically in the solutions they proffer.
Gillian Tett is the pioneering columnist who has spent the last decade documenting the rise of ‘conscious capitalism’, a movement led by businesses that have concluded they can no longer afford to ignore issues like climate change, income inequality and social justice. Yanis Varoufakis is the former Greek finance minister who oversaw the bailout crisis in 2015 and has spent the last decade calling for a kinder vision for the global economy.
Is capitalism past its sell by date? Or can it be reinvented for the digital age?
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and receive our audio podcasts as soon as they are released: apple.co/3nKUHV4
Brilliant minds, debate, online events, ask your questions. Try Intelligence Squared +: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?
Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.
Subscribe to Intelligence Squared+ today: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
Follow Intelligence Squared:
Instagram: / intelligenc. .
Facebook: / intelligence2
Twitter: / intelligence2
Listen to our podcasts?
Intelligence Squared Podcast: play.acast.com/s/intelligence...
How I Found My Voice with Samira Ahmed: apple.co/32WnrPV
Do you think capitalism is broken and needs to be fixed? Or is the system working the way it is?
Just watched up to the survey question. The difficulty here is how many people in the audience understand how capitalisms works actual works, private ownership on the means of production is one thing, but the private ownership of the money supply and the creation of money within a relatively small group the very thing that regulates the market in and of itself. if they understood all that would the vote on fix capitalism or new system be impacted. Anyway i am interest to know how the debate proceeds
Capitalism is not broken nor does it need fixing, its simply a rebranded feudalism, with a couple of shareholders instead of nobles, we never advanced as a society we still encourage the same values in order to achieve success (predatory behaviour and greed), as per innovation it does not happen due to capitalism but despite it.
My organisation has drafted a book and created a model which fixes the polarised duals of Capitalism and Communism, however due to our lack of platform we are unable to deliver it... Herein sits the paradox we all need to make progress from. Perhaps Gilian might be able to help us empower our purpose?
Varoufakis and Tett agree that we already are not experiencing what has been known at least since Marx as 'capitalism.' She spends the whole debate angrily and defensively setting up straw men that Varoufakis pleasantly and easily tips over one at a time. He leaves the audience cheering and the moderator absent-mindedly agreeing with him as she poses questions. Tett comes off as an eloquent, albeit anxious, resentful, and utterly unconvincing, defender of dogma that she knows has been dead for 20 years. Varoufakis comes off as someone who both states simple facts and presents logical arguments concerning those undenied facts.
@Adam Riddle You are one of those people that blames the poor for being poor and the homeless for being homeless,
“Given that this techno-feudalism is at odds with liberalism, with Adam Smith, how do we prevent becoming techno-peasants?”
A defining question of our time
Tech has become a Godlike image in the field of investment.
The ability to allow tech industry to fuel the economy is a temptation to humans who have little understanding of the actual costs.....
Adam Smith never envisioned the ability to power instant trades of Tech Stock by machines, he was still discussing the use of shiny objects like Stirling Pounds.
The discussions of Bitcoins and Fiat Dollars has pushed the illusion of money into another dimension that 1700's Scotland never considered. The modern methods of delaying payment of imaginary money by the conversion of credit to a Generation following us, to support our excess in the form of 30 year T-Notes, seems to project responsibility for our contemporary spending levels onto the shoulders of our progeny?
I assume this method of funding our levels of enjoyment of economic success is somewhat irresponsible?
But assuming Tech will somehow make all the illusions we present today, solve the problems of tomorrow, seem to lack the level of responsibility that an 18th century Scot may not have considered?
Tech as the savior of Capitalism seems another illusion?
@@danielhutchinson6604 the current market reality was honestly way closer to what allende had in mind in stopping, and actually surpassing, with cybersyn. if the cia never overthrew allende, i believe that was the last chance we had for living in a better world
@@gili12341 As the process of supplying the greed of a few individuals at the top proceeds, the crash that happens when the workers fail to provide the support that is required to support the process....
It's even worse, techno-feudalism cum fascism as the techno is also going along with the military industrial complex and emerges with the new [techno]-tyrants.
Capitalists hate meritocracy. For them it's much better, to find a way to cheat, than to improve your company or product. Competition is only for the plebs..
I’ve been a fan of Gillian’s for many years. She speaks with intelligence, using her anthropological training, to write good pieces in the FT, which are typically much better, much more human than the pieces of her wolfish ‘the markets reign supreme’ colleagues. Watching this was stomach turning for me. The world is clearly walking (has walked) into a new feudalism and governments have been captured. There will be no pretty ending to this. To see Gillian try and defend a form of economics and global governance that has already gone was sad.
And her cheap shots to undermine her opponent were very poor.
It has been never a fair fight... I am trying to look at a lot of left-leaning (...) scholars - but at this time Yanis Varoufakis is leading by intelligence and the understanding of correlations of the business world.
And here is another problem: Conservatives (inclusive Donald Trump, Boris Johnson) think, that economy can be saved by businessmen. But an economy is a whole different subject than a business.
It is like people, who are home cooks and start a restaurant, without the realization, that it is a completely different “universe” to run a restaurant or just cook a fancy meal on a holiday...
And this is probably the main problem of capitalism: people think, that you can manage a country like a large company - though it is absolutely the opposite. Profits don’t mean anything in a country - but it is the welfare, safety, happiness of the citizen, which should be the goal. A company is run exactly the other way around. Profits are in the foreground, and welfare, safety , happiness just enables the management to achieve those goals.
A battle of good vs evil
She was once fabulous. I've missed her, but now I see why she dropped away.😢😢 Who bought her soul, or am I too cynical? 😮😅
How did she become a laughing, friendly bully?
She doesn't "defend" capitalism, she points out that its flaws are correctable or improvable and that this "fixed" version of capitalism would offer better prospects for society than what has been seen with other economic systems. She even repeatedly states that other forms of economic organization are welcome.
also what you call "shots to undermine the opponent" were jokes, come on.
Gillian brought the battlecard against socialism, without knowing her "opponent" doesn't fit in a box.
What we have had for decades is socialism. It certainly is not capitalism.
@@c.san.8751 Decades where? Cuba?
@@c.san.8751can you define socialism for me? I'm pretty sure we have a different understanding of the term socialism.
As well as capitalism, because I don't think any reasonable definition of capitalism would say we're not in a purely capitalist society since decades
@@c.san.8751 Ah yes the famous worker controlled economy we had for decades... idiot.
She is an illiterate woman
People, in the case of Gillian as well, miss the point with Amazon, it is not so much the marketplace in itself, which is already incredibly hard to regulate, but the fact that Amazon is literally the biggest landlord of the digital economy. As a web developer, I have never worked in the last 10 years with something that is not hosted on amazon servers AWS, and this should be extremely preoccupying.
I'm a developer as well (allthough not as experienced as you) and agree completely when it comes to hosting. That is why I made it my mission to somehow make my own hosting company in the future so that I, at least a little bit, make a dent in the hosting monopoly economy . The chance to succeed are slim to none, but honestly I don't care. I just want to destroy the monopoly of hosting, and have fun while doing it :). And after that explain how I did it, make the knowledge public so that anyone can make it's own hosting by themselves. I'm crazy, I know :)
Trust Me Brother,You're Not Crazy. this is the mentality to go against a monopolistic behemoth @@vinkomilotic9704
They find like the one anthropologist on earth willing to defend capitalism.
While citing David Graeber no less!
🤣🤣🤣 citing David Graeber, imagine.
And boy, does she keep reminding us of her suspect credentials and what kind of anthropologist works for the Financial Times anyhow!🤣
@@teynaranjas788 wrongly citing him too, according to 5k of debt by graeber, barter was first used when money had dissappear from the economy for some reason. Before the creation of money people used credit (favors, that people did to one another)
@@looperant Only a C!A agent pretending to be an "anthropologist".
Gillian Tett doesn't trust ten people to make a collective decision on how to run a company (what is a Board of Directors then???) but she DOES trust millions of consumers making billions of individual purchasing decision to save capitalism from itself. It's always the consumers' responsibility.
It's worse than that, she lost me when she said she believes in checks and balances. Who's going to decide what these are going to be along with the regulations she advocates for? Millions of voters in the political system, that's who.
Evil people gravitate towards political power. There are exceptions but not in the majority. THAT'S WHY ALL THIS ANTI-CAPITALIST RHETORIC.
A very adroit depiction of Capitul-ism
I don’t think consumers have any actual power over Amazon, Tesla, fossil fuels corporations, inditex, google. It’s a fantasy. Once in a while we will band together and do a class action lawsuit. Capitalism must get its dirty hands into everything - politics, science, geopolitics, war, education.
Is ohlocracy any better then power of the few? It's way worse, unpredictable, schizophrenic, goes in cycles. Is power of aristoctacy better then ohlocracy? It is congruent at least. Democracy - rule of the free people (not slaves) as enlightened citizen, who care deeply about their polis. Democracy is impossible now, because for every statement there are 10 to de-legitimize first one. Until we get to harness the power of info
Gillian: We need more regulation.
Yannis: 100 reasons that wont work.
Gillan: Yes, but we need more regulation.
Such are the lost because they cannot see beyond .... Gillian is ignorant to the fact that regulations do not and will not work
It is alright saying we need more regulation but what we are getting is less and to expect to get more regulation is absurd. Gillian is saying if we do this and if we do that it will fix capitalism. That maybe so but the multi millionaires who tell governments what they want are not going to do anything that affects their bottom line. They are not interested in “fixing” capitalism it is working just as they want it to. That is where her argument falls down. Capitalists wont act unless their bottom line is threatened and that usually means war. She doesn’t seem to understand capitalist economics at all. The Marxist cycle of war, boom, depression hasn’t changed. America has invaded 13 countries since 1949. I dont know why she was chosen for this debate against such a formidable opponent
Almost as if Lenin was absolutely correct in State & Revolution 100 years ago! lol
@@jackm1758 The true meaning of Kapital by Marx is also just now showing. That's how "prophetic" the book was.
@@_karla._ prophetic in being proven wrong about everything, capital as marx understood didn't and still doesn't exist
The biggest issue I see with capitalism today is the idea of unlimited growth. A corporation is mandated to grow no matter what. This leads to destructive decisions. You cannot have infinite growth in a finite world.
True statement 👌
It's only mandated to grow forever if it's a public company. Otherwise there's just lots of pressure to do so by market that a lot of companies DO resist while making good stuff. Right now I'm thinking of Larian Studios and Balder's Gate III. Though in general the culture decides that growth is the only way to exist, regardless of a company being public or not.
He answers a question perfectly and she just asks it again...
Varoufakis' cheerleaders are here already?
@@TheControlBlue I thought his answers were polite and fairly clear. She projected an attitude of arrogance and perhaps ignorance.....Desperation maybe?
@@danielhutchinson6604 Are you cheerleading for Varoufakis?
@@TheControlBlue I never listened to him speak previously.
He made a point pretty well as he presented facts, I like to assume I am not among his fan club. But he did make his argument in a fairly simple and clear manner.....
@@TheControlBlue the paid shill or morons are here already?
Asking rich old British people for solutions to capitalism is like asking Satan for methods of turning down heat in his cauldrons.
You're partaking in the same bigotry many people do, just reversed. Here's why:
Robert Kett born 1492 was a landowner in 1549 Wyndham England, he learnt that sheep farming had become very profitable all over the country and people with land were building walls to keep their sheep from roaming. The problem was much of those lands had been used by everyone including the economic poor since time immemorial as common land owned by no-one.
This theft from everyone was happening all over the country. When economically poor people came to Kett and told them what was happening their argument persuaded him so much he became their leader. Their army grew to 15,000, a huge amount of people in 16th century England, they marched on Norwich and defeated the King's forces there, they took Norwich which from Norman times to the 19th Century was the second most important city in England after London.
The freedom fighters were defeated by a second King's army, and Robert Kett was hanged from Norwich castle in 1549, and his brother from Wyndham cathedral.
He was offered a pardon but told the King free people need no pardon. So a rich old British person gave his life for others, as did 300 others, not to mention those who had died in the fighting.
Preaching socialism after growing up in a country that escaped comunism and has the habit of not paying taxes it is like explaining in Israel that the holocaust was missunderstood.
The day people will be better educated into critical thinking and history the socialist cause will be treated as it should be - as killer with the smile of a saint
@@AdamantSeraph how does that leather taste rightard? smooth brain alert
@@gili12341 i know is a bs answer, man. Twisted argue....same as missunderstanding socialism.
But hey! Aren't you supposed to say we are equals? Why the rage? I guess you lefties really are only about fight...lame
Any new economic concept that doesn’t allow the rich to hoard its wealth will always be is a threat to capitalism. The moderator and female host reacted to this realization in true form.
my favorite part of these kinds of debates is that the side defending capitalism always as the same recycled reasoning. Whereas I always learn about a new way of looking at things from the opposing side.
Yes - one thing I learnt today from them was how blind leftist ideology can be to all the wealth & goods generated for all people since the 17th century thanks to the imperfect system.
The gift of commenting on UA-cam.
@@FromFame thank you for the recycled comment right on cue
@@vadimrud Does recycled = incorrect in your mind? I mean, if the argument is solid, why not keep repeating it until the opposition can adequately counter it?
@@mattturner5429 Yes, his comment is incorrect and it has been explained time and time again why. If you repeat an argument despite arguments against it existing, it means you have no actual counterarguments to arguments against you.
@@lynth So what's the explanation for why FromFame's comment is incorrect? Please do tell.
"socialism means no markets" lol. Markets and competition aren't exclusive to capitalism, even slavery and feudalism had them.
No centralized state in charge
Decentralized power
Decentralized finance
Decentralized data
Markets and competition
All must be present in the future of socialism.
The era of Bernie Sanders & FDR style socialism is long gone.
Socialism means free market. Capitalism means unfree markets.
@@lynth and in reality neither is true
@@ReasonAboveEverything Only under socialism can free markets exist as the point of socialism is the liberation of workers and democratization of the economy, while under capitalism free markets are impossible to exist as capitalism is inherently coercive.
@@lynth Wow, do you actually believe that?
Gilian should have read some of Yanis's work before debating him; she clearly understood nothing about his ideas, despite waving his book around. She keeps assuming he's against markets and competition--and not getting it when he explains, over and over, that those assumptions are wrong.
The ability of those with the most Capital, to install the names they approve of, in positions of Government that provide them a continued flow of profits, has obviously enabled a small number of Citizens to buy government.....
The United States was founded because a small number of people were dictating the terms of the organization of the government.....
We seem to overlook that guiding principal as we allow the Uber Wealthy to assume the powers of a Monarchy......
The amounts of cash now appoint Monarchs, far more effectively that Watery Tarts in Ponds distributing Swords to potential Kings.....
I find it hilarious how she talks in a way that makes it obvious she is never read his book but then he turns around and shows he has read hers. She didn't do her homework.
If she had read Yanis's books she would never have agreed to this "debate".
It's hard to imagine anyone being more out of their depth than her.
He definitely read hers.
It seems GilianTett's strategy for winning a debate is to regularly overtalk and interrupt her opponent when she senses her point is about to be invalidated.
Yep, noticed that, with more than a hint of frantic desperation
If you are married or have ever had a girlfriend then it’s all to familiar.
I mean to be fair Yanis interrupted heaps as well.
@@omniamericana2172 pretty hilarious .. two marks!!!
@@omniamericana2172 Stupid sexist comment.
Its frustrating when you talk about possible solutions like worker coops and its always shot down by people who point and say "Look, there aren't many, they must not work! Look, they must all work out and be really good otherwise its not an alternative!" How many normal businesses fail? I'm from Australia and a simple google search reveals that it could be around 90% of businesses fail. That is a complete failure by every metric if you look at it objectively. If seatbelts failed 90% of the time, you would design a new safety measure for car crashes, why is it so different for an economic system? Clearly a double standard
Most of those businesses fail within 12months. It's hard to run a business, and people who are better at it get often vilified by those who have never tried. In life there are always winners and losers.
if worker coops outperformed normal companies why would there be any normal companies?
@@skeptic3045 Worker coops are not profit-oriented in the same way as normal companies. The latter is so driven by profit to survive, above humanitarian reasons, that the entire economic, political systems have to bow to hypercapitalism.
@@hman2912 Most businesses fail in 12 months period
@Ronald Reagan baseless and a strawman argument
Yannis main point is so easy to understand but so difficult to put in practice: democracy = people in the streets.
His book "Adults in the room" is one of the best memoirs I've ever read. During his ministry he was basically told by EU: "You're right, but it's more relevant to belong to the current system rather than changing it".
He's desperately trying to say: we can't rely only on politicians to change the rules. We also need to manifest weekly.
As German Manufacturing shuts down for lack of Gas, the evidence that the Feudal system that Capitalism has become, appears to be as accurate as the film Jabberwoky portrayed?
The former Monty Python Folks who put together that lovely film about how Poor you can actually make the majority of the population commit to, seems to describe contemporary conditions?
As the struggle to promote Capitalism in Ukraine, along with delivering Rinat Akmetov a few Billion Bucks inside a IMF "Loan", we may envision the struggle to survive that Capitalism presents as Knights are driven to Joust on the battlefield once again? Like Tennysons description of the bravery of the half million who died in Crimea to justify Britania's Rule of the Waves, we see some representation of Capitalism vs Communalism, displayed before our very eyes?
Like any interspecies event, we marvel ate the potential outcome?
People in the streets isn't democracy. That's anarchy.
As for his "memoir", that's his own interpretation. His position was "treat Greece preferably at the expense of all other 26 EU countries, or we threaten you with leaving the euro and causing massive damage". That's because he came to power by promising the Greek people the impossible: ending austerity AND remaining in the euro. Free money basically. Like, having your cake and eating, wrapped in fancy socialist packaging.
The cheap excuse for his bargaining failures for a position that didn't have a single hope in the universe was that "Eurogroup meetings were very long and tiring and you can't remember everything being said". A "top class academic" and "elected minister of finance" struggling to follow eurogroup meetings and finds them long and hard work.
His book should be renamed into "child in a room of adults".
@@comet315 We appreciate your analysis of Yannis, you seem like a superior Human?
The Poor and weak who are not represented by derivatives or Political Prostitutes seem to have no voice and should enjoy their poverty. We do understand your point Sir.
But when Governments fail to serve the needs of the majority of citizens, the Streets seem the only Avenue to convey their sentiments?
When the CIA replaced Khan in Pakistan, People seemed to ask for reasons?
When The Dulles Bros installed their Shah, people took to the streets again.
Should the expansion of Empires not be met by the Citizens in the Streets?
What is Democracy anyway?
@@danielhutchinson6604
Thank you for your appreciation. I tend to respond to low witted sarcasm with sarcasm so here goes:
1) you need to learn to use a question mark as you seem to use it both for questions and statements.
2) Yanis is spelling his name with one N, it's kind of a trademark that sets him apart from the rest.
3) democracy is when people have the right to vote. The poor and weak have exactly the same right to vote like everyone else. Every vote carries an equal weight and power.
Change in a democratic regime can only happen through the democratic process itself, not by overthrowing democracy itself. If the majority needs aren't met, the majority has the power to vote someone who will meet their needs. This fundamentally requires a critically thinking electorate, not sheeple who believe any cuckoo land fantasy that the Yanises of this world are serving them.
@@comet315 Your perception of reality seems to be skewed by more propaganda and Dog Drool than My Sticky Keyboard.
But what do you expect for $10?
Democracy as practiced in the US consists of Wealthy Contributors donating funds to the two political parties that serve their needs. The selection of names to present to people is purchased by the contributors by donating to the funds that support the Party Functions over the years. The Process of selecting the proper Servant of the Wealthy Contributors begins as they select one of their Good and Faithful Servants, who has demonstrated a record of support for Profit Providing.
I recall the former DNC Chairman stating under Oath that it is a business.
The Mercer/Bannon organization have the tools to elect the proper person, if you have enough money to hire them.
The Election Business appeared to use a declared budget of $14 billion in 2020, they may appear to have to reduce the spending this year due to Inflation, But Mercer seems to have now included Europe in his operating area. We are sure his Owl's Nest will be properly feathered as he exploits voter emotions around the Planet.
Shall we discuss the sacks of cash that flows through the Party affairs since 1948, when George and Herman Brown were delivering money to Austin Texas for a Senator to Buy a Seat?
Or shall we discuss a former CIA Guy being installed on the Board of directors of a Firm that distributes Software to use as Digital insurance that Voting Machines are secure?
Yes you outclass me by miles Bozo, I bow to your superior intellect!!!!!!!
My ability to stack Bales is probably superior to your assessment of the status of the illusion of Democracy as we know it?
Maybe it is my lack of understanding but the intellectual level of the discussion seems to be quite low. Varoufakis seems to be the only one who has given serious thought to the issues and incorporated recent datapoints. Tett keeps referring to works written centuries ago and then trivializing the discussion by asking low level questions regarding competition, prices etc. Moreover, her understanding of these concepts seem quite shallow. The moderator as well seems to be a non-serious person, and is more interested in what I call gossip arguments such as linking Stalin, Corbyn rather than putting context around institutions and systems to ask intelligent questions. We as a species face serious problems and they deserve a much more serious engagement than the one provided here. Finally, the concept of a debate itself is mostly non-serious as a debate is not designed to arrive at the truth.
you know i read your comment before watching, and.... i see what you mean, but its far not so bad. maybe moderator is not a scientist-economist herself, and some things she said may occur provocative - yet it didnt stumble yanis, to me it seems it only helped to get quickly over some misconceptions and hang-ups some audiences may have had about his general positions adn actually helped the momentum of the discussion. sure, maybe gillian perspective and analysis mode is not is some sense as elaborate and as attune to pinpoint-relevance of economic thought, yet her own scientific-specification brought maybe not the talk you wanted but an interesting and sometimes unexpected one. overall -- a great and hope-instilling conversation as i heard and saw it.
@@Stret173 A cursory examination of your florid attempts at prose reveal that you and she are quite likely cut from the same cloth. Good Christ, sometimes you should just spit things out without trying to sound like the most clever person in the room. Have a nice day.
@@robert9ish well sorry if my writing occurs a bit convoluted - english is not my native tongue, and maybe, indeed, i get carried away in pleasures of using it. special for you the most simplistic and straight to the point version of what i wrote above is : "yeah, i get why yoг thought that but i thing you are overacting, i wont go into detail why, tho, not to sound contrarian" Have a nice day you too и всего хорошего!
@Sweet DRIFTER cooome ooon, im myself a socialist and on "yanis side, but 1 - shes an highly educated anthropologist and 2 - why you have to be so brash? it was a good talk, really, and sure it might seem bitterly lacking that just after yanis proposes his way to make no distinction between profits and wages everybody didnt jump up in ecstasy and went to tall the world how it will be reformed for the better (i was disappointed too) but such is the sperading ideas - slow and methodical, i hope youll find patience and resilience, cos we and the world needs them as much as radical change!
@Sweet DRIFTER yeh, i understand what you mean and what you feel(
As soon as I heard Gillian I realized she would fly the cold war flag of the boomer against democracy. Or: "OMG can you imagine people organizing their own affairs? Because I tried it in my head and it didn't work." She really has no idea that it is only politeness that is keeping her in the conversation.
Sounds like a monarchist justifying the status quo
People have been saying this about democracy for a long time
Gillian seems much more knowledgeable than you.
@@wescolumbus621 Not finished with the video yet, but she sounds like she is regurgitating rote memorization. She doesn't sound like she understands what she is talking about.
A friend of mine works in a cooperative where management is flat and even with under 10 people running a small business and taking every decision by vote she is frustrated at how slow things are run.
Top down executive power is fantastic for making quick decisions. Nobody is saying its the only way but when time is a factor taken into account when running a business I'm not surprised that the cooperative model hasn't upended the status quo of how things are currently run.
Ya Gilian didn’t look very good - based on what she says and showing her thinking.
Gillian: Why don't we just get better regulator
Yanis: Because they always get captured
Gillian: But why don't we just do it anyway...
Yanis:.....
She comes across as a Karen "what about women of 25? haha! We anthropologists, we anthropologists, as an anthropologist, I am an anthropologist"...
Yanis is brilliant with his honesty at the dark side within.
She on the other hand is just pedestrian, she hasn't reached out to try to understand him at all, he understands her. Because she's very ordinary and doesn't present any original ideas at all.
Checks and balances are not enough, you need motivation and funds. Yet there has never been such a crisis in funding in taxation, and on publicly needed spending.
Climate change is an existential crisis, and barely rates a mention. The Monsanto example only.
Oversimplified discussion. Yanis is so goodnatured.
I would have been far more frustrated and probably more openly contemptuous of Tett's puerile barbs and almost deliberate misinterpretation of Yanis's arguments. To me she presents as rather frivolous, gratuitously sarcastic and, compared to Yanis, an intellectual lightweight.
@@Lyra0966 She doesn't even try to debate him at all. She just presents her ideas about fixing capitalism and debates some shadow figure socialist
the very phrase "conscious capitalism" is just a hilarious contradiction in itself and I agree with Yanis, it sounds extremely more utopian than any socialist alternative
Unless you consider Scandanavian countries socialist, I don't think it's a contradiction at all.
Yes, it's a shame no one has ever tried to realise a socialist utopia :D
@@synchronium24 "Unless you consider Scandanavian countries socialist, I don't think it's a contradiction at all."
Unless you consider daily expropriation of surplus value from workers - happening in all capitalist economies, including the Scandianvian ones, by default - , destruction of climate by industrial output generated by profit-driven economy, rise of right-wing parties undermining the welfare model, etc to be sustainable, there definitely is more than a little contradiction there. Plus, the neoliberal model of late-stage capitalism has been steadily eroding the Nordic welfare model by itself - it's just a historical logic of private capital that constantly has to find ways to try and keep the falling rate of profit afloat.
@@ruairidhmcmillan2484 "it's a shame no one has ever tried to realise a socialist utopia :D"
You might want to ask eight million people of the 1936-1939 Revolutionary Catalonia about that, before coming to UA-cam with assumptions.
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict I am aware of Catalonia's socio-economics. Their political status is not quite a utopia. Belief to politique is what salt is to the ocean, as is conceit to humanity.
The poshos we have in this country are completely divorced from reality. Anne and Gillian being perfect examples here!
The comment the host made after Yanis' opening points it out from the get go! He refers to techo peasant as a terrible economic reality & she turns it into having trouble with a zoom meeting lol
Not only divorced from reality, but having insultingly authoritarian attitudes masquerading as intellectual objectivity (when they are as biased as the worst of ideologues and self-serving hacks).
@@KonstanzArrens Nice. You summed up several discussions i've watched recently on entirely different subjects from economics. It is a masquerade indeed.
their point is ... that when you have the money and the power and you know it then accusations of dfr are a bit academic
let them eat cake..?
I’m concerned about where the UK is headed. These sound bytes give us a small sense of it.
Yanis! I haven't heard many make the counter argument I always make when charged with being a utopian socialist: capitalism is the true utopian ideology and Yanis outlines it well in this conversation.
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." - Antonio Gramsci
The old are dying right now. Just look at the average age of Trump's voters. The clock is ticking. ;-)
Gillian truly believes that every single capitalist will have an idealized morality for finance and environment. This is her downfall. Even if there were checks and balances in legislation, capitalism always found a way to either work around it or remove it. Her argument is flawed.
Companies are always trying to find gray areas in laws to circumvent them. Look at min wage. When first implemented it applied to ALL jobs. Today people do not understand this and say well those are starter jobs. Companies can chose to pay more than min wage AND many do. The companies that do pay min wage are saying if that law did not exist we would pay less than this.
In CA, vacation time is considered part of your income. I think three other states have the same. My company though does PTO and to circumvent the CA law they put in our reviews how much of vacation time we have booked for the year. By CA law they can tell us when not to take vacation, IE it conflicts but they interpret this as they can tell us when to take it, like calling you saying and telling you to book 40 hours for this month. Some people pushed back on this so they stopped the threatening emails or calls. Instead they created this acronym which no one knows what it stands for not to mention CA does have something with the same acronym but is a completely different program. This is said to be for our health and wellness. By the 3rd quarter you are to have all of your time accrued for the year to be booked. Time you have not even accrued yet. We are allowed to carry over 300 some hours but they push us to have nothing carried over. You wan to get a pay raise, right? Well a low mark on this prevents you.
The actual reason is for layoffs. When they acquired the account many of us accrued a month of vacation per year and some of us had 200 hours banked. I still took 3 weeks vacation per year. The reason why many of us banked these hours is due to their shitty severance package.
We can go even beyond that, companies and financial institutions can strong-arm national governments into circumventing the checks and balances by wagering their dominant positions in the markets. It's the "too big to fail" phenomenon.
Of course not, but those are the ones who get ahead with debt-based currencies such as fiat because it tends to favor frauds, especially the closer they are to the spigot of fake money people are fooled into trading their labor for. Get rid of "legal tender" and debt currency backed by military force.
@@cypherpunk7675 Precious Metal backed currency is not some magic bullet. It does not stop fraud nor banks giving out excessive loans. 1872 Great Depression, Wall Street over speculation in both domestic rail and European housing market. We had another Great Depression in then 1890s. The Gilded Age is aka the Long Depression because there was no real recovery between both depressions for the most of us.
We were on the gold and silver standard. We had sweeping highs and sweeping lows. Majority of us lived in poverty.
When people start hording which happens then growth slows to a crawl or complete stop then what? Those of us on the lower rungs still get fucked.
Money is power, Groups outside of the government must be prevented from amassing more Money - Power than the government.
56:55 _"The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_ - the late great David Graeber
Another world is possible ...
Graeber's wrong. There are certain underlying rules and principles that we can't defy. Which is not to say that capitalism (at least in its current state) is the only way forward.
Not really. We can´t define this principles without theorizing that similarities that we have empirical measured might just be a product of endless social reproduction under comparable structural circumstances. @@TheDionysianFields
The last question and the answer given by Varoufakis pretty much sums up the entire debate. We've moved on from the "utopic" idea of fixing a system of production that has morphed into the next level of superstructure managed by amoral, ill-defined and technocratic force that is out of its owner's control.
@Ronald Reagan Not entirely sure what your argument is or what it has to do with this conversation. I'm interested to learn a few things from your comment as well. Which capitalist system are you referring to and in which region? Are you speaking about gross annual private revenue big corps vs small mom and pop businesses being 50/50? Where is this data?
Also, socialist economic planning isn't big on this type of metric. China for example has mastered the "art" of capitalism and has harnessed to increase its overall amassing of capital. Where that money goes is where the socialist planning of government goes to. Wether pulling 800 million people out of poverty, modernizing infrastructure, motorways and high speed trains, or providing housing, healthcare etc for their citizens.
Capitalism and socialism aren't antonymous. They encompass very different aspects of economics and social/infrastructure planning.
@Ronald Reagan Alrighty then! Let's just leave it at that.
Yanis is trying to discuss a serious global issue and Jillian is trying to protect her ego. Edit: Get a new host, not a socialite. Otherwise, absolutely love this channel
“Who’s going to fix capitalism?”
“The next generation of course” LMFAO 😂 pretty much sums it up for capitalism - just kick the can down the road
From the support system that enables Fiat Dollars, to the Bonds sold to finance the excess of our lifestyles, and the Governments ability to fund the Worlds biggest Military Program, the progeny we claim we are providing for, bear the burden of paying the bill for our fun.....
Assumpt law/justice is supreme in the capitalism countries? I will take it with a grain of salt for a society of PEOPLE!
I would care who make the laws, who interpret the laws, and who enforce the laws!
Human society is by and for the humanity of people, and more importantly, is RUNNING BY PEOPLE, fewer people though.
lawyer, law makers and thus laws are slaves of money, aka capitals, in a capitalism society, and that's what capitalism all about.
BUT, Justice can only be served by the spirit of GOD, Saint or Elites with highest morality, not by a senseless book of jargon text or the control of the financial.
@@SuperSoliton Nice Rant....I like the part about less people.....
Bob Dylan wrote a song about the fear to bring Children into this world......
@@SuperSoliton I'd say we need less religion and more education.
I mean, it's the super Christians who are so quick to sign up for Nationalism. Christians are by majority conservatives.
Time for us to get rid of ancient ideas of ghosts.
Yep. I hear apple is making more environmentally smart phones. More phones are the answer. That is a profit based rationale.
dear lord, between gillian and anne both interrupting and shout absurd statements...how was this a debate? Their intellect seems to be on the same level as a freshman business student. Meanwhile yanis is the tenured professor that has been forced to listen to dunning-kruger engulfed students and repeating himself hoping they will start listening eventually.
nicely put
" On a level plain, simple mounds look like hills and the insipid flatness of our present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects"
This is still infinitely better than any public debate between anybody here in the US lol/notlol
They both "want to believe".
My thought exactly.
No, it CANNOT be fixed. It isn’t broken. It works EXACTLY as it’s supposed to.
@Ronald Reagan Mobility? Stuck in a job which if you leave it the only alternative is to get another, similar job. There is just as much "mobility" (or lack of it) with Socialism.
@Ronald Reagan Capitalism abhors competition, that's why large companies buy up smaller ones to become monopolies and therefore remove any competition to themselves. This is far worse in countries that have embraced Capitalism fully such as the USA. Farmers can only buy their seeds from Monsanto - where's the competition there? Walmart squeezes out smaller retailers - where's the competition there? Rockefeller did the same with oil. Capitalists want no freedom for their customers or their workers: "work on our terms, buy only our products on our terms" You are fooling yourself if you think it's any different.
As for low paying jobs because of low skills, well, not everyone can afford to go to an Ivy League College. If you live in the USA you will know exactly what I mean, the USA has the most expensive Tertiary education in the world (so I've been told) and even then good qualifications do not guarantee a high paying job (unless your Daddy is in a senior position in a large corporation).
Capitalism is a useful system but it has gotten out of control and needs reigning in.
@Ronald Reagan Yes and you perfectly embody the "misinformed", "saturated with ignorance", "dumbshit", "clueless" Republican. None of what you say is factually correct.
But that's OK, people like you are essential in society.
As for me I prefer not to work 40 hours minimum per week.
And I also agree with the Original Poster that Capitalism is working just as it's supposed to.
If you want to turn people in to Atheists make religious study compulsory.
If you want to turn people in to Socialists have them live in a Capitalist society.
If you want to turn people in to Capitalists have them live in a Socialist society.
Me? I prefer a mix of the two.
Oh and thanks for getting my blood pumping.
@Ronald Reagan Capitalism is at our own expense. We are all losing, we the workers. Climate Change cannot be prevented or fixed with Capitalism. How do you think we got here, with Capitalism of course. Also your skills could be higher if higher level education wasn't expensive and was accessible to everyone like it was in the Soviet Union. Privatising education and healthcare are the worst things that any government can do. Cuba is still considered Socialist to this day and it has I believe one of the highest number of doctors per thousand people. While the US lags behind where many Americans can't even afford an emergency $500 expense. This is capitalism and at this point it is not helping anyone except the ultra wealthy like Jeff Bezos. Cuba also has been heavily sanctioned by the US for decades, so no wonder that it's economy might struggle sometimes.
@Ronald Reagan Capitalism doesn't create equal opportunities for all because it is a rigged system that mostly benefits the rich and wealthy (aka those who own the means of production, the factories, banks and massive corporations). This is the reason why there is always unemployment in the US, why homelessness still exists (approximately 500,000 if not more), why food banks needs to exist to feed poor Americans, why there is an opioid epidemic in the US today, why most Americans can't even afford an emergency $500 expense like an ambulance ride which are free in all socialist countries, and why education is too expensive for most Americans and as a result most American students have to go into student debt just to earn a degree. The same can be said about healthcare where insulin is priced so high that many diabetes patients have to consider either paying for their medication or paying for food on the table.
Overall Capitalism is an unjust system that is no longer progressive. It used to be progressive around the time of the French Revolution but that was over 200 years ago and society now must move forward towards Socialism to achieve a higher phase of development such that these injustices don't happen and that the economy can be centrally planned by computers such that everyone's needs are always met. Only socialism can achieve and Capitalism has outlived it's usefulness. As communists and Socialists we understand this very well and wish for the working class to unite and overthrow these Capitalist pigs who only steal wealth from all nations and the people's of this world. No one deserves to be a billionaire in this world. We should all own the means of production together as a society as a whole.
Gillian Tett: "But you know Candide it's the best of all possible worlds''.
Gillian seems to have so much faith in companies allowing themselves to get regulated and made less competitive.
Exactly. What are lobbyists.
That's so funny! The incongruity of the two features for companies.
That’s better than having faith in a tyrannically socialist government
This lady's whole career rests on being the voice of big banks.
banks will always pay for Capitalism cheerleaders
She's hardcore advocating for regulations, you think any big bank would be for that?
@@Illlium anything in order to curb the revolution
@@nivozen the revolution is essential. The systems today are far too evil to let it continue existing.
The bigger question is how do we get women to not aspire to be dicks
'Techno Peasant' .... nice! I like the way Yanis 'thin slices the idea of 'capitalism'. We use that word, far, far too broadly. Thank you, nice viewing. I learned.
Thanks John! It was a fun event. And our first in London after Covid lockdowns in 2021
My respect to Varoufakis for dealing so well with these 2 incredibly ignorant human beings.
I agree with you on Tett here, but Anne did a great job in chairing the discussion, directing the debate and the questions etc. imo
I thought Tett had some good points. Particularly about data transfer and bartering 39:00
@Ronald Reagan Why?
@Ronald Reagan Which ideas are you talking about?
study a little and access the situation in the West, you might discover you're not so smart either
What I love about Yanis, that which places him head and shoulders above his academic economist peers, is his charming ability to be humbly honest about Leftist ideology. What sets him apart is his wide knowledge on the history of economic thinking. Listening to him is like enjoying a lovely Greek meal - on the surface it may seem a bit plain but always full of wonderful tasty surprises. Well said Yanis.
Well said Mike Van Wyk.
Anyone that describes themselves as "leftist" or "conservative"... part of cult.
Yanis fucked his own GREEK PEOPLE IN THE BACK. He is a FRAUD -- owned by the banking class.
@@19battlehill He's a fraud but not for the reasons you are arguing. He's a far left extremist that lives in Marxist fantasyland (and I say this as an independent centrist). Much like cold war communists he confuses hie theories of economics and ethics with the reality how the world works.
@@19battlehill Can you help me understand what he did ?
Quite simply, Capitalism is the Mechanism by which Wealth accumulates more Wealth by virtue of the fact that it controls Wealth. The goal of Capitalism is Monopoly, not free markets. As such, as a process, it is Inherently Unstable.
Exactly. No one on main street gets the same vehicles, let alone rules as wall street. How is that open?
Very well summarised. And what should a clever society do once a Monopoly becomes very large? It should expropriate it.
Yep, that's why the East India Company now controls the Universe.
@@zootsoot2006 Platforms are the great-grandchildren
Agreed
Tett,went to independant school at early age and then went to Cambridge university to read Anthropoliog to the level of PHD.she then become a financial journalist and later on she become financial editor.
What really shocked and astounded more than any thing how class devision works in Britain very strongly. what made difrence is somebody background,not qulification,skills.,or subject knowrldge.
Wow! Just stopping during first ad-break to applaud Yanis Varoufakis's opening speech. First time I wanted to comment on a video before reaching the end. Thanks to Yanis, Intelligence Squared and our technofeudal overlord UA-cam for bringing these ideas to me.
Just got to the second ad-break which is after Gillian Tett's preamble. Talking about Adam Smith shouldn't really be relevant, because as Varoufakis says, the Wealth of Nations is written at the very start of capitalism and doesn't define capitalism. Adam Smith was actually against joint stock companies except in very specific situations, so I'd suggest he'd be against stock markets for example. But Varoufakis gets the dates wrong, the version of Wealth of Nations I read was the third edition from the early 1780s, Smith wasn't writing it in the 1790s.
Hey Ronald, thanks for reminding me about this video. I just rewatched Varoufakis's opening speech and thinking back I was just excited to hear a new idea, namely that capitalism is ending and being replaced just as feudalism was replaced by capitalism a few hundred years ago. Whether or not he's correct I don't know.
Having poor old Gilian Tett 'debate' Varoufakis is like having some rando turn up to a fencing match with a world class fencer holding a baguette. I rest my case. . .
So, the "you need checks and balances" answer to half the questions wasn't good enough for you huh? 😯
@@SkateSka "checks and balances" with the gold medal, and "competition" with the silver one.😁
Why are you resting your case when you didn't even present it? You just used a metaphor.
@@fdr3898 Your comment made me laugh - I was questioning the same thing.
Dávid Roland Farkas - Shoulda said, “‘nuff said...”.
Yanis is so smart. Its a shame this was framed as a 'DEBATE' because she was defensive and clearly out her depth but a good faith conversation could have been interacting. It was antagonistic and that sucked
I have a different view. Yanis is like grandfather who talks a lot, but says very little of substance. If you listed carefully and between the lines, he mainly offers padding.
@@arielle_australia you didn't listen close enough then.
@@pygmalion8952 I did. Macroeconomic drivel at its finest.
@@arielle_australia ua-cam.com/video/rLPEL9XuSfw/v-deo.html
@@arielle_australia I agree, they were both defensive but a lot of Yanis ideas seemed pretty unrealistic
A very wise man once said: "As long as the element of money exists we can't solve our problems no matter what kind of system we use!"
Wanna go back to barter economy?
@@saamohod No, I would rather like to use our advanced technology to gradually create a system based on intelligent sharing and availability of resources and not just generating profit! We have both the technology and the know-how to create abundance on the whole planet if we want to! When you think about it it is possible to eliminate money by automating as many task as possible! It's a process, but it's both feasible and doable!
@@kayvanfareghi3845 That would create an abundance of lazy people in the first place.
@@saamohod Not at all. You are thinking inside the framework of the current system. RBE is a process which can not happen overnight. It's a process, which also works on education healthcare etc. Last generations used to work much harder than we do today and probably more than 70, 80 hours or more pr week! Are we lazier?
@@saamohod we have a abundance of lazy people right now. because of capitalism. if you dont get enough money for your work and time, you just dont want to give your everything
Such a shame that Yanis did not debate an intellectual equal. Her sarcastic display of his book which he referred to because she clearly had not read it. Her sound bite’ I’m just trying to niggle you “ was a shame. He has manners and class and experience of running a failed economy. His sincerity is clear. Her irritating style is just that and nothing else. It was worth listening to watch how an intellectual deals with someone trying to be one ☝️
I think both the presenter and debate adversary of Janis are not only rude to Janis and the audience but also dumb and unprepared intellectually for such a debate. Their attitude is so obvious hostile to him, part of it being caused by their inability to counter him.
yes she was not the right booking
but she will have a good life
I don't know, I think her slight ribbing of him was good-natured; I didn't really feel any hostility. In fact, they both seem to like each other well enough. Just have disagreements. It's actually nice to see for a change.
@@AndreasLovely I partially agree with you :) You said you don't know, and it seems to be true. You said that you "think" but your thinking is biased. The rudeness is so obvious that it transcends the disagreements you usually find in a debate. So sad that a young man not being able to understand rudeness even after seeing it with his own eyes (given that you watched the full clip).
@@tuduraco I'm a Greek citizen who just voted for Mr Varoufakis in the parliamentary elections and I have supported him since 2015. So if my thinking *is* biased, it is probably not biased in the way you imagine.
I think some of Ms Tett's interjections were a bit tacky at worst and though she is clearly losing the debate, and though there is an air of desperation in some of her arguments (and a palpable discomfort as she herself becomes aware she is losing), my point was that I didn't feel any genuine ill will from her towards Mr Varoufakis. The banter between them is humorous and friendly for the most part. They both appear to find the conversation stimulating, or at least in good fun.
I could *maybe* see how her playfulness might be seen as slightly inappropriate at times, but I think it's well-intentioned and well-received by Varoufakis in any case; it does not contain the malignancy, the foul stench of genuine disdain or disregard, and therefore in my opinion does not meet the criteria for true rudeness.
If you want to see real rudeness and arguments in bad faith, you should see some of the behavior Mr Varoufakis has been subjected to by "journalists" in *our* country. This may give you some perspective.
Finally, if you're worried about my ability as a "young man" to detect rudeness, then please rest easy. I could immediately detect the condescending and rude nature of your comment for example. Which I find strange, considering your evidently very strict definition of what constitutes bad manner, and your apparent sensitivity/aversion to it.
Also the phrases "I don't know" and "I think," which you so cheekily latched on to, are simply figures of speech I use colloquially to reflect my own doubt or lack of absolute certainty in any matter. It may be prudent to always retain some degree of uncertainty lest we become so convicted we begin to antagonize those who were never our opponents to begin with.
Now I must be on my way. I bid you farewell.
One problem I see in Gillian's perspective is that she seems to work from a model that sees state and market as fully separate entities (that's, by the way, one of the critical problems of a lot of economic liberalism). The state cannot be understood in its concrete function as an "independent" actor. It's always imbedded in society and its power relations. In a capitalist society, capitalists hold extraordinary power, and this gets translated (albeit partially and indirectly) into political power. That's why radical regulation will not work, and as Yanis says, regulators will be captured. This separation is artificial (and often ideological).
And he tried to explain this problem to her, but She acted Like It was irrelevant. I think Gillian Is either discussing from a purely theoretical point of view, or She Is being One sided and pretending to be dumber than She Is.
well said
Government is probably too large
Capitalists have only the power of capital. The more limited and non-interfering the government in the market, the harder it is for capitalists to capture political power. Hence Milton Friedman advovated that there needs to be a constitutional amendment decreeing government's limited role in regulating market. This would drastically reduce corruption and monopoly tendency of government backed capitalists
@@aalokghimire2683 he's one of the chief architects of the economic and environmental disasters we currently face
Very sad that people can't seem to imagine a different world because this one is doomed.
@make a wish 😀
That helps us How?
Cooperation not competition.
Look at science, math, and other cooperative languages. Politics is the only language that requires chaos and competition.
You said it
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems Capitalism seems to have made politics simply another part of its social organization....
According to Wikipedia the seven deadly sins are: pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. It shouldn't be overlooked that the majority directly relate to the present debate. It can't be overlooked that morality has no place in the current 'economic' debate.
Great discussion that could have been amazing with better moderation.
Bit harsh. She was a bit annoying with her quips but she knew the content, which is better than most panels fringe leftists are seen on
You’d need an incredible amount of optimism, or gullibility to believe capitalism can be fixed.
"ou’d need an incredible amount of optimism, or gullibility to believe capitalism can be fixed." Capitalism is responsible for the greatest creation of wealth and progress the humanity has ever seen. it is not perfect, sure things can be fixed.
if it aint broke..
it is what it is..
the universe thinks its jus dandy
"Fixing" Capitalism is irrelevant because what we have now isn't actually capitalism a and anyone with half a brain and an understanding of what capitalism actually is understands this reality. That's why I don't understand either of these, neither of them is actually describing a system that is capitalism. What we are currently dealing with is called corruption. Look 60 years ago who the major players were in the market.. Then look 60 years before that. You will notice something very interesting, there there are very few true hold over companies that have lasted that long. The reason for that is that capitalism burns its own Deadwood over time because big companies cannot adapt properly. Capitalism is the greatest avenue for small businesses and individuals to produce their own wealth with new ideas and restructure the corporate landscape to keep it fresh and fair. What we have right now is a corrupt government influence in a system that works fine without it. Any regulation beyond basic protection of human rights is unnecessary, unwarranted and goes completely against a fair free market system. That's why wages are stagnating that's why we aren't producing as much wealth as we were and that's why the income gap is expanding. Corporations have no ability to force you to do anything unless they have the government as a club. Capitalism isn't the problem government intervention is. It is specifically why when you look at the corporate landscape right now it is incredibly difficult to see any of the major institutions that exist ever collapsing because they have been propped up by a corrupt government run by 2 parties who care only about enriching themselves. So is there hope for capitalism, Absolutely if we allow ourselves to actually get back to it. Otherwise the corporate players will continue to expand their power and the federal government will continue to expand its power and it's power and everyone will complain about a system that isn't working because we have government actors preventing it from actually working. These people don't want to actually fix your problems if they did you wouldn't need them anymore they wouldn'they want you weak and dependent remember that.
The chair is pathetic - absolutely incompetent! She repeatedly interrupts, belittles and kills good discussions esp by Yanis.
She’s a Tory Stooge that’s why!
That's what self-complacency looks like.
She is a complete embarrassment and painfully unaware of how unfunny she is.
annoying useless and just mean that chair horrible disgusting
The Chair allows Yanis to hog all the talking. He clearly out-talks Gillian, he's a typical politician. Politicians hog the microphone.
He is so ahead of his time and of the argument. . An extraordinary mind.
As Gillian I as well am for everything good and against everything bad...
This was our first in-person event since the introduction of Covid-19 restrictions in early 2020! Great to be back and please like and subscribe if you want to see more videos like this. Iq2
You should get better moderators then
@@macadona80 Indeed, they have a tendency to pick back-up advocates for their corporatist assumptions as hosts rather than moderators.
what an idiot moderator
wish it were longer. felt so rushed. moderator shouldnt have to cut them off. thanks
For 6 years I have been trying to tell friends on the left that they really need to utilize thinkers like Yanis to be their mascot and help them to introduce the subjects. He did not go into it as much as he could due to the format but he does such a great job of educating people about the enclosures and the creation of proletarian labor markets etc… this is very eye opening for those on the fence and don’t realize that capitalism is not defined as stores and markets but as a system reliant upon desperate labor marketplace for those with money and property to exploit by skimming value off of those who create it by making money with money for the purpose of making more money instead of the romanticized and facile story of the business people who work hard to fulfill human needs to reap a justified profit. The parts of our world that pro capitalists are defending are not exclusively capitalist features and if they address the issues of capitalist exploitation it will be euphemistic depictions with little understanding of what alternative there could be.
How about you study, get a good work, save up money and THEN start your business and operate it they way you want? You can do it under capitalism.
@@golDroger88 hmm… this is why people need this kind of background knowledge about what makes capitalism capitalism. Capitalism is when workers don’t own their workplace and instead a capitalist or shareholders own what they make and only hires them per hour to make their property and profits for the owners. You seem to be assuming that capitalism is some kind of government system? What you are saying reminds me of abolitionist movement during slavery… the country is full of slaves and I say let’s end slavery and then you come in and say “well, why don’t you not own slaves! no one is forcing you to own slaves you are free to do whatever you like”. Capitalism only exists if their are wage slaves who rent themselves to the owners of the world around them. In capitalism you can choose your master and you have the opportunity to become the slaver but if everyone did that then their would be no capitalism … you can’t have a capitalism with all bosses and no workers. You can’t have a housing market where everyone is a landlord. Landlords need tenants to pay their mortgage and bosses need employees to run their business for them.
@@StardustMonkey Why should workers own their workplace? They own their workforce and sell it to the higher bidder.
I am saying that if you think capitalism is wrong you can already choose to be subjected to another economic system if you so want under our current system. But you don't want that, you want to force your dystopia onto me and everyone else, probably imagining yourself at the top or in a position of power. It always ends up like that, so much for "justice".
Capitalism is not perfect but it's the most meritocratic system, this is a fact. Forget perfection, it doesn't exist.
@@golDroger88 why would workers not own their workplace? It makes more sense that the people who run a business should be the owners. And it only makes sense that if you can’t do it alone you would have a mutually respectful partnership with the people that help you make it a success. It’s kind of a sick and twisted logic that the other way around is considered normal instead of crazy… and how is owning a share of your workplace dystopian? No one is proposing a military dictatorship if that is what you are thinking about? A constitutional Democratic republic is fine just don’t allow capitalism in the corporate law so that instead of a minimum wage required to operate a business you require a minimum ownership position and restrict non workers from owning other businesses they don’t work in.
@@StardustMonkey Workers don't run a business. There's no "respectful partnership", there's contracts (hell even marriage is a contract) and not every employee will have the knowledge to manage a business, the democratic process does not work in this context, you need leaders with a specific education that in lieu of that will be paid more than the workers who only have their workforce to offer. This sounds pretty rightful and normal to me. Workers owning something they have not paid for and can't manage sounds crazy.
Man it's just great seeing how can someone maintain calm even when presenting with ridiculous arguments like "human nature" or thinking the current system can't be changed, and talk why those arguments are nonsense.
Yanis is so, so powerful psychologically, emotionally, logically and in his argument. The two well-fed "entitled" ladies were utterly abhorrent in their disdain for the have-nots.
Yanis: corporates and govt are in bed with each other
Gillian: capitalism will work we just need regulation
Nobody: anybody witnessing this?
Regulation is antithetical to capitalism and capitalism will always work to undermine regulation bc of capitalism's prime directive Always be finding way to increase profitability. The reason Corporations may not poison the water is bc the cost of poisoning the water out ways [weighs] the cost otherwise. So, capitalism finds ways to reduce the cost of not doing so and then you get poison water
Laughably delusional! MPs now moonlight as actual lobbyists! The US builds multi billion dollar corporations that bribe our representatives! The US just passed a general infrastructure maintenance bill after allowing said infrastructure to Rot and Collapse! They call it a once in a life time bill! The money is the equivalent of the annual military budget! That is never questioned! The once in a lifetime bill? Yeah, Dental, Hearing and Vision for the elderly was killed! Too expensive! Im sure the $500m the HC insurance bribed them with had no effect!
It appears that nothing ever goes to plan, capitalism or otherwise. How could it? A plan is simply a human (1 or more) model of reality, not reality itself. I reckon staying pragmatic, find ways to hold people to account for the shitty things they do. Free market capitalism is just anarchy with police protecting property rights (asymmetric much? +been there before landlord only voting etc) and the lefts traditional leaning on govt to protect themselves lends itself to biased centralisation. The issue is both and the solution neither. Much to be said about where to move from where we are but how to move? Incrementally and by testing hypothesis' along the way and with bipartisan agreement not to undo valid data gathering/legislative experimentation by oppositions. At the very least
@51:05 "I don't think we can trust government alone to turn us green."
@51:37 "Today we have a world where no one actually trusts the government to get stuff done."
But then she expects the government to be able to regulate the companies? I think the lady is pretty delusional. I feel like I must be living in a different world than she is.
It seems the simplest response to this whole debate is that we have been trying to corral capitalism for a long time and it's never ultimately worked. Capitalism crashed in 1929 and we tried to fix it with the New Deal here in the U.S. But after the War the capitalist ruling class set out to dismantle all that over time. And that led us to the next crash of 2008. We've already seen how capitalism cannot be fixed. And now after all this time it's worse than ever.
In the U.S. we've just lived through four years of Trump _doing_ _away_ _with_ _regulations_ . We've seen how capitalism leads us in the wrong direction away from regulations.
The problem with a free market is that everything is for sale, including politicians. And that is what has happened in the U.S. We have only two major parties and they are now both corrupted by corporations and their lobbyists. And these are the people that choose the Supreme Court justices (they are not elected). The Supreme Court has ruled that it's just fine for corporations to give as much money to the politicians as they want. Does anyone see a problem? Where are the checks and balances going to come from lady?
What's the point of having an economic system with so many faults and contradictions and then to keep saying that we just need to manage the faults? Why not build a better system that doesn't have those faults in the first place?
@@nowthenzen The supply of water is challenged by Global Warming and the Climate Migration that it produces.
The population of semi arid areas that are the Headwaters of several watersheds are being tested as the climate warms.....
Water is about to become the equal of oil as the poisoning of water supplies continues in many areas due to Fracking Water disposal.
Industrial Farming has drained our water tables in many areas.
We seem to need to return to a more agricultural lifestyle, to insure some balance to our lives. We need quality food grown by people near enough to consumers, for all to inspect the work that produces our food.....
How are we supposed to implement and maintain checks and balances when the money is arrayed against us?
Why is "The Money" effective? Because it bribes those in power to exert it. What power? Government power. Which is why "free" countries were so when their governments were limited in power.
It's not a question of how, it's a question of must. Because the alternative will doubtlessly lead to unceasing political turmoil and instability. Vote for politicians who are actually committed to competition and anti-trust. Lucky for you, there is significant political will to take techno-monopolies and financial monopolies to task, and maybe even to legislated breakups.
@@GTJIGPC Globalisation destroyed the nation state democracy. Democracy is a sham.
It's rule by international finance and the forces of open borders Globalisation. The oligarchs own the media, the social media and fund the culture and political parties.
@@evolassunglasses4673 And the crux of that viewpoint is it is so broad in its implications that it results in a preponderance of divergent solutions. One could propose anything from the embrace of anarchic socialism with great internationalist political allowances to the creation of authoritarian paternalistic ethnonationalist states fundamentally committed to autarky. Democracy allows us to steer the ship when we support non-establishment parties and organizations.
@@Pangora2 In a monetary economy if you limit the governmnet in certain capacities there is no economy. It's nice to imagine that the economy is some alreasy-existing 'thing' the governmnet 'intervenes' into, but that view is fundamentally wrong and based in ignorance.
Competition results in these artifacts: vanity, secrecy, coercion, corruption, anxiety, despair and chance. Think about it. The gorgeous Tett talks of trust. Now, how will you ever gain trust within a system that fosters and engenders secrecy?
competition doesn't make companies "fight harder", whatever that means, it makes them exploit more people and resources to reduce costs.
Man, most of what they're saying is completely going over my head even though I'm almost 17. But what I believe did not go over my head was Mr. Varoufakis' mention of my country, Bangladesh, and our sentiment to not walk on the same path as the West. If I've learned anything by forcing myself to listen to discussions like these is that the West is far from the idealized version of it that we have here in my country. I thank Mr. Varoufakis on behalf of my people for that.
On a side note, I'd like to get started from scratch on these topics. I want to pick a side, understand its structure, understand its shortcomings and criticisms and its responses, all of it in the eye of socialism, since I really want to understand one of the fundamental constitutional principles of my country and its current practices. Any resource or direction is appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Well said, The main "achievement" of capitalism was the rape of the global south, which is now waking up.
Don't pick a side, make your own mind up. Unfortunately I can't help you with any specific direction.
Noam Chomsky
Varoufakis has a book titled “the foundation of economics” .
understanding socialism is a lifelong process there is multiple different faces to it. There is no "this is the socialist ideology" There is a common strawman argument that socialism is always about the state controlling the means of production that is not what socialism tries to achieve. I would suggest to listen to Richard Wolff he has a lot of youtube talks where he explain what is socialism and listen to his work.
When Gilian was making her opening speech, And we saw Yanis looking at her like a benevolent shark I roared with laughter.
"Benevolent shark" is the most hilariously accurate description of his look 😂
This moderator with her quips is the most British person I've ever seen.
Right up to the leftist bias
the fact capitalism needs so much regulation and "umpires" to exist belies how predatory the system is. if you want competition and profits you want to win and take your opponent's profits, and you want to exploit labor, and the environment. the process by which we put value on things is not a science but an ideological tool. if value was the product of science we would account for the full spectrum of costs and benefits, especially the environmental. the cost of climate change would reflect the cost of commodities. and the economy would tank because capitalism is incompatible that kind of valuation. same with more personal stuff like ice cream or red meat. if the human cost of obesity, heart disease or externalities like cost of energy, water, grain, etc were included there would be no market for ice cream or red meat. how we place value on stuff is arbitrary and for the purpose of creating surplus value.
This!
humans are "predatory", not "systems"
@@matthewschiebout7384 that’s as insightful as saying “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Which is to say not at all. Thanks for playing.
Sidepoint: Gillian Tett went to a private school growing up, an indicator of the environment she grew up in. People who grow up with excess privilege are always unaware of how much they've profited, financially & otherwise, as a direct result of the silver spoon in their mouth. And, they have no idea what reality is like for those without a silver spoon, but they arrogantly believe otherwise.
I could show Gillian Tett some lovely Bridges to dwell beneath.....
Perspective is absent from the wealthy, and that effect always seems to breed a biased point of view among the rich....
@@Dan_1348 It isn't an accusation, she *is* privileged. She attended NLCS which has annual fees of approx £30,000. And upwards from there. It's not the money, it's everything that comes with it. It's important to know the background of a speaker to better understand them. It's no secret that a lot of privileged ppl believe they're self-made, for example. There are a large no of research articles showing this in various parts of the world - privileged thinking they did it all themselves. This HUGELY impacts their views of others.
I wonder if it's kind of parallel to that Dunning-Kruger effect people talk about, where dumb people are too dumb to realize how dumb they are... Rich people are too rich to realize how much richer they are than most of the rest of the world?
(Kind of kidding, but there's a real point behind it - namely, what October Yes said about how so many of the over-privileged apparently have no idea of how the other 99/100ths live)
Her social economic background doesn't invalidate her analysis.
Are YOU in fact equipped to criticise the merits of her arguments or do you have to settle for an attack on her character?
Ya privilege doesn’t stand up to the rational. It’s inherently indefensible when we see it for what it is.
“My worry is that the state and those large corporations are in cahoots, working together”
No need to worry! The nightmare is real, right here in America!
In every single capitalist state does this relationship exist, has always existed since the bourgeoisie outstripped the influence of the old aristocracy. And ofc, you have aristos who are bourgies. Just look at the UK and the rest of Europe lol.
I sure wish someone would have pointed out that Capitalism seems to be based on growth and exploitation of labour. Can we afford to continue expanding our resource extraction , continue to grow the populations so that the labor can be exploited and further the wealth divide.
Yanis thank God there are people out there who are as delicate, knowledgeable, passionate and patient as you are. The problems of the world are great you know, just remember to take care of yourself. Intellectual people can only get so far before the current washes them away. We need to find new ways of holding our humility whilst embracing the birthing pains and growth of the new world. Our future generations need our strength more than the losses that are already on their way. God be with everyone even trying to wake the masses now is would still be too late. If we want to make a change we need to put ourselves in the position of those who have the power to shift human beings social behaviours and pitch new marketing products and campaigns for how to run future business markets. Markets that keep the holding power in the hands of their stakeholders. I know it sounds insane but we are not dealing with sane powers!
@Ronald Reagan forgive my lack of knowledge. I probably had no right to discuss a topic I have few information in. I only wished to bring attention to finding value in less 'profit-building' and more in consolidating processes for now as a means of refocusing, recalibrating and restrategizing first to protect what is currently in our possession and second to come up with other ideas that may not need to lead to such huge catastrophes such as having the entire planet run/ruled by one group.
You are correct in highlighting capitalism power but even that strategy which is a successfully valid one has been exploited and used as a transitional step to globalisation. Our own effective processes are used against us and it just breaks my heart that humans will never not be in a position to be robbed of their liberties. We are constantly having our social behaviours manipulated. I just want peace which is a cliche thing to say I know. Self-sufficiency brought down many civilisations let alone being left to capitalise on this process. We can have many successes but we don't get left alone. There's always someone out there greedier than the rest.
Forgive me if I've wasted your time or anyone else's for that matter.
@Ronald Reagan capitalism funnelled to certain people who take advantage of their positions I don't consider freedom
As for those who do the right thing I can't disagree.
Thank you for being patient with me.
@Ronald Reagan I do believe I may not have grasped the full concept. Regardless how you make and keep your profits is regulated by the law. Therefore I cannot see how one could still not be a prisoner to their own external environment. It is the same in Australia. One does not need to be theoretically educated to succeed.
yanis wiping the floor with both these lizard custodians, it's 2-on-1 and everyone knows it
He still won, the world is in dire need of a new economic system, but the rich and powerful stand to lose from a change.
They seemed to have mutual respect and agreed on not so quite a small number of topics that came up in the debate.
I liked what Varoufakis said in that it shouldn't be about winning or losing.
@@Waltzhybrid92 they was no mutual respect from gillian, she offered only limp talking points that yanis very easily did away with, and clearly does not understand socialism lol. she ignores his entire argument that we no longer live in capitalism but a new kind of feudalism, and tries to argue for a return to the day's of adam smith, which is impossible at this point and never seems to get that lol
If varoufakis fixed his gaze on me like he did Tippett during her opening monologue I’d immediately divulge and apologise for my deepest regrets in life.
yes,,
Lol..
I know the feeling.
I have long advocated that we as a civilized species need to reinvent our global economic systems as to enable it to work for humanity , life and safeguard it for the future in unity , cooperation and peace ! Our present systems are putting our civilizations at risk with illusory inflation and rising costs of living enabling the already rich to get richer on the backs of the working citizens !
Well done to Varoufakis for bursting her out-of-touch grammar school bubble. I love it when millionaires by birth sit and lecture us on what needs to happen with our skills and talents.
@@ronaldreagan3086 Bro, this guy knows more than you, your daddy, his daddy, and so on until the beginning of your uneducated Yank bloodline.
Tett has clearly never heard of the Mondragon system in Spain...which has outperformed the rest of the Spanish economy for DECADES....a true co-operative system...why Yanis doesn't throw this in her face is beyond me....
@Ronald Reagan you clearly know nothing about the Mondragon system. Be well.
@Ronald Reagan did I say that the Mondragon system was not a form of capitalism? No. Take some time and actually study it. Be well.
Wow, this conversation was a thousand times more interesting than I thought it would be .
I think its very easy to over look Yannis knowledge because he almost speaks over or over speaks others but rather to me its that he is very passionate about his argument and what he has been studying and trying to understand over the course of his educational life and into todays day.
The basic Position of Yanis is: we need to decentralize Power to prevent monopolies.
But history showed, that those kind of emerging monopolies are one of the few constants alongside the evolution of economy.
That's why I think, that the society as it is in its current state will, in a distant future, have a much higher tendency towards a world government, rather than thousands small communes with diverse democracy.
A good analogy is the loss of entropy of a closed system over time. What's left is perfect order
Is it possible to extend the length of these debates to allow people to talk fully without constantly being interrupted by the moderator? I've watched several now and it seems to be a theme.. the moderator will often speak over the guest and say "very quickly" and sometimes says things like "say it in one or two sentences."
It is frustrating and honestly feels quite rude. It takes the listener away from the experience and I'm sure the panelists don't enjoy it either.
Every time she said something I wished I was listening to a podcast instead
I don't even get what was the hurry, they had a scheduled mass after a talk or something? Why can't they just answer everyone's questions Intelligence Squared? At least let the live audience get their questions in for cryin out loud.
Ya it felt a bit insulting at times. They need to improve that in addition to improving capitalism
This discussion makes very clear, that the principles of Capitalism are social, but they can not be practiced anymore, because the finacial “market” has its own life, away from the principles.
Yanis tries to speak about the future and he will be right.
This system will collapse, no need to talk about it, Yanis said that at the very beginning.
No government will change any laws or regulations against the power of the financial market.
The greek guy knows about Democracy as it is based on smaller communities (Dimos, not Laos).
He is absolutely right!
Utopia is, that this system will survive or can be revived with some changes. Who will do that?
Corrupt governments and lawyers?
Go Yanis!!!
The Financial Markets & Stock Markets have been seperated from the "Real Economy" for Decades!!!
Yea i agree, but especially from the leftist point of view, some move has to be taken. I feel his main point is to make shares nontradeable and per employee. Cool idea but we are at some point of reality and this cant be done over night if ever. All these debates are nice intelectual exercises, but why Yanis doesnt talk about where to go from here?
Gilian would smile at the ultra-rich and list off all these wonderful ideas. They will only smile at her. It’s a fantasy. They are reducing consumer rights, reducing transparency, and regulation. It’s profit over people. Profit over the environment.
@@trnkodlak28 "why Yanis doesnt talk about where to go from here?" well because the only quick term solution we would currently have would be a violent uprising. Considering the current power balance it would def. fail and I would assume Yanis does not want to go to jail for nothing. As the crisis worsens things may change. Currently the ultra wealthy are still in controll as long as that fact remains true nothing will change. Yanis tried to change things as a minister but the system was stronger. I do not say that this is the only solution though. In my opinion we will only see a change after the system has collapsed by itself. Because the people that profit from the system are so powerfull they will keep it in place as long as they can. And when will they loose the ability to do so? When it crashes. I kinda doubt that it will be pretty as we will be facing multiple cirsis at once as parts of the earth become uninhabitable and create hundrets of millions if not billions of refugees. I gett why billionaires build bunkers in NZ ....
Very thoughtful comments here, how refreshing to see civil opinions articulately expressed...
What strikes me at first blush is that I respected Gillian Tett more before seeing this debate - though with reservations (i.e., she isn't a Milton Friedman clone, sneering at any thought of taking social costs into consideration, or explicitly stating that lawsuits rather than regulations were the way to deal with criminal negligence). In this encounter, however, her demeanour was so frequently glib and flippant, and rather than offering a serious critique of Yannis' points, tended to resort to mockery and exaggeration.
One crucial example of several was on the theme of co-operatives, which she presented as sitting around "singing Kumbaya". She dismissed and ignored the very principle of a "company" which she rightly noted, alluded to "breaking bread" together - as a community of belonging. (Interesting though, to remember that Kumbaya arose in the context of slavery, which is rather pertinent to the techno-fiefdom that Yannis deems our current system.)
This and her constant repetition of "competition" and "profit" undermined her own attempt to emphasize the "context" of "moral sentiments". Both those terms have become absolutes, idols worshiped in the Temple of the Market.
How dare we discuss competition alone without cooperation, or quantity without quailty? Moreoever: how can one speak about "profit" without mentioning proportion? - what is a reasonable profit? - a corporation making $5 bn and paying no taxes, or even getting reimbursed from the government, thanks to labyrinthine tax laws?
And transparency is indeed essential - but it is the very thing corporations and oligarchs spend much of their time striving to abolish. Where is Gillian's solution to the rampant opacity, evasion and turpitude that plagues the plutocratic universe - how does she propose to enforce any theory of moral sentiments, or punish those who defy or destroy that socio-cultural fabric?
I find the Iceberg Model of Change, which consists of the following layers: events, patterns, structure, vision, and mindset, a very simple yet powerful model to express something that I find very meaningful. The human life happens above the water line and that is the place where money gets made. However, the forces that affect the world reside below the water line. In other words, the deeper we go the bigger the impact. In fact, I believe, that impact should be measured on a logarithmic scale i.e. 10, 100, 1000 etc.
The first problem is that it is not easy to dive deep, you need money or someone has to help you get there and the deeper you go the lonelier it gets. Another problem is that for many who decide to dive deeper as soon as they find another opportunity to make money they rush back to the surface to take advantage of that rare find. This also leads to another idea, which I have read somewhere else, that the majority of people want to live a life of passengers i.e. to just sit (belong) in the back seat. Then there is a another smaller part of Drivers (opinion leaders) who drive those "passengers" around. Finally, there is a very very small minority of roadmap builders. However, there is a proverb that says: "If the map and the territory do not match, trust the territory."
I have also noticed, when people who have managed to reach any of the deeper levels get interviewed, in various podcasts/forums/etc, by people who have not reached those depths, the interviewers really struggle to grasp what the interviewees talk about. The interviewers sometimes try to fit the new information by playing it safe and use the capitalism as a context. If not successful, then they get suspicious of a heresy of a new socialism, and who knows what. Their struggle is both funny and annoying.
It took me a while to reach the bottom of the Iceberg Model. I think I got there simply because at the Mindset depth there was a very simple explanation. There are two mindsets or paradigms only, and the mindset that we live in is the wrong one. In my mind I have mentally "seen" two options:
1. The Management Mindset (win-lose, making money, scarcity, control/power, fear, hierarchy, managing parts)
2. The Leadership Mindset (win-win or lose-lose, creating money, abundance/transformation, trust, engagement, managing wholes)
After that discovery, I noticed few other problems that prevent world's mental transformation:
a) The Management Mindset tries to pretend, in various way, that they are so called "Leaders" but they mistake worshipers for "followers", and the leadership is just one of the ten or so parts of the Management i.e. the people/influencing one
b) I find powerful ideas that are in fact part of the Leadership Mindset (like the Blue Ocean Strategy), yet are unaware, intentionally or not, of that fact and try to influence/nudge the Management Mindset to "think differently" or simply to position themselves as a beacon of some future change/trend
c) There are many pockets of "resistance", people who really sense that something is wrong, do not want to be part of the Management Mindset, often are happy to be called Rebels or similar, who create their own communities of followers, and who suffer in their own way, and finally
d) The survey results by prominent organisations (Gallup, etc) indicate the scope of real Management Mindset's damage: 70% of people feel disengaged, or suffer quietly from a strange feeling as if they do not belong in this world, experience the imposter syndrome, mental health crisis/epidemic, "toxic soup" etc. At the same time, those same surveys indicate that the number one problem is - the poor leadership (actually, management).
What is the Leadership Mindset? The money will most probably still be part of it, but play the role of more as a measurement system. The world will switch from "making money" to "creating value". There will not be traditional hierarchies. The business as a monolithic entity will cease to exist and will become transformational, constantly evolving, adding value, addressing important challenges, and so on. The Leadership Mindset will follow the question "what matters?".
Today we can find seeds about the Leadership Mindset in Carol Dweck's "Growth Mindset", Liz Wiseman "Mutliplier", John Maxwell's "5 levels of leadership", Sue Dyer "Partnering Approach", Ricardo Semler's democracy in the workplace and other great projects, Kazuo Inamori "The Amoeba Leadership", David Marquet's "Turn the Ship Around", Sir Dave Brailsford "1% improvements", Haier's business model, W.E.Deming, P.Crosby and many many others.
If still unconvinced, try to truly understand the Ladder of Inference (by Chris Argyris) to x-ray the Management Mindset, and the significance of the Iceberg Model of Change.
Yanis is way over qualified for this conversation lol.
Why were they so rude to him?
@@zarategabe they weren't rude, he was just wrong about everything
@@frankvonfrauner Please, elaborate.
@@zarategabe You've to justify and praise capital. That's what our education told us all along.
@@frankvonfrauner care to explain? Or fail to understood his arguments?
Yanis have established a different point if view that it’s interesting to consider, because
while many intelectual or political compromised citizen debate on whether liberal or marxist (or neomarxist) approaches will give us an alternative to current crisis -a la 20th Century mindset-, he’s already defining an scenario in which capitalism has been defeated by its own defenders, and mutatis mutandis, becoming in what he calls a ‘Technofeudalism'. Therefore, an invitation for left-wing thinking to move a step further, in order to provide relevant response to current transformation of capital and its impact on society as whole, has been extended. Nevertheless, hearing Varoufakis claims, it was quite clear that, while property ownership, inequality and related topics grow as a natural issue in left-wing perspective, it seems, on the contrary, that a lack of a sound reflection on climate and ecological crisis remain as a pendent matter in let-wing approach. This is not mere detail regarding the current state of events we are facing globally, and in the threshold of a new COP… Finally, I would say, with regards to IQ2 questionm that yes!, seems like Capitalism finally broke itself (as was predicted by some bearded guy) by the preversion of greed and speculation of financial markets in 2008… greetings from Chile!!
History has demonstrated some examples of Capitalism exerting itself on Latin America, as in Colonial efforts to support Anaconda's expansion in South America.
Operation Condor was another example of Capitalist dreams of obtaining resources from everything South of the Gadsden Purchase.
The use of money as an instrument of political persuasion has proven that Capitalism serves the Majority Investors in business and the Business of Politics....
It seems painfully apparent that Capitalism has allowed Greed to be the dominant emotion used by it's application as a social instrument.....
@@danielhutchinson6604 If I do not misunderstood the sense of your comment, I would answer making a difference between the means/tools by which you achieve a goal -which I believe is what you fairly described-, and the Ethical dimension that all that entails. At the end of my comment, I was traying to follow that line if thought, when I write down ‘’greed and speculation’ as ‘perversion’ -in this context at least. That position implies to follow an orientation in which ‘greed’ is not an emotion, but a meaning referred to property, wealth and power, which is always 'fuelling the machine’ to make sense of carry out a given set of means (colonialism, for instance). Emotions are temporary, but deep meanings have longlasting lives. Only they can support a regime, or a given social order. Think on religions, for instance!...Greetings!
@@rodolfomaggisasso6088 To actually exchange opinions with strangers, seems to require a bit of background as well as facial expression, that this medium seems to be sadly lacking.....
I will attempt to define my point of view in hope that I can better explain why I form my opinions about economic decisions, if I may?
I studied economics at a prestigious California institution that was famous for their program. I attended that University in hopes of the wealth of understanding as well as the generosity of the student union offering some benefits from the wealth of the sponsors of those students rubbing off on my meager background.
I seem to have obtained some basic understanding of the world of economics and the reasons for the actual study of the subject.
Shortly after the departure from this lovely fountain of knowledge filling me with the understanding of the contemporary financial situation The Wealth of the Rockefeller Family was exerted upon the United States Government in the person of Henry Kissinger, their Emissary to the Nixon Administration, to create a new and boundless form of funds, in the form of Fiat Dollars.
This slight of hand and apparently unnoticed diversion from the Bretton Woods Agreement, to a new form of measurement of worth.
That moment seems to have put the US on a Path to ruling the economic measurement of world trade.
The vast amounts of imaginary money, or Promissory Notes as the Federal Reserve Notes declare, are financed by Bonds that future generations seem assigned to pay for.
Do we agree that that principal seems somewhat obvious?
@@danielhutchinson6604 yes! I agree, but even so, I feel it was valuable exchange…✌
@@rodolfomaggisasso6088 I was just pointing out Yannis point about too much Capital, can unbalance the effects of any form of Democracy.....
Man, I never heard of this woman, thus I expected a debate. It wasn't. Yanis was like Picasso in a painting class with 1 yr old children.
35:04
Yanis: your capitalism is utopian
Her: no, you are!
The look on his face afterwards said it all.
Anyone know what company Yanis was talking about at 32:00?
Very late answer, but I’m pretty sure he was talking about Valve.
Gillian keeps saying we need regulation to fix capitalism. Good to know. So what's the hold up?
I think we have plenty of regulation. seems to not be fixing anything all the regs we got coming out of our hoo ha its almost as if they only make things worse. Maybe if we get the commies in congress to get the commie banks to regulate some more then we will have our utopia
capitalism
I wish we'd do away with moderators. Why are we pretending like two adults can't just have a respectful conversation?
I feel for Yanis, I don't know why he does so many of these - I feel like he'd do much better if he just did his own podcast instead.
Because if you only preach to your own audience, it is hard to get new blood involved in a discussion.
This is what we call a debate.
the english style of Q&A is intoxicating
I may be an intellectual midget, compared to some commenters here, however as far as I'm concerned, I've learned some things from these two speakers, Yannis who I know of and admire and Gill , who I've never seen before. Surely part of the purpose of these talks is to inform and I and I'm sure many others, have benefitted.
Someone should explain to Tett what prices are and how easily they can be manipulated even in capitalism, since they consider them the most important regulating principle that determines the validity of an economic model. I think he confuses prices with values.
She acknowledged that though, at the start of the debate when talking about the four moralities or something. As in she acknowledged that's not how pricing works currently.
@@IllliumIt's not that the prices just don't work properly currently. They are simply the proper form of a mode of production in which rule can only be imposed as the average law of blindly acting recklessness.
@@permarx1809 There ain't nothing proper about prices. They are artificially made, kept, and inflated. "Blindly acting recklessness" is just wrong, these people know exactly what they're doing. In the case of burgouis malice always comes before stupidity.
The naivety of Gillian in believing that moving personal data from one platform to another, it can never be verified that the first keeper actually permanently deleted it.
Regulate it! 🤭
@@leithmartin419 Its regulated in some places already, yet the doubt persists.
That may become possible, and quite soon. Personal data in the form of an NFT on a blockchain. Each bit of data becomes unique and verifiable. No copies allowed.
@@jasonwright6823 Technically speaking I think they would allow for such a structure yes, but NFTs are fundamentally based on an amount of calculations that creates a real world cost in the machinery and processing power at a level that is simply untenable at scale. It could not be used in a way that actually creates accountability. It would also have to be universally implemented to be actually accountable to not having copies of the data.
For a possible example, I could imagine a scenario where all U.S based companies/corporations follow this regulation. Say Facebook does as intended, it deletes the data. Facebook then purchases non-NFT certified data or whatever term they would use from a non-co-operating company based outside of the U.S. This data is not subject to the same accountability standards. The U.S. could say that non-US collected data isn't allowed, but the only way to verify an NFT is to run the calculations again which would cost a lot of time and money either to the government or the company (and let's be real it would never be the company) so it ends up costing both productivity and literal resources in terms of energy and computational hardware again.
If you then assume full conversion to NFTs, which is as the debaters would say, utopian, then the energy consumption would be insane. The energy consumption would easily outpace many smaller countries and possible larger ones even. This is possible but I don't think it's best to look for solutions that require their own solutions.
I won't say these technologies are without use, but they probably won't make the difference you think they will in data and transparency.
@@jasonwright6823 Each block on the blockchain is unique and verifiable. But the data itself can still be freely copied.
Also you don't need blockchains to have data portability -- just open standards. Just ask any software engineer.
"markets" and "competition" and "checks and balances" in some form will always exist by nature of multiple agents coexisting with a common pool of resources. The question is how you manage/organize it all...
They both agree on markets and competition But disagree on definition of terms for capitalism and socialism. They also both have utopian views, But digress on whether capitalism as we “knew” can still be fixed. But I suspect Yanis may be correct: we may be on to the next stage in economic evolution. Great non-debate. Excellent insights from both.
Why the mad dash at the end? I never get it. Can't rent out the room for 30 minutes longer?
When your side is losing, it's best to wrap up the show before it get too apparent to everyone.
Yanis is actively working on sowing the seeds for innovation in socioeconomic organization now, whilst Gillian prefers to throw out ideas for how the next generation can keep tweaking the ill-fated Titanical capitalism even as it pulls them down with it.
Lack of sound money is at the core of the problem - if individuals are free to allocate their own resources directly and transparently to whichever cause, law, company, policy etc… they choose to, then decentralized govt / local socioeconomic organization is entirely possible. Fix the money💰 , fix the world 🌎
The only problem i see with your theory here is that we can never return to "sound money" while using the dollar...it's mathmatically impossible.
@@RikLeedsMusic.77 with Bitcoin we could
@@foxate If Bitcoin never becomes the "standard currency"...then yes, i believe it could remain "sound"...but as soon as that happens...it's all over and we're right back where we are now.
@@RikLeedsMusic.77 Bitcoin can’t be debased like other currencies so governments would actually have to work to obtain it and would be forced to spend it wisely
Fix capitalism? It is functioning as it was designed.
Just spectacular! In a very nerdy way, of course.
Two wonderful people, two wonderful minds. Two very contrasting styles, too:
Gillian - presents her philosophies in a pragmatic and readily understandable way.
Yanis - is an academic story teller - more complex and intriguing, potentially "more correct", and more challenging to grasp.
Thank you Intelligence Squared - I have subscribed.
after an hour enjoying this, i'm reminded listening to Gillian Tett's contestations and propositions of that notion in a line from Rilke, that what we choose to fight makes us small in the winning. YV is brilliant, always.
30+ minutes in, and I'm having trouble getting what the actual discourse is.
Tett brings her principles to the table in the form of what sounds to me like an academic model that doesn't really bother with reality, or if it does she doesn't tell me how. And once she has laid those out, she spends the rest of her time disrupting anything that seems at odds with them.
Varoufakis wants to talk about what's happening in real life finance, which is better I think, but I still can't automatically draw a line from that to an envisioned solution. Nor does Tett actually dispute it concretely, which is kind of bizarre.
And finally, the somewhat kooky moderator just seems to want to be amusingly snide and get back to the age old clash of ideologies, which I don't think is very interesting at this point.
Each have a narrative that they stick to, and they seem more concerned about not letting anyone else set the premise than anything else. It just all seems very incohesive to me and I can't figure out exactly why I want to listen anymore. People actually have to be willing to entertain the notions of the other parties in order to debate anything.
I feel like the first half hour was just loaded with sexual tension, although I'm hardly an expert. They do get to discussing their differences, I recommend listening to the whole thing.
@@Illlium Thanks but.. nah. I have since discovered that they both deliver almost this exact same spiel in every talk they give. So in other words, they're not interested in figuring out anything.
Tett and yes Adam Smith base their proposition on fantasy. Smurf Village.
@@QualeQualeson What if Yanis has already figured it out along with others more qualified than Tett? Then from this point of view, a "debate" such as this one is more properly seen as an opportunity to point out the advantages of those discoveries as they compare with efforts to tinker with capitalism.
Trust me Varoufakis is capable of this but the other two are paid to entertain and defend the status quo
Anne: "And what's the name of your political party again, Yanis?"
Yanis: "MeRA 25"
Gillian: "MEN OF 25! What about women??"
...Yes, Gillian, he used an English word to name his Greek political party. What an emarrassing speaker she is.
Maybe she's trying to be funny.
@@marygard4608 If only her economic analysis landed as well as her jokes
@@cameronmclennan942 Hilarious!😄