What Is Wrong With Globalization? | Economics for People with Ha-Joon Chang
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Across the world we’re seeing governments and popular movements come to power that are opposed to globalization. Why? In this third lecture in INET’s “Economics For People” series, Ha-Joon Chang explains the backlash to globalization.
About “Economics for People”:
“It is extremely important for our democracy to function that ordinary citizens understand the key issues and basic theories of economics.” - Ha-Joon Chang
Economics has long been the domain of the ivory tower, where specialized language and opaque theorems make it inaccessible to most people. That’s a problem.
In the new series “Economics For People” from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), University of Cambridge economist and bestselling author Ha-Joon Chang explains key concepts in economics, empowering anyone to hold their government, society, and economy accountable.
As an economics graduate from one of the supposed best unis in the UK, I tell you that this is more informative than any education I received.
Ha-Joon Chang is such an engaging and interesting speaker, I love his dry sense of humour
He's a good professor
He's hard to follow, lol
Sardonic humor. Someone told me I had it. I looked it up when I got home. 😆
"puting this way sounds ridiculous, but it was the theoretical assumption behind this model", very polite, acute and sarcastic.
@@gabrielonofrei4595 Truest comment of this section! I thought it was just me. Terrible speaker.
"Once you begin to think that this is some irresistible force of nature, then you basically lose control of your destiny."
This is at the core of it!
This dude wrote the definitive laymen's intro to all of economics: The Users Guide. Love this guy!
Cool to see Gary's Economics in the front of the audience. Another economist of the people.
Globalization, often seen as a force that connects the world’s economies, cultures, and societies, has generated both praise and criticism. On the one hand, it has fostered economic growth, increased trade, and lifted millions out of poverty. On the other hand, it has led to significant challenges, particularly for marginalized communities, workers, and the environment. The question of whether globalization serves the people or works against them depends on how we evaluate its impacts on various segments of society.
From an economic perspective, globalization has undeniably facilitated growth and prosperity for many. It has allowed businesses to expand internationally, provided consumers with a greater variety of goods at lower prices, and enabled countries to access resources and technologies they may not have otherwise had. For multinational corporations and investors, globalization has been a boon, opening up markets and creating opportunities for large-scale profits.
However, the benefits of globalization have not been evenly distributed. One of the most significant criticisms is that it disproportionately favors the wealthy and powerful, while leaving many people behind. In many cases, the rise of multinational corporations has led to job losses in certain sectors, particularly in manufacturing, as companies move production to countries where labor is cheaper. Workers in developed countries, particularly those in low-skill jobs, have often been the most affected by this shift. Meanwhile, workers in developing nations may find themselves subjected to exploitative labor practices, with little protection for their rights and minimal pay.
The idea that globalization benefits only a select few is further compounded by the rise of inequality. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, while many others struggle to make ends meet. This is particularly evident in the context of global supply chains, where the benefits of trade are often captured by large corporations, leaving little for the workers who make the goods. This has led to what some economists refer to as a "race to the bottom," where countries compete to offer the lowest wages and weakest labor protections in order to attract investment, undermining workers' rights and standards of living.
Environmental degradation is another critical issue tied to globalization. As companies have sought to maximize profits, often at the expense of environmental sustainability, we’ve seen a sharp rise in pollution, resource depletion, and climate change. The globalization of production and consumption has accelerated the exploitation of natural resources, contributing to deforestation, overfishing, and rising greenhouse gas emissions. While some argue that globalization can be harnessed to promote sustainable practices and green technologies, the dominant economic model often encourages short-term profits over long-term environmental stewardship.
Globalization also raises questions about sovereignty and cultural identity. The increasing dominance of global corporations and Western cultural products has led to the erosion of local industries, traditions, and values. In some parts of the world, this has sparked resistance against what is perceived as cultural imperialism. The spread of global consumer culture has led to the homogenization of societies, where local customs and ways of life are overshadowed by foreign influences, leaving communities struggling to preserve their cultural heritage.
On the positive side, globalization has allowed for the exchange of ideas, cultures, and technologies. It has facilitated international cooperation on issues like public health, education, and science. The rapid spread of information and innovation, especially in technology, has led to advancements that benefit people across the globe, from medical breakthroughs to new educational opportunities.
In conclusion, while globalization has the potential to bring economic benefits and increase connectivity, its current form often exacerbates inequality, exploitation, and environmental harm. For globalization to truly serve the people, it needs to be reimagined in a way that prioritizes human well-being, environmental sustainability, and social equity. It’s not enough for globalization to simply drive economic growth; it must be shaped to ensure that its benefits are more widely and fairly distributed, and that the systems supporting it are accountable to people, not just profits.
Ha Joon-Chang was referenced quite a bit in many of my college papers. I was so thrilled to see these videos! I watched all of the lectures in two days.
Chang is a brilliant heterodox economist with little interest in ideology. What he says in proof that the history of economic thought and international political economy are essential for economic competence.
You have probably read his books, but if you have not, you would appreciate them, I think.
For anyone interested: google heterodox economics. Additionally, read Dani Rodrik if this video sparked an interest in good critique.
@@UNLouise Thanks for the suggestion! I actually meant heterodox; noted and corrected. I've read two of his books but I've read more of his academic papers.
His books books are good especially kicking away the ladder and bad samaritans.
To know how works capitalism you need to know the current monetary weaknesses and problems. It is impossible to return to Gold Standard See this video: ua-cam.com/video/iiKr-i022mY/v-deo.html
I didn't even know quality education like this existed anymore
Only on the internet. And if it's censored go to LBRY.tv or bitchute.
Too bad it's wasted on those students. They don't appear to be engaged whatsoever. I guess daddy owns the company they will be managing soon.
@@claudermiller i think it's actually got to do more with the video. If i was being filmed while i was in a class I'd be a bit stiff as well.
@@gabrielsoto1693 I thought the same
You mean communist propoganda?
What's wrong is the inequitable distribution of wealth in societies.
The gross imbalance between profits to the corporations/richs and wages to the majority working population.
Only a minuscule portion of the immense wealth generated globally had trickled down from corporations to the general population.
I'm just glad there are economists that see people beyond representing data points.
Amazing professor, I wish my college had professors even half as good as him
What an excellent lecture. Beautifully and logically put together and easy to follow. Kudos!
It’s good to hear from Ha Joon Chang again.
The current economic model is broken. You can't have never-ending growth without impacting the environment. When will people realize this! We ought to think of a circular economy where we don't waste, over-consume and exploit workers.
It's possible to have Income Growth and continual Economic improvements like Tech and even Green Tech, but that requires more fiscal support and not just relinquishing power and governance to bankers.
Govt can and does create net money, as long as it has a functioning central bank and sovereign domestic currency.
Banks create money with keystrokes too, as that Bank of England publication described how banking works, but banks create credit/loans for investors for asset inflation, not much productive investment for industry & business as was done decades ago. Some 8% of profits goes to real capital dev, the rest to boosting Financial capital like stock buybacks and acquiring existing corporations for asset stripping.
This has been a conscious economic design and plan, in Law in rules in institutes, not "nature".
@Aethel Yfel goods and services, except human labor, are tending towards infinite abundance. Labor too, augmented by automation.
Instead, profits are in forms of rent-extraction by monopoly & financialization. This is a reversal of what classical liberal economists and even Marx expected.
Heck, futurist Toffler was popular in the 70s and buddies with Newt Gingrich who helped Gore privatize the Internet. He was predicting future productivity would lead to mass leisure society, people working max 3 days for full income. What to do with all that free time? Art? Creativity? Travel? Instead, it's same hours with less income or joblessness with plenty free time in poverty. Toffler's vision betrayed, rolled back, on purpose.
@@gg_rider It's not the same hours. About 2 years or so back, US DOL said true, "incomes" rose, but because people were working more hours, for less.
If you expand private property rights you can formulate much more effective environmental market based solutions than anything a government bureaucracy is capable of. This is just more socialist crap in different clothes. Globalisation is not the cause of stagnation, yet again it is government policy that creates these crisis from which suffering comes from. Ultra low interest rates leading to over indebted economies that don’t have enough productive investment as there is no healthy recession leading to savings. Because of this there have been massive misallocation of funds to companies that should not get investment and the result is an economy that is one giant bubble.
Now high inflation from money printing, as most currencies have gone off a gold standard, are being debased and the little people have saved is having its purchasing power stolen by the government. Every economic catastrophe can be almost always be traced back to government with it’s economic interventions, subsidies, budget deficits leading to ever climbing national debts. In my country, the UK the unofficial national debt (because the official one doesn’t cover things like unfunded public & state pension schemes and nuclear decommissioning) is £9.6 trillion which is 446.51% of our national GDP!! And that’s with low interest rates.
The government has fucked us. It’s not free market capitalist ideals that got us into this mess but government intervention . During the 19th and early 20th century when free market capitalism was at it’s height, there was prosperity and the largest ever increase in the standard of living for the POOREST in society ever! The failures of the market are magnitudes less than government failure and so their interventions should be treated with extreme suspicion and they should be kept as small is as humanely possible for the sake of everyone and everyone’s children’s future.
Should read what the Bible says about raised fists....and what happends to them. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.
sometimes you learn a lot in a short time like this one and sometimes it takes too long to learn simple things. I think it needs hard work and luck to find such content.
Agreed! Path to knowlege is not obvious but when you accept that there are lots of things you don't know and decide not to waste your time you will see progress for sure. Start studying instead of complaining then good things will start to happen!
I recomend a video based on this “move into investment baking” concept of full mobility he keeps talking about. Its called “the financial curse” it shows how finance is good to an extent but after a point it actually lowers our wealth and extracts it from us. It’s a lobby we need to take on.
That's true, if you think about it, if the finance sector is growing faster than the real productive economy, that must mean that the financial sector has become "too attractive", and will pull a lot of money which otherwise can be used to grow manufacturing sector, fund research, retrain workers, etc.
Great point mentioning how inequality has been broadened by the same powers that state they are working on resolving inequality. It's a game being played with absurd amounts of money.
because expending finite resources needed for survival and prosperity on these undeveloped nations that are outside our jurisdiction while we ourselves have underdeveloped territories that are slipping backwards into primitivism, poverty, and death due to not being constantly carried by the people who do have jurisdiction over them... that is a dangerous gamble with people's lives that is not guaranteed to be reciprocated by the foreign nations you are gambling on.
You fitted in a lot there! My thought is that this 'development' is a highly questionable term nowadays. When does it ever mean something good, like, I don't know, a school or hospital. As opposed to an electorate-buying sports facility.
Such an enlightened man with a great message that exposes the political rhetoric and bullshit we suffer.
great lecture, thank you
wow outstanding very eye opening
This is a video by an amazing professor who explains the negative side of globalization.
Fascinating lecture and illuminating.
@19:41: this guy in front row, top right, is soooo bored !!!😂😂😂
Great talk by the Professor!!!
A wonderful lecture. Thank you.
Bu adama bayılıyorum çok tatlısın valla. Ufkumu açtınız umarım bir gün sizi canlı dinleyebilirim.
Ekonomist misiniz? :)
Great to have a cerebral discussion without the tropes, yelling or sermonizing!
fascinating analysis of a very complex issue
Excellent presentation. I notice Gary Stevenson is in the front row.
What is your point really,by saying that you have notice Gary Stevenson at the front row?.
@@achirakol2560 I have a lot of respect for Gary Stephenson. Interesting to see him here, though not surprising.
US Empire has turned into a rentier economy. Good discussion. Thanks
01:49 - Greater openness for goods & capital & NOT for workers
I honestly think these people knew what they were doing, they're not stupid,so that was their plan.How do you explain that after all the income inequality don't change.
"... but when you look at the evidence, that is not what has happened."
alright, trading resources or services across continent is great aspect in globalization. The problem is, when developing countries can't bargain in fair amount as developed countries. For example my country Indonesia, we tried to stop exporting raw material through developed countries and tried to open manufacture of that raw material so we can sell the ready-product for them (plus we can opened more jobs), by that we tried to stop the export and try to producing it inside of our territories. And you know what happens next? THEY TRIED TO SUE US IN WTO. We just the small cases of what happened around our world, developed countries won't let developing countries self-sustain and emerged becoming developed countries. THEY WANT US TO STAY POOR SO THEY CAN REAP MORE PROFIT TOWARD OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
Brilliant professor.
Is that Gary Stevenson from Gary's economics You Tube Chanel listening in the front row?
Thank you Professor, for explaining so clearly what I had worked out but couldn't express.
well globalisation ends up being discriminatory to geographically not isolated regions, like europe, middle east, or russia and india
He’s so engaging, why are the students so glum!
They all look very angry.
@@jungjunk1662 Haha this is true, but I am sure I look angry looking at my Law lecturers too.
I would guess they’re trying to concentrate through his accent.
01:26 - Theodore Levitt (01 MAR 1925 - 28 JUN 2006) Harvard Business School's professor & editor of the Harvard Business Review
Theo's noted for increasing the Review's circulation & popularizing the term globalization.
In 1983, he proposed a definition for corporate purpose: "Rather than merely making money, it is to create and keep a customer". -- Wikipedia
Double thumbs up!!! 👍👍
fascinating
The way that nominal 'free trade' has worked out is that it favors autocratic governments and large, politically connected corporations over small businesses and labor in competitive fields. There is nothing free trade about dramatic swings in tariffs and frequent attempts to impose sanctions and boycotts. The cost of international trade has been subsidized by the USA for geopolitical reasons. The military and social risks of large scale global trade have been absorbed or ignored by governments, while the benefits have been privatized. It seems like economists haven't really fleshed out a sophisticated game theory on how to structure interaction between a decentralized economy and command-and-control economy that lead to stable evolution of economies that effectively benefit from international relative advantages.
@Aethel Yfel Zehihain seems to me to being focusing excessively on nation-states. There's never been an empire that was data driven in retreating from foreign adventures when they stopped being profitable. Also, he seems to be ignoring issues like distribution of income and property to different segments of the population and corruption.
I'm working on this game theory.
17:17 haha @Gary'sEconomics is there in the front row.
How can we have access to these slides?
19:00 - 19:57 -
20:30 - Since the aggregate gain to the winners exceeds the losses of the losers,
_________ the winners can use the added gain & compensate the losers
20:45 - 22:57 - 23:21 -
32:10 - 33:43 -
Yeah, and that's going to happen...when? ---->{NEVER}
@@ken8of8 keep voting for right wingers who point to some lowlife working class family on benefits and ask you... do we really need more welfare
@@dinsel9691 Keep voting for left wingers who point to the border telling the losers they don't know how good they have it, and invite ever more over to drive wages ever lower.
@@ken8of8 Not under capitalism unfortunately. If you want to take care of people capitalism has to be done away with.
@@ken8of8 If you think it's not going to happen, it won't happen.
UBI is feasible and will happen sooner or later.
Good lecture.
As far as it is possible to tell, the word "globalisation" is a special interest version of the Gaian Planetary Actuality adapted for specific categories of commercial interactions.
Thank you
Nothing is wrong with globalization unless you let capitalists define the form it takes. Otherwise it's just the continued growth of what mankind defines as "Us" and "We". We all win when humanity stops limiting it's potential based upon geographic proximity and superficial cultural decoration. From the family unit to the nation, every time our understanding of who is and can be a teammate expands outwards we all benefit. Standing against globalization also seems like the fastest way to ensure those capitalists get to implement it in the form they choose. Who has more power: the individual nation, standing alone based upon Grandpa's backwards notion of who his allies were or the strong unified collection of nations or states using collective bargaining to better their outcome? I guarantee the EU is in a better position than the UK to get favorable outcomes in a global future. Because they didn't step backwards to cling to an outdated notion of nations that benefits only the parasites who can more easily feed off of weakened and isolated populations who believe they are on their own.
Discurso dominante sobre la globalización. 3:35
Before buy into the illusion of progress, we must always consider it at the expense of what and what its long term implications might be. Clearly we haven't done a very good job of asking the more important questions. Or maybe they were being asked by the forward thinking few who were most likely ignored or silenced because they didn't have the ivy league degrees or the connections. The ones who pay the most for these mistakes are the ones at the lower rungs of the ladder, the voiceless, the peasant, the small business owner, Mother Nature. Shame on us for thinking that this will be the silver bullet.
"If I told you that there are 55 planets in the universe with intelligent beings and all of them are vastly richer than the earth would you care? I wouldn't. I mean I can't even go there. Probably some of the delicacies these beings eat are toxic to me." Absolutely hilarious.
18:35 whoa whoa whoa.. you mean to say taxing the rich _more_ could be a way help those left behind regain their mobility and dignity??
So? If they don't want that they shouldn't enjoy openness policy.
Gary Stevenson on the front row could have feigned a bit more interest.
I like his morivtion
Nothing - integration = efficiency, obviously. The problem is that ever-harder-to valorise/reproduce private ownership of the means of production means the value created by society goes to a minority of shareholders instead of society.
At 9.41 the man in the front row looks very like Gary front GarysEconomics
Good to see Gary Stevenson in the front row.
0:43 well nationalist not necessarily anti-foregin
liberal values etc is one thing, and enctre-left politics is a separate question, they're not idnetical or the same thing
Tai-Jan-Ciel-Lah . Thank you very much. Refreshing to learn from a Chinaman that I hadn't realized before: that we're in an historical reprise of something before; neoliberalism existed before ,esp 19th and beginning of 20th laisser faire centuries.
2:47 well that is just in line with the other tthings, as a consequence or cause
👏TOP Again.
Netherlands and Canada have not seen increases in inequality? Why cannot young people afford to buy a home?
it's same in South Africa 🇿🇦 too!
how does 80 million net new humans annually skew the results?
When it comes to trade, has there been a comprehensive study, hopefully leading to various formulae, that analyses and defines the various authorities influencing trade? In the simplest sense, in the case of widgets being traded between entities, who determines the yes, no, this condition, not that condition, of trade? Is the process that dynamic or does it happen on a much more primitive mafia style model, i.e. the major players make deals that one or the other trade entity can't refuse? If the latter is the case, it would suggest that the only remedy for labour and/or all less influential players is armed insurrection. All the conjecture about what has happened to liberal policy are rendered a waste of time and intellect. "Technical terms" are a nonstarter if brute force is ultimately what drives the process, rendering any applied calculus a canard.
It looks like Ragnar Redbeard to me..
Canards fly over the heads of this audience.... They don't fly so low as to make them duck...
I have always thought it was part colonialism, part fascism, part racism and a lot of selfishness all wrapped in a new label of Globalism.
cringe
How great to be simultaneously greedy AND heroic! 😃
"Free-trade" was never free. Managed trade would be a better description. Failures of the neoliberal model are related to central planning. Critics of the market and proponents of central planning point to failed neoliberal policies. Deliberate slight of hand, or inept non-sequitur? The ivory tower continues unfazed.
@Garyseconomics can barely stay awake in the front row!
maybe if angloamerican economy collapses and panic possesses the already hysterical us population they will be so busy trying to control the chaos inside that they will leave the world alone for a change.lets just hope.
It might have been better to give these kids (presumably from Cambridge Uni UK) an hour with a computer game. Every time the camera pans to the listeners, I see bored faces. Don't they know how fortunate they are to have so good a professor helping them?
@Language and Programming Channel 'Nope'?
Presumably that's to my question regarding the kids being unaware of how fortunate they are.
Thanks for the heads-up on Kaplan, whose name I have heard and whom I may already have heard speaking. I will give him quick look anyway. Thanks.
@Language and Programming Channel
ua-cam.com/video/1hZylJp-pHo/v-deo.html
OK I gave him another 22 minutes of my time - I had indeed heard him speak before, but I cannot remember about what.
How do you feel what he says in the linked video (if anything relates) relates to the kids in this New Economic Thinking video or to my observation about the kids being unable to pay attention or be appreciative of so good a professor?
In and of itself the linked video has some interesting points and I find I largely agree with them.
Perhaps when you suggested Kaplan, you weren't actually relating his views to this directly, but just offering the name of someone with interesting ideas on education.
Anyway, if you have something to offer on this...
Well actually their “bored faces” are “serious faces” required to show respect to Hajoon Chang and more importantly knowledge. So, I think they know very well how fortunate they are.
@@joelin5887 I disagree.
@@staninjapan07 Those who are willing to learn and acquire knowledge are more humble than those who care less. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.
Currencies must have parity.
Inequality is the hack that breaks globalism.
One or the other has to go.
I think 'neoliberalism' and 'globalization' should have been better defined, in the sense of separated.
closed captioning is not great
Basically, protectionism is a good thing. Nation states protecting their own home grown industries is a good thing. Globalism and free trade is bad, it does destroy local industries. It also leads to monopolies which is a bad thing.
The key is finding the right balance, it's not an either-or.
Scenario : Post Singularity self-learning decentralized quantum strong general Intelligence awareness runs simulations translating monetary unit accounting to Real Economy * sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting and discovers non toxic increase in fiduciary stock performance returns by increasing orders of magnitude . This result exposes war economies as " underperforming " .
* " Critical Path " Richard Buckminster Fuller ( Head Engineer For Economic Cold War Fairing from beginning to near middle forties ) .
“Sub Saharan Africa” “The Caribbean” and “Latin America” aren’t countries they are regions
I think that the sooner we learn to think of each other as one people the better. Because it seems we are built to fear the other.
What's wrong with globalization? - Mainly it doesn't suit some politicians who want to pint it as something bad because it reduces their ability to gain power for themselves in many circumstances !!
And there is the mindless drone. :-)
11:55 “in theory” people will benefit from globalization ... in reality not quite so
Hmm... sounds like another policy people still advocate for even though it's failed dozens of times.
@@DrewPicklesTheDark which is that
Can you please stop panning to the audience. It's very distracting. I'm here to focus on what on what the speaker is saying, not what the audience's facial expressions are.
Close your eyes and listen then... Genius
Amen.
Re: subsidized agriculture. Some nations do it because they do not want to be totally dependent on foreigners for their food.
That's always one of the motives, but for countries with more land I wonder how difficult it would be for some of the people to grow their own food (think victory gardens).
His motivaton way is very imprasve
Globalization is not an idealogical idea. It is a reality because of the technological capabilities of nations to move goods, services, knowledge and ideas all around the world combined with the need for importers and exporters to use these capabilities to benefit from such activities.
Then way doesn't war economies use globalization? When war planners have to mold the economy to produce arms as efficient as possible globalization goes right of the window as the logisticans see the fuel required to have such a dispraise supply chain not only could be better used to fuel the war machine but required you to spread out forces to protect it from the enemy thus war planners preferred compact vertically integrated national economies especially when it came to planning to win a nuclear war where globalization meant part of your supply chain would be where you are going to be dropping your nukes.
Technology doesn't dictate globalization and indifferent to it as long there is a complete supply line.
I love this man.
And yes, obviously much less people die because of hunger then 1990s now. Globalization have some serious pros and as expected cons. Is there anything that has only advantageous or is to everyone's liking ever existed in the world. I would say, technology and globalization worked generally in the favor of the man kind regardless of it's cons.
And we live in a fast and rapidly changing century, people left behind. Socially structured and wealthy enough western countries just compensate for the such ones in expanse of others extra luxuries. I find the system more appealing but stating only the cons is not the right way. "The Full Monty" is not the reality of development world, it is just one of the negative expects of it. Why are you not stating any positive outcomes. Are positive outcomes that insignificant to state, discuss, and analyze, is that the case?
I start to feel like this is kind of propaganda video series in disguise of an academic one? There seem to be a strong message which is trying to be conveyed here. Academics operate on models, theories, data, information and relation between those, it is not to send a message.
And there is only the creolization and stating failings but no propositions as usual.
Re second 26: Canada does not have a more open economy. To my understanding it has restrictions such that entities in certain industries must be Canadian owned and it is very controlled re the skills of who it lets in to the country .
Kesalahan ekonomi global yang liberalistik tidak memberikan pemberdayaan dan tidak memberikan jaring pengaman bagi masyarakat yang tidak terakses oleh pendidikan suatu negara atau pendidikan global. Karena persaingan sempurna tanpa pendidikan yang memadai bagi seseorang akan menjadi korban dalam persaingan liberal itu. Makanya hingga sekarang kesenjangan dan kemiskinan jauh lebih banyak daripada pemerataan ekonomi dan manusia yang sejahtra dan makmur secara ekonomi. Bahkan politik yang kotor juga menghambat keadilan ekonomi itu karena politik ekonomi yang dijalankan cenderung rakus dan kurang manusiawi bagi perwujudan ekonomi kemanusian yang berkeadilan.
He lost me at the world growth rate, of course the growth rate goes down as the "low-hanging fruits" of innovation have been eaten already. Return on energy is going down as drilling oil gets harder etc
Caption: mysterious music. Me: Dvorak Symphony no.9.
Can you stop with the close ups of students? It is really awkward
Anyone find it off putting that he keeps using the terms “winners” and “losers”? Is this the way economics professors teach Economics? By using derogatory terms in this way?
maybe english is your second language but in context the term "loser" was not derogatory.
@@peterhooper2643it’s my first language, but I haven’t trained in Economics, so hearing those two terms, to me, denotes those who win in terms of financial success and those who lose.
Not sure how it’s contextualized in your economics classes.
Globalization itself isn’t bad: the problem is neoliberalism
yep they are devil
The problem with globalization is that it has benefitted the few disproportionately at the expense of the many. When you create such a disequilibrium in the distribution of wealth and power, it is just a matter of time before equilibrium will be re-establishes ... sometimes quite violently.
@@Niko-lm3mb read Paul Treanor on Markets, including Liberalism (of capital) and the Neoliberal ideology. This ideology is tied to Milton Friedman, even tho he didn't use the word.
Neoliberalism is tied mostly to Reagan & Thatcher, then Bill Clinton & Tony Blair. It's *not* "The Left".
Treanor describes Neoliberalism like a religion of Markets that justifies massive govt intervention to protect investors.
Nope. Both are bad. International trade is needed with whatever the nation state needs, otherwise to hell with Globalisation.
They go hand in hand. Neoliberal ideology underpins globalization.
There is nothing wrong with globalization. What is wrong is the mindless single-sourcing from a country like China, for instance.
❤❤
Great lecture. Too bad it's wasted on those students. They don't appear to be engaged whatsoever. I guess daddy owns the company they will be managing soon.
Too many assumptions.
Nothing is wrong. Large enterprises are making BIG money. Some people are getting poor. Look at some states in the US. Poor because business is moved to low costs countries.
'Some'? Did you just say 'some'?? That in my opinion was a deliberately dishonest choice of word. Not some but most, in fact the overwhelming majority, are struggling in ways we would not have thought possible just 20 years ago. For most a home is out of the question and then it's bad news all the way down. The very small number of ultra rich have since Reagan and Thatcher been in simplest terms stealing from us hand over fist - trillions and trillions - so that even in fairly well off countries the middle class, professionals, can't make ends meet, never mind the poor, which is what I am, and the reason I feel like slapping you. Something is definitely wrong, very, and I'm sure it wouldn't hurt you to stop spouting errant, naive nonsense and do some rudimentary learning with focus on events since the industrial revolution. You need some basic understanding of the thing 'neo-liberal capitalism.' Wages have been stagnant for 15 to 20 years. We are working harder for less and there is no such thing as job security anymore. Institutions are breaking down. COVID was a gigantic failure of globalisation, as was Trump, as is woke, as is climate change which I daresay you choose to deny. I think it's more accurate to say nothing is not wrong.
@@hinteregions can't agree more.
the dude is identifying several simplifying assumptions economists make which are not true or partially true ... is the alternative better ?
can somebody tell me of one mainstream economics that has used and defended the term "trickle-down economics" ?
Pretending to ask a question, while it is loaded with propaganda.
"Trickle down" is a term that is clearly understood, and well defined. It is used by many economists as Ha Joon Chang did here.. it was also used by a United Nations study on "trickle down economics"
It reminds of right wing racists... who are clearly racist and clearly support racist policies and yet are upset at being called racist, ... they prefer they were called "identitarians" or "real natives" or "concerned about their own people"
They are more worried about being labelled racist than actually being racist.
I understand some right wing ecomonic intellectuals like Thomas Sowell are "offended" by the term, and demand to know about an economist "who believes in trickle down" while he himself believes in and is a great advocate of Supply side economics or "Reagonomics"...
He is more worried of being labelled a "trickle down economist" than actually proposing policies that "trickle down theory" describes