So why are SLC grads so conservative about economics -- both Republican and Democrats -- and generally seem to be allergic to talk about things like poverty and wealth consolidation when it comes to poor, the working class, and the middle class here in the US? Why are things like New Deal interventions seen as so dreadful? Thanks for posting this. This was great. YES, there needs to be a legal theory to go counter to the ideas from the 1980s and 1990s from the neoliberal economists and lawyers that no longer work.
They’re privileged, led blinkered lives prior to enrolling at SLC, shut their ears to any serious criticism of current economic practices, and graduated essentially unchanged? I saw similar things happen with business school students during my undergraduate days.
@Patrick Dannady YES that's the point. They have benefitted exceptionally well from the status quo. They're simply not motivated to change what makes their privilege exist.
@@justaguy6100 But it seems to be the case mostly in economics. In other disciplines it is quite common to find people who are critical of neoliberalism and the status quo. For example I did law and in my studies I encountered a lot of law students with progressive and left wing views.
@@Seal-hs5il While I agree, these aren't the wallet disciplines. It seems much easier to be egalitarian when it doesn't mean you're eroding the foundation of your own economic pillars. Ok, I am a tad bit hyperbolic with that. I don't doubt there ARE many in that arena who have sincere concern for a more equitable economic outcome for most of us who exist in a single society. There's plenty of cases to be made for it establishing a more stable, safe society when you bring more people up from deprivation and desperation EVEN IF it means shaving some off the heights of the uber comfortable. When you look back at most of the revolutions, at their heart will be an extreme wealth gap. Another _possibility_ for more of these future leaders not taking more bold stances is that, it seems that economics is one area of study that, even in those "liberal bastions" that the Universities are claimed to be, the theory tends to lean to the more conservative, free market/capitalism side. Even in the 70's when I was taking my eduvacation, the ECON professors were loathe to consider anything with the stank of "distribution of wealth" when a discussion turned in that direction. Ok decades ago, no idea where it is today, but from the outcomes, it doesn't seem like it's changed much. Maybe some Keynsian mutation, now.
It is interesting to see a kind of legal Darwinism as each new abstract legal process throws up new possibilities and contradictions. Corporations were a new species, originally it had a population of just one.
This approach is not only sensible, it also holds much promise: for if current inequalities and our journey towards ecological catastrophe are in fact dependent on the legal system we have historically given ourselves, then at some point democracy might produce legislatures with enough power and will to correct course. This explains why the rich are so wary of government and why they spend so much money on lobbying and fake think tanks. It is because, ultimately, we are only a few votes away of rejecting this unfair wasteful careless rent-seeking system and setting course towards a fairer sustainable order that promotes dignity and wellbeing.
The name "Jamee Moudud" should be in the video title and his biography and social presence links should be in the description field. This follows the logic and ethics of proper crediting, as well as search engine optimisation.
Very interesting video. I love when the theory of natural property rights is challenged. Property only exists as a legal construct. Any notion of property by natural right is just a opinion of how the world should be dishonestly framed as a fact. This makes certain people's heads explode.
yeah, but that's not limited to arguments _for_ property. people often argue that it's not natural and therefore can't be any good. or for some magical divide between "personal" and "private" property. property is complex, neither it or it's absence will automatically solve all resource allocation problems. good laws have to be found by negotiation and experimentation. and if you leave property law (or any other law) it to the state, you will get laws favoring the state and securing state power and privilege.
You're very disconnected from the real world. Without personal property rights backed by law, any person or group can violently take what you consider yours without prosecution.
@@jasonformann4980 i'm not sure who you are arguing against. i mean, violently taking things being legal also implies that violence would be legal, what noone here was even close to suggesting. but yeah, when things are legal they are legal. i don't think either of us meant to say that there should be no property law. though i don't know what sort of property law @sinyrko3420 would favour 🤷.
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus Well, it's a good thing I never made the appeal to nature fallacy, and simply asserting systems of property that differ from Nozick's are "magical" won't make them so. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone not made of straw who seriously thinks the solution to issues regarding resource allocation can be solved by simply eliminating property as a legal institution. Socialists definitely don't. Heck, even anarchists don't! I am, however, curious about what laws you think can exist as something other than the state's enforcement of a rule. Maybe you're one of those people who like to make a fine distinction between governments and states, and you're simply against case law? But something tells me that's not what you're getting at. Maybe you're doing that weird Hayek thing where you argue state agents are functionally only beholden to themselves, and their interest is to develop a reinterest relationship with the tax payer? Ironically, both Kalecki and Rand are famous for refuting this notion (with the latter not realizing that's what she did)
"All markets are regulated, so the question arises what is the form of regulation" Deregulation is a form of regulation, just a form of reguation that its propoents are trying to get away without taking responsibility for by rhetorical means. As Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: "The maning of words is their use. / I have read that Abraham Lincoln thought the difference between wage labor and slavery was that the latter wa a permanent not a temporary condition. Just imagine capitalism with both the owning and the renting of human beings outlawed. We could still have worker owned and operated cooperatives which are a form of private property.
Because our law protects property rights and the environment is viewed as property, because our law is not situated within environmental realities and physical law, our economy is unsustainable within human law and physical law. The environmental piece is social and political, but far more than that - existing beyond human perspective. Our systems have not taken a more-than-human perspective. Everything the powerful create is selfish, regardless of how they frame it. Environmental perspectives force inclusion. What is the most common form of discrimination in the workplace today? Probably discrimination against working parents, but they are not protected by the EEOC. Why has there been no progress? The perspective applied to the law sees sex as fe/male only, not parent and nonparent. How can parental status exist outside of sex and not fall into that category? This is the power of perspective - you can justify any injustice. The law always trails behind, and the framework of law prevents how far protections can go. The law needs to be entirely reframed within environmental reality.
I thought this talk would get a lot more into origins of property rights as indvidual agreeements and the notion those private recognitions are the same as public or somethint like that. Getting into how improvements are what make property property and so things like the land are in the commons and under different considerations. Instead he talked a lot about what we can and could do with government made monopolostic central banks as if they have always been a given. Doesnt he know one of the first move of any so called laissez-faire leader would be to end the privileges of the federal reserve and its notes? Idk i thought this would be more profound
Laissez-faire government and Laissez-faire economics are counterintuitive ideas. Laffer Curve, peace through strength, and building a strong state on strong individuals given individual liberty and expecting individual responsibility, are counterintuitive ideas. Conservative ideas are counterintuitive. Liberalism is not an ideology. Liberalism is an inability to use reason and logic to understand how the counterintuitive nature of the universe works, so a person falls back on their emotions to reach a conclusion. That is why there are no successful liberal political talk radio shows. Liberals need moving pictures or hand puppets to trigger their emotions. There was a huge global study where they asked thousands of people hundreds of questions and grouped them by their answers. People that ranked high in conscientiousness also favored conservative policies. People that ranked low in conscientiousness also favored liberal policies. Meaning liberals have no intention of doing what is right or making sacrifices for the good of society. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to report having mental problems in some groups and report higher mental problems across the board. This mental instability and inability to still their mind long enough to understand how conservative policies help poor and working class people is the cause of their problem. If you look up the traits of narcissists, you will see they are exactly the same as liberal politicians and activists, because they are both driven in total by their hatred and emotions.
The way you use the word "liberal" in an economics video speaks mountains to how much you know what you are on about, and the funny thing is you won't realize why unless someone points it out to you (I won't, I think it is funny that you continue to not know the meaning of words you are using).
@@smithjohnsonwilliams Every single person in North America knows what the modern liberals push as economic policy. EXCEPT YOU! If you thought it meant a classic definition of liberalism then you are obtuse on a galactic scale.
@@smithjohnsonwilliams I personally would like to thank the above commenter for their excellent point. More specifically, talking point. It's what allows for them (conservatives) to side-step the amount of suicide by gun, alcoholism AND spousal abuse numbers that skew heavily in the direction of "mentally stable" upstanding citizens we all should aspire to be like. Listen, to be fair, the two people closest to me are helpful, kind conservative men. AND narcissistic a🤬🤬holes on occasion. Like all of God's Children ☺️ But here's a video of what happens when you get caught spewing propagandists talking points in an official capacity. Instead of as a trolling bot that gets all the conservatives all tingly 🤗 ua-cam.com/users/shortsrDCdwhYel5k?feature=share
![We Were Wrong about Keynes [James Crotty]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wX_20yHx8Zc/mqdefault.jpg)
So why are SLC grads so conservative about economics -- both Republican and Democrats -- and generally seem to be allergic to talk about things like poverty and wealth consolidation when it comes to poor, the working class, and the middle class here in the US? Why are things like New Deal interventions seen as so dreadful? Thanks for posting this. This was great. YES, there needs to be a legal theory to go counter to the ideas from the 1980s and 1990s from the neoliberal economists and lawyers that no longer work.
They’re privileged, led blinkered lives prior to enrolling at SLC, shut their ears to any serious criticism of current economic practices, and graduated essentially unchanged? I saw similar things happen with business school students during my undergraduate days.
@Patrick Dannady YES that's the point. They have benefitted exceptionally well from the status quo. They're simply not motivated to change what makes their privilege exist.
SLC??
@@justaguy6100 But it seems to be the case mostly in economics. In other disciplines it is quite common to find people who are critical of neoliberalism and the status quo. For example I did law and in my studies I encountered a lot of law students with progressive and left wing views.
@@Seal-hs5il While I agree, these aren't the wallet disciplines. It seems much easier to be egalitarian when it doesn't mean you're eroding the foundation of your own economic pillars.
Ok, I am a tad bit hyperbolic with that. I don't doubt there ARE many in that arena who have sincere concern for a more equitable economic outcome for most of us who exist in a single society. There's plenty of cases to be made for it establishing a more stable, safe society when you bring more people up from deprivation and desperation EVEN IF it means shaving some off the heights of the uber comfortable. When you look back at most of the revolutions, at their heart will be an extreme wealth gap.
Another _possibility_ for more of these future leaders not taking more bold stances is that, it seems that economics is one area of study that, even in those "liberal bastions" that the Universities are claimed to be, the theory tends to lean to the more conservative, free market/capitalism side. Even in the 70's when I was taking my eduvacation, the ECON professors were loathe to consider anything with the stank of "distribution of wealth" when a discussion turned in that direction.
Ok decades ago, no idea where it is today, but from the outcomes, it doesn't seem like it's changed much. Maybe some Keynsian mutation, now.
Thought provoking. Interesting to see the relationships between law and economics and the perceived binaries developed from those disciplines
It is interesting to see a kind of legal Darwinism as each new abstract legal process throws up new possibilities and contradictions.
Corporations were a new species, originally it had a population of just one.
This approach is not only sensible, it also holds much promise: for if current inequalities and our journey towards ecological catastrophe are in fact dependent on the legal system we have historically given ourselves, then at some point democracy might produce legislatures with enough power and will to correct course.
This explains why the rich are so wary of government and why they spend so much money on lobbying and fake think tanks. It is because, ultimately, we are only a few votes away of rejecting this unfair wasteful careless rent-seeking system and setting course towards a fairer sustainable order that promotes dignity and wellbeing.
Great description of how the market is created by the political institutions and the culture. There isn't a Sacred Market existing out in the ether.
The name "Jamee Moudud" should be in the video title and his biography and social presence links should be in the description field. This follows the logic and ethics of proper crediting, as well as search engine optimisation.
Very interesting video. I love when the theory of natural property rights is challenged. Property only exists as a legal construct. Any notion of property by natural right is just a opinion of how the world should be dishonestly framed as a fact. This makes certain people's heads explode.
yeah, but that's not limited to arguments _for_ property. people often argue that it's not natural and therefore can't be any good. or for some magical divide between "personal" and "private" property.
property is complex, neither it or it's absence will automatically solve all resource allocation problems. good laws have to be found by negotiation and experimentation. and if you leave property law (or any other law) it to the state, you will get laws favoring the state and securing state power and privilege.
You're very disconnected from the real world. Without personal property rights backed by law, any person or group can violently take what you consider yours without prosecution.
@@jasonformann4980 i'm not sure who you are arguing against. i mean, violently taking things being legal also implies that violence would be legal, what noone here was even close to suggesting.
but yeah, when things are legal they are legal. i don't think either of us meant to say that there should be no property law. though i don't know what sort of property law @sinyrko3420 would favour 🤷.
@@jasonformann4980 You mean *CREATED AS* law 😉
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus Well, it's a good thing I never made the appeal to nature fallacy, and simply asserting systems of property that differ from Nozick's are "magical" won't make them so. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone not made of straw who seriously thinks the solution to issues regarding resource allocation can be solved by simply eliminating property as a legal institution. Socialists definitely don't. Heck, even anarchists don't!
I am, however, curious about what laws you think can exist as something other than the state's enforcement of a rule. Maybe you're one of those people who like to make a fine distinction between governments and states, and you're simply against case law? But something tells me that's not what you're getting at. Maybe you're doing that weird Hayek thing where you argue state agents are functionally only beholden to themselves, and their interest is to develop a reinterest relationship with the tax payer? Ironically, both Kalecki and Rand are famous for refuting this notion (with the latter not realizing that's what she did)
"All markets are regulated, so the question arises what is the form of regulation" Deregulation is a form of regulation, just a form of reguation that its propoents are trying to get away without taking responsibility for by rhetorical means. As Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: "The maning of words is their use. / I have read that Abraham Lincoln thought the difference between wage labor and slavery was that the latter wa a permanent not a temporary condition. Just imagine capitalism with both the owning and the renting of human beings outlawed. We could still have worker owned and operated cooperatives which are a form of private property.
You can’t change the minds of people who benefit from the way things are. You don’t actually need to
A great take on the area also well covered by Katherina Pistor in recent INET presentations. Thanks.
The Laws of Capitalism, which also provides good examples of the embeddedness of economics in the legal system.
Because our law protects property rights and the environment is viewed as property, because our law is not situated within environmental realities and physical law, our economy is unsustainable within human law and physical law. The environmental piece is social and political, but far more than that - existing beyond human perspective. Our systems have not taken a more-than-human perspective. Everything the powerful create is selfish, regardless of how they frame it. Environmental perspectives force inclusion.
What is the most common form of discrimination in the workplace today? Probably discrimination against working parents, but they are not protected by the EEOC. Why has there been no progress? The perspective applied to the law sees sex as fe/male only, not parent and nonparent. How can parental status exist outside of sex and not fall into that category? This is the power of perspective - you can justify any injustice. The law always trails behind, and the framework of law prevents how far protections can go. The law needs to be entirely reframed within environmental reality.
The end of laissez-faire? When did it started?
Property owner and property buyer are separate entities of the structured political policy.
Did they film this under candle light? Lol!
maybe they were in Europe, gotta save because american gas is more expensive than russian
So nearly everyone would sell
I thought this talk would get a lot more into origins of property rights as indvidual agreeements and the notion those private recognitions are the same as public or somethint like that. Getting into how improvements are what make property property and so things like the land are in the commons and under different considerations. Instead he talked a lot about what we can and could do with government made monopolostic central banks as if they have always been a given. Doesnt he know one of the first move of any so called laissez-faire leader would be to end the privileges of the federal reserve and its notes?
Idk i thought this would be more profound
Probably unbound free market in digital and iot side
Rest physical stuff I think shall be as cheap at best quality possible
Very less jobs
Laissez-faire government and Laissez-faire economics are counterintuitive ideas. Laffer Curve, peace through strength, and building a strong state on strong individuals given individual liberty and expecting individual responsibility, are counterintuitive ideas. Conservative ideas are counterintuitive.
Liberalism is not an ideology. Liberalism is an inability to use reason and logic to understand how the counterintuitive nature of the universe works, so a person falls back on their emotions to reach a conclusion.
That is why there are no successful liberal political talk radio shows. Liberals need moving pictures or hand puppets to trigger their emotions.
There was a huge global study where they asked thousands of people hundreds of questions and grouped them by their answers. People that ranked high in conscientiousness also favored conservative policies. People that ranked low in conscientiousness also favored liberal policies.
Meaning liberals have no intention of doing what is right or making sacrifices for the good of society.
Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to report having mental problems in some groups and report higher mental problems across the board. This mental instability and inability to still their mind long enough to understand how conservative policies help poor and working class people is the cause of their problem.
If you look up the traits of narcissists, you will see they are exactly the same as liberal politicians and activists, because they are both driven in total by their hatred and emotions.
The way you use the word "liberal" in an economics video speaks mountains to how much you know what you are on about, and the funny thing is you won't realize why unless someone points it out to you (I won't, I think it is funny that you continue to not know the meaning of words you are using).
Or maybe you don't understand what he is speaking about...
@@smithjohnsonwilliams Every single person in North America knows what the modern liberals push as economic policy. EXCEPT YOU! If you thought it meant a classic definition of liberalism then you are obtuse on a galactic scale.
@@smithjohnsonwilliams I personally would like to thank the above commenter for their excellent point.
More specifically, talking point.
It's what allows for them (conservatives) to side-step the amount of suicide by gun, alcoholism AND spousal abuse numbers that skew heavily in the direction of "mentally stable" upstanding citizens we all should aspire to be like.
Listen, to be fair, the two people closest to me are helpful, kind conservative men.
AND narcissistic a🤬🤬holes on occasion. Like all of God's Children ☺️
But here's a video of what happens when you get caught spewing propagandists talking points in an official capacity.
Instead of as a trolling bot that gets all the conservatives all tingly 🤗
ua-cam.com/users/shortsrDCdwhYel5k?feature=share
There can be no Laisser-faire government, governments have one role, to protect private property.
Socialist apologist.
That's absurd. We now have socialism for the powerful and hard nosed capitalism for everybody else.
Boring
You need to work on that bio.