Is Technology Killing Capitalism?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Is Market Capitalism simply an accident of certain factors that came together in the 19th and 20th centuries? Does the innovation of economics require a new economics of innovation? Is the study of economics deeply affected by the incentive structures faced by economists themselves, necessitating a study of the “economics of economics”? In this broad ranging interview INET Senior Economist Pia Malaney sits down with Eric Weinstein - mathematician, economist, Managing Director of Thiel Capital (as well as her co-author and husband) to discuss these and other issues.
Underlying the seismic shifts in the economy in the last ten years, Dr. Weinstein sees not just a temporary recession brought on by a housing crisis, but rather deep and fundamental shifts in the very factors that made market capitalism the driving force of economic growth for the past two centuries. The most profound of these shifts as Dr. Weinstein sees it, is an end to 20th century style capitalism brought about not by a competing ideology, as many had once feared, but instead by changing technology. As production is driven increasingly by bits rather than atoms, he sees the importance of private goods give way to public goods, undermining a basic requirement of market models. In a different line of thinking, as software becomes increasingly sophisticated it takes on the ability to replace humans not only in low level repetitive tasks but also, with the use of deep learning algorithms, in arbitrarily complex repetitive tasks such as medical diagnosis. He sees other technological changes such as the development of crypto-currencies changing the very basics of a macro economic system currently controlled by central banks. Such developments have to potential to de facto shift economic decision making away from centralized government control in a manner that is as yet unpredictable.
Dr. Weinstein also explores the political economy of economics itself, discussing the notion of “economics squared” and the role of rent seeking within the field. Are academic macro-economists truly in a position to advise government agencies given their own track records? Is it time to turn the same lens on economists that they have so effectively used to analyze other labor markets? With the sharp eye of outsider and the familiarity of an researcher within the field, Dr. Weinstein provides the kind of unflinching critique economists are more used to serving up than receiving. - Фільми й анімація
I have worked in the IT/Financial Services industry for over 20 years and I have observed how the best brains spend an enormous amount of time in creating complex financial products, which effectively general no economic growth and makes its money by fees or ticket clipping. We all know that society tends to be more interested in hand held devices which allow them to send pictures of their lunch to their friends, rather than send people to mars, or building a high speed rail network across the US, or even maintaining existing infrastructure. At the other end of the food chain I am seeing people `making more and more money by simply clipping tickets, though the use of micro-fees, share trading for the purpose of short term gain, or the ability to twist the movement of money in such a manner which allows an individual to gain a monitory benefit, but does not affect the movement of money in any positive manner.
I am not certain if market capitalism is dead, but the focus society has now will cause significant structural issues. By moving from a form of economic growth based on the building of factories, infrastructure or anything which has an economic multiplier effect, results in a reduction in the GDP per person. From a society point of view this is not healthy.
Japan has created a solution to this issue and I feel, while western economist always claim is a disaster, for the local Japanese its not. GDP per person in japan contains to rise, mainly by maintaining a positive organic economic growth coupled with a reduction in population. This is sustainable, but from a financial services point of view is very bad, as there is not as much opportunity to generate non-productive revenue from fees and ticket clipping. The developing world has no issue, as its purely focused on building factories and infrastructure, although as wealth increases it may fall into the western developed world trap. Time will tell, but I see some significant disruptions in the western developed world coming soon, if not already.
It's a parasite, which has been eating real world reality from the inside out for some time.
This UA-cam channel is a fucking goldmine! To all those involved with this institute, thank you so much for doing this!
they are commie scam
Man it must be some deep conversations at the family get-together with these two wonderful minds and Brett and Heather.
who's Heather, another sibling?
Eric's brother is Brett Weinstein and his wife is Heather Heying, herself a very astute person about all things just like Eric, Brett and Pia.
@@shohamziner Heather is Brett winestines wife, they have a podcast (Brett and Heather) called the dark horse podcast
I’d pay a lot of money to be invited to thanksgiving
I'm glad people are *seriously* trying to understand what is happening in the world. And others aren't categorically dismissing them.
@@mariem6735 looks like they're failing
this is why i love being a plumber. unlimited work and jobs, cheap training, software only helps me, great pay, no political correctness on a jobsite flooded in sewage, and tons of poo jokes. yay.
You had me at poo Jokes
wait till AI matures lol
@@samueln300 all good by me. I can afford to be part time. I already take the winters off. No wife, no kids, no mortgage, no debt, currently in thailand being a beach bum. yay, plumber wins again.
@@thomasm2806 Ha, I'm not at the beach, but I enjoy my job as a coal miner.
2050 robotoilets are only for sure safe investment- pass that, posthuman economics is difficult to guess
What a bizarre intro between a husband and wife hahaha. You would've thought they just met
You mean the intro where she directly addresses the camera (us) and explicitly mentions they already know each other?
Thanks for pointing this out. Hilarious!
She gave him that look that said, "you were supposed to take out the garbage last night, but you forgot, so I did it. "
They both look gross
MrDeicide1 shit mentality
Is this Andrew Yang’s friend Andrew quotes every now and then saying: “we never knew capitalism was going to be eaten by its son, technology”
indeed
Hey at least capitalism is pro-choice
Victimless crimes tend to not mix Church and State (Im a LDS Mormon Transhumanist Freemason neurotheologist the latter in the sam harris vein
There is a nexus of ideas of which this is one. The ideas of Yuval Noah Harari are also a part of the futuristic conversation.
Would a Horus and Osiris metaphor be relevant here?
I write work instructions for a living, I can confirm that most office work tasks could be automated.
dava00007 just about everything we do to earn a living can be automated
@Dick Fageroni Tesla layoffs: More than 1,000 in Fremont, Palo Alto, Lathrop
Automaker details recently announced job cuts, which will begin in March. In addition, the next generation Giga Factories will course correct. Will the factories require humans yes fewer.
The 21st century model for Capitalism:
How do we invest more capital to have less people work for us. The goal of capitalism now is economic growth without job growth. Identity Politics is dead we are all subject to the 21st growth model.
@@tearlelee34 are you in favour of identity politics?
maybe 80% is, but the problem is that the other 20% becomes much more valuable in an economy which optimized to do repetitive work. This is because the repetitive work subsidized the non-repetitive work. So corporations can get big by focusing on the 80% generating tons of capital that were really meant as subsidies for humans to also do the nonrepetitive work while being ready to execute nonrepetitive work. They are effectively destroying the existence of complex processes which are rarely repetitive by removing these subsidies from humans disabling them from being able to do these complex activities. Therefore, free google translate should be illegal and payment should be required so Google can hire 100,000 translators to accelerate the effective new nonrepetitive translation.
@@shaneoriordan8988
“Now it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract.”
-Mark Zuckerberg
It’s REALLY about ensuring the the gears of commerce continue to work. As more and more AI and robotics replaces human labor, we must realize that humans may largely become unnecessary in large numbers.
Identity politics is dead all labor is essentially standing in line at the edge of the cliff. Capitalism or the market does not value labor:
Sam Harris:
ua-cam.com/video/F_ZSeHiix50/v-deo.html
Automated Economy Explained:
ua-cam.com/video/OEkT14RBzDI/v-deo.html&list=PLLoU3h6MRmgzQU5yR7V7exNXd3UNNbBfg&index=129
We are in the middle of negotiations race, politics abandon it this is a labor class, consumer issue which requires honest conversation and a plan.
We basically watched two smart married people go through foreplay
indiablackwell I wanna watch part 2 😂
@@tookie36 if you thought the hair on Eric's head was thick ...
Chris C 😂
@@chrisc7265 HAHAHA
Exactly.
It's my favorite.
Weinstein is very interesting to listen to. Here you really get the depth of the problem sphere we are facing right now and new system approaches are needed.
Hopefully you mean his mindset, which is deep and confused. He has no clue.
If you thought this went deep, go have a listen to the first episode of the podcast he started recently, where he spent 3 hours discussing our civilisation's deepest problems with Peter Thiel. I can't think of anyone who rivals either of them in terms of being interesting to listen to. They're operating on a different level to most everyone else.
The save/load and copy/paste functions in applications like word and excel have already turned the physical into the theoretical. The efficiency increase caused by not having to employ hundreds of people per business to write, rewrite, file and store physical documents seems to have simply not been takej into account by anyone, despite it theoretically being measurable. Arguably it could be said to be responsible for wage stagnation.
Mr. Weinstein, the new model has already been imagined in the form of the collective works of R. Buckminster Fuller and Jacques Fresco. Peter Joseph has a lecture series which encapsulates these ideas and systematizes them into the paradigm of a natural law, resource-based economy. Please consider having a sitdown discussion with him on this subject.
perhaps try to email him
Exactly.
She is actually his wife. Damn!
These guys should consider acting
This is zo bizar!
There are a lot of non nefarious reasons they could have chosen to do it this way. Given all the talks I’ve seen Eric give I’m going to give them both the benefit of the doubt that this was done for a good reason. Though at this point now that they are “caught” I think it would be better for him to publicly address the reason for this setup as it could be used to try to discredit him in the future.
It’s like he wanted his anthropogenic capitalism article on edge in video form because it’s almost word for word the same. Maybe he has some agreement with them not to publish it elsewhere and therefore setup this “interview”
Alacrity dude you are totally overthinking this, she seems to be an intelligent woman and clearly she wanted to avoid that topic and just focus on a more professional toned conversation. It is a non-issue.
@@jwelda1 "caught"? It's in the description.
You two talking about being economists... I was supposed to be an economist. Out of college, I couldn't find a job in my actual field. If I had been willing to do retail (banking, insurance) , there was no shortage of available jobs. But I wanted to actually use what I learned in college, and those retail jobs shouldn't have required a degree. So I ended up becoming a math teacher. It's definitely not a full utilization of my abilities... but at least its fun. You two wondering how people become economists - I'll tell you how. Nepotism or "friendships." When you have connections, you can be in positions that build experience. If you don't, you're on the outside, and you're not allowed in.
True, I hope you enjoy teaching thlugh. College does not provide connections. But I wonder if you could search on the internet about websites like LinkedIn, where you can build connection with people.
Dude is FIRE.
Agreed - incredible perspective being shared.
He uses the same old trick: he feeds you some valid information, only to hook you with some utter bs in the end (I've noticed central banking and soros. UBI on the other hand I am buying, but then why unemployment of robomen is a problem)
@@mahead You failed to identify why anything mentioned is "utter bs". Ironically enough, Eric's words in this interview were far easier to understand than your comment, which I can't parse with 100% confidence.
Nikola Tesla said this would happen eventually. Tesla said it would take a while & humanity had the struggle through capitalism to learn from it. He said robots would do the laborious work of humanity freeing us from drudgery. He made the first true working robot in 1898. It was also the first device to use an "AND logic gate" to function aka a computer.
Unfortunately, capitalism has never existed in this world. Perhaps the closest it has come was the 99 years of Hong Kong under the British "rule"and 19th century US.
@@phrispirit and socialism has never been tried
Soberanis Fam - um not true . Working great in Europe right now while they watch us suffer enjoying the fact we exaggerate “socialism” to be this “monster” making them appreciate life as they watch our Capitalism circus ruin our lives
its not possible - word robot first appeared in 1920 czech sci-fi play... but of course I am again completely ignorant of a fact that Nikola Tesla created time machine and invented everything.
@@apove1814 Europe ain't socialist
As technology continues to replace all repetitive tasks, creative tasks will need to expand to take over the economy. Podcasts, videos that entertain and inform, blogs and writing- all these things are growing as the market shifts from practical, repetitive tasks to creative, individual or group tasks.
This will be harmful to society if the creative expressions are not feeding each other toward higher culture, but rather level the expressions down to lower levels of creative power.
This should allow for the revival of the artisan, the funding of Michelangelos that might have been lost in recent years to repetitive survival work rather than being discovered.
Market economics can and will adapt to the new technology.
It's possible you're right, but you haven't identified *how* market economics can and will adapt. Simply making the claim is meaningless, it's by no means self-evident.
I’m years late responding, but the educator Robert Hutchins argued that America’s robust industrial power, having liberated men from most economic slavery, along with its democratic political life, had generated an opportunity for the nation’s culture to rival that of Ancient Greece, so long as the population took it upon themselves to absorb a proper liberal arts education during their spare time. If they failed to do this, human behavior and morality would likely degenerate. Man must be made to think and to make meaningful cultural contributions.
The details of a functioning creator-economy are beyond my understanding, but as we enter an era where labor takes up less of our time, it’s certainly something to revisit.
That’s why I’ve started reading The Great Works of the Western World, a collection of keys books - milestones in the West’s epistemological and cultural development - that Hutchins oversaw the publication of.
That's my kind of power couple. #goals
This is where I think his brother Bret has some great ideas - including that we need to take a much more complex look at valuation and externalities. It seems like our culture has created what we call capitalism out of a very specific pool of competing goals. Those goals, from the 18th thru the 20th century brought us out of dire poverty and also, by money to medicine and technology, greatly decreased infant mortality. We had some of the previously untouched externalities of that game come into focus, especially environmental ones, in the late 20th century. We can also see that game, as a distribution system, heading off a cliff or at least going out of the sight of human capacity as machines will dominate us at the tasks that are necessary to run it. If this ends up in Hunger Games it'll be for a dogmatic lack of imagination and apish desire to dominate one another - and that is a real threat because it seems like a slight majority out there have plenty of both. The bigger issue is we need to figure out when a game is spent, when a thing that was a good thing is past its sell-by date, and then figure out what new train is going through or could be routed through the human condition as a positive organizing force. If we end us slaves to ideology and don't exercise that sort of vision this won't end well.
Once again Eric shows his amazing attention to detail and better understanding of the plight that Technology holds for us. He is correct it is a very interesting time where algorithms are subtly and incrementally altering human behavior, yet at the same time changing our economic platform to uncharted territories. We need more conversations like this to broaden the understanding of what’s to come. A more informed society for better or worse will be more effective if changes are needed.
The deep issue is that creativeness can be taught be taught by teaching "about" creativity by teachers who are not creative. Creativity can only be demonstrated by the creative, so, the concept of education itself is obsolete.
I think the deeper issue is lazy people who don't want to work are trying to program AI to be creative. Eric Weinstein is too brilliant to be an economist. He should go back to work at the LHC
I love how he gets smiley eyes when he mentions one of his favorite movie is Kung Fu Panda. (Don't worry, Eric. It wasn't the only thing I took away from this video.)
More like this please Eric and Pia.
The interviewer and Eric were really good here. This was great.
That's because she works with him and understand what he's talking about.
That's because they sleep together all the time.
Seriously, they're married :)
Noam Musk wtf does that have to do with anything?
Drew... isn't that blatantly obvious?
"They were really good together"
"Yeah duh because they're married"...
They look so awkward on their interactions, look how sweaty his neck is.
Very sensible voice. We need persons in government with hard skills (economics, mathematics, physics), instead of only lawyers and political scientists.
We have never needed political 'scientists'.
10:39 This is quite a brilliant observation
this guy is literally amazing. every interview is jam packed with dope insight. its crazy, and hes not elitist.
He speaks well, but his view is very pessimistic. He doesn't even realize that Capitalism doesn't even exist at this moment. To the extent partial Capitalism exists, we will flourish. We need to get rid of the "geniuses" in government except to enforce individual rights. This US economy is nowhere near Capitalism.
@@phrispirit It may be all too precious a quibble, but Capitalism denotes precisely such a system; a government interposing on behalf of Capitalists. It's a term of opprobrium, making capital itself paramount as a new, propulsive force. It's neither novel nor sufficient to transform the world; we're not rich, dynamic & interconnected merely because we stacked 'brick on brick.' I'd more often counsel 'free markets,' instead, as a liberating & enfranchising alternative that would duly reward productive behavior.
6:22 Teaching, in itself, is one of those tasks that are not repetitive - particularly the most important period of a human learning journey, pre-escol to 10yo. Those teachers should be the ones with the best wages and the most demanding training. It's around those formative years (that start even before pre-school) that we develop the understandings (getalts) that will allow us to see new things in the future or, in other words, to be creative. When we move to high-school, we start to be able to compartimentalize psychology work from training and teachers don't need the expertise kindergarten teachers need to have in psychology. That expertise, however, is far more scarce than knowing what a high school teacher needs to know. I could teach Math, Physics and even History to a high school class - I consider myself absolutely incompetent to teach small children properly - even though I could be an entertaining teacher to a few of the kids, that's not the work of such teachers. The work of small children teachers is to undo the knots in both those kids with difficulties and the brightest ones.
Now ... back to our story.
The income gap increases in the US over the last 40 years have been caused by two factors, NAFTA and immigration. In the mid 1980”s my home town had a large tractor factory with 9500 workers on the floor all making $20 per hour. After NAFTA, the company began importing the majority of their parts and now the factory has 900 employees making $15 per hour, but the factory still outputs the same amount of tractors. During the same time my father was making $15 per hour at a union meat packing plant. With the arrival of cheap labor from other countries the company shut down this plant and opened other non-union plants and now 35 years later pays $12 per hour. Imagine if the US hadn’t brought in 50 million low wage workers over the last 30 years? People like to talk about how the population would have aged and we wouldn’t have had enough workers. What would have happened was the jobs that could have been automated would have been, workers would be in higher skilled jobs to support the automation and wages would have gone up. The only reason politicians and businesses people get behind immigration is that they are part of the elite class and they know more low skill employees means lowers wages and more money flowing upward to their upper class.
Interesting channel and discussion/video. Subscribed.
When I saw the title "is technology killing capitalism" I hoped he would be speaking about destructive and exploitative technologies like industrial fishing or farming. But no, if I understand him correctly, he is talking about software technology (i.e. artificial intelligence) that replace especially repetitive tasks to create millions of jobless people.
We are going to eliminate technology from agriculture not expand it....its expansion is killing us...i say this as a farmer
@ANDkan Automation is a myth? You do know you can write a few lines of code and automate whole job titles.
That there are factories that used to employ thousands, but now produce more product for less cost with twenty.
Automation is a myth, in 2020. Jesus, do you serach google by typing "why automation is a myth" or do you never leave echo chamber you stumbled on 4 years ago. I am actually curious of your answer.
@ANDkan Nigga u dumb
exploitative industrial overproduction wouldn't kill capitalism, thats capitalism working perfectly. you could argue the same for the working class being shifted out by software, but the big contradiction that causes it to actually kill capitalism is that workers have to be supported by wealth distribution when the bulk of jobs, the repetitive ones, are gone. Capitalism is either gonna fall into an technocracy, or the fundamental structure will have to be taken into the hands of the workers. Either way, Capitalism is dying, and it can't be saved. Unless the rich sacrifice billions of workers.
Oooh... I misread that. I thought you supported that automation is a myth, and I thought you challenged us to search why automation is myth. Wanting to have an open mind, I carried out 'your' instruction hahha. Turns out there's not many results though
This is one of the most intelligent and substantive person’s opinion I have ever listened to. Thank you so much.
Topics such as this seem to be the most pressing important issues of our society, surely in need of more consideration, while in pop culture we get overwhelmingly distracted by issues of the self and identity.
Thank you for coming. I hope you will come again later at home.
Jacques Ellul stated this in his book "The Technological Society" back in the 1960s.
Wow, what a great conversation!
You’re hot
What’s your Instagram?
This man excites me and scares me simultaneously- which is how life should be, really.
Good man.
Shadow Heart Exactly. Exactly this hahaha
The economic problem -sometimes called basic or central economic problem - asserts that an economy's finite resources are insufficient to satisfy all human wants and needs. It assumes that human wants are unlimited, but the means to satisfy human wants are limited. Economics revolve around these fundamental economic problems.
An assumption often made in mainstream neoclassical economics (and methods that try to solve the economic problem) is that humans inherently pursue their self-interest, and that the market mechanism best satisfies the various wants different individuals might have. These wants are often divided into individual wants (which depend on the individual's preferences and purchasing power parity) and collective wants (which are the wants of entire groups of people). Things such as food and clothing can be classified as either wants or needs, depending on what type and how often a good is requested.
The economic problem is the problem of rational management of resources or the problem of optimum utilization of resources. It arises because resources are scarce and resources have alternative uses.
Three questions arise from this:
• What to produce?
• How to produce? &
• For whom to produce?
What to produce?
'What and how much will you produce?' This question lies with selecting the type of supply and the quantity of the supply, focusing on efficiency.
e.g. "What should I produce more; laptops or tablets?"
How to produce? Capital goods or consumer goods
'How do you produce this?' This question deals with the assets and procedures used while making the product, also focusing on efficiency.
e.g. "Should I hire more workers, or do I invest in more machinery?"
For whom to produce?
'To whom and how will you distribute the goods?' and 'For whom will you produce this for?' arises from this question. This question deals with distributing goods that have been produced, focusing on efficiency and equity.
e.g. "Do I give more dividends to stock holders, or do I increase worker wages?"
LULZ!
Design patterns are defined by Repetitive Behavior(s) that improve productivity in practice, where as Anti-Patterns are defined by Repetitive Behavior(s) that decrease productivity in practice. The funny part is, all design patterns become anti-patterns if abused, or miss-applied. If Capitalism was a deign pattern, I'd say capitalism excels when buying or selling property ie trading, but can easily become an anti-pattern when gambling or inventing new technologies.
Would have been a good idea to start by defining the word capitalism
Heres your definition:
War + war = profit
@@Youtuube304s: if you put no limitations on it, that's what capitalism naturally tends to
@@rv706 ?
This guy is a wonderful treasure trove of information.
very provocative and intriguing. wow
A brilliant discussion!
How about Cooperativism and an Open Market? By open market I mean that the market of a certain place is open but when you come from the outside you have to adhere to the rules and regulations of that specific system. If the system will be lacking something it will open itself more to competition from outside but will normally give priority to local production.
Total automation makes repetitive work obsolete. There is a term for the kind of society he's talking about: it's a "post scarcity society"
"no known educational system that imparts this ability". I think he means Art school.
Oleedee this is the best comment on this page!!!!!!
So laughable that a math genius has been taught, and can even invent, such abstract and useful constructs, and yet cant come on a show that has humanities and philosophical based ideas central to it (human economics) and speak in everyday language that fosters understanding for even the most uneducated viewers. Undereducataed people need to see this stuff, and vote accordingly. He, his wife, his brother and his wife, and all their kids, are awesome people but even Brett and Heather who chose the biological route, get tied up in knots when it comes to simple sociology and philosophy because they were taught that these subjects were trivial and didnt pay as well.
He needs more art based hermeneutics and less heterodox LOL
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
@@AdEPTErik PoMo = PooP
Did mans just cite Kung Fu Panda in the middle of academic discourse?
I just tweeted him about Monster's Inc haha
Need to teach people how to teach themselves.
No, it was toward the beginning.
Love the video and the concepts expressed, but I wonder if the title might be changed to something less... click-baity?
So what to do about it? Leveraging repetitive task to technology exponentially increases productivity. True that lots of people will lose their jobs, but then what? This has been true since time immemorial whenever new technology emerges. Those who can't cope with the time simply falls of. The best way to benefit from technology all the while decreasing those who will get dispossessed is essentially through education. Not the factory-producing education/schools, but those that produce innovators.
post scarcity anarchism and people like fresco, fuller, etzler,rifkin etc have been hip to this for decades.. i mean even marx talked about this... it will get much worse before it gets better though ... just look at the way the systems shaking up .... the endgame is yet unknown, but it seems Wallerstein's divergence is getting closer
He needs to have a chat with Tomas Sowell.
Sowell has a bit of an "Austrian Heritage" in him meaning that he can raise very hard problems for mathematics to solve with a bit of Praxeology.
His knowledge and descriptions of statistics is godlike.
Sowell needs to have a talk with a mathematician...
Dr.Ehrfurchtgebietend TheVenusProject.com
He’s so right on everything
Great point on self regulation inputs.
Correction to timing of reference below: at time 6:10.
Blew my mind like no other
See also CGP Grey's "Humans Need Not Apply." When humans are replaced with automation we lose customers but not consumers. Capitalism cannot handle more than a certain percentage of unemployed consumers, and automation will continue to increase that percentage forever. Simply put the existing model cannot be sustained with the current rules-set. We need to seriously start coming up with a new one before it collapses entirely.
ua-cam.com/video/4mkRFCtl2MI/v-deo.html Resourced Based Economy Peter Joseph
Capitalism is the mechanism by which you are even able to predict the supply and demand of labor markets in your post. Given a free market, we can correct for such things in many ways. However, the state steps in the way and imposes shit policies, like minimum wage (numerous Scandinavian countries don't have min wage, FYI), and we are less able to compete in the labor market and to innovate and iterate.
chbrules you are right for the most part. I used to think the way to you that free market can correcr, but i have been presented with hypotheticals that clearly cross the threshold of capitalisms ability to adjust.
Also, Scandinavian countries follow a more socialistic model (called nordic socialism), with a higher per capita GDP than even America (the hybrid capitalist socialistic nation). Maybe that is why they dont need a minimum wage?
+David Geffeney - Capitalism doesn't prescribe anything but free exchange of goods and services between parties. That system doesn't magically go away with increased automation. The economics of the situation dictate that increased regulations on the labor market by the state are a bad idea. You don't need minimum wage because it's an idiotic idea and an artificial imposition between parties acting in a market.
+Johm eaglehart - No, I'm not.
"Under a free market system, government activities should make everyone richer, equally. " - No, you're projecting what you think a free market is and how it should function.
The only true free market system is under Anarcho-Capitalism. That is pure capitalism - which has never been tried. This georgism shit is just another amalgamation of some hybrid system involving a state and taxation. Milton Friedman had a lot of noteworthy things to say, but he was also wrong on a number of things - including UBI.
Outsiders make the greatest contributions.
Brilliant people will be the death of us.
Whatever you think you know, you don't know nearly enough.
Let these problems be resolved bottom up, not top down.
Tom Ski - right!!!
While I understand what you are saying very well... I don't understand how would you implement a system in which all change emerges amongst the workers, gets tested locally for a few years then gets adopted by majority and scaled up.. You think a worker has time to innovate?
I think that a better name for the study of "how economists think about things" is "philosophy of economics" not "economics of economics".
a lot of what he is saying is researched excellently by David Autor of MIT on Tech led unemployment.
She obviously fell in love with his rugged good looks
Anyone who says or paraphrases the phrase "We're witnessing the end of..." are uniquely always wrong and typically don't have any idea what they're talking about 🤔
This man has depth. What he says on a global scale is not just frightening, but fantastic.
Fantastic is pretty close. He impresses me as a jumbled mess, mentally.
He is a heartless egomaniacal technocrat VC always on a lookout to capitalize.
Is there anything on Earth that isn't in upheaval right now? Holy shit.
Polite Q things will get better once there's a world communist state. The globalist will save us for real this time. They promise.
Ed R. So you neither trust the people who offer you cooperation coercively or the people who offer you cooperation voluntarily, so who the fuck do you trust, only yourself and your family?
And yet, we're in the most peaceful times human civilization has ever known, worldwide. Fewer people are in poverty than at any time in human history. Most people are literate, more people have access to running water and medical care. Perspective, son, get some.
@Ed R. First, in order for merchants to make profit, they have to make product you like so they can sell it. And second, whats wrong with high income inequality, the richer is making more money, but the poor is also making more money. Economics is not a zero sum game, everyone can benefit from trade. You must be really stupid to state concepts without digging deep into the implication of them.
@@yeahyeah9856 What's wrong with high income inequality: The correlation between the Gini coefficient and male on male homicide is like .9. Income inequality destabilizes society. The rich have a higher incentive to maintain the peaceful society in which they were able to get rich. Otherwise the poor become violent and take out the structures that the rich have mastered. That's really bad for everyone. The rich are often the first to die in that kind of upheaval. But the structures the rich have mastered are things that people need in order to survive. They got rich for a reason. They're good at producing food or shelter or water or something that we need. After the poor kill those highly competent people then the food runs out and the poor starve to death. You can't learn overnight how to do what the rich were doing to keep it all running. It took decades to learn those things and millennia to build those structures. So then everyone starves to death. Then the largest, most violent person rises to the top by virtue of having bullied the other starving people out of their food and hoarding it for himself and his group. Society is much nicer when we compete over who can produce more things of value than who can control more things of value. But there is a minority of people who are temperamentally well equipped for the former scenario and those people would love to see society devolve into teeth and flesh again so that they can shine. When income inequality gets too steep then the climb to the top becomes impossible. When the rich cut off the rungs of the ladder as they climb, then the climb to the top becomes impossible for the young people behind them. Then the fastest way to the top for the young and strong is to topple the whole ladder. So that's what they will do. If the rich don't pay back into society to keep income inequality from getting too steep then that's inevitably what happens.
I don't know all the nomenclature, but I hope that despite that I can sit down and work with this guy some time
We're moving from mind-based to heart-based living, which is living from that act of new creation - living more creative lives
My parents are economics professors, I can confirm this is how they behave in public. Until you give them alcohol.
Kung Fu Panda.
I was amazed he was able to draw out such a profound message from that movie and explain it so succinctly
Timothy McAleer Kung fu Panda is a fuking classic. Fantastic movie.
Yeah.
The problem with his approach to economics is that he completely looks past the market distortion by government. There's a willful ignorance of central banking at the core of his analysis. He also somehow he finds "rent-seeking behavior" everywhere but the place it actually exists in bulk: licensing and taxation.
As for technology displacing jobs, this has been panicked over since at least the 19th century. He does this trick where he basically says "well this time it's different because software could replace more things". No. Apply deductive reasoning. If there were magic food-printers that dropped down from the sky tomorrow, displacing most food-workers but giving us endless supplies of cheap or free food, would we be better or worse off? This goes back to Bastiat's brilliant satirical piece, Candlemakers's Petition. bastiat.org/en/petition.html
They introduced the Ai that was gonna replace my position. I smacked it down in speed and quality. Test. And the cost of producing the AI is starting to weigh heavier than it is to continue my employment.
For now
what's your position?
she is really good at pretending they don't have this sort of conversation every other day,
this was awesome
It’s not loops it’s work, repetitive intellectual work can now be automated. It’s not the death of capitalism, it’s the evolution. We need UBI to feed people who will have no jobs.
The defining factor of a loop is the habit of repeating. I'm not sure where the intellect comes into that equation. Loops or repetitive work quickly become the antithesis of intellect.
@@0thepyat0 I don’t remember what this was
We're part of a greater network of stratification and we have to surround it with order. The Singularity.
fuckin a
why?
What if there were multiple kinds of currencies in the same system where they could only be earned and used by the specific function it serves. A currency for developing technology, and a currency for producing goods like food? And you can’t exchange one for the other?
machines have not been able yet to compete with a suitmaker. If it ever does it will not impart the confidence, self esteem and motivation for change, that Shakespeare mentioned in Richard the 3rd
that is a valid point, from what little I heard, it seems that AI are already able to do better estimations than expert humans in some cases, but still not good enough to be able to put together Tesla car
The happy couple start each day with a pow wow about economics - so cute.
9:37 umm... Actually applying math to some areas where's either been intentionally overlooked or obfuscated.
Very interesting 🤔
Most people agree mankind tends to want to solve problems. Rent seeking is resting from solving problems. Innovation, problem solving, is hard work. Both are amoral. Rent seeking slows progress down. If we are progressing to our doom, rent seeking is not so bad.
Eric speaks in the beginning as though the singular central principle of Capitalism is a labor market. Granted, markets are pivotal to Capitalism. But what those markets specifically are have little effect on the success or failure of Capitalism. Capitalism requires ownership and investment (i.e. capital) to produce. What is produced shapes market(s) and in turn is shaped by the markets. The technologies which concerns him will change markets. That is what always happens and in the short term it large portions of the population are displaced possibly causing temporary (in historical timeframes) severe discomfort and discord. Eventually stability emerges from the development of evolved markets. This is not to claim nor dismiss the problem that could arise with a lack of economic social stability. It is only to attempt to highlight the reality of the concern. Otherwise how can it be properly considered?
What if markat regulates itself back to a new normal which means all humans without property or levarage are just cheap unwilling organ donors. You should have just been a better capitalist. Humanity ultimatively losing a gamr of Monopoly with iteslf.
It can be as ugly as you can't even imagine or it could be beautiful, but requires serious work towards organizing conceptualizing it in advance. Instead of hoping for "invisible hand of the market" to work in any other way then to maximise the potential profit for the owner.
I for one would never think that stopping the progress itself, aka actual technical and scientific work and invention is a way to go, especially with 8 billion, we don't have a choice, although I reckon that number will soon go down fast, but we are trully entering realms here which we have proven over and over we are not adapted or wise enough for.
Re Light
“humans without property or leverage are just cheap unwilling organ donors.” To explain the explicit impossibility of such a scenario would require a lengthy conversation beginning from fundamentals that I’m unwilling to undertake through this medium of exchange.
Re Light capitalism is not a political axiom. It is an economic system. It has been adopted due its seeming congruence with the chosen political axiom.
"Sharp elbows over sharp minds"...soo stealing that...
That caught my attention as well. Typically the elbows win, unfortunately.
Add the fact that grabbing a phone is a felony assault 😂 now . This world is crazy.
I’m not condoning that . I’m saying that a scrap fight is part of human nature , and with all the stressors he talked about- add thatto the pile of problems in today’s society - and they they capitalized jails by making them private too. Capitalism like this will not last .
I’m just upset deeply because I want to protect my children from the dumb ones at the top doing this . Who don’t stop until things are literally ruined first. that is so ridiculous.
This was my first hint of Eric Weinstein in the world. I would ask him pretty much anything and value his answer. Whether I would understand, would be of my problem. His NO snippet done, in reaction to, shutting down police is outstanding, and inspiring.
@Brian Joyce - If, as you say, you might not understand his answers to your question(s) while simultaneously saying that you would value his answer, how can you legitimately value that which you don't understand.
@@Scathingly ---I like research and learning. Never challenged never growth. Try it and grow mentally, every challenge you conquer. Good day and thx for asking. Always wonder if people read comments
@Brian Joyce - Oh, dear, did you miss the question? Must've cuz you didn't answer. You may very well do your research--fine lad that you are--but until such time as you verify his answers, you're prematurely saying you value his answers. Yes, you're absolutely right. Some people just don't read the comments. Hmmmm.
@ Brian Joyce (got cut off)...his answers, it's a tad premature to value his answer(s). Of course, you're right, some people don't read before they respond.
@@Scathingly Not sure what your point is, but won't need research either. Be well
Never attribute to randomness that which can be adequately explained by chaos.
wow, perhaps obvious, buti never thought of comparing inflation to weather, in the sense it's more or less prevalent depending on location. for a guy who coined the phrase intellectual dark web, eric may be the most underrated and refreshing member.
He sounds as does H.G.Wells, "The Time Machine."
We don’t have capitalism. We have a mixed economy of capitalism and statism, with increasing statism increasingly strangling productivity.
We need to take power from the state.
Real income always increased....it is impossible for success of technology without real income increase
This has been clear for more than a decade, if you read Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" and can extrapolate the effects of automation on the economy.
Oh you mean the guy who wants to bring his dead Father alive again, clearly fully sane.....
What a brilliant mind.
If the path of least resistance to change in mass markets is to change as little as possible, then the path of no resistance to change at societal level is to change nothing at all, yet everything changes. Ive been working on this some 8 years now, I'm almost ready.
I am a mass marketing strategist by profession, and you can find me on LinkedIn, if this interests you. Ive sent an Invite to Eric and I will look for you too.
We can easily innovate our way out of this mess... if we want.
I love, love, love this video.
i believe it was Slavoj Zizek that had quite the opposite opinion on the movie Kung Fu Panda he found it quite insulting actually but hearing Eric's view on the movie is interesting to say the least :)
the paradigm shift is soon the cost to make something is nothing.
This guy, Eric Weinstein, is fantastic. Articulate, honest, succinct and accurate.
Why is everyone so concerned about automation? Is it the gap between now and overabundance? Or the disruption of systems of control? I assumed that was the point of this video through the lens of economics, but I’ll I saw in the comments were petty squabbles over intellectual ideals. Thoughts?
I think most people are worried how the vast majority of the population will deal with this. I mean during the industrial revolution people went from working on farms to factories and it disrupted and caused chaos. But eventually everything settled and worked out because people could transition to factory work.
I think the major difference now is almost all jobs we do could be automated which is great to me. But I think it's unrealistic to think most of the population could transition to being programers or engineers. Another thing is I believe people want to prepare for this next technological revolution but we're not seeing anybody take notice that it's going to happen. And next thing you know all low level jobs are gone(not all but alot) so how will that college student earn money if there's no low level work to pay for education
Grant bucy great points and I agree it will be a difficult transition especially in countries like the United States that larger percentage of the population are employed by the transportation industry. So the question is what do we do with these people who maybe unable or unwilling to pivot into a new career? Many people suggested a UBI which is a loaded topic in itself how do you fund it? Is it even a good idea? I think the issue a little deeper then that and that automation undermines our entire monetary incentive scheme. Will capitalism work in the long run if they’re no clear way for a majority of the population to earn money? And how will that effect the rest of the system? Will money have any value if it’s highly concentrated in one place and no go reason to circulate? On a lower level though we could put high taxes on automation based on how many workers are displaced to slow the process down and fund some ubi structure. I just haven’t seen any good ideas to solve the issue that I see as a fundamental issue with a consumer based economy where labor is obsolete.
tech killing capitalism is exactly what Marx said hundreds of years ago, some skepticism is in order i think.
If technology is going to dominate the production of wealth which ism would you prefer to take care of the people
Excellent discussion.
But I repeat the question she asked, "what's different this time?" Technology inherently seeks to change productivity (eg, of repetitive tasks). So this is not an aberration of technology or a shift of capitalism -- this is a new problem set caused by shifts in productivity.
And can we not argue that the market is already working on this problem?
For example, many people earn income publishing their unique personality using UA-cam's technology without relying on a traditional "repetitive" skill set (eg, journalism/broadcasting education).
Technology consolidates capital, but simultaneously redistributes it.
I don't think we're lamenting "the end of capitalism" but rather the present distribution of in-demand inputs (eg skills) and outputs (eg income)
Edit: here's an interesting example from the turn of the century: the music "industry" decreased 40% yet technology gave more creators access to sales: ua-cam.com/video/392B71DgBCY/v-deo.html
Failure of our economic system may have been accelerated by technology, but was put in place by Nixon in the 1970s when he took us off the gold standard and divorced government spending from any kind of accountability. The result is that hard work is not rewarded because saving is not rewarded, in fact saving is punished. The system necessarily has to fail because it's built on a flawed premise which isn't that you can just continue borrowing forever and borrowing to pay back what you borrowed. It creates a situation in which, because there is no accountability, those seeking power can simply utilize the seemingly bottomless pockets of the public treasury to incentivize certain people to vote for them. This failed to take into account, however, that there have to be people producing real good and real output in order for all of us to survive. Those people are being burdens to support a greater and greater number of people without getting ahead of themselves, the system is edging ever closer to collapse. The United States with a Powerhouse when hard work and effort were rewarded as opposed to what is now rewarded, which is the exploitation of the system