... and for those who wants to know more about it, there is Michael Heinrich's 'The science of Value' (Die Wissenschaft vom Wert)... although there are few problems: it is in German (but also in Italian from just few months ago), it is about 500 pages, it based on a 'new reading of Marx' (so not for those with a prejudice against the bearded man from Trier) and it is not exactly an easy read... indeed I simply read the chapters from his 'an introduction to the 3 volumes of Karl Marx's capital'. Still not easy, but at least shorter!
We're born in debt having to pay rent to our corrupted society in ways we cannot understand unless we are lucky enough to have access to ideas like this ... but even then it doesn't really gel until we are old.
The video stopped, but a voice said it would continue if I clicked on the link in the upper left corner. I clicked; it did not continue. Too bad, since the talk was just getting interesting.
Just curious. If the 'sterile class' (finance guys) are not incentivized with a share of profit, capital won't flow into the businesses. Who would then provide the funds to new businesses to grow?
@@jomarch-bh7dv I believe you're overlooking what she said. She is not critical of profit, but the distortion of profit as an end to itself, and where the companies diminish investments as more profits are diverted to the top 1 % where the money stagnates or is "sterile" or unproductive. Remember that a standard ratio for top wage of a corporation was 7 times the lowest wage, many years ago. That ratio has ballooned in the past fifty years to over 800. Quite sobering.
@@andrewgraham1418 I agree that profits should be reinvested and currently the share of profit going to the shareholders are disproportionately high but calling say something like VCs or PE investors sterile might not be appropriate as they are taking very high risk in funding new businesses. I agree 100% that the ratio of management comp vs rest of the firm is crazy.
value is quite often unrelated to supply and demand as many times value is not actual value but instead value perceived, or something is worth what I think it is worth. Hence the intrinsic value of advertising.....
I really hate to say it, but some of this is extraneous. All you need to know is that Milton Friedman said, "You are free to choose," but his boss and good buddy Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they "freely chose" to picket. How much freedom to form unions do people have today? Union participation is far below its height when the economy was really humming. "Values voters," big during the 1980s, all got roped into the same big value - the value of money. It's kind of an oxymoron when you consider that money in and of itself has no value. By the way, there's a wonderful guy in Canada who would back you up on the point you make about how b-school and finance school grads are woefully undereducated on economic history, the development of economic theory and the like. I can't remember his name, but he wrote a book called "The Unconscious Civilization."" You are also correct when you say discussion of economic values is foreclosed, and the New School economist Richard Wolff always makes the same point.
@@sigalius Nor should it...I like it when things do what they say on the tin. Now if only everyone said what they mean...and mean what they say. Things would be a whole lot less confusing...for everybody.
law does not easily allow shorting shares in a company unless you are a hedge fund , while in many cases shorting is useful to get rid off of bad managers , it could be in other cases be abused , but the principle is sound, but if I follow your line of thought , then a huge sector in the economy like "insurance" is actually useless ! as they don't move or create machines a round yet they exploit law of large numbers and the nature of risks being underwritten !
Her whole idea is based on more government intervention of the kind which killed innovation and wealth creation in the countries where it has been tried. She is a total hypocrite peddling beliefs that promise more equality but does not practice equality itself. Her praise for Piketty's belief that tax reduction has caused more inequality is illustrative of her poor thinking since tax rates do not tell the full story of how much tax is paid. Rates are only a part of the indication of amounts of tax people or business pays and the reality is the amount of or rate tax collection does not relate to the wealth of the individuals or groups in the economy.
So Government investment in roads, rail, sewers, education kills wealth creation? Government funding of research stifles innovation? On the contrary, wealth creation and innovation depend almost entierly on Government spending.
@@gordondavies7773 Your question has just completely ignored teh cost of those outlays of tax. Tell me - Do you go to the shop or on the net or into car yard and buy things for sale without comparing prices ? Or do you shop around ?
@@Rob-fx2dw Not at all! But when I drive to the shops on publicly funded roads, or when I use the internet, the outcome of publicly funded research, or when I listen to music played by a musician trained at a publicly funded music school, or I take a prescribed medecine developed at publically funded research centres, or I drink tap water knowing that the quality is monitored by a publicly funded agency... I am aware of the key role of publicly funded institutions. In the same way, businesses can develop ideas and concepts knowing that they are protected from unscrupulous by Government regulations and institutions, copyright, patent law. Unfortunately, some businesses thrive because of an absence of Government intervention. It is unclear, for instance, whether modern warehousing and distribution for e-commerce would be as profitable if successive governments had not deregulated, thus allowing working conditions that that are exploitative and damaging to workers health/
@@gordondavies7773 You say with sarcasm 'Investment in rods, rail, sewers, education kills wealth creation" ? Then 'wealth creation depends on almost entirely on government spending' Yet all of the things you have mentioned are government run monopolies in which there is no competition allowed so you cannot even judge how well that money is spent since you have no means of comparison. Did the government spending in the USSR lead to massive wealth creation like happen in the western countries where there was competition between private companies? Your argument is dead in the water.
@@Rob-fx2dw We have seen the disaster of privately owned utilities in the neo-liberal experiment known as the UK. Water, electricity, rail, gas... the principle expertise developed has been in the technique of siphoning off money needed for investment in to shareholders pockets.
Individuals have values and individuals are allowed to express their values under capitalism. Under any other system it is the administrators of the state whose values who you must follow or else the violence of law will be used against you.
@@avillianchillinskrillian That's because you don't live under capitalism. You live under a government that makes you ask for permission for everything you do and has inflated your money to the brink of worthlessness, so you can't afford anything.
Govt can control the rentiers dominance of the real estate market by constructing affordable, readily_available housing units and paying a Basic Income (my version) to the unemployed. Much, much more.
Is inequality actually a problem? People are not equally capable of thriving in all circumstances, you would expect to see inequality unless you were some how holding everyone down. Poverty is a problem, you might want to find a way to make the absolute bottom level higher and more comfortable, but I wouldn't say inequality is actually a problem in itself.
If we took the wealth of the top 5,000 families and redistributed it evenly amongst all the people in the world, we would eradicate absolute poverty in a stroke. Inequality and poverty are two sides of the same coin
@plebjames why don't we just take everything you and your family has, like all the stuff you don't need (smartphones, tvs, laptops, PCs, jewellery, any excess money you and your family members have etc) and redistribute it to people with less than you, (people living in the streets etc).
@@xdgamesCoUk If it was also going to happen to all the people in the world who were richer than me, I would go along with it. I am for fairness and greater equality even if it were to leave me individually materially worse off
Are we going to listen to what capitalism values from a person who actually values Capitalism? Or from a person who absolutely does NOT value Capitalism? Since this is, after all, UA-cam ... I tend to believe that the words spoken here - just guessing - are surely NOT in favor of capitalism. Hey, but somebody feel free to prove me wrong. Capitalism values everything which enables any person to get ahead in life if they apply themselves, rather than only the rich who've been rich forever. This is what pro-capitalism Trump achieved for citizens, and is the exact opposite of what Biden is doing, which means he does nothing. He has, in effect, not accomplished a single solitary significant thing for citizens.
That is not true. Everything is getting worse regardless of who is president. Trump didn't achieve anything. A TRUE businessperson wouldn't even think to blame who the president is on their success. Most people apply themselves, that's how society functions but people are not getting much out of it.
Citation? The book is called the wealth of nations. Those who collect rents without contributing value to the nation are impoverishing the nation. I think you have no clue of what you're talking about.
Mazucato says "What i want to do is have a discussion with you". - Totally misleading B.S. as is her theory. Where is the discussion ? None - It is lecture without any discussion !
it's an ongoing dialogue with the public and I'm sure there are ways to contact her. Don't be wierd you can't actually talk to the person in the video in real time lol
@@avillianchillinskrillian Sure ? How- If you are so sure then what is the way? Tell me how a discusssion takes place without dialogue between two or more parties.
@@Rob-fx2dw She's a public figure. I'm sure you can express yourself on her social media accounts or an event she goes to, I think it was more of an expression of "society needs to talk about these things more and she will be doing the same."
@@avillianchillinskrillian You may say "I am sure you can express yourself on social media accounts. News to you ! - I have expressed myself and she has not been able to address the points.
@@avillianchillinskrillian You make the mistake of thinking these people are interested in anyone but themselves and promoting thier own interest instead of the welfore of the people. If they were they would respond to details raised n but they don't.
Her brief overview of the historical development of capitalism was excellent. The content lacking is that of your intellectual acuity. You have distinguished yourself as a person of commendable naivete.
Economic history. The meaning of value. Very smart lady. I hope these things become a part of people's education so we can make things better.
What an excellent output of perspective with related context on a currently huge global problem. Very well done.
Her talks are really so good.
An incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and skill-full analysis. Great book.
Labour is the only creator of value. Nature does not create value, even though there are stuff in nature we consider valuable.
This woman is very smart. Really like listening to her ideas.
Labour is the only creator of value. Nature does not create value, even though there are stuff in nature we consider valuable.
Mazzucato is a genius of our times.
Labour is the only creator of value. Nature does not create value, even though there are stuff in nature we consider valuable.
Natural resources exist and it makes people who don’t work billionaires and even trillionares like Al Saud. The Kim Kardashian model too
History of technology and economics brings all answers!!!
... and for those who wants to know more about it, there is Michael Heinrich's 'The science of Value' (Die Wissenschaft vom Wert)... although there are few problems: it is in German (but also in Italian from just few months ago), it is about 500 pages, it based on a 'new reading of Marx' (so not for those with a prejudice against the bearded man from Trier) and it is not exactly an easy read... indeed I simply read the chapters from his 'an introduction to the 3 volumes of Karl Marx's capital'. Still not easy, but at least shorter!
I value this discussion, but not enough to pay for a subscription to hear it in full
We're born in debt having to pay rent to our corrupted society in ways we cannot understand unless we are lucky enough to have access to ideas like this ... but even then it doesn't really gel until we are old.
Labour is the only creator of value. Nature does not create value, even though there are stuff in nature we consider valuable.
The video stopped, but a voice said it would continue if I clicked on the link in the upper left corner. I clicked; it did not continue. Too bad, since the talk was just getting interesting.
So away from fancy charts.
Is the theory of equilibrium empirical correct? Is it scientific?
Just curious. If the 'sterile class' (finance guys) are not incentivized with a share of profit, capital won't flow into the businesses. Who would then provide the funds to new businesses to grow?
@@jomarch-bh7dv I believe you're overlooking what she said. She is not critical of profit, but the distortion of profit as an end to itself, and where the companies diminish investments as more profits are diverted to the top 1 % where the money stagnates or is "sterile" or unproductive. Remember that a standard ratio for top wage of a corporation was 7 times the lowest wage, many years ago. That ratio has ballooned in the past fifty years to over 800. Quite sobering.
@@andrewgraham1418 I agree that profits should be reinvested and currently the share of profit going to the shareholders are disproportionately high but calling say something like VCs or PE investors sterile might not be appropriate as they are taking very high risk in funding new businesses. I agree 100% that the ratio of management comp vs rest of the firm is crazy.
Can you share the isbn to the Pickett E book or where we can purchase/download it please? Thanks in advance!
It's Thomas Picketty
value is quite often unrelated to supply and demand as many times value is not actual value but instead value perceived, or something is worth what I think it is worth. Hence the intrinsic value of advertising.....
I really hate to say it, but some of this is extraneous. All you need to know is that Milton Friedman said, "You are free to choose," but his boss and good buddy Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they "freely chose" to picket.
How much freedom to form unions do people have today? Union participation is far below its height when the economy was really humming.
"Values voters," big during the 1980s, all got roped into the same big value - the value of money. It's kind of an oxymoron when you consider that money in and of itself has no value.
By the way, there's a wonderful guy in Canada who would back you up on the point you make about how b-school and finance school grads are woefully undereducated on economic history, the development of economic theory and the like. I can't remember his name, but he wrote a book called "The Unconscious Civilization.""
You are also correct when you say discussion of economic values is foreclosed, and the New School economist Richard Wolff always makes the same point.
The name gives it away really..."capital"
Yes, that's what I thought! Capitalism values, capital... What else?
it definitely doesn't value humanity or social goals
@@sigalius Nor should it...I like it when things do what they say on the tin.
Now if only everyone said what they mean...and mean what they say.
Things would be a whole lot less confusing...for everybody.
law does not easily allow shorting shares in a company unless you are a hedge fund , while in many cases shorting is useful to get rid off of bad managers , it could be in other cases be abused , but the principle is sound, but if I follow your line of thought , then a huge sector in the economy like "insurance" is actually useless ! as they don't move or create machines a round yet they exploit law of large numbers and the nature of risks being underwritten !
Her brain is a well-oiled machine. Such a delight to witness.
QOL is always most important. Good food is one of most important factors. Therefore I go with physiocrats.
Interesting
Profit. Profit. Profit. Oh yes, and stakeholder profit. But that's essentially the same thing.
What is value? Baby, don't hurt me no more.
🌹🌹
The Anti-Milton!
Investment or re-investment can be lost due to poor foresight by the investor. Interesting how the role of savings in the economy is not discussed.
Hero.
Money
Her whole idea is based on more government intervention of the kind which killed innovation and wealth creation in the countries where it has been tried. She is a total hypocrite peddling beliefs that promise more equality but does not practice equality itself.
Her praise for Piketty's belief that tax reduction has caused more inequality is illustrative of her poor thinking since tax rates do not tell the full story of how much tax is paid. Rates are only a part of the indication of amounts of tax people or business pays and the reality is the amount of or rate tax collection does not relate to the wealth of the individuals or groups in the economy.
So Government investment in roads, rail, sewers, education kills wealth creation? Government funding of research stifles innovation? On the contrary, wealth creation and innovation depend almost entierly on Government spending.
@@gordondavies7773 Your question has just completely ignored teh cost of those outlays of tax.
Tell me - Do you go to the shop or on the net or into car yard and buy things for sale without comparing prices ? Or do you shop around ?
@@Rob-fx2dw Not at all! But when I drive to the shops on publicly funded roads, or when I use the internet, the outcome of publicly funded research, or when I listen to music played by a musician trained at a publicly funded music school, or I take a prescribed medecine developed at publically funded research centres, or I drink tap water knowing that the quality is monitored by a publicly funded agency... I am aware of the key role of publicly funded institutions.
In the same way, businesses can develop ideas and concepts knowing that they are protected from unscrupulous by Government regulations and institutions, copyright, patent law.
Unfortunately, some businesses thrive because of an absence of Government intervention. It is unclear, for instance, whether modern warehousing and distribution for e-commerce would be as profitable if successive governments had not deregulated, thus allowing working conditions that that are exploitative and damaging to workers health/
@@gordondavies7773 You say with sarcasm 'Investment in rods, rail, sewers, education kills wealth creation" ? Then 'wealth creation depends on almost entirely on government spending'
Yet all of the things you have mentioned are government run monopolies in which there is no competition allowed so you cannot even judge how well that money is spent since you have no means of comparison.
Did the government spending in the USSR lead to massive wealth creation like happen in the western countries where there was competition between private companies?
Your argument is dead in the water.
@@Rob-fx2dw We have seen the disaster of privately owned utilities in the neo-liberal experiment known as the UK. Water, electricity, rail, gas... the principle expertise developed has been in the technique of siphoning off money needed for investment in to shareholders pockets.
Individuals have values and individuals are allowed to express their values under capitalism. Under any other system it is the administrators of the state whose values who you must follow or else the violence of law will be used against you.
That's not how people are feeling nowadays. Everything is getting worse.
@@avillianchillinskrillian That's because you don't live under capitalism. You live under a government that makes you ask for permission for everything you do and has inflated your money to the brink of worthlessness, so you can't afford anything.
Meet the new Keynes.
Govt can control the rentiers dominance of the real estate market by constructing affordable, readily_available housing units and paying a Basic Income (my version) to the unemployed. Much, much more.
Heimspiel
Is inequality actually a problem? People are not equally capable of thriving in all circumstances, you would expect to see inequality unless you were some how holding everyone down. Poverty is a problem, you might want to find a way to make the absolute bottom level higher and more comfortable, but I wouldn't say inequality is actually a problem in itself.
People have worries with the level of inequality, as well as the fact that that level is continuing to increase.
It's about the LEVEL of inequality.
If we took the wealth of the top 5,000 families and redistributed it evenly amongst all the people in the world, we would eradicate absolute poverty in a stroke.
Inequality and poverty are two sides of the same coin
@plebjames why don't we just take everything you and your family has, like all the stuff you don't need (smartphones, tvs, laptops, PCs, jewellery, any excess money you and your family members have etc) and redistribute it to people with less than you, (people living in the streets etc).
@@xdgamesCoUk If it was also going to happen to all the people in the world who were richer than me, I would go along with it. I am for fairness and greater equality even if it were to leave me individually materially worse off
This woman has no idea.
Are we going to listen to what capitalism values from a person who actually values Capitalism? Or from a person who absolutely does NOT value Capitalism?
Since this is, after all, UA-cam ... I tend to believe that the words spoken here - just guessing - are surely NOT in favor of capitalism.
Hey, but somebody feel free to prove me wrong.
Capitalism values everything which enables any person to get ahead in life if they apply themselves, rather than only the rich who've been rich forever.
This is what pro-capitalism Trump achieved for citizens, and is the exact opposite of what Biden is doing, which means he does nothing. He has,
in effect, not accomplished a single solitary significant thing for citizens.
That is not true. Everything is getting worse regardless of who is president. Trump didn't achieve anything. A TRUE businessperson wouldn't even think to blame who the president is on their success. Most people apply themselves, that's how society functions but people are not getting much out of it.
Where is Yaron Brook when you need him?..
She lied. Adam Smith meant markets free of regulations and government intervention.
Citation? The book is called the wealth of nations. Those who collect rents without contributing value to the nation are impoverishing the nation. I think you have no clue of what you're talking about.
Back prior to 1900s sterile class was Jews. 😅😅
Mazucato says "What i want to do is have a discussion with you". - Totally misleading B.S. as is her theory.
Where is the discussion ? None - It is lecture without any discussion !
it's an ongoing dialogue with the public and I'm sure there are ways to contact her. Don't be wierd you can't actually talk to the person in the video in real time lol
@@avillianchillinskrillian Sure ? How- If you are so sure then what is the way?
Tell me how a discusssion takes place without dialogue between two or more parties.
@@Rob-fx2dw She's a public figure. I'm sure you can express yourself on her social media accounts or an event she goes to, I think it was more of an expression of "society needs to talk about these things more and she will be doing the same."
@@avillianchillinskrillian You may say "I am sure you can express yourself on social media accounts. News to you ! - I have expressed myself and she has not been able to address the points.
@@avillianchillinskrillian You make the mistake of thinking these people are interested in anyone but themselves and promoting thier own interest instead of the welfore of the people.
If they were they would respond to details raised n but they don't.
More claptrap. IAI, please go back to content and not snowflake tears
Her brief overview of the historical development of capitalism was excellent. The content lacking is that of your intellectual acuity. You have distinguished yourself as a person of commendable naivete.
@@elysium619 when you read Dierdre McCloskeys 'myth of the entrepreneurial state' you see the limitations in Mazzucato's arguments.