I'm not sure if GDP measures anything meaningful at all. All it measures is how much money changes hands. This tells us nothing what is produced and what value it has.
@@asdfghyter I was thinking if the average person when I wrote it. Like you say it measures the amount of money changing hands, but nothing about production...Nothing about how well the average person is fairing.
@@asdfghyter GDP does NOT measure "the amount of money changing hands." It measures production. That's why it is closely related to the standard of living. It's about how much in goods and services each person on average can consume. GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) is better at capturing the purchasing power of regular people (focusing on things regular people need and buy).
@@gyozakeynsianism But it only measures when it's done in exchange for money and it measures it in terms of whatever price was negotiated, which is why I still argue that it effectively measures money more than actual things. Also, it doesn't take into account inequality, which is especially important since money has a much larger impact on standard of living when you're poor than when you're rich.
Whether the Earth is considered in the equation by humans or not, the current situation looks like the Earth knows how to force itself into the equation.
Agreed. Earth doesnt really care about us and what we can do to her, Earth has been through massive extinctions, ice ages.... The Earth can survive without humans, can regenerate and wait millenia to do so. We are really destroying ourselves!
Amazing ideas! World has to unite and find the best solution for each country using doughnut economy) this would eliminate many existing problems.. "regenerating nations". Together we can do it very fast. We can build Creative society where everyone is valued and safe.
Love it, but in order to work on a global scale, we will have to make this a numbers thing too. Politicians currently work by turning dials and trying to optimize numbers. If we are to convince them that they need to use this, we need to show them numbers and show them how they're doing with those numbers. Otherwise, they won't actually put any of this to good use.
That's right, but that means we need local movements and platforms that can show great community success as sustainable prosperity where the numbers don't lie and even the most conservative politicians would have to admit (perhaps privately only) that it is a great success. Best platform I know currently that can do that, focused on community but collaborative across the globe, is One Small Town Contributionism organization with Michael Tellinger.
Doesn't look plausible. I say try it out in Denmark for 50 years and then we can decide. You can't really have a shorter testing period than that when you're talking about economy.
Ad hominem. You have a one worded amalgamation that seeks it merits on your cleverness of word play, rather than demonstrating a critical take/response.
A key problem is some people eat a dozen donuts a day and some people have just some crumbs. We need to redistribute wealth and resources. There's enough from everybody's need but not everyone's greed -Ghandi
I don't know if this is even a type of economy or more of just policy decisions. The reasons that we really only have 3 types of economies (socialist, capitalist, and communist) is because each have a fundamental difference between businesses and ownership of property. I will try my best to simplify each one. Communist, nothing is privately owned, all being controlled by the government. Socialist, businesses publicly owned but individuals still own their own property. Lastly Capitalist, businesses and property are both individually owned. Almost all economies are a mixed economy, opting for social programs (k-12 schools, police, fire department, etc) but still have individual businesses. Capitalism does breed competition, but healthy competition is a good thing since it leads for further innovation because it provides an incentive. It will be interesting to see more places implement this to see how it would work in a larger scale.
Communism in theory is when there is no private property and no state, Greed is when the government takes that theory and decides to control everything. Real communism has never been practiced
@@nachannachle2706 You are correct that the systems I provided are political constructs, but they are the most known way to describe economies. I will go more in depth than my original message. You will notice they have different names, but are obviously connected with their respected government names. The four economic systems are traditional, command, market, and mixed. Traditional economies function in 2nd to 3rd world countries were the town produces only what it needs. This works on a very small scale and lacks the ability to improve technology generally. Command is the central government takes control of means of production (most notably demonstrated by the USSR) and the individuals get jobs from the government. Market or the free market economy has no intervention from the government, this includes no tariffs (tax on imported goods), minimum wages, and other means of control of the market. Lastly, mixed economies combine command and market economies. The government does not own the private businesses but they control individual companies to an extent. This allows the government to try and "correct" issues in an market such as monopolies, products that hurt individuals, and so on. Capitalism is the free market, communism is the control market, and socialism lies between mixed and command. As I said though, governments are all mainly mixed, with some social programs and control on the market. But what changes is how much control they do take.
Takeaways from this video: someone slapped some inspirational music onto random video cuts from around the world, while an alleged economist lectured us on the oh-so-surprising concept of sustainability. I am very shocked that without sustainability, we can NOT grow sustainably. In fact, thank you for taking the time to slap that eye-opening wisdom onto a donut-doodle.
You must be unfamiliar with how pervasive the concept of consumerism is globally and all the power of that engine. It isn't rocket science that unsustainable economies aren't sustainable, but it is necessary to say it because leaders today believe in the myth of eternal growth. And they do not consider that all growth is an ever increasing tax on nature.
The fact that the great majority of the Dutch people never wanted this doesn't seem to matter to anyone. They have no choice. You will own nothing and be happy right?
@@junnatha There are not many Dutch people left in Amsterdam. It's almost all foreigners. Most families that lived in Amsterdam for many generations have all fled the city. The historic culture and dialect of the city is almost completely gone in just one generation. The only thing left are the historic buildings. But there is little trace of the people who build them. The major {Femke Halsema} is the former head of the communist party now calling themselves the green left {groen links}. The name communist party didn't do well, so they changed it. But their communist ideas didn't change. They are just selling it under another name now. And that's what this is all about. They are just selling communism under another brand name.
@@junnatha It's all about redistribution of resources. The green stuff is just for show. Most houses in Amsterdam are still poorly isolated. There is nothing green about Amsterdam. They only make it impossible for cars to get anywhere. That doesn't make a city better unless you are only there to go shopping. But if you are a plumber for example and need to park your car with tools and materials somewhere close, you are out of luck. That means the plumber has to park on the outskirts of the city. Meaning he has to carry all his tools and materials by hand across the city. {impossible} Or pay enormous cost for parking. That's why a plumber is often more expensive than a lawyer in Amsterdam. Just because of the parking fees. And those all go to city hall so they can fund their pet projects that seem nice on paper but don't go anywhere in the real world.
So, straight away in its first example in Holland, that it is not a cyclic let alone regenerative economy, as they are using PV Solar Panels, which are an integral part of the linear growth economy. A truly cyclic/Regenerative economy would reuse, repurpose the things that have already been manufactured. Such as the many millions of motors from our chucked out appliances and devices, that are chucked out every year, that should be reused as Micro Wind/Hydro Generators for local homes etc. More extraction is not Sustainable! ✊🏽🌎
Maybe this is me being pushy toward your response, as you declaring that you love donuts isn't particularly wrong. My perspective is that we are in the comment section of a proposed economic module, and ones comments should be metered to a degree that demonstrates we have watched the video. Most likely I am overthinking your comment, as you most likely just need to tell someone you love donuts (side note: Kids do this all the time at random times). Maybe you or some marketing level where you tell actors/celebrity to say they love a product with the hopes that if people are reminded that they like donuts they might consider this economic model, yeah? For double padding, are there any particular types of donuts you like?
Actually GDP increases when extreme climate phenomenons increase, since you have to rebuild what is getting destroyed. So people aiming to increase GDP have no incentive at all to respect nature.
You missed the whole point of the video. This is about every section of society (citizens, politicians, businesses, civil society etc) coming together to make a regenerative world instead of destroying everything as is happening now.
Money is a tool, not an end in itself. Silly Boomer, you don't own your money, your money owns you. Your materialism, your greed, it must end or humanity will go extinct. At which point, money is meaningless. If you resist with violence, your violence will not be tolerated. The People will decide, not corporations. Deal with it.
I don' seem to fully understand. Is this a version of capitalism aiming to sustaintability instead of "infinite economice growth" and limited by the green circle? If so, isnt this comunism? Or, the purpose of this system is to bring equality while not exceeding the environmental threshold? But people with more money can and will exceed that environmental threshold? Don't get me wrong, those are genuine questions because I don't get it and I want to understand this model.
You don't understand the model because there's nothing to understand. It's childish nonsense dressed up as a serious policy solution. It's not your fault. This isn't "socialism" or "capitalism" or whatever. It's marketing a book.
I would say a sustainable mix of capitalism and socialism. A society in which the needs of people are met and in which don’t exploit the earth instead allowing nature to thrive.
I know right? Also what is the right environmental threshold? Being on survival mode by being packed in dense megacities and having to rely on public transportation? No thanks
Until the 70s (or even more recently) the left was only considered with growth at the expense of the planet - mainly because both capitalism and communism were developed before human actions became a significant negative impact on the planet (previously humans thought that the world was theirs to be shaped according to their will)
The name, Doughnut Economy, sounds funny and cute, but the real problem/issue is educating the masses of less well educated folk - and they far out-number the educated few - in order for the idea to take root and grow. That's a tall task!
The doughnut is the destination. Degrowth is how to get there. There is no Degrowth manual (although you can get a university degree in Degrowth) so various people have different ideas of how the transition could work. Here’s how it could happen quickly enough to avoid climate and other collapse. 1. We must spread the Degrowth message. If Degrowth doesn’t become a household word, understood by many, then no government will be brave enough to introduce it. 2. The government of one country must “wake up” and take Degrowth on board. They will need to do it suddenly by declaring a state of emergency. That will send shockwaves around the world. The genie will be out of the bottle. The myth of indefinite growth will be shattered. It will be a rough ride; stock markets will crash, even more that they already are (unfortunate but unavoidable). Useless jobs will be lost, others created. Some industries such as fashion, tourism, etc will need to rapidly decline. 3. If one country doesn’t wake up then we face a very grim future. 4. Research shows that we only need 3.5% of the population to be actively on board to achieve change. 5. After the transition, Degrowth will be a better life for all.
This feels like a group project where everyone looks like they are doing work, but actually nothing gets done. Or even anything meaningful is accomplished.
Exactly. There's absolutely nothing to this vapid idea. There are zero policy ideas and no real way of even targeting policy. That won't stop lots of people from patting themselves on the back. Oh and it will solve financial crises! Lol...
GDP growth is associated with increased *well-being* and *climate protection* , so you may reconsider some assumptions in that doughnut. Diminishing productivity= increases in poverty. So... not a good strategy
Catchy name? Check. Easily-comprehended graphic? Check. Alarmist tropes? Check. Must be selling a book that sounds right, but is completely wrong. If we make an idea that is so vague and nebulous and futuristic, we risk completely ignoring reality and sensibility. Sad.
Planning for infinite growth on a finite planet might be the best example of "ignoring reality" that I've heard recently, and I've watched the Mike Lindell video.
@@mattcrouch9348 There's no such thing as "infinite growth". It's a term made up by anticapitalists and it's nonsense. The solution to climate change is less carbon, period. It's not some uninformed student project on renaming the economy.
Unfortunately many people want to pat themselves on the back, not actually solve problems. Actually solving climate change is the hard work of reducing atmospheric carbon. This is a book marketing video.
@@gyozakeynsianism The point of it is to use it as a perspective from which to view problem, which encourages a more holistic approach. It's not as much a policy idea as a frame of mind.
MELANATED/ CARBON/HIGH ENERGY people have practiced this for 2 million years before people of vitiligo/people of carbon degeneration stepped on the scene.
l saw recently a utube of Koko the gorilla who famously used american sign, tell us about animal perspective on how humans are screwing it up, googley moogley that one
Im convinced GDP is a very poor judgment of prosperity. At the very least it seems incomplete.
Look then at purchasing power, at the amount of debt and at health-nutrition-national debt- and so
I'm not sure if GDP measures anything meaningful at all. All it measures is how much money changes hands. This tells us nothing what is produced and what value it has.
@@asdfghyter I was thinking if the average person when I wrote it. Like you say it measures the amount of money changing hands, but nothing about production...Nothing about how well the average person is fairing.
@@asdfghyter GDP does NOT measure "the amount of money changing hands." It measures production. That's why it is closely related to the standard of living. It's about how much in goods and services each person on average can consume. GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) is better at capturing the purchasing power of regular people (focusing on things regular people need and buy).
@@gyozakeynsianism But it only measures when it's done in exchange for money and it measures it in terms of whatever price was negotiated, which is why I still argue that it effectively measures money more than actual things.
Also, it doesn't take into account inequality, which is especially important since money has a much larger impact on standard of living when you're poor than when you're rich.
Whether the Earth is considered in the equation by humans or not, the current situation looks like the Earth knows how to force itself into the equation.
Agreed. Earth doesnt really care about us and what we can do to her, Earth has been through massive extinctions, ice ages.... The Earth can survive without humans, can regenerate and wait millenia to do so. We are really destroying ourselves!
Laudable goals, but the problem is that our current monetary system needs endless growth since it creates new capital out of debt.
Amazing ideas! World has to unite and find the best solution for each country using doughnut economy) this would eliminate many existing problems.. "regenerating nations". Together we can do it very fast. We can build Creative society where everyone is valued and safe.
We could reshape North America in a decade if we wanted to, we did it to Europe after WWII.
Love it, but in order to work on a global scale, we will have to make this a numbers thing too. Politicians currently work by turning dials and trying to optimize numbers. If we are to convince them that they need to use this, we need to show them numbers and show them how they're doing with those numbers. Otherwise, they won't actually put any of this to good use.
That kind of thinking is exactly why this model will never work and we are doomed for 1.5 degrees warming in 3 years and 4 degrees warming by 2100.
That's right, but that means we need local movements and platforms that can show great community success as sustainable prosperity where the numbers don't lie and even the most conservative politicians would have to admit (perhaps privately only) that it is a great success.
Best platform I know currently that can do that, focused on community but collaborative across the globe, is One Small Town Contributionism organization with Michael Tellinger.
I want to LOVE this video not just Like it
where can I find or see the full video, of the applied donut economy to those 150 countries ?
The Doughnut economy is better designed but similar to the idea / theory of Cooperatism. Love them both !
What an innovative and brilliant concept.
I am totally on-board with “The Doughnut”.
shut up boy
shut up that was not funny
Doesn't look plausible. I say try it out in Denmark for 50 years and then we can decide. You can't really have a shorter testing period than that when you're talking about economy.
Doughnutism
Ad hominem. You have a one worded amalgamation that seeks it merits on your cleverness of word play, rather than demonstrating a critical take/response.
@@markstewart4501 A critical take isn't possible. The idea is too vapid.
This is it! This is humanity´s future - now!
yeah shut up
Another reason to love Amsterdam 🫡
A key problem is some people eat a dozen donuts a day and some people have just some crumbs. We need to redistribute wealth and resources.
There's enough from everybody's need but not everyone's greed -Ghandi
Its gandhi 😀
I don't know if this is even a type of economy or more of just policy decisions. The reasons that we really only have 3 types of economies (socialist, capitalist, and communist) is because each have a fundamental difference between businesses and ownership of property. I will try my best to simplify each one. Communist, nothing is privately owned, all being controlled by the government. Socialist, businesses publicly owned but individuals still own their own property. Lastly Capitalist, businesses and property are both individually owned. Almost all economies are a mixed economy, opting for social programs (k-12 schools, police, fire department, etc) but still have individual businesses. Capitalism does breed competition, but healthy competition is a good thing since it leads for further innovation because it provides an incentive. It will be interesting to see more places implement this to see how it would work in a larger scale.
Communism in theory is when there is no private property and no state, Greed is when the government takes that theory and decides to control everything. Real communism has never been practiced
Just a clarification
No. You only have 2 types of economies: Capitalist and Feodalist.
Everything else is political construct or policy making.
@@nachannachle2706 You are correct that the systems I provided are political constructs, but they are the most known way to describe economies. I will go more in depth than my original message. You will notice they have different names, but are obviously connected with their respected government names. The four economic systems are traditional, command, market, and mixed. Traditional economies function in 2nd to 3rd world countries were the town produces only what it needs. This works on a very small scale and lacks the ability to improve technology generally. Command is the central government takes control of means of production (most notably demonstrated by the USSR) and the individuals get jobs from the government. Market or the free market economy has no intervention from the government, this includes no tariffs (tax on imported goods), minimum wages, and other means of control of the market. Lastly, mixed economies combine command and market economies. The government does not own the private businesses but they control individual companies to an extent. This allows the government to try and "correct" issues in an market such as monopolies, products that hurt individuals, and so on. Capitalism is the free market, communism is the control market, and socialism lies between mixed and command. As I said though, governments are all mainly mixed, with some social programs and control on the market. But what changes is how much control they do take.
You need to address monopolies.
I could swear, I'm hearing a slowdown version of the instrumental for 'Love myself' by Hailee Steinfeld from 1:15-1:31
⬇️Freshers for Durham business school 2020 here!
Love it! The earth looks a bit like Mr T 6:19
This thread has been closed due to low-quality comments.
Takeaways from this video: someone slapped some inspirational music onto random video cuts from around the world, while an alleged economist lectured us on the oh-so-surprising concept of sustainability.
I am very shocked that without sustainability, we can NOT grow sustainably. In fact, thank you for taking the time to slap that eye-opening wisdom onto a donut-doodle.
You must be unfamiliar with how pervasive the concept of consumerism is globally and all the power of that engine.
It isn't rocket science that unsustainable economies aren't sustainable, but it is necessary to say it because leaders today believe in the myth of eternal growth.
And they do not consider that all growth is an ever increasing tax on nature.
The fact that the great majority of the Dutch people never wanted this doesn't seem to matter to anyone. They have no choice. You will own nothing and be happy right?
Explain please. Did dutch accept these?
@@junnatha There are not many Dutch people left in Amsterdam. It's almost all foreigners. Most families that lived in Amsterdam for many generations have all fled the city. The historic culture and dialect of the city is almost completely gone in just one generation. The only thing left are the historic buildings. But there is little trace of the people who build them. The major {Femke Halsema} is the former head of the communist party now calling themselves the green left {groen links}. The name communist party didn't do well, so they changed it. But their communist ideas didn't change. They are just selling it under another name now. And that's what this is all about. They are just selling communism under another brand name.
@@benanders4412 oh. Noted!
@@benanders4412 so even the donut is acceptable to their ideology?
@@junnatha It's all about redistribution of resources. The green stuff is just for show. Most houses in Amsterdam are still poorly isolated. There is nothing green about Amsterdam. They only make it impossible for cars to get anywhere. That doesn't make a city better unless you are only there to go shopping. But if you are a plumber for example and need to park your car with tools and materials somewhere close, you are out of luck. That means the plumber has to park on the outskirts of the city. Meaning he has to carry all his tools and materials by hand across the city. {impossible} Or pay enormous cost for parking. That's why a plumber is often more expensive than a lawyer in Amsterdam. Just because of the parking fees. And those all go to city hall so they can fund their pet projects that seem nice on paper but don't go anywhere in the real world.
So, straight away in its first example in Holland, that it is not a cyclic let alone regenerative economy, as they are using PV Solar Panels, which are an integral part of the linear growth economy. A truly cyclic/Regenerative economy would reuse, repurpose the things that have already been manufactured. Such as the many millions of motors from our chucked out appliances and devices, that are chucked out every year, that should be reused as Micro Wind/Hydro Generators for local homes etc. More extraction is not Sustainable! ✊🏽🌎
Actually the first step is to reduce. Reusing is still involving production of certain materials that have negative effects.
Thankfully this vapid idea doesn't seem to involve a circular economy, which is less vapid but dumber. In that sense it's less harmful.
awesome
I love donuts
Maybe this is me being pushy toward your response, as you declaring that you love donuts isn't particularly wrong. My perspective is that we are in the comment section of a proposed economic module, and ones comments should be metered to a degree that demonstrates we have watched the video. Most likely I am overthinking your comment, as you most likely just need to tell someone you love donuts (side note: Kids do this all the time at random times). Maybe you or some marketing level where you tell actors/celebrity to say they love a product with the hopes that if people are reminded that they like donuts they might consider this economic model, yeah?
For double padding, are there any particular types of donuts you like?
Wait, this isn't donuts!
Actually GDP increases when extreme climate phenomenons increase, since you have to rebuild what is getting destroyed. So people aiming to increase GDP have no incentive at all to respect nature.
" I love this BBC Reel " ...
Brilliant. I love donuts!!!
spoken like a true dumb woman
shut up please
Sounds lovely ...who decides and regulates these ideas?
Can someone decide not to do this?
If companies can’t say no it sounds forced.
They won't be forced. Once people change their habits, these suckers businesses will follow what their "customers" want. It is called market research.
@@nachannachle2706 oh that's market research...lol gotcha ...and appreciate the condescension too btw ;)
If you watch this video and the first thought you have is related to companies, then you don't understand this video.
You missed the whole point of the video. This is about every section of society (citizens, politicians, businesses, civil society etc) coming together to make a regenerative world instead of destroying everything as is happening now.
Money is a tool, not an end in itself. Silly Boomer, you don't own your money, your money owns you. Your materialism, your greed, it must end or humanity will go extinct. At which point, money is meaningless. If you resist with violence, your violence will not be tolerated. The People will decide, not corporations. Deal with it.
The Dutch are also re-opening coal power plants now... lol.
I want to spam this video on everyone's timelines in every social media; aggressively market it as much as the number of ads I've seen this days.
"Aggressive marketing" is the best description of this. It's empty nonsense that does little more than let some people congratulate themselves.
pls let the internet make doughnatism a thing
Wow!
I don' seem to fully understand. Is this a version of capitalism aiming to sustaintability instead of "infinite economice growth" and limited by the green circle? If so, isnt this comunism?
Or, the purpose of this system is to bring equality while not exceeding the environmental threshold? But people with more money can and will exceed that environmental threshold?
Don't get me wrong, those are genuine questions because I don't get it and I want to understand this model.
You don't understand the model because there's nothing to understand. It's childish nonsense dressed up as a serious policy solution. It's not your fault. This isn't "socialism" or "capitalism" or whatever. It's marketing a book.
I would say a sustainable mix of capitalism and socialism. A society in which the needs of people are met and in which don’t exploit the earth instead allowing nature to thrive.
I know right? Also what is the right environmental threshold? Being on survival mode by being packed in dense megacities and having to rely on public transportation? No thanks
@@urbanistgod I have read the book shown in the video and can tell you that all information has clear references - especially the limits to growth
Until the 70s (or even more recently) the left was only considered with growth at the expense of the planet - mainly because both capitalism and communism were developed before human actions became a significant negative impact on the planet (previously humans thought that the world was theirs to be shaped according to their will)
Unfortunately things have not changed for the better...
The name, Doughnut Economy, sounds funny and cute, but the real problem/issue is educating the masses of less well educated folk - and they far out-number the educated few - in order for the idea to take root and grow. That's a tall task!
The doughnut is the destination. Degrowth is how to get there.
There is no Degrowth manual (although you can get a university degree in Degrowth) so various people have different ideas of how the transition could work.
Here’s how it could happen quickly enough to avoid climate and other collapse.
1. We must spread the Degrowth message. If Degrowth doesn’t become a household word, understood by many, then no government will be brave enough to introduce it.
2. The government of one country must “wake up” and take Degrowth on board. They will need to do it suddenly by declaring a state of emergency. That will send shockwaves around the world. The genie will be out of the bottle. The myth of indefinite growth will be shattered. It will be a rough ride; stock markets will crash, even more that they already are (unfortunate but unavoidable). Useless jobs will be lost, others created. Some industries such as fashion, tourism, etc will need to rapidly decline.
3. If one country doesn’t wake up then we face a very grim future.
4. Research shows that we only need 3.5% of the population to be actively on board to achieve change.
5. After the transition, Degrowth will be a better life for all.
This feels like a group project where everyone looks like they are doing work, but actually nothing gets done. Or even anything meaningful is accomplished.
Exactly. There's absolutely nothing to this vapid idea. There are zero policy ideas and no real way of even targeting policy. That won't stop lots of people from patting themselves on the back. Oh and it will solve financial crises! Lol...
That's how the Dutch gov is in general.
so donut economics means seize personal property and destroy farming? wow great, really working out for the Dutch.
That isn't donut economy, you must be thinking of communism
By still being a tax haven?
#sawitbaik
Not economics.
I think more condoms would have a greater impact.
GDP growth is associated with increased *well-being* and *climate protection* , so you may reconsider some assumptions in that doughnut.
Diminishing productivity= increases in poverty. So... not a good strategy
Sounds good except for energy topic. Just go nuclear.
If nuclear is found to be within the confines of the planet, it would meet the models standards. That's still under debate
Catchy name? Check. Easily-comprehended graphic? Check. Alarmist tropes? Check. Must be selling a book that sounds right, but is completely wrong. If we make an idea that is so vague and nebulous and futuristic, we risk completely ignoring reality and sensibility. Sad.
Planning for infinite growth on a finite planet might be the best example of "ignoring reality" that I've heard recently, and I've watched the Mike Lindell video.
@@mattcrouch9348 There's no such thing as "infinite growth". It's a term made up by anticapitalists and it's nonsense. The solution to climate change is less carbon, period. It's not some uninformed student project on renaming the economy.
Unfortunately many people want to pat themselves on the back, not actually solve problems. Actually solving climate change is the hard work of reducing atmospheric carbon. This is a book marketing video.
Donoughtaism
A little worried because it seems still from the traditional western view....
The unique woman’s point of view
Why even bring gender into this? Then again your name is Karen, so I can not tell if this is a troll.
There's nothing to this idea. It's a policy idea for a middle school science fair. It's too hollow to even be debunked.
@@gyozakeynsianism The point of it is to use it as a perspective from which to view problem, which encourages a more holistic approach. It's not as much a policy idea as a frame of mind.
@@asdfghyter Even as a "frame of mind," it's pretty weak beer. It'll sell some books though.
MELANATED/ CARBON/HIGH ENERGY people have practiced this for 2 million years before people of vitiligo/people of carbon degeneration stepped on the scene.
Bad econophysics.
💗🌈💗🌈💗🌈💗
Dutch women are SO beautiful
And impossible to live with. "speaking from experience" Great for a hook up, nothing more.
l saw recently a utube of Koko the gorilla who famously used american sign, tell us about animal perspective on how humans are screwing it up, googley moogley that one
So communism is called donut now? Donutism 🍩? More like nut ism
more like socialism...lol.
@How i am, therefore i deserve. But im down with communism so its cool dude
@How i am, therefore i deserve
Haha good one, I get it. They're Nuts because they think the life systems of the planet should not be disassembled.
@@mattcrouch9348 They aren't nuts, but they are selling you zero real ideas. This video is marketing a book, not helping reduce carbon emissions.