Paul Tudor Jones II: Why we need to rethink capitalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Paul Tudor Jones II loves capitalism. It's a system that has done him very well over the last few decades. Nonetheless, the hedge fund manager and philanthropist is concerned that a laser focus on profits is, as he puts it, "threatening the very underpinnings of society." In this thoughtful, passionate talk, he outlines his planned counter-offensive, which centers on the concept of "justness."
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/tal...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
People complaining in the comments are misaing the point. Capitalism isn't an evil force that sucks on the blood of the poor, it is the literal will of humankind all over the world interacting with itself through free will. It is not the problem, actually, it has been the one and only solution to almost all problems in the world and the reason why wars are fewer, life expectancy is greater and technology, science and medicine have grown beyond what anyone could have imagined. No, the one problem is greed, which is inherent to human will and has been the failure of every economic system, from monetarim to comunism, and that is why what this man is saying and what his company is doing is so important. What society needs is to reeducate itself in human capitalism, basically brcause if we don't, everything is pretty much gonna go downhill. We need capitalism, because the rich may get richer, but the poor have never been as rich at the same time. A couple hundred years ago people died of starvation and disease in the middle of the streets of every city, and there trully was no hope for anyone who wasnt already privileged to move up in life. That is not true anymore, yes there is still inequality, but truth is we never had been better, and I say that as an underpaid worker in México who earns 1/16 of the american minimum wage and is struggling but ultimately succeeding to pay for my own college. Also, unless you study economics, please refrain from critics before first educating yourself.
Jim Faindel My only argument against you would be that there may be yet unthought of economic structure that surpasses capitalism, so I would advise against the idea of 'needing' capitalism. Otherwise, very well said. :)
Yeah, there is always room for improvement, but till that day comes, this is all we have. Have a nice day. :)
Jim Faindel Great post.
Jim Faindel The problem is, greed is inherent in capitalism.
eatcarpet Yes, it is, but a least the greed in Capitalism allows for some level of movement through competition.
Clearly talking his book. Never trust a trader who is giving you advice ;)
I really hope this guy does rethink Capitalism and realises he is actually talking about Corporatism and that is solution is actually the cause of Corporatism.
Dark Day Ministries Bingo.
Dark Day Ministries And by that you mean that government should cut taxes to a minimum and intervene zero with the market and everything will magically become flowers and butterflies.
TheLivirus I believe he (Dark Day Ministries) means to cut government supports of corporations....examples being things like "Film Production Tax Credits", "Green Energy Incentives", "Subsidies to battery companies that go bankrupt" and bailouts to companies like GM and AIG and General Electric and many many banking institutions.
You CAN read about such things......www.againstcronycapitalism.org/
TheLivirus Better, yes.
What Observerwwtdd said.
... 240p.... really? No thanks. Which pixel is he?
Lmao. I think the left one
Kate Clementine the tan one
Kate Clementine Really? Isn't his voice what matters? Or you just have to be visually entertained while listening?
Xeno Hey you, yeah you. Shut up, its a joke.
I don't know what's going with TED staff. This is so irresponsible
Since China and India have started to accept more free market policies, abject poverty in those countries has plummeted. Capitalism is doing a swell job.
TGGeko sources / points of reference for your statement please?
oc00011 Google. Look for facts, not opinions.
Poverty rate in 1950 more then 60℅ in 2000's 43℅ and now in 2010's 32℅. And their are other development indeed that are showing progress like child mortality going down etc
TGGeko meanwhile america and all the first world countries are turning to more and more government control and regulations.. the onlyproblem with china is that they are following the terrible western model of increasing government control because when all is said and done all governments want more power and control.
TGGeko He never said capitalism is a bad system, only that there's room for improvement. What can possibly be more capitalist than exposing capitalism itself to a competitive market of ideas?
capitalism needs a reformation . just saved you 10 mins. you're welcome.
Saf Sum what we have today is NOT capitalism. the US government makes sure that corporations that do not lobby and belong to all kinds of committees in washington get left out in the cold and reward the best regulatory cronyism tools to those who pay the government the most. this is CRONYISM not capitalism.
NoName NoFame what you call capitalism has never existed in the history of man, it is a fantasy
El Torco actually there are degrees of freemarket - and the greater the level of free market the better mankind did, and the lesser the level of free market the worse the mankind did. currently we are 50% communist 50% fascist and VERY LOW on the level of free market.
I'm sorry, but where are you getting your numbers from? what does 50% communist 50% fascist mean? what is the instrument by which you extract these data. where does the rest of your data come from which indicates this correlation you seem to be so sure about, and more importantly, can i access your dataset and reproduce your results? cause you're right now looking an awful lot like you're just stating things with zero grounds.
NoName NoFame That sound like the no true scotsman fallacy. In any case, that's how capitalism works, a business grows and becomes cancerous and tries to survive by whatever means possible. In any system that cancer will grow and try to survive. In a state system that power gets channeled to adjust policies. In other system that power is still used to take advantage of people in whatever way possible. Even in anarcho capitalism the large sector is still devoted to creating demand, fancy needs, to move people towards superficial things in life and away from real human values. It does not need a state system to do immerse damage to a society. E.g. there were no governmental programs or policies aimed at making women smoke more. But there were very successful advertising campaigns to accomplish that goal. In the end, millions of people still died because of it. E.g. in US the first thing you see are fat people everywhere and it's hard to imagine how that is correlated with too much regulation. Climate change is another big issue and it's also hard to imagine how that can be solved with fewer regulations.
240p, really?
lol
yep that is crazy even in 2015
@@FrizzelFry 😂😂
*Paul The Fat Fox XVI: Why we need to rethink hen houses*
Marko Kraguljac the regulation fees in america is so huge that it's bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india.. so who is watching the hen house? how many people owe their living directly to government (ie. their livelihood sustained by taxing other people) this number is FAR greater than you think due to farm subsidies, lucrative government contracts, government regulations written in favor of the biggst corporations, welfare recipients both corporate and regular kind as well as ALL government workers politicians .. the list goes on and on. we have ANYTHING but a capitalist society in america today.
I love how everybody clapped like sheep when he said they quadrupled donations.
what have you done in life? F*** all
Right so they were giving 4%
Standing ovation for a ten minute speech that actually said NOTHING!
Capitalism is an incentive based system, so everyone is given the opportunity to earn money based on their output. It's financial Darwinism, those that are 'fit' escalate to the top. Obviously, not everyone is going to succeed in this kind of system. That's the beauty of it, people want to succeed and make their lives better. Some will succeed, others won't. Anyone who pretends to have a solution to save the 'losers' of a market system clearly doesn't understand economics. Why should merely existing give someone the right to burden the rest of society with their failure? That's why capitalism works, society doesn't have to pay someone who cannot contribute.
Fujibear although I agree with u, it is still immoral that half of America earns less than $30,000 dollars a year rendering them in poverty. The system in america has too many losers, and too few winners. The majority of people aren't winners, they are either losers or neutral. After all, the middle class are the most abused by the system
Capitalism is just as much about losses as it is about profits. A lot of people seem to not realize this. If there are only winners and no losers, then what you have is not even remotely close to capitalism.
***** when you make sure that there are no "losers" in life you have government controlled bliss for everyone just like in north korea :) the only thing close to no losers is actually capitalism because when two parties interact voluntarily with one another they both get what they want - when governments barge in like it has done in america and controls 50% of the econoomy directly (including regulatory fees which is bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india) then we actually end up with far more losers than winners - with the rich getting richer since they are the only ones who are able to comply with regulations while getting tax breaks
HamsterPants522 A loser isn't the hard worker, though, the loser when speaking about the opposite of profits: "loss" is a reference to the failed business person. When a business person fails, they go back to into the market as an employee. Employees aren't losers, they've just chosen stability over a chance at higher wealth.
That's under the assumption that resources cannot be created, which is incorrect. Capitalism has created gains on all sides, in all tiers. It's just that it something only observed over generations, rather than a couple of years.
What he's saying is, 20,000 citizens will identify what is most important to them in areas that are impacted by business (ie. environment, bridging the financial inequality gap, etc.) and then that consensus can be used to influence corporate behavior to achieve those desires. Good big picture thinking which has the potential to make the world a better place.
Companies shouldnt push their profits to charity... They need to put it back into their workers. Workers know it doesnt matter how hard they work for giant corporations they will never make any more money than they do. The problem is corporations have become the government, so we dont live in a capitalism anymore. Small businesses need to be allowed to compete in the 'free' market without always losing.
Did you know the poorest Americans are in the top 20% of the WORLD income bracket. Not to mention our economy is the best our military is the best and our prosperity and wealth is the best so capitalism is 100% good in every way compared to any other economic system EVER.
So the idea here is basically this:
1. Poll population on what "good" things corporations can do
2. Publish a list of ratings judging corporations on how closely their behavior corresponds to how the public thinks they should behave
3. Hope people keep these ratings in mind when buying products and services in order punish/reward companies thus encouraging then to behave how we want to.
Here's what u think of this:
There is already plenty of info out about how different corporations act. It's not hard for people to find info, and the people who care and of the presence of mind to take the relevant info into consideration probably already take action. It's probably a small portion of well-off the middle class who have the luxury of paying more for a product or service without having to worry about such a sacrifice. Companies don't seem to be all that affected now, I don't see how this list will change that.
Study income inequality in the early 1900's in the US. Guys like Vanderbilt and Carnegie became "Philanthropists". Why? They became so obscenely rich they started to fear for their lives. They were shamed into "charity". They didn't feel it.
This is CYA. Nothing more.
TheFinnmacool what's CYA?
How To: Shameless Self-Promotion
Corporate giving as a percentage of pre tax profits, WOW that title is very misleading. Show us what their profits were after taxes. Admittedly it could be worse but I have a hunch that taxes did eat into their profits more over time, especially if tax rates stayed the same.
@3:50 "where's the US? It's literally off the chart" When the chart has no actual numbers or scale. If the US is off the chart, fix the chart.
I noticed that too. Well said.
Lol, whats that going to change?
you must be fun at parties.
I choose revolution
Poor Man Mods Yup let's do it
Agreed. I love killing a whole bunch of people. Who shall we murder first?
Corporatism is the natural evolution of capitalism wether it be of the laissez faire, neoliberal, or welfare capitalism variety.
adub4ever indeed, people do not realize that and prefer to make no true scotsman fallacies and cry out "But that's not Capitalism!"
They are the dumbest of all.
The fundamental problem with Capitalism is that profits inevitably lead to increasing wealth inequality. A business maximizes profits by reducing costs and increasing revenue. This means paying its employees as little as possible and charging as much as possible for its goods/services. A profit, in actuality, is amount of value that a business has cheated out of society by taking advantage of others.
Profit is not the reward for doing your job, that is what a Wage/Salary is. Profit is the extra money gained by selling product for more than it is truly worth and/or by lowering the cost by paying employees less than they deserve or by extracting value from resources that you do not entirely own (environmental damage for example).
My personal choices (or the choices of any one business) cannot fix a fundamentally broken system.
My statement was merely a logical conclusion.
Unfettered capitalism: Survival of the fittest, in a 3-piece suit.
True, and I do not deny the evolutionary path of nature either, for which we are a part of--however, this doesnt necessarily mean non-cooperation either.
@@webguyz1 what's wrong with survival of the fittest? No business should be owed an existence - provide value to society or die. For every kmart or blockbuster that's dies, there will be an Amazon or Netflix waiting to take its place.
What this country needs is to spend 1 year without Capitalism to give us all a refresher course on how socialism, communism, and every other ism enslaves humanity.
We already know every other economic system ends in failure. Why would we want to try anything else?
What we need to do is return to TRUE capitalism.
Their isn't anything to rethink about Capitalism, we just need to try sometime. We haven't had anything close to it since the early 19-teens. The closest country I can think of that is closest to Capitalism today is Singapore.
I have a better idea how about we change how the structure is run from top to bottom to the other way around, where the workers make a democratic decision on what to do with the company, and if they're mangers or any higher ups (they would be elected).
We can than continue this to natural monopolies like roads, power, water etc but these would be under the communities control that are effected by the decision (the ones who receive the service) and send delegates from all of these communities into managing this service with the workers who work their.
People should really take into consideration the opinion of teenagers and people under 21, since the decisions you people make will affect us later on and most likely not the old people in the government we actually have opinions that are just as if not smarter opinions.
Basic Income will be needed. To US citizens that think radical capitalism is the best way to live, it's ok, I don't care.
Paublo Picklepaper You will be happy with your cuke then, alone.
Bruno Nuñez what's cuke bro?
I hear people complain about "income inequality" and wonder what the goal is. I can't imagine they expect the receptionist in a doctor's office to earn as much as the nurse. One has a degree and medical training, the other may have a high school diploma or an unrelated degree. Even people in the same job and at the same company may have very different incomes. It depends on the level of seniority, experience, location, specialty, salary negotiating skills, education etc... "Income inequality" is such a vague term. Plus. the idea that income inequality is inherently evil assumes the lowest paid employees inherently are jealous of high income earners and that's not true. It also fails to take into consideration that practically everyone has a higher quality of life, regardless of income. That's far more important than income.
Ted and capitalism!! Who brought popcorn?
Presented concept of "Justice" is misleading. There are property rights and we can respect them or violate them. Respecting them means that everyone does whatever he wants with his money and nobody can take his money by force. Violation means that someone takes money from someone else by force (this includes taxation). Taking property by force is theft, no matter who does it (this includes government). So the most "just" system is the one when nobody's money (or property) is taken by force!
mastablasta9x property rights means individuals own the means of production which is capitalism, and there are no property rights in socialism which means the society owns the means of production. It doesn't mean literal property like iPads and phones
It almost convinces you that capitalism is not the real problem. But we know better...
That speech was made almost a decade ago. I think it's worth comparing those issues described in the speech with the current situation where evolved. 😊 For instance All major indexes are around 200%-300% higher than back in 2015 😊 closed the speech with a great quote
2:35 "High profit margins do not increase societal wealth."
Only a stock trader, or a completely economically ignorant lefty could have such a perverse perspective. A company makes a profit when they produce more value than they consume. It IS possible to have shady businesses, like stock traders, that produce nothing but move money around to their own advantage and call 'that' a profit, but that is not how most of the world works, unbeknownst to this presenting fool.
A very simple thought experiment proves my point. Imagine for a moment that instead of these companies producing more value than they consume, and thereby making a profit, imagine they instead consume more wealth than they produce. How would the wealth of society fare in that situation? I would hope that any person with an IQ greater than that of a turnip would see that in such a situation the wealth of society would diminish.
The wealth of society increases precisely because of profit. It is not just a part of the cause for such growth, it is the entirety of the cause.
The problems that face society with regard to income gaps and the worship of corporate profits and such is not the result of the "evil of profit". It is frankly due to an utterly perverse economics that holds the central bankers of the world in thrall. They hold that inflation is good and that falling prices are bad. They deliberately manipulate interest rates (central planning at it's worst) to be well below the equilibrium point that the free market would come to on it's own, and the end result is a vast disparity between the real saved resources available in the world and the demand placed upon them, which leads to a domino effect throughout the production cycle.
These idiot economists think that the key to solving economic woes, to a lack of wealth in society, indeed to any economic problem, is to simply print more ration coupons. But because the idiosyncrasies of central banking, financial policy and investment banking are so incredibly obtuse, virtually nobody sees the forest for the trees and blames problems on everything but the source of them.
You took 8 words of his 10 minute speech out of context, and argued for 4 paragraphs about a conclusion he never came to and ended with an analogy about fiscal policy and a forest fire. You also managed to confuse the definition of profit with the definition of surplus. Had you payed any attention to what he was actually talking about you would have realized that hes talking about wealth inequality, and that he never once tried to convince anyone that it is better for corporations to take a loss every quarter. If less people can afford to be shareholders and less money is being donated to charity and less money is collected for corporate tax revenue then overall societal wealth is decreasing, and income inequality is increasing, period. The only thing increasing is corporate and shareholder wealth. Your "simple thought experiment" proves nothing because it is not logically connected to his argument in any way.
This guy doesn't understand capitalism. It isn't a zero sum game, so higher profit margins doesn't mean less wealth for everyone else. Consider a business where a product is sold for $15. If the business owner can find a way to provide this product more efficiently (like developing a faster method of production), and chooses not to lower the price, the business person gets higher profit margins without anyone losing anything. Competition usually brings down the price, though. In the case of lowering wages or using cheap materials, whoever, would result in less sales and applications for work. that's bad for business.
The real reason for income inequality is tax loopholes and high barriers to entry for small businesses looking to compete.
Wait, so what we need is capitalism without profit motive? how does that even work, man
We don't need to have focus groups or polls conducted on corporate responsibility issues. Raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment, taxing the rich more and getting corporate money out of politics frequently poll in the 60% - 80% approval range and have done so for years. And while ranking corporations on another index works to shame a few of them here and there, we've had numerous indices out there for years ranking corporations with little to show for it.
Organized boycotts for very specific, and very alarming problems have achieved limited success while companies like WalMart have done some changes to improve their public image to be sure. However, the vast majority of corporations are only changed by the carrots of higher revenues and the sticks of government policy.
"Capitalism is responsible for every major innovation..."
I think you meant "science", sir.
I hear this word "justice" alot in this video. justice is based in morality. morality is founded in religion and God. people say NO to religion, yet they still want justice. I love this message here, however it can be interpreted differently. in my view, justice should always be done, we must always strive for, fight for, fairness, and human decency. others will view this message in an extreme manner, we must have a revolution/revolt. that's my opinion. so what's MORE important is what's UNDERLYING this message, the religion component. I will pray that people understand this better, and that will yield less extremists, less militants, less dictators in the world. basically what I'm saying is, revenge is not the same as justice. "the evil that men do". we want to minimize that.
Profit margin goes up due to intentional government barriers to entry, which reduces competition. More competition = lower profit margins. Get government out of business, including fiat currency, and it'll fix itself.
What is he actually suggesting? Raise wages for your employees? That's fine, but he didn't actually say that. It was just a bunch of making feel-good words come out of his mouth without actually saying anything.
"Get government out of business, including fiat currency, and it'll fix itself." LOL!
blurglide Yeah, once we have kids back in the coal mines, radium tea reappears on grocery store shelves and Lake Erie starts to catch fire again periodically from pollution floating around in it, we'll achieve a Libertarian Utopia!
John Salinas What does fraud and taking someones water from them, or forcing someone to work against their will at the threat of violence, have to do with Capitalism? The more capitalist a country is, the better the environment tends to be. The more communist, the more polluted. It's because people have no recourse in an unfree system, and they're really just property of the state anyway.
Essentially, Capitalism is just people interacting and exchanging things voluntarily. Everything else is interactions and exchanges made by threat of violence. How can you be against voluntarism and for force?
blurglide No, the more democratic a country is, the cleaner the environment is. Unrestrained capitalism brought us "London Fog", the Love Canal, leaded gasoline and a whole rogues gallery of environmental nightmares. It was only when people demanded the government stop these problems that anything started to improve. And there are plenty of countries that have a more active government in terms of protecting their citizens that are both more democratic and have better environmental outcomes that the USA, so your hypothesis does not stand up when confronted with the facts.
Fico comovido com o senso de justiça desse homem, precisamos desses "exemplares" no Brasil. Parabéns!
Corporations should not be taxed, nor expected to donate to charity; that should all be done at the individual level.
john smith Let's say that there are no sole proprietors in business, it's all corporations. People will put their savings into stocks to maximize their wealth, which will cause the companies to expand their business and create more jobs, reducing the need for charity. Then, when the rich die, their wealth either goes to the government or to other people. So eventually everyone gives away their wealth anyway.
Is anyone in the world under the auspices that capitalism isn't at least slightly broken?
In the "free market" it is obviously in your survival interest to restrict the freedom of others in order to preserve your position of differential advantage. Government or no government; if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in? Argue that basic point, please.
Strangepete It's much easier to achieve the desired coercive ends if you have a government to do it for you, rather than if you don't have one but have to pay out of pocket for it directly.
The only thing stopping honest companies from coercing customers into paying them money is that it is more expensive to do this. It's not sustainable, and the costs reach deeper than just on a monetary level.
HamsterPants522
I see what you're saying. But at the end of the day; when backed into a corner in a matter of economic survival - it get's increasingly difficult to be a "honest company". You know what I'm saying? We can only be moral and virtuous etc. to the degree that we can survive by being that way. For example the vast majority of the people emptying the oceans of fish, or cutting down the forests at an insane pace putting the future of all life at stake are not doing so because they are merely "immoral". They are doing it because they have kids to feed and they require money to do so. And so they will have to do whatever job they are forced to do in order to earn money, to survive in the short term.
Strangepete
The economy is the environment through which all of the greatest technological innovations have been born. When circumstances change, the market changes to adapt, that's what makes it so efficient. There is a solution to every problem you just mentioned, and these solutions are all easily attainable by capitalist actors in the market. Trees can be replanted, fish can be produced in fish farms, etc.
I think that your comparison of this to survival makes it look like you're describing the economy as a zero-sum game. The fact is, people consume services because their wealth is increased as a result, it's not just the businesses who are profiting from providing goods and services, else they wouldn't even be able to stay in business.
Strangepete _Government or no government_ --- that's the whole difference, right there.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "state capitalism" because capitalism is an economic system/structure that doesn't have anything in common with government, state or federal authority, regulation etcetera. Capitalism =/= government intervention. When it does, it's no more capitalism: it's fascism, socialism, statism, or any other form of COLLECTIVISM.
"State capitalism" is downright playword bullshit. The so-called "state capitalism" is fascism (aka. corporatocracy) when big business is in bed with government. When they favor those who promise them to protect & subsidize them (very, very important fact), ultimately, you have your corporations & megacorporations controlling your government.
Every powerful corporation & megacorporation knows that, with a single swindle from a pen, they can have serious trouble, lawsuits galore. The power of a state, in any form, still regains the same of its power since ancient times. They cannot aford that. So, they made possible that every political candidate needs enormous support for his or her campaign. That, also, doesn't help when politicians themselves are businessmen. That, alone, is filled with steroids.
Second, this fascism(corporatocracy) isn't any better nor different than socialism. In fascism, big businesses are in bed with the governmnet, while retaining some indepence while crushing competition through government subsidisation, protectionism, favoritism & heavy regulation. In socialism (or any other form of left-wing structures), the government owns the big business, while employing their own to the means of production. Very little difference but virtually the same: government and those with the means of production are in league.
So, what's the solution? Given that the notion of state, since its creation, has been the subject for wars, incompetence & swindle-swandle between people just as long as those who are the state maintain power, and capitalism helped the lives of those people, since the industrial revolution, there are only two choices: capitalism without state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation OR state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation in favor of _certain_ big businesses that fund PAC and SuperPACs. Do you have to guess which one we have now?
_if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in?_ --- remove the state in the affairs of economy, and I'll guarantee you that very small taxes (for everyone, individual and business entities) & lack of regulation will fix it. Big entities like GoldmanSachs or JPMorgan would've bitten the dust WAY, WAAAAY, long time ago if it weren't for government help. You know what is government subsidisation in the langauge of capitalism? I'm sure you've heard it: *privatizing the profit and socialising the losses*. In case you don't know what that means, let me give you a rough translation: *capitalism for ourselves & the politicians we pay to help & finance our losses from the taxpayer's wallet, and socialism for the dumb idiots who are too ignorant & too dumb to understand how this relationship (big business+government=love) really work (aka. the taxpayers)*.
Seems familiar? It isn't capitalism when the state meddle in the economy. Those that had & still have capital/resources understand that. In order to maintain power, you have to pay to stand in power using the government.
Let's not forget pricing: in capitalism, you have the opportunity to get something cheaper affordable with your wage, while in monopolies (big business), you have to abide by the prices of the big since they also have protection from the government. Do I also have to remind that, in monopolies, your wage grows weaker n' weaker every time, both as value and numbers?
***** *"That's exactly what self-ownership is all about. No matter the system, it is to your advantage to restrict the "freedoms" of others to control your life for your own differential advantage; free will to chose what you believe is best for you. It's inherently not to your advantage to be a slave to the will of some others, which of course restricts their "freedoms" upon what you own; yourself and your choices."*
Sir that is not how negative rights work. Defending your right to self-ownership can never be an act of aggression against another person's right to self-ownership. That's literally impossible.
Why we need to rethink TED.
Nice try, overpaid CEO
Yeah! Capitalism is definitely the future when 50% of all jobs will be automatable and climate change will financially destroy insurance companies! And all those people dying from mass starvation when those jobs are automatable and when global warming makes many places uninhabitable, why we'll just implement more QE when nobody is buying more of our crap. Make logical sense doesn't it?
Capitalism is going the same way as feudalism. Deal with it. There's no way out of it.
I hope this would be enough. But it wont. The current system is well beyond consumer influence.
It's more like the game "Musical chairs" also known as "Trip to Jerusalem" but everybody has to run faster and nobody is allowed to sit.
The money is printed and revenue out of money is made much faster than any producing or consuming company can operate. Therefore no money is invested into regular businesses anymore. That's our current investment crysis.
Every country and big corporations is now a junkie for oil and money. We need a drug rehab for countries and corporations. I fear this will have serious impact on everybodies wealth. We may be afraid but that's normal for every junkie and every drug dealer.
The truth will be hard. But it's the only future we can face without getting killing us and everybody around.
Wake up!
Yes companies with enormous profits like Apple should pay their employees higher wages, no wait, that would not benefit the average worker at all.
These statistics are a bit too general for my taste.
How about being so valueable that you're able to demand better pay?
how about not having a federal reserve and QE to skew it in the first place?
You know what makes societies better? When EVERYONE pays their due taxes. Corporations giving to charities does not equate to the good they would do if they paid their fair share. How can you have giant telecommunications companies and networks not paying any tax, and hope that your country gets better?
Iesvilla So only the decision makers of the government know what is best for the country?
TheAnnoyingGunner Obviously not, but it is one thing to replace SOME of your taxes with charitable work. Corporations these days pay almost no taxes, no matter the country, and the little in taxes they should pay gets exempted when they give to charities, most of which gets used to pay big salaries and throw "awareness" parties. That money is needed dearly in infrastructure and social programs, not ad campaigns.
Iesvilla I'm a Washington DC contractor, I've seen a lot. How about this. A big corporation gives a lot of money to a charity, a sitting or former president makes a speech at said charity and gets paid a large amount of money for speaking. At this point giving the money to government is also a mistake. We the people should demand the flat tax negative tax system. Putting some of the money in our hands makes us the customer. A social program is providing goods and services. The federal government that prints money should never provide goods and services. Imagine if Walmart could print money and put it on the national debt, also imagine, if the CEO was voted in by the employees. The CEO would promise big salaries fat tensions just to get elected, this is essentially how the federal government operates today. By printing this money and throwing it on the national debt, the CEO of of Capitol Hill Incorporated keeps all of his federal employees happy. Keeping the tax code complex keeps the CEOs donors happy. Washington DC was never supposed to be a corporation.
rswjr66 In fact, Walmart can print money. As you could too. But most probably no one would use that money and the government doesn't accept it.
rswjr66 I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating for a government to provide the services by itself (which I think is what fascism was all about right?), but rather that a strong, just, tax base from all sectors of society coupled with needed social programs in the form of subsidies (both to companies, increasing supply, and individuals, increasing demand) are key to betterment of a country. That means, no subsidies to large multi-nationals or oil companies, but rather housing, infrastructure, education and health.
Capitalism didn't bring a lot of major innovations, it did turn them into products and services. Capitalism needs to be embedded in a moral context.
JUST index is JUST that. The poorest countries don't even have corporates. So go rank them.
Getting government out of the way, forbidding it from picking winners and losers, disabling poverty generating policies like minimum wage would be all the corporate "justice" you'd ever need.
TCBeads although I can see what u mean, minimum wage is needed. It can be argued that competition for labour would rise wages, but the reality is that a lot of companies would work together to keep wages low
BraceFace exactly "race to the bottom" is already happening
2000-2006-2002-2008-2004???????!!!!!!!!
IKR!!
2020
Capitalism is not corporatism,capitalism is about receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor,corporatism is about someone else receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor.
Capitalism is simply the ownership of capital by an individual and not by a government. Capitalism lays no claim to morality or Justice. That's the problem. Capitalism is not a political system it is an economic system. It needs tempering by political means. And the political means should be democratic.
The biggest problem with this talk is that it starts with a faulty assumption - "Incoming equality isn't a good thing"
Income inequality is a great thing, it means that people can be paid relative to the value that you represent to someone else, if someone puts more effort into making themselves more valuable as an asset then they're compensated for that effort. The opposite of income inequality is income equality which uses violence and aggression to steal what other people have peacefully earned and give it to other people. Capitalism is the most moral system we have for rewarding work, it doesn't take any violence at all.
Although income inequality is a good thing, it gets to a point of sheer stupidity. If a large portion of a country can't afford basic things then that's when crime gets out of hand, and revolution are possible. The poorest in society should have at least enough to live
income and wealth inequality is a good thing, but the results of inflation, FED controlled interest rates and QE aren't.
Jeremiah John , true it's an overly complicated situation that constantly needs adjusting to global and domestic macro trends. Non stop song and dance, but it does create volitility.
I am still waiting for him to tell us how he increased his 1% charity donation (that made him nauseous) to a solid amount. He still does not get it. People don't want to exist in a society where they depend of 'charity' of the greedy rich who hoard wealth. Make the mega rich pay tax on income they did not work 40hrs a week for. Inheritance tax should return. Death should not be an obscene windfall for lazy relatives. He advocates greater philanthropy but that is just 'thank ya master . . I'm so grateful you let me live' . . pay people a living wage that is tied to real cost of living increases.
Putting hopes to change the world and the system into those and only those who run the system (corporations) in hope that they'll change their behaviour is saying business as usual, no power to the people. Giving input is ok, but challenging their power (their wealth) is not? Of course nothing good or just can be expected out of the speech of someone that opens their speech saying they love capitalism. The truth is: higher taxes on wealth, (class)war and revolution are exactly what's needed. Bye bye rich boy. time for the people to take matters into their own hands.
There is no doubt that the markets drive corporations to focus on short term gains. For their own long term health which is essentially driven by society, they need to focus on the broader picture. Even in our own lives, we need to think about our decisions.. Let's say you can save 20% on an imported product, but the value stops there. If your monies are spent on domestically produced products, they end up in the hands of American employees. These employees pay taxes that help pay for our infrastructure and they spend monies locally that will increase employment and prosperity, thus producing even more taxes. The final result is that not only can we say "what goes around comes around", but that over 30% of your purchase will end up back in the economy and cover costs for our military, street lamps, roads and the poor. Everything we do affects us all.
I do take issue with one point Tudor and others have made. There isn't a finite amount of wealth that is distributed.
It's the TYPE of capitalism we have that matters: we like to *THINK* that we have a free-market capitalism where everyone has an equal shot at competing for their slice of an ever-growing pie. But what we have is monopsonistic capitalism, where large corporations NO LONGER have to compete with each other for your business, but where small businesses are EXTREMELY competitive with one another over the bread crumbs left behind by the majors.
In other words, can you imagine another company competing with google? Seriously? Neither can anyone else. Do you have more than one choice of Internet provider where you live? That's quite rare.
Corporations aren't bad and the gap between the rich and poor should be great, because if the poor can't manage the small amount of money they have why should they have more money to not spend wisely? This is coming from someone who isn't making very much money atm
Index of Health and Social Problems... according to who, exactly? I don't think my description of health and social problems would align perfectly with others', necessarily.
Income Inequality is a fairly new way for liberals to find something to complain about in societies that are generally improving. Take any of the inputs to the IHSP from 100 years ago. Any of them worse today than then? We are all better off than we would have been in the past.
Whenever I hear "fairness" and "justness" in an economic discussion, I cannot keep my eyes from rolling over and over.
LOL what a misleading graph 02:35. It makes it seems as if the CEO earns as much as the workers combined. This "speech" was a load of bullshit. Why is there a shame in profits? They are essential to survival.
Why blame Apple for their profits, when the money they receive is voluntarily given by the customer, oblivious of the insane prices.
Taxes should be equal for everyone regardless of income and there should be no minimum wage, because they disrupt the equilibrium. One would argue that the equilibrium is already broken, and I would argue that it is a strong case of "butthurt".
People think they are entitled to things, and instead of bitching around, they should focus on acquiring useful skills and thus eliminate poverty for themselves.
"But this is about CEOs earning too much". So fucking what? It's their money. They can burn it if they want to. Governments on the other hand...
Nice seeing all the people in the comments with a proper education on the definition of the US economy... loljk. USA is not a capitalist economy. No economy is purely "capitalist". Every economy is a mixed economy, especially us in particular. We are a free-market economy.
Now, I'm not saying that capitalism is the best choice, because I believe it's run its course and we need to think of something new, but if you people are going to identify that US economy as capitalist, please educate yourselves. I learned this on this first day of CP Economics my junior year in high school (I'm now in AP Microeconomics and I'm going to a university for Business Management, so yes, I do have a background on this topic).
This isn't capitalism he is describing. The problems he brings up are caused by government intervention in the market. Can the small guy compete with the big corporations or even start up to begin with when there are so many barriers to entry to comply with the government regulations? Who gets robbed to pay for these assholes' bailouts? Is there not a Central bank with a monopoly on money that get's it's legitimacy from central government? You can believe this guy if you want but real free market capitalism is not to blame, it is the fault of Statism! You can't make everybody equal but at least capitalism in the true free market sense levels the playing field. If you want justice for humanity, stop supporting the violence and coercion of the state! Let people make their own decisions and allow for true voluntary interaction in the economy. Not a mention of Mises or Rothbard in his speech? The understanding of the market has come along way more since Adam Smith Mr. hedge fund fool. When you focus on profits in a free market everybody works towards their best interests which leads to abundant prosperity. Conflating corporatism with capitalism just leads to disastrous ideas about justness. Google a few terms such as Voluntaryism, Austrian Economics, and Anarcho-capitalism. Read some Ludwig von Mises and some Murray Rothbard. Check out Mises.org. You will not be able to get "capitalists" (in reality Corporatists) to be more fair but you can stop supporting a system (Statism) that gives them their power over the common man.
Hilarious misdirection. Regurgitating persistent myths about how capitalism can be reformed, while admitting the profit motive as it stands is unsustainable.
Myth 1: Assuming populations in capitalism can afford to vote with their dollars or choices, if they don't like what companies are doing. How can they vote with their dollars if they have no money or can't afford better alternatives?
Myth 2: Separating the need to maximize profits from the operations of businesses. Companies have to strive to maximize profits or they will eventually be outdone by more ruthless competitors.
And don’t even get me started on the myth of capitalism being “the greatest system ever devised” and the sole reason for all our wealth and prosperity. I gotta hand it to him though. Coming from a hedge-fund manager, these admissions show how even these stubborn elites are being forced to see the writing on the wall.
“The profit system as we know will only function constructively on a very narrow margin” -Manly P. Hall
We created this mess! We wanted 10% growth, we laid off our 45+ year old workers, replaced them with h1b visa foreigners to reduce labor costs, while giving the appearance that we kept jobs in America. Maybe we need to change retirement age to 45. It's not your fathers America!
Well intentioned but incredibly naive.
It is 6 years and counting and no surprise that there's been no serious progress on whatever Just was supposed to accomplish. Any meaningful transformation of capitalism is going to take whole lot more to displace the neoliberal model that has a firm grip on the economy and the parties (corporate and individual) that operate within than admirable models of best interested behaviors.
Rich stay rich by being part of corporate profits. Poor don't - widening the wage gap.
Good idea PTJ. I love that you didn't read off a script and that came from all you and your vision.
It seems like a great idea, but accountability means real consequences. Will investors really forgo a promising company if their justice score isn't high enough? If the index was legally recognized, it could allow for some kind of tax to be levied at low scoring companies. After all, despite rampant diabetes and obesity, McDonalds is still running strong and advertising to your children. Gotta crack that whip sometimes.
Capitalism can't exist without inequality. Inequality is actually a good thing, because it is an indicator that some are getting rich by freely offering the society something to benefit from voluntarily. The result is more business, more jobs, and more people who have families because they could now afford to even on low wages.
No doubt they are poor in comparison, but they wouldn't exist without capitalism. People don't become poor because they were "robbed" by capitalists, in fact, they exist in the first place because they were able to start families from the jobs that were offered to them by the capitalists.
In fact, having the luxury of living in a capitalist state actually makes you wealthy. These so called "poor" people are actually much richer because they're able to live in a more advanced society from capitalism than lower classes in centrally planned governments.
This is because they're able to benefit massively by the effective use of knowledge that the capitalists are able to discover by having the incentive of getting rich. That is precisely why they say that we wouldn't have anything today without capitalism, simply because without the incentive to get rich people wouldn't do anything innovative that the society could benefit off of. Once these discoveries are made, the masses find ways to use them much more effectively and the poor benefit greatly from it.
An example is the computer. Two decades ago they were huge, expensive, and only the rich could afford them. Today even a broke bum could afford an Iphone, which is better than anything any rich person could afford twenty years ago.
The reality is that any poor person should be thankful to live in a capitalist society, and that they actually have a real opportunity to do the same.
A lot of comments here either think this guy is a joke or a brilliant master mind that must know what he's doing. Truthfully, I reside somewhere in the middle. While I'm inclined to think that companies are too used to gaining immense profit gains at the expense of everything else, I also point out that it's not like they generally have a choice in the matter: As profits increase in these businesses, the more share holders are going to tend to push even more for money. It's a forward-feed-back loop that doesn't end very well. This does not include the costs it takes to mass-produce the products, the salaries of the employees, the taxes, and many other minor variables that add up very quickly.
In short, much like anything else in life, it's best not to take the video at face value. Dig a little more on the subject from experts in the field, and think while comparing five or ten sources, and ,perhaps most importantly, come to your own conclusion.
This guy is delusional. The problems aren't new, or an aboration. They are the natural result of market forces. Dynamic complex adaptive systems are basically haphazard machines for maximizing whatever the key metric in the system is. In capitalism, that metric is money, specifically profit and accumulated wealth. Doing anything else with that system requires more intense and more constant effort than running it ever will, which means that the first person to eschue that effort gains an advantage... ie is actually following the system.
This idea is just a smokescrean to hide that fact. He already knows what needs to be done to achieve justice, as do most of the people in his class... but they've also already dismissed it as undesirable because it means giving up the enormous power they have over everyone else. And the worst part is that they already have a feel good mechanism that is failing. His sidetrack to philanthropy just highlights the fact that charity at that level is already all about boosting the egos of the donars and soothing any twinges of guilt, not about the needs of the society. A society that's struggling largely because of the resources that donar sucked out if it in the first place.
It's sad to say that there are more brilliant and enlightened people here in the comments section than there are running countries. I see ideals and realizations same as mine. But here's my question: How can WE, collectively, make a difference in this world if the people running the government are countless imbeciles? Run for office ourselves? Start a revolution? Sacrifice our lives just for the sake of a possible better future?
People here have no comprehension skill? He is a free market advocate yet people are insisting his private way of solving social issues with corporations/businesses is somehow not capitalist or free market? Oh please. Secondly, what about it is corporatist, corrupt or refutes what he is talking about here. He basically states who messed up this pseudo-form of capitalism is. I think he understand economics better than most of these armchair warrior intellectuals.
He has grouped revolution, war, and higher taxes together as not on his bucket list, or, as ways he'd prefer not to solve the problems caused by the destructive excesses of capitalism. Perhaps skilled public relations is the answer, because it isn't evident that any actual rethinking of capitalism has been proposed.
Can't take him seriously if he won't talk about government's role in cronyism, inflating the money supply (that's why living wage is a fast moving target) and promoting fiscally irresponsible behaviours. How can he expect people to cultivate their own sense of agency when government attempts to control and rob them at every step.
This "public good" is going to make him a lot of money. All he has to do is scope out which are the most "just" companies a few days in advance of his non-profit releasing the information and then use his investment firm to do some last minute purchases. Do good AND get even more rich - now there's a smart (potentially corrupt) man.
Could someone clarify on what this proposal is supposed to accomplish? It sounds like a marketing campaign to promote belief in the Free Market Fairy, not a proposal for reform. Going before the board of directors and saying "please be less sociopathic" isn't a plan.
this was about the dumbest lecture i ever heard. i want capitalism that acts like socialism. i want a square circle. no wonder the whole JUST thing just disappeared.
This is why we need to elect Bernie Sanders. See facebook groups "Revolt Against Plutocracy" and "Bernie Believers."
Think of capitalism as a wild beast, a wild beast that will run rampant if given the chance. If left untamed and unchecked corporatism, wild capitalism, will smash its way into our lives; however, we prevent this buy tempering the free market with constantly evolving boundaries, well written laws that will force business to be fair with its workers, and now the environment if you're so inclined. It's not capitalism, it's weak politicians.
I don't feel like that it ever can be a 50-50 game. How can you 50-50 a big corporate that has most basic, hundreds or thousands of employees with an indiviual?
i wonder how many people bought this crap. billionaires do have the power to change everything, they do have the tools.this talk is just another self centered marketing campaign.
Lisa_upfx att lnsta’gram is my mentor and she taught me how to handle the financial market since I made more profit in trading and all thanks to her for helping me, God bless you ma, for helping me prepare for what is to come
Lol before people judge this guy... You should know he's a brilliant financier who made billions and still is...
why cant everybody just fight for resources...like get rid of guns and if you want a nice house or car you have to fight for it....wouldnt have as many fat people thats for sure
Taxincrease War or Revolution hmmmmm!=!? hm or lets just get better moral people!!! how about taxes? get real!
More than a hundred years ago, someone made a reflection and the conclusion was communism, so this question is very dangerous.
PAUL TUDOR TRADE FOR MY STARTRADERS.COM ASK DAVID LAUER. CLARENCE A WHITE.
"Justice"... What a nonsense word in this context.
Stop calling america capitalism america is the closest thing to capitalism but is not capitalism
Relying on corporation to provide for social welfare.....good luck with that. Higher tax certainly seems a little for achievable then convincing millions of corporations to willing part with money.
If conserned with injustice, one should think about abolishing central banking and inflationary monetary policy.
maybe would should rethink this whole clean drinking water and heating and internet thing too.
I think this is way too "religious" and idealistic, I'm not convinced that individuals and private corporations will somehow start being just on their own. Sure it would be nice, but if it were that easy, then we would have already done so.
The solution is THE VENUS PROJECT. Search TVP on UA-cam
Now I believe there are far more logical alternatives to capitalism but it is nice to hear those who undeniably support it realize that there is something severely wrong with the current run of things.
Wow, thank you TED for providing me with more propagandist bullshit.
Is it only me or he stenches of Frank Underwood.
It's unfortunate that he doesn't recognize that the current state is socialist.