Capitalism ISN'T good. Let me explain. (Sabine Hossenfelder Doesn't Know What She's Talking About)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Hakim
The Deprogram Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/7tk1sTZ...
Support me on Patreon: / comradehakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
00:00 Introduction
00:38 Barter, money and other mistakes
01:56 Not knowing what capital or capitalists are
03:58 Not knowing about state investment and political consequences
06:55 Wrong about Penicillin
11:16 Not reading Marx, no nuance towards sanctioned countries
15:25 Not knowing what Capitalism is
21:20 "Capitalism is imploding, let's continue with Capitalism!"
24:50 Conclusion
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Hakim
The Deprogram Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/7tk1sTZDeE8p9lnxYLy4Ky
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
*Sources:*
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/
www.massline.org/Dictionary/CA.htm
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673487/
www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-01093A000700020008-2.pdf
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6203130/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC90351
www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/9/5/torrential-rains-batter-greece-after-wildfires
www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/08/01/2008080101071.html
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/politics/congress-members-stock-trading-list.html
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764192
www.epa.gov/vw/learn-about-volkswagen-violations
rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/tax-dodging-is-a-monopoly-tactic-how-our-tax-code-undermines-small-business-and-fuels-corporate-concentration/
www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/01/federal-trade-commission-justice-department-seek-strengthen-enforcement-against-illegal-mergers
www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/108149/1/MPRA_paper_108149.pdf, www.researchgate.net/publication/336117339_Marx%27s_Prescient_Theory_of_Centralization_of_Capital_Crises_and_an_Nkrumahist_Response
www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1641183/FULLTEXT01.pdf
www.researchgate.net/publication/257559970_An_approach_to_sustainable_development_The_case_of_Cuba
twitter.com/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1604510937557635072?s=20
twitter.com/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680243524124516352?s=20
monthlyreview.org/2022/07/01/socialism-and-ecological-survival-an-introduction/
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/climate/carbon-tax-united-nations-report-nordhaus.html
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16387374.pdf
jacobin.com/2018/10/carbon-taxes-climate-change-united-nations-report
springmag.ca/the-socialist-case-against-the-carbon-tax
Videos/books mentioned.
Sup man
Hey, just to let you know, the videos you mention at 1:51 I can't find on your channel.
Edit: Your "Why is North Korea so weird" video is gone too
I love both of your channels. Had my gun in my mouth while watching her video on this. I'm glad Dr. Hakim has put our world back into balance.
Why Are you recomendig videos that aren't avilable
Oh no wait bro capitalism is actually good we just forgot to put a tax on child slavery.
LMAO
Or or . Just tax the medicine companies which absolutely rip off their customers
Thanks for that, pretty much nails it.
Are kitchen knives good because they can be used to kill people? Yes because there are laws preventing that
I love how even in her hypothetical about how she thinks Capitalism works, it still sounds like you're being robbed
Tbh Guevarism is prob better for the 1st world than Meinhofism
@@SenderistaMohawk Yeah but the RAF is intimidating to right-wingers, hence it makes a good pfp when I'm dunking on them
@@JosephFuckinStalin Hi Satan! :D How're you doin' today? XD
@@vapx0075 Very well, thank you
This made me lol
"Ooohhh ahhh I'm dying, this infection is eating me alive!"
"Here is some of the finest Soviet antibiotics!"
"I can't take this! The packaging isn't elegant enough for my refined tastes!"
How to Become a Wealthy Nation in Three Steps:
Step 1: Pillage the known world
Step 2: Make up reasons why that was ok
Step 3: Enforce hegemony
I love how everyone is debunking that video at the same time.
As it deserves. Bourgeois dogmatists like her are always in need of being knocked down a peg.
Who are some other creators who have/are debunking this video? I'm genuinely curious, as I'd like to watch them.
@@myjciskate4FellowTraveller, Paul Cockshott and another one called Unlearning Economics (but who isn't marxist) iirc
The Kavernacle did it too
Because it "exploded", it is popular and watched. Perhaps subscribers asked Hakim and other creators to make a commentary on this vid.
as a physicists, I apologize for all my colleagues who think that understanding analytical mechanics allows you to understand and have an opinion on every topic
seconded! god help we grads and undergrads who have to wade through pools of these types
One thing I have noticed in the difference between social science and STEM is that social science grads have, at worst, an pop-science misunderstanding of natural science which can be corrected with some patient explanation by a "real" scientist
However, a depressing number of STEMlords seem to take pride in not understanding or being wrong about social sciences, yet think they understand and should have an opinion about everything (and good luck convincing them they're wrong)
Why are physicists and mathematicians like that? 😢
@@antoniohenrique5750 They get too big headed because they probe the fundamental nature of nature itself, and so think they can tackle intangible and often information deprived, highly ideological and political subjects like economics as though they can just read and thought experiment their way to a logical conclusion. But in the process, they removed most of the human elements that are crucial in any social science analysis.
Lawyers and law professors are bad about this too
"Capitalism is good!"
Proceeds to explain how companies will pollute everything without governments blocking them
Be fair, in her view goverment is also part of the capitalist system( which it is)... she just fails to see why this is not helping anything.
Where does the government get its funds from?
@@ah6519 It's complicated and never belive it is not. It trades, borrows, privatise, print money (in some cases) tax etc. If you meant from where does the politician elite gets its money then that is wealthy business interest for the most part.
Well it's a good thing capitalists don't control the government or we'd really be facing a global crisis
@@CraftyF0X And so this is the same system through which you and @hakim think all our social problems should be solved?
She is a perfect example of how selective rationalism works. She's controversial in her field, had the misfortune of following research paths that led nowhere (twice), and has branched into science communication. And she was actually doing well... before starting to sub-branch into socio-political topics. That's where she should have realised she couldn't just read half a dozen articles and be done with it. But she didn't, and it's been a constant hit and miss that's destroying her reputation ever since.
Scientific research is 99.99% ticking off what is wrong. Actually stumbling into the right answer is very rare by the definition of how the scientific method works.
Painting the actual science of excluding false positives as "failure" is a consequence of the capitalist mindset and its frankly abusive relationship with science.
Capitalism is the reason she's miserable and is still here defending it... this is just sad. But not the first I've seem. There was a guy who wrote about videogames and programming who always criticized stuff about capitalism but defended capitalism itself. He died last year because of complications from untreated high blood pressure. It went untreated and undiagnosed for years, possibly decades, because he couldn't afford any measure of healthcare within the US. And he had 3 children to feed.
yeah so sad to see. i really really liked her physicist stuff, then she made a video about biology and how trans people are having an advantage, though we never saw trans women on the stairs of olympic success in 20yrs they were already allowed to compete in womens sports, ... - then took of to "trans is a social fad" like shes not knowing there was also "rapid onset left-handed-ness" which was nothing more than observational bias and a stigma-lift and so on, and so on.
i hope she stops this madness before the de-constructs herself.
"And she was actually doing well..."
Scientifically speaking, this statement is 99.99999999% incorrect.
I make a pratice to frequently watch or listen to people I adamantly disagree with as a pragmatic pratice of reducing the bias of information I come across.
This being said of all the science communicators Sabrina is arguably one of the worst things to happen to science it's self.
You would litterlay be better off if you just watched a video of her chanting "status quo" habitually.
The information she presents in nearly every video isn't just blantanly wrong, inconsistent, and misleadingly; it's deliberately so and is often more confusing and condescending than it is educational.
Shes the type of "influencer" who eill superficially espouse casually how science is about being wrong out the gate; then spend the next 20 minutes confidently pretending any thing that is status quo is absolute truth; and anyone who questions this should be mocked or is a quack.
If she was simply a case if someone trying to communicate science without having a extensive background it would be one thing.
But shes supposed to be a established researcher and have a strong background in physics; yet in most videos related to thos topic cannot go 5 minutes without fundamental contradicting herself in a way that is anything but professional.
I'm not able to professionally make a diagnosis; but she shows strong characteristics of narcissistic personality dissorders, and this often serves to hinder new viewer's from asking deeper questions about subjects (Which we should allways welcome) or critically thinking for themselves; instead compelling them to just accept what she regurgitates and take it at face value.
Shes litteraly answers the question " what if falice argument from authority had a spirit animal".
It's not healthy to anyone to simply excuse this either.
Its ok for people and professionals in any feild to be wrong.
But the way we are wrong also matters, and she's the right example of how we shouldn't be wrong.
Toxic content like this can ONLY be consistently produced if one is internationally trying to troll others inorder to boost their popularity.
This same technique is becoming widespread in publications where researchers lile Avi Loeb publish like 500+ papers in over 10 yesr period, most of them empty regurgitative filler aimed at getting people to correct them in citations; but ultimately boost their rankings which have become a glorified popularity contest.
@@michaelgolfetto9619 "it's deliberately so and is often more confusing and condescending than it is educational."
On the store shelves growing up there were pop science books writing about bullshit hand-wavey "theoretical physics" ideas written in confusing and condescending ways to try to cover up a lack of understanding on their own part as writers. Lots of it was based on a completely inaccurate understanding of quantum mechanics used to hand wave their way into ridiculous claims. The inaccurate understandings became collectively understood myths in laypeople discussion, spreading like a virus. Sort of like the modern version of the "Physics says bees can't fly" meme.
Sabine appears to detest that kind of stuff and does a great job of cutting through it. The channel motto being "science without the gobbledegook" is fitting for those kinds of videos. I think it's a positive that a lot of current science communicators on youtube get into the weeds enough to despell the fake gurus and absurd "science" articles constantly popping up.
however, I agree that this venture into social topics is poorly executed and unfortunately perpetuating the stereotype that STEM people think they can quickly understand and fix political and social issues.
@@dilutioncreation1317
You don't get it.
She's just the new hand wavy bullshit lol physics book.
ua-cam.com/video/an6JiBLQqXY/v-deo.htmlsi=x8ZgIce7hj9yYcl2
youtu.be/oZ9s1or
Like quite literally even in her own field there's such gross logically inconsistent errors that you don't really need a physics degree to spot; that she should not be allowed to be considered a professional by any means.
Unfortunately this is an extremely prevalent issue.
Physics has become a religion and people don't understand how flawed it is.
They continue to espouse and brian wash people with bad information telling them this is what experts like us know, don't question it.
Literally all she does is cite status quo arguments from authority without ever truly taking time to think for herself, and then asks you to do the same.
Basically what she said is, capitalism is a genius system, except maybe for the times monopolies happen. Or pollution. Or exploitation. Or lobbying. But I'm sure we just need more laws against such things
sure brah, MOAR LAWS! this time corporate criminals definitely gonna abide by them. (not)
This is your brain on social democracy
And she conveniently left out imperialism from all of this…
@@musicdevwdym bro everyone knows imperialism is illegal and therefore doesn’t happen 🙄
@@oktimeforplanl You mean an ideology that's actually proven to provide a high quality of life, as opposed to communist fairy tales?
The Capitalism is driving us headfirst into climate catastrophe not just because "preventing pollution is not profitable" but because providing emergency aid is a lucrative and nonelastic demand - aka very profitable business.
That’s what he said.
100%
If there are no problems under capitalism, it will gladly create one and sell the solution to the very problem it has created. Oh, but it must make sure said solution is never good enough to completely solve the problem or else demand will disappear. Great system /s
You forget that capitalism is dying and they will start war all over the world just to hide it. And this mean Atomic Bomb Inc..
Crapitalism can't handle any global problem, it's just built in a way that prohibits any kind of long-term and/or large-scale planned and coordinated action. Even if all bourgeois suddenly became very conscious of the environment and got scared, they'd still fail to fix the problem. This is even more sad than conscious comic-book-villain-level destruction of the environment would've been, because this level of impotence, given the vastness of the contemporary level of productive and scientific power, is just pathetic and disgusting.
When people think of capitalism, they think of the wealth and prosperity of first world countries without realizing how these countries actually got their wealth and capital in the first place.
I still remember as a kid in the 1970s wondering why it was taking so long for the 3rd-world countries to get their shit together and join us in the developed world.
Then in the 1980s I remember realising that we developed countries seemed to be actively preventing that from happening.
And finally in the 1990s I realised this 'developed world' I was so fond of was created just by stealing wealth from those poor countries. They are poor because we stole all their stuff. We are rich because we stole all their stuff. We are the problem, and always have been.
And forget ALL other capitalistic countries who are struggling. God, just a little recent historical research on how capitalists were brutal in Latin America, and how the so perfect "Developed World" encouraged, and even helped coup d'état on these same countries just for the sake of profits is sikening.
..and that the key, the countries she says you wouldn't want to go to is a direct result of the US foreign policy for the benefit of US capitalists, otherwise known as fascism.
the wealth in first world countries aren't that good. look at how the us is doing with its citizens. only small percent actually enjoy the exploited fruits from workers.farmers around the world.
by being smarter...
"Real Capitalism simply hasn't been tried yet." -Sabine Hossenfelder
You lost me at "capitalist system that allows an efficient allocation of resources", lady
what's wrong with that? The capitalist systems allows effeciently allocation of resources... right in the pockets of capitalists.
And it does it perfectly. So the system does work
@@romanpyatibratov4361 😂😂
@romanpyatibratov4361 I really liked your answer because it shows a good number of people is getting the whole points... Capitalism does work, the question is "for whom?". People usually assume that "it works" is followed by "for everyone" or "for most people", but no... it mean "for the ones on the top". And most are not there
@@nullcrawler i wish more socialist channels would point that out. That no system is perfect, ideal, or better than other. Just one system benefits one group, while screwing over the others.
Feudalism is a better system to benefit monarchy (kings, aristocracy)
Capitalism is a better system to benefit bourgeoisie (capital owners, merchants)
Socialism is a better system to benefit proletariate (workers, farmers)
They all work. Just for different people.
"Efficiency" is synonymous with funneling it all to the rich
I'm literally getting a headache listening to her recite the capitalist faery tale. It's like watching a grown adult carefully explain to other adults, with a straight face, how friendly pilgrims and Indians got together and celebrated the first Thanksgiving. I can't anymore with this kind of stuff.
Nah fr normaly I can get a good laugh from it but this is painful asf lmao. 😂
A-MEN sigh🙄
Not exactly where I expected noisepuppet to pop up but boy is that a happy accident. Hell yeah
I'm a grown man and I've been hearing the same handful of talking points about Communism BAD Capitalism GOOD basically word for word for about as long as I've been aware of politics as a concept. It's so crazy to me how many people repeat this stuff like they're the first person to ever think "Socialism Has Failed Every Time It Was Tried"
if i had a nickel for every time someone tried to sell me on why socialism is bad... but then described capitalism man.... i could afford basic living conditions @@KickinRadTopHat
I love how she walked right up to the edge of noticing that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of preserving itself (or the planet), but couldn't quite bring herself to admit it.
I'm a physicist, and I still can't believe, that she just flatly says "capitalism efficiently distributes resources "
Efficiency is an arbitrary quantity. You can't just say, that something is "efficient." You need to say, how it is efficient.
She must be aware of this. And she must be aware, that scrutinizing capitalist "efficiency" would likely give her some uncomfortable conclusions.
Lol I heard her give that line exactly as I was reading your comment. Now *that* is efficient.
She actually specified "efficient at getting resources to people who need them" which is, of course, blatantly false. So she's worse than you gave her credit for.
A perfect point and many politicians in the UK justify austerity and gutting public funding under the guise ‘efficiency savings’. It’s a totally arbitrary goal with no defined end point; pure manipulation.
I read this comment exactly as I arrived at that part of the video and my jaw dropped
This is a common argument. A friend of mine frequently falls back on this. “Capitalism is better than before and so capitalism must be best.”
I have my issues with him but Chomsky had a very succinct clapback to this attitude; during American slavery the living conditions of slaves experienced an upward development over the years but does that justify slavery? No.
@@copsuicidejust wanted to say you have a great username
Peasants made small gains over 1000 years therefore feudalism is best.
Liberalism limits the imagination to only consider as possible that which can only exist under liberalism. The reason I think alot of them say “socialism can’t work” is because they are thinking of socialism operating under liberalism and well…lol
But there's the thing. It is not better than what was before. In my opinion, capitalism is actually worse than feudalism.
@@TheMilitantMazdakiteDepends on where you look at it from I suppose
Her entire argument has just been "this version of capitalism is bad, but thats because thats not real capitalism, we just need to try real capitalism instead."
So what do you propose instead of combination of capitalism and government regulations?
Yeah, what a fresh idea, never heard that one before, right?))
@@Maderat0rrHow are you a viewer of this channel but don't know the answer to that question?
Instead that the people who say the "real capitalism" is markets without government, her version of "real" is putting external forces to correct the market behavior. So in other words "capitalism is genius except for some problems and the solution is less capitalism"
@@dftp it's a troll
I love how she started off with saying that the market is a genius system that needs no one to oversee it. Then proceeds to talk at length about all the regulation and laws capitalism needs without which it will kill us all at an even faster pace.
Also, I love you habibi
This is one of my major pet peeves about the pretense of a "perfect", "free" market system that magically works without intervention. If you only leave people do what they "naturally do" (capitalism is not even that), then it's not a system in the sense that it wasn't thought over by people and then applied. There is no effort at all. No effort, no genius. Leaving society to "caveman" rules is not genius.
Funny thing is we *did* try to put a tax on CO2 emissions. It's called a carbon tax. Only, those efforts were first delayed by fossil fuel companies covering up the existence of climate change (because of capitalism) and then prevented governments from implementing any kind of carbon tax (because of capitalism) through lobbying and such. We have had plenty of time to implement these capitalist solutions to this capitalist problem, yet the capitalists are the ones preventing even these patchwork 'solutions' from being implemented. Why do we have a system that regularly causes immense amount of harm to massive amounts of people, then actively prevents actual solutions from being implemented and then resists any change and government intervention that might prevent further harm? Maybe we should have a system that just.. like... doesn't do that? One that represents the needs of everyone, and not just the smallest percentage of the population that holds the most power?
"Capitalism is a genius, brilliant system."
5 seconds later
"So uhhh we're all in deep shit because of Capitalism and we don't know how to stop corporations making it worse".
Another 5 seconds later
"But this doesn’t mean we need to get rid of this toxic shit system 😭"
Another 5 seconds later
“Uh… hey so umm….. so this system you made is…. Well… umm…..driving us to extinction because of it’s inability to deal with climate change. But, don’t worry about it though, musky boy from silicon meme alley will save the day!”
(no he won’t)
I lost it when she actually made an argument basically equating to "real capitalism hasn't been tried yet"
@@真夜中の橋 the movie "Don't Look Up" nailed it on the matter of "eccentric billionaire geniuses saving humanity". It's probably the most humiliating satire on capitalism that came from the entertainment industry during the last few decades, IMHO
I bet her plan here was actually to use reverse psychology to show how easily debunked most arguments in favor of capitalism are. A lot of people were probably even more convinced of how toxic capitalism is after watching that video. She did a great job in that regard!
@@fn3516 wait, was she actually a 5D chess with time travel mastermind this entire time?
What's capitalism?
It's getting payed to say it's good :D
Yup. She’s getting that Kurzgesagt sack.
@@MrDesmondPotWas waiting to see if anyone was gonna mention them LOL
@@MrDesmondPotwait are they also problematic? I've only heard their science stuff but it'd suck if they were also capitalist sympathisers.
@@bye1551Yeah. I loved that channel, it's such a shame.
They started out pretty sharp and reliable for facts and science, but then went all 'Bill Gates Foundation' on us. ._.;
@@bye1551 Leaving a comment here so I also get notified. I also want to know
the irony of having to be civil with people who are quite literally after your throat.
I was mindblown at the amount of people who said that she was making a good argument for capitalism when she released that video because it's instantly apparent that her understanding of it is on par with a high-school econ 101 class. It's impossible to take it seriously because her explanation of the market sounds like a dictionary entry or one of those weird animated economics videos with stock music in the background
She thinks the bourgeois government is controlled by the masses 😂
To be fair to her, democracies are supposed to be subject to popular will, and many countries love tooting their horns about how democratic they are. Her mistake is taking them at their word.
@@seekingabsolution1907 *casually glances at the USA*
you think it would be more controllable under communism? with all the deathcamps and totalitarian controll with sad men taking you to death camp at 3 in the morning straight from your bed? Youre gonna lie next that the average soviet had more say despite literally getting murdered by being labored to death if he spoke out as much as a peep against the government than a capitalis free speech beneficiary such as you yourself right now right here facing no consequences and being allowed to spew horseshit from his uneducated mouth and vote as he pleases?
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
@@ravenouself4181me fuming because the class one railroads continue to do stupid shit like precision scheduled railroading which is not precise or scheduled and it's barely even railroading
@@seekingabsolution1907 representative democracies are not subject to the people's will
You're supposed to decided, out of pre selected options, who is gonna make all the decisions for you. Even though said options have been already influenced by corporations to represent their interests above all.
Bro if Sue has more money than she knows what to do with, then why does she need you to pay her back, or need to own the new machinery? She literally reveals the flaw of unnecessary wealth hoarding under Capitalism :/
All hoarding of wealth is unnecessary. You don't get 100x as wealthy as others through anything but exploitation. Through hard work, if it would actually pay of, you could get 10x wealthier max.
every single example she provides of why capitalism is "good" sounds to me exactly why it's absolutely terrible. it's fucking wild man, people are so brainwashed...
@@projectpitchfork860Nani?
A more realistic scenario would be Sue’s husband and his private army would just murder that dude and take his orchard, on a whim.
Apple juice for everyone, but at a sweet price.*
@@rodolfodoce lol
the thing about economists choosing to misinterpret marx is so true. i'm taking an econ class right now where we were discussing marx and one of the counterarguments everyone started saying was a "great point" was about how entrepreneurs or artisans are actually not alienated from their work or whatever and i was just sitting there like wow.... you know... it's almost like those people are examples of how it benefits the workers when they seize the means of production?? literally the entire hour long class was people talking about how they personally really enjoy their jobs and their job was as a tenured professor or this small handicraft business they ran and i'm just like dude you are literally proving karl marx's point right now. i don't think anyone's arguments are airtight on principle but the way economists and econ students who are super into capitalism constantly misinterpret what communists are actually saying is more of a convincing argument in favour of communism than they realize. i've spent so many years watching "capitalism is great actually" people try and fail to argue against communism that like... maybe it really is the perfect way for society to be organized maybe there really isn't anything wrong with it because if there was ONE of you would have figured it out by now
I love how she brushes off capitalisms glaring failures as “but that’s a different story”
She may be a professor in physics, but her understanding of economics is at a high school level at best.
Like that one evangelical yelling about "muh rna cant spontaneous come about, i make silica crystals so i must know autocatalysis! Young earth god intelligent design!" (professor Dave Explains had a series on him, i forgot the name)
You give high schoolers far too little credit
Even as a highschooler I remember arguing for a more socialist world in economics class
she also doesn't have a good understanding of queer theory
Her understanding of economic is at capitalist brainwashing level at best.
I am an astronomer and i really like Sabines science content. Sad to see her not getting this though :(
to be a "scientist" without any political education is to be a tool. Stem folks are usually biased towards capitalism because they re paid the most under it, on average.
she seems to of gone all right wing talking points... i stopped watching her a while back.
She is like Ernst Mach, the famous scientist back in 1900's. A great scientist but a horrible philosopher. That is why science needs a proper way of thinking otherwise you end up like her and even worse. For those who want to read about it read Evald Ilienkov, The Dialectics of Lenin and Metaphysic of Positivism.
It's due to the difference between science and social science, IMHO. Scientists predominantly build theories at the edges of current understanding because they have a solid foundation of proofs and theories. Social scientists, on the other hand, like economists, political scientists, etc., have a foundation like sand; therefore, they're used to having to think radically. Hossendelder hasn't worked out that most of what she thinks is true about the social world is deeply contested.
She had a trans video that I and other trans people weren't super content with, and she's had some centrist comments here and there through her stuff which made me stop watching her. She did have some videos on niche science topics that I enjoyed but that wasn't enough for me personally
As an economics professor, I think I'll make an "educational" UA-cam video arrogantly describing theoretical physics. I'm sure it would be filled with as many misconceptions and gross oversimplifications as her video.
It does say a lot that she included Laos (a country most people wouldn't know is communist) but intentionally leave out China and Vietnam. She did the work for communist countries but fully decided to lie. Saying Laos isn't a place people would want to visit is even crazier as it is one of the most desirable places to travel to.
I love when she clearly explained why capitalism is actually a failure and can't be saved
Nor could the Soviet union be saved.
@@krunkle5136It couldn’t be saved from the foreign interventionism and western propaganda no, it did succumb to that pressure
@@mrbanana6464 why is western imperialism seen as this antifragile specter behind everything? Surely the Soviets had too many cheaters amongst them that broke the system over time.
@@mrbanana6464 Sorry pay we actually took it down ourself not US.
@@mrbanana6464 Yeah external factors surely played a role, but we also can't ignore the internal factors. If we did, we would just be bound to repeat the same mistakes.
A great comment I saw on another video debunking her stated that:
‘When people point out how good things happened under capitalism, it’s like some ancient civilisation that lived in a fertile land giving credit for their good harvests to the sacrifices. It’s a coincidence, not a correlation. good things happen in spite of capitalism, not because of it.’
I think you are completely wrong. We need more human sacrifices to appease the blood gods, infact capitalism is so successful because it sacrifices so many people.
Exactly!
@sasho_b. Capitalism is succesful because of structural reasons. It is the system that optimizes the efficiency in the allocation of labour and capital, period. No system is better at natural optimization than capitalism.
The strong point is that everything is based on natural mutual interests and symbiotic relations. Not idealism or expert planners(who can never take everything into account). Negative feedback loops balance out supply & demand for example.
The thing that makes it controversial is that sometimes overall efficiency can come at tremendous costs for a select group of people. As a society you can decide to trade optimal solutions to reduce the fallput for these groups. That is up to every democracy to decide and balance.
@@dekippiesip Always entertaining to see someone try the "capitalism is efficient" argument, as if we don't waste like 40% of the food we produce, see rampant poverty and homelessness, deliberately delay and draw out work, projects, legal processes, and more to absorb extra pay, design tools to break after a single year of use and be impossible to repair, and so much other shit that only happens because of the almighty profit motive.
@2koi516 in Europe, at least a lot of the wasted food has to do with EU subsidies for farmers. They produce more food than needed because of this, so that is actually government intervention.
As to the food thrown away by individuals like you and me. Well, that's our own stupidity as consumers. I'm sure we both waste food now and then, simply by letting things expire on accident. That's not really a systemic issue.
Delaying and drawing out work actually makes you less competitive. If I delay too much, then competitors will eventually outcompete me. Especially the government is notorious for this, and they obviously aren't incentivized by market forces. The bureaucracy you refer to is also a lot worse in countries with a bigger and more active government like France.
Most of the other things in your list are the result of regulations, laws, and bureaucracy. While necessary to some extent in every country, the more you have them, the less capitalist your system actually is. I don't see them as a product of capitalism. They are a cost associated with the regulation capitalism.
Sabine is a walking, breathing Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ironically, the Dunning-Kruger effect is most apparent in people who have PhDs in physics and sometimes in biology, since they somehow think they know how everything else works because "phYsIcs/bIOlOgY dIctAtE EvErYthIng!1!", while ignoring the most common physical property such as emergence which is completely impossible to predict the more complex it becomes. (Such as consciousness and intellegence. Oops.)
From my experience engineers without technical experience are the worse about it.
From computer engineers making games to mechanical engineers making machines, if they never built it outside a lab setting they usually get the concept correct but lose sight on what makes their creation practical.
Speaking as someone who has worked in a lab, though not a researcher myself, its all publically funded. The only significant R&D done by private companies is done under government contracts.
Something that most people don't realise is that research pisses away money at an unbelievable rate.
It also takes a lot of time, and the near endless dedication of the scientists working on the project. Their work ethic is truly admirable, especially considering their working situation. My university has decided that grad students, which most university scientists are, are "contractors" so they aren't obligated to pay things like worker's comp.
In a chem lab, accidents and injuries will happen. Especially when a lot of these scientists aren't the most...practically minded folk.
In the project I was part of, the government is essentially funding development until it can be proven to be profitable enough, at which point it will be handed off to a private company. So they can keep the profits that tax money and public employees developed. Seems fair.
This woman is delivering her prageru type lines like there is someone off screen with a gun pointed at her dog.
Knowing Prageru? There probably is 😅😂
She has a video on autism and was looking at herself like "hmm..." so I'm not gonna criticize her for looking intense while presenting
It's a gun pointed at a bag of money
funny since the chirsitan religious sects are socialist. But hey one socialist totalitarian doesnt have to like the competition of another one trying to brainwash his gullible masses to take power for himself and away from the religious socialist...
@@comicconcarne Yeah. Style is a preference, *content* is the core that counts
It's sad to me to think that a person would think the only way you can make people care about something is to put a price tag on it. There is no greater good.
I suppose it's at least in part because living and having to try to survive in the current system, while seeing others around you do the same, for some people it can be hard to imagine the freedom and safety to just be a decent person for the sake of it without endangering yourself.. maybe they struggle to understand that if you don't need the pricetag to survive, you can prioritize other things.
those scientists surely didn't invent vaccines or microchips or any other innovation because they wanted to improve the world, they did it because they wanted to get rich! there is no such thing as doing things for the love of it (like art) or doing things to improve humanity (science and technology) in the capitalist's mind, it's all just doing things for the sake of money.
Unfortunately it's the safest way to make people care.
It reminds me JBPs "if you wanna stop grape and make men care, make women men's property and make it property damage, then men will care about it" thing.
Remember kids: there's a reason why scientists are never in charge of countries
Lmao very appropriate user name
No, incompetent and corrupt capitalists are. Not sure which is worse...
SO you think scientists all think the same and all have the same biases?
There's a reason you're not in charge of any countries and can only fantasise about it.
@@chuzzbot lol, that felt personal didn't it?
Breathe in... breathe out 😌
Scientists are never in charge of a country? I guess Angela Merkel was just my imagination, then?
Thanks for doing this, Hakim! I was one of the people eating Sabine alive in the comments from the day the vid came out. Sabine is a Physicist, and I think the reason she feels qualified to talk about this topic is because Einstein came out publicly in support of socialism during his lifetime (no, seriously). Her Physics stuff is pretty good, but I think she should limit herself to it until she at least has as deep an understanding of economics as Einstein did!
My man is the CEO of protecting socialism from stupid arguments
CEO of socialism… hmmm…
@@w花b Union BOSS
@@alexpkeaton4471 chief execution of the boojwazee (i will be shot for not knowing how to spell it)
@@sirkiz1181representative of the workers 😢😢😢😢
@@_ikako_no no, I think you're on to something here. We can call all the people who make $50k a year who vote against their own interests because they think they're about to be upper class the boojwazee, I think it works cause we see what they're going for buuuut they're a little off, voting against their interests and thinking they're a part of the real bourgeoisie 😉
I am a physics undergrad student. Sabrine is known to be very harsh and dismissive of multiple theories in physics. She also is very narrow-minded towards particle physicists. Sadly ,she is a wannabe tryhard on non-physics issues.
ngl her roast of particle physics as a field was really funny though
So she's a joke academic, plenty of those in academia, I worked in it
She has has hands in everything doesn't she? Like Jordan bieberson without the crying.
What theories doesn't she like or where are videos to see them?
That statement extends to physics as well. Just because she's a physicists in title; doesn't entitle her to avoid scrutiny in her basic ineptness in that subject as well.
It's perfectly possible for people to be bad at professions in which they pratice.
She made a really bad video about autism as well where she plays both sides with ableists, does Autism Speaks apologia, and calls the Neurodiversity movement "authoritarian."
I was recommended that, skimmed it, checked her channel, and saw this capitalism video was the latest one so I ignored it - one won't have a good grasp of disability politics if they think "capitalism is good"
Is she speedrunning the 'kill the minorities' circuit?
Im sorry you have autism. we all have our problems, doesnt make you an authority on the matter.
Love how she's arguing for a carbon tax but when it was tried in Australia everyone shit their pants
Hossenfelder is one of a long and rich tradition of scientists assuming their expertise in a field of science confers expertise in philosophy and related fields. Dawkins was another prominent example.
Good LORD is it miserable working around a bunch of PhDs - so many times I've been screwed over because "it's just software, how hard could that be? Just make x=y" "It's just chemistry, it'll be straightforward" "it's just materials, they have known properties, just consult the crc handbook", because they think that since they worked for 7 years on the same problem, it makes them a genius on everything.
Even stuff they should know better, like HOW MUCH TIME DATA ANALYSIS TAKES is routinely forgotten or ignored.
couldn't agree more, I love her physics content but when I saw this I just knew she drifted too far out of her field, still was disappointing but I love her pure physics content.
There might be even more comparisons to Dawkins, who even within his field is considered a bit of a joke. Hossenfelder is apparently pretty unpopular among a lot of physicists, but she likes to court public opinion and that demands controversy.
Of Thunderf00t during his anti-feminist phase. Happily he grew out of it.
anti-feminist phase? You mean his whole career? Are you saying he's not a antifeminist or anti-woman now? @@vylbird8014
This woman talks as if Marx didn't disprove every single one of her arguments 150 years ago in a book called "Das Kapital". Great job, Hakim!
Yes, but they all would favour the states having multiple government types more.
Considering that would actually increase competition and diversity for trade 💱.
@@Besthinktwice
@@BesthinktwiceFar better still means bad.
@@Besthinktwice far better doesn't mean a whole lot when the video you are using as a base is that one. also Das kapital probably disproves those far better arguments too.
Marx ideas have led to the most epically failed states of the 20th and 21st century. And to widespread famines on insane scales. The test of his theories on reality have failed spectacularly, amd we better close that chapter now.
Hakims arguments also weren't really good. The whole "the state funds stuff" was completely useless in this "debunking". Yeah, so the state funds cool innovations. So? He couldn't even criticize the most basic shit like "capitalism provides penicillinto everyone who needs it". His whole argument of "No, the state actually funded it and opened it to the market and capitalists also do lobbying" didn't even disprove the basic fact that capitalism doesn't provide for the people who are in need but for the ones who have the money. Instead, he disproved an argument that wasn't made and also praised the capitalist state in funding penicillin.
This lady sounds like my mom justifying my dad's abusive behavior through the lense of hard right evangelicalism when I was a kid.
Almost had a stroke when she uses 100% irony free the invisible hand analogy
It's such a shame when intelligent people talk about areas of which they know very little. Sabine is pretty on point when it comes to theoretical physics and other similar fields, but as far as socioeconomic topics go, she's a fish out of water.
She has some pretty ignorant claims about theoretical physics as well. For example, she insists that the Standard Model accounts for all known experimental data, completely ignoring several well-known observations that can't be explained by the Standard Model, such as neutrino oscillations and CP violation. All because she believes that particle physics is not a worthwhile pursuit.
@@yablebabI guess she’s not even good at anything other than talking.
Honestly she's a bit of a nutjob when it comes to theoretical physics too. She basically ragequit the field entirely because nobody agreed with her. She's contrarian for the sake of contrarianism and is generally reactionary imo
@@yablebab That's a pretty normal thing for theoretical physicists - they get high off their own equations all day, but completely neglect the fact that practical physics is what confirms or refutes their theories.
There’s a long history of scientism types for being complete ideological hacks - Karl Popper for example, his entire project was anti-Marx and Hegel (bizarrely for the latter, reading him talk about him, you wouldn’t think he’s read a word of his), also member of Mont Pelerin society alongside Hayek, Mises and Thatcher
Thank you comrade Hakim for mentioning Greece. Our Government prioritizes private sector, military and police spending. It was well known by a study conducted by the ministry of environment back in 2017-18 that Thessalia is prone to floods, that people and businesses are in danger, they recommended three scenarios as a solution and they went with the most low-bugdet one... they knew.
It’s a tragedy that Syriza didn’t have the guts to confront the Troika. Greece would be a different place by now
@@PC42190 you are informed about the situation. SYRIZA betrayed the masses, it turned out that the only thing that mattered to them and still matters are the benefits of being in government. They talk like leftists, they use communist songs and figures but all this is a facade for their opportunism. A Trojan Horse so to say. The CPG (KKE) fought them ideologically and practically through worker's movement and still does it. KKE and SYRIZA is like bolsheviks and mensheviks.
Greece hasn't had control over their economy for almost 15 years now. You're a colony of the global (mainly western) capitalist class. They own you, and they make the important decisions.
Huh that sounds almost exactly like the US
@@IndustrialParrot2816 Nice observation. Neoliberal copy - paste basically :))
The average person from developed countries has a harder time questioning Capitalism. You don’t want to change a game your country is kinda winning, even if that is just an impression.
I guess things are changing now, as more middle class people are unable to afford a basic thing as a house.
Because of this video I just picked up "Debt for the first 5,000 years" by David Graeber, I'm 35 pages in and it's fantastic, thank you Hakim 🙌🙌🙌
If you like 5000 yrs, try D.G.'s The Utopia of Rules...somewhat easier read than Debt, but still very insightful...enjoy.
And they accuse socialist of sounding like children when talking about economics. This sounded like a very child like utopian version of capitalism if I ever heard one.
The only reason socialism sounds childish to them is because at a basic level it's so naturally intuitive that indoctrinated people like some children also understand that sharing stuff is just the nice thing to do
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with her unfortunately.
It's strong on all of us if we talk about things we know little about. It's just that we can't notice it we are effected by it ourself.
@@projectpitchfork860 Well maybe we shouldn't talk about the things we each respectively know little about? Seems like a fairly straightforward solution.
The notion that “capital” can only come from private investors is pretty ignorant of all of the public investment that’s happened over the past couple centuries.
Think of the robber barons. They accumulated their wealth through the construction of railroads and their attendant industries. They built those railroads on land that was given to them by the government (which the government stole from natives, but that’s a different story). The ultimate source of their wealth was capital which the government provided, not private investors who saw the potential in their ideas. If the robber barons had been required to purchase all of their land through the free market, then their railroads would not have been profitable and they wouldn’t have received the private investment to get the project off the ground.
Did she notice that every step of 'fixing' capitalism is to make it more socialist
It's like they're so close yet so far.
Hossenfelder pivots her above average intelligence to address other peoples' specialisations, bringing along the standard preconceptions and received wisdom. Untutored by the specialisations's histories and unaware of nuance, Sabine produces essays which would only get a good grade in high school or amongst the "prove me wrong" crowd at university, though she does get views and engagement so "follow the money."
Her defence of her perpetuation of the barter myth was that she "didn't mean to represent historical facts".
If you are talking about the advent of currency and you're "just talking in hypotheticals" without any disclaimer that you're not discussing historical fact then at best you're misled and at worst you're intentionally deceiving your audience.
I get that history isn't a hard science like physics but that doesn't mean that you can waltz into the discipline and play your ignorance off as wisdom.
Very incisive comments comrades
Her Physics stuff isn't that good either, at least for someone of her supposed expertise...
she made a video talking about the "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" myth a while back too, and seemed to have gotten all of her sources from transphobes. there's an Essence of Thought video on it if anyone's interested
Two videos even!
You are not a girl no matter how much you wish you were. Im sorry you are struggling with this but we all have our problems. You are not uniquely the only one with problems. And it calling everyone who doesnt confirm your feelings on the matter a transphobe is not really making you look smart or be correct. Other people are allowed to have their own standards on what constitutes a female and you aint it buddy.
@@Berutoron no, the one about athletes was good.
@@86Corvus you literally don't know. Sure, the LGBT movement has a laughable, antimaterialist "convention=reality" approach to gender, but that doesn't change that a trans person might actually have fully transitioned to the point where you wouldn't be able to recognise them as trans, and you can't assume about strangers on the internet that this isn't the case.
@@bacicinvatteneaca I was talking about EssenceOfThought. They made two videos on Sabine Hossenfelder, where they debunk SH's BS.
Came for the video, left with 100 book recommendations
Every time she gets to the limitations of her argument it's a "different story" for some arbitrary reason lol.
Lol..I liked the way she says it "But that's another story"
" this thing that directly refutes my argument is a story for another time " -sabine energy
22:00 actually we did put a price on carbon emissions. The problem is that it didn't do jack shit (by design, of course. It if impeded the profits at any point it would never have left the drawing board)
I sure love how when she tried to explain capitalism in the beginning she explainend banking instead
As a fellow particle physicist... Sabine has long been a bit controversial with her peers (for physics reasons), which has gotten worse lately. She's increasingly known for her transphobic opinions (she had a major video in that regard over summer). And she's also increasingly known as the 'particle physicists are all liars about dark matter, except me.' The long story short is that she thinks that dark matter as the solution to the mass-acceleration discrepancy is the wrong answer, sides with the gravity solution side while making up evidence that supposedly disproves dark matter, ignoring the substantial concordance of evidence pointing towards dark matter, acting as though the fact that we haven't detected dark matter outside of gravitational interactions isn't the biggest topic of study in the field, and then ignoring the very serious problems that have kept any modification of gravity working to answer the question. All while turning around and all but disparaging her supposed colleagues for being idiots or liars. She's dangerously close to leaving physics and entering into crank territory, so no, at this point you don't have to assume she's a very knowledgeable person on other matter.
I couldn't watch past the barter part of her video, so I'm glad that Hakim has done a break down. I can't believe she actually put up a common character of a smoking, monopoly man capitalist and was like, "yep, he's good!" JFC: "Capitalism has been enormously successful" and has "laissez-faire" up on the screen. I guess that makes sense if she's one of those older Germans that still wants the French erased from existence and thus views the reign of terror in the French revolution as a positive.
It's not just that she thinks capitalism is the end all and be all, but that science is and that science=progress. This is a unfortunately still quite prevalent amongst scientists, particularly older scientists, and is a much older, ahistorical understanding of science. Older as in, eugenics and colonial thinking. No need for ethics, we have ~science~. No need to use other modes of understanding (E.g. history), we have ~science~. 'We get to decide what happens because we are the ones technologically superior and thus morally superior. If you don't like us taking your resources, you are morally wrong and our military will be justified in putting you down'. Or 'Can't quantify the problem (like clean water)? Well, us science hippies can't understand it, so it must not be an actual problem and we can move forward with technocratic destruction'. Not surprising she's gone on podcast by people like Lawrence Krauss, who has been pretty much excised from most physics and skeptics spaces because of serious sexual assault/attempted rape allegations (allegedly, which he denies and is known to be litigious about it).
Just another arrogant blowhard physicist, who are unfortunately a dime a dozen.
Thanks for this post. My knowledge of particle physics and cosmology and the like is on the level of a semi-literate layperson, who grew up reading the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould. (Gould >>>>> Dawkins) So when she started showing up in my Recommends due to my interest in science, I was intrigued by her opinions about dark matter. Then when I saw the titles of her videos on trans I could tell where they were going and decided to come back when I was in the mood to be infuriated (which I still haven't); I later saw a video from Rebecca Watson responding to that & decided that was good enough for me. And then I saw her "Capitalism is Good" title and decided okay, I'm done.
When someone who knows a lot more about something than I do speaks confidently about that thing, it can be quite convincing. When they start talking about stuff I'm more confident in my knowledge about, that aura dissipates.
So it's reaffirming to see someone who knows about the physics say "yeah, she's full of shit about that too".
Sabine is a UA-camr, and confidently pushing for a "I have secret knowledge _they_ don't want you to think about" seems pretty standard conspiracy theory / cult of personality material. So I have to wonder if there's a feedback effect going on here: being a wacko gives her followers and thus income and a yes-men bubble which in turn gives her incentive to become more extreme and, since physics-based conspiracy theories have a pretty limited audience, eventually a reason to branch out.
I listened to her anti-particle physics video and as soon as she mentioned dark matter I just laughed and closed the video. Her opinion is literally “the standard model is good enough, stop worrying about all those instances where it breaks down.” What a grifter
Looks like she's right on track to the level of Michio Kaku now...
I think I watched her trans sports video, if that's the one you're talking about, and to be fair to her, I don't recall it being particularly transphobic. It argued that trans women having some sort of physical advantage over cis women doesn't actually mean that we should ban them, accurately pointing out that we allow people like Michael Phelps to compete in sports despite having an absurdly advantageous physiology for swimming. Now I think it was too accepting of the premise that "trans women have an advantage over cis women", whatever this means (as I understand it, more science still needs to be done, and moreover while the average trans woman who has gone through male puberty and undergone three years of HRT may be predisposed towards better athletic performances than SEDENTARY cis women, these advantages disappear or are cancelled out when you compare them to high performance cis women athletes because high performance athletics selects for people who have "biological advantages" over everyone else).
Sabine Hossenfelder has also done videos pushing anti-trans narratives. That's how I first heard of her, sounded like she was a decent science person on here before that, so sounds like she's kinda torpedoing her reputation with nonsense.
I used to like her, but dropped her when she came out with the anti trans stuff.
Are you referring to her “trans athletes in women's sports" video? I think it's a fair video. Can you explain how it's anti- trans?
@@BilalBilal-xc5mc It's based in the silly notion that exposure to testosterone improves athletic performance in a quantifiable way. No study has concluded this, and many have concluded that men engaged in high-cardiovascular athletics have lower testosterone levels than those who do not. Therefore, she is uncritically repeating unscientific nonsense that has the goal of removing trans people from sports, which is anti-trans.
@@BilalBilal-xc5mcShe also made an anti trans video about gender affirming care for trans children.
@@projectpitchfork860yeah that video is the main reason I stopped watching her content
Her whole argument is “capitalism isn’t bad, you just gotta set it up goodly”
My first thought when I saw the title of her video was: "There is plastic in my blood, Sabine, there. Is. Plastic. In. My Fucking. Blood, Sabine!
I've always gotten a grifty vibe from her physics videos too. I remember her content being in inflammatory in the physics community when she first popped out but I guess physicists started to ignore her and she is moving to "greener pastures" of attention seeking.
I'm not a scientist, but I enjoy science videos. I got such a 'I'm a rebel, and different to the rest' edgy vibe from her, I gave up after watching a couple of them.
There have been plenty before her - and a lot go too far in trying to be edgy, and get debunked in their own field. Moving into other fields in which they have no expertise is pretty normal.
Not saying that will happen to Hossenfelder, but it is the usual trajectory. I'm an old fart, and I've seen it many times over!
@@ZachariahJ 100% agreed, she just plain makes bad, fallacious, unsupported arguments in all sorts of fields. I unsubscribed from her long before the bad political videos.
@@ZachariahJ I'm a physics student, and I don't particularly work in the physics she used to "discuss" back then (idk if she still does). What bothered me was that in her videos she would make implicit the conflation of particle physics with string theory or other failed alternatives.
These two things are not the same, as particle physics has provided reproducible experiments and empirical evidence for its claims, something string theory and the like have yet to produce in the 50-60 years it's been developed. Every physicist is aware of this (including Sabine, I'm sure, who pretends she doesn't when making her videos).
Hence why I got weird vibes from it. vibes that appeal to crackpots who think have found a theory of everything "that proves Einstein is wrong and all of Physics is wrong" and that they deserve a nobel for it.
Im sure she's done other shit (lmao example being presented in this video) but this is what triggered my spidey senses back then.
@@mictecacihuat665
Well, you'd know more about that stuff than me - I'm a science dilettante at best!
For me it's if a presenter dresses like a biker, or biker-adjacent. It sets off all sorts of alarms and red flags. Back in the olden days, when I used to watch TV, they cropped up every few years in BBC science documentaries. They would get their 15 mins, and then disappear without a trace.
After watching her video, I think I counted 5 times her saying "but that's a different story."
I noticed they're always "this is directly caused by our perfect system" whenever anything goes well and always "externalities *shrug*" when they directly cause things to not go well.
good grief, this has to be the spirit of margaret thatcher
Jesus, their "invisible hand" metaphysical bullshit. As David Harvey said:
"This is strange because you really wanted to see Marx kind of departing from Adam Smith, not saying "I accept the hidden hand of the market", that's what he does in chapter two of volume one, he says "I accept the hidden hand of the market", and of course what he's going to do is to say that the hidden hand is the hand of the laborer, that's what he does further down the line.
The interesting thing about this is that whenever you ask any kind of conventional economist what do they think of Marx's labor theory of value, they'll say "well it's just a mystical kind of thing you know, it just happens you know, nobody can take that seriously", and than you say to them "well what about the hidden hand? Isn't that a mystical thing?", and they go "well no, that's the market, you know, that's the way the market is", and you say "why should I think of a market as being a hidden hand?".
And you have a little argument of that kind and it turns out the hidden hand is just as mystical as Marx's theory of value, if not more so because Adam Smith does not say who's hidden hand it is, whereas Marx is definitely saying "well it's the hidden hand of labor that you've got to be looking at here", and the fact that Adam Smith ignored what was happening to laborers for the most part..."
- David Harvey
I literally just watched Paul Cockshott dunk on her in a very polite and professional manner, with numbers and shit.
I think Sabine also supports Autism Speaks. She gets too high off of her being good at one subject she thinks she can talk about physics, autism, and capitalism as if they were all similar enough; she is smart but not in these fields.
18:20 "a possible in-built feature being passed off as a corretable failure of the system" is so good
Her explanation of capital doesn't consider the fact that more than 90% of lended money doesn't even exist. It is created using fractional lending done by bankers. So capitalists don't have capital, at least not in the amount they lend for a profit to other people.
Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be the type of person who thinks "I know a lot about one particular thing which means I know everything".
Seems to be unfortunately common in the STEM world.
And know I am doubting about their stem knowledge as well,smart people know that talking about something that is not your area of expertise, and without any source besides trust me bro,is a no no.
she says a lot of whacky things about physics too, particularly particle physics. she is only an expert in one area of physics so thats something else to consider. people in the physics community generally roll their eyes at her ravings
@@porkpork2169 I would always get her "Dark Matter Proved Wrong!" videos in my recommends and they looked suspect and crank-ish before she opened her mouth about politics.
I did notice that many people somehow misunderstand capitalism with free trade and other common economy activities
Hakim, unfortunately the only way of watching your "101" videos is through the Wayback Machine. UA-cam got rid of or hid a bunch of your videos.
So she's OK with an economic system that is, by design, best suited for different thing (i.e. maximizing profit of a small group of people), but can occasionally provide overall social benefits here or there, if you tweak it substantially. I wonder if the same logic applies to her scientific equipment.
To be fair: she stated in a previous video, that usually most research on the topic is done by the editor if the topic isnt her expertise.
Just really weird, that she pumped out a video like this immediatly after apologizing for something like that.
But why would someone make videos about topics that one isn't an expert of? Why didn't she just say: "It's not my area of expertise, someone else should do it"?
@@sandrorass890 Well she's been on UA-cam enough to be youtubized, watching people who know what they're talking about constantly set a finger on other fields, at which point they start spouting "common sense" 101 BS or whatever reactionary crap fits their confirmation bias.
@@sandrorass890 (mr krabs voice) money
Well, she is a theoretical physicist, it seems that she took theoretical literature on capitalism and took it as the reality, and combined it with some mental experiments, data with poor interpretation to conclude that if there are problems is because we haven't applied correctly the model. This is typical of the "Sheldon Coopers" of STEM that think they can lecture on every subject and everyone else is dumb, and thanks to this people, some people in the social sciences, philosophy, humanities tend to hate STEM and even denying it for being "inherently capitalist".
I find it HILARIOUSLY ironic that the title of her previous video was "Do your own research. But do it right."
It was genuinely sad to see Sabine die on this hill because im a huge fan of her science videos and how she presents the newest breakthroughs being made in an easily consumable way. I really hope she doesnt go full right wing grifter.
she says a lot of incorrect things about physics too. shes a grifter through and through
@@porkpork2169
Like what, I want to learn and avoid her mistakes
The biggest issue around the developed world right now is affordable housing because it has been taken over by investors used as a commodity over the last 20 years. And most of the population are already home owners so they love when property values skyrocket and they make all of the rules. There is a reason why there is more and more homeless and people spend more than half their income on rent or mortgage. What kind of quality of life is that. Modern day slavery.
Where are you talking about? There is cheap housing and expensive housing. In my own country it varies wildly. Depending on your location you'll get more disposable income with less pay. But also taxpayer funded services vary wildly as well which will change the cost of housing to the individual.
Housing has been used as a commodity ever since housing was commidified when capitalism started to take over feudalism.
@@Raygun9000Cheap housing only exists in very short supply, even in nations like Norway with strong social security networks. And those are only temporary and are raken down as soon as the threat of a revolution goes away.
Here in Vietnam housing is pretty much unaffordable
@@projectpitchfork860 that is inaccurate. 'Cheap' housing is determined by the competition of the buyers not it's quality.
Due to population increases in certain locations the house prices have gone up. Population decreases usually make the house prices go down(it depends why the population has gone down, like a natural disaster). There are tons of other influences such as a decline in the local area or new tenancy laws etc.
I've been watching Sabine for quite a long time and have always found her videos educative, informative, well-balanced, and with a bit of dry humor mixed in. This video however struck me as odd, as she aims it towards people who are anti-capitalist, but only uses arguments have been since long debunked or are simply subjective. Not once did she bring up the well-being and happiness of people as a whole, which to me is one of the most important things we should strive towards.
In a way I feel like she hasn't approached the question from the angle of a humanitarian, but rather of someone who sees economic growth as a proxy for human well being. By shifting this perspective I think she'd probably have come to a different conclusion.
glad someone is talking about sabine. she's really gone under the radar using her "im a physicist" schtick to give an air of faux authority on topics irrelevant to that profession like transphobia, etc.
I have seen this women a few times before. The other work I've seen from her is equally as bad as this is. To be fair, this is exactly the level of research required for this topic in this side of the argument, because the people watching don't have to think. It is just validating state department narratives, like you said.
Note: I haven't watched all her videos, so there are some that probably aren't bad related to physics or whatever her main content is about..
I'd argue that even her physics content isn't all that great.
@@abmaw The physicist I know thinks her physics content isn't good. I don't have the expertise to tell one way or another, though.
@@niamhleeson3522 I'm a physicist and I think she stinks
Sabine Hossenfelder is very wrong about interpretation of quantum mechanics too.
The best part of Sabine's video was "but that's another story", it is the best drinking game ever😁
Sabine is an excellent example of someone going out of their field of expertise and thinking they know everything about it, even if it's completely unrelated
There are some niche science topics that got me into Sabine's content a good while back, but then her videos at some point stopped approaching the level of quality and correctness I was looking for. She also had some videos about trans people that were probably well meaning, but I felt it was nowhere near the mark, especially as a trans person myself. Especially since there were multiple transphobic ideas that were parroted. Glad to see another one of her videos debunked.
Once I saw the trans videos, I knew this video was going.
in my economics intoductory course i learned about free market economics but also how it is flawed (environmental economics, modernization theory…)…I‘d think that an established academic knows how nuanced science really is (although this isn‘t natural science) and would only speqk about things they‘d actually understand on a fundamental level…
On a fundamental level its not nuanced. Thats what the fundamental level means and cretins here have trouble grasping basic fundamentals of supply and demand and free trade leaving both parties happy by allowing both people acquiring of items and services they can do themselves or would be inefficient at making themselves for the price of trading off things they can do without and would much prefer to have those goods and services they cant to or are inefficient at...
Price negotiation allows for those deals to balance at a level perceived as acceptable for both parties tehrefor making those deals not only less painful and fairer to both but a lot of the time possible at all.
In a fixed pricing economy if the price is incorrect, and it quickly becomes so because its not attached to any real boots on the ground economic reality but to a theorized modeling based on most often incorrect data reports in a system which benefits from reporting good sounding fictional data than proper data and a system which doesnt account for any other factors but those which can be gathered by reports which is data delayed in time and actual current conditions on the ground... - the pricing has no chance of being accurate and therefor either enforces losses and ineficiency by making factories produce unwanted items or items of poor quality or stops trade at all due to unfavorable pricing...
Just because a system is not perfect doesnt mean its not way fucking better than communism. Communism is the definition of ineficiency and cleptocracy. A complete and utter monopoly of the government on all resources, property and yes - even people. It changes countries into open sky prison camps.
Preventing pollution by commodifying water is a WILD take
On her claiming Laos being one of the countries you don't want to be in, maybe because it is the most bombed country on earth by the US?
The country was not even at war with the US and was massively bombed consecutively for a decade during the Vietnam War. Now it still has like 80 million undiscovered bombs in its territory which heavily impeded the country's development.
And she blames it on socialism.
P.S. Laos is actually a beautiful country with a lot of mountains and lakes and recently has got it's first HSR.
So, no criticism whatsoever directed toward the Viet Cong communists for illegally entering Laos, a sovereign nation, to create a network of roads and trails to the south to conduct their war. You think the Americans were just bored one day and decided, "Hey let's go bomb Laos"? Abandoning objectivity to support your communist buddies?
What I honestly can't get over is her hand movements. Like she's trying to chop imaginary vegetables the whole time.
She should debate Richard Wolff
I study physics❤, and I consider myself a big follower of Sabine. I almost bought a subscription for articles without "political bias," but it's all a fallacy. Later, when this video came out talking about the benefits of capitalism, I was able to connect the true information bias that continues to be generated to make us believe that capitalism is not a fucking cancer.
I used to like her science content, but if her scientific videos are as researched as her politics... I've started to rethink if they are any good.
I have to assume she's shilling here. No one forgoes due dilligence so specifically. There are times I question if she's appealing to authorities and ignoring conflicts of interest, but good controled opposition has to align FAIRLY well with the opposition if they are to controle them.