'POVERTY - Who’s to Blame?' - The 2019 Hayek Memorial Lecture - Professor Bryan Caplan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- The Institute of Economic Affairs was delighted to host acclaimed US author Professor Bryan Caplan for our 2019 Hayek Memorial Lecture.
The acclaimed author of The Myth of the Rational Voter - hailed as ‘the best political book of the year’ by the New York Times - will unveil his latest project, POVERTY - Who’s to Blame?
Bryan Caplan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Virginia. He’s also author of The Case Against Education and Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. He’s featured in many publications - from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post - and appeared on ABC, BBC, Fox News and more.
Our thanks to CQS for their generous sponsorship of the Hayek Memorial Lecture. - Розваги
Caplan is a legit genius. And underratedly hilarious
This man is so criminally underrated. He makes economics simplified and he is honest and i feel such a strong sense of responsible behavior coming off of him. This is the kinda guy young people should listen to. I bet he can change a few lives.
who is committing the crime? You might think it is only the landowners, but most of them don't know it, and the government supports land ownership. Do you know of any politician who can claim that different taxation is beneficial? There ain't none!
I honestly think than Bryan Caplan is the intellectual heir of Milton Friedman
Apples and oranges. They are both great but akin? hmmm idunno.
Yeah, I completely disagree with him being linked to Friedman as his heir or something. Friedman dealt mainly in monetary policy, whilst Caplan deals with public choice, essentially.
More like Thomas Sowell
@,TM : that's a dubious distinction at best.
Friedman's son David is far superior.
Caplan is the man. A common sense thinker that says what needs to be heard.
Of course he gets blank stares when he references Zombieland.
Lovely talk. Was fascinating to observe in myself how any responsibility on the side of the poor can be discussed. Even though it is clearly the more dignified and respectful thing to do.
What, instead of treating them like children or livestock?
26:06 Those "reasonable steps" to avoid poverty should include a fourth item: don't try drugs, not even once. Drug addiction (including alcohol addiction) is the most reliable way to ruin your life and become poor.
EDIT: A brilliant lecture. I particularly like the point that (to some degree) many poor people have some responsibility for their poverty. I know this for a fact because I have a business that supplies a service to blue-collar workers. Some of the lifestyle choices and financial irresponsibility I've witnessed first hand initially shocked me.
I think the problem is a consequence of choice. It is a result of bad choices so the rest of us can look at that and say that’s a bad choice I’m not gonna follow that path.
I would love to see him in discussion/debate with Ha-Joon Chang, for instance, on what constitute 'sensible' growth policies for a developing country to adopt.
Can't wait for the new book!
Who else here also sees the irony in Caplan giving the Hayek Memorial Lecture, when his 1997 essay "Why I'm Not An Austrian Economist" is STILL the subject of essays, podcasts, etc. from Austrian School economists?
He is influenced by the Austrian school looking at his book suggestion list.
Just shows that Austrians don't demand lock step thinking.
Have you read that essay? I didn't finish it, but I did start it, and right up front he clarifies that he is talking about Mises and Rothbard and their followers, not Hayek.
26:30 the best moment
Very interesting lecture as usual by Bryan Caplan!
Just discovered this guy. I like the way he thinks. Critically and honestly.
People don't do what works in reality. They do what they think is right. The morality must be changed in order for the actions and policies to be changed. Without that, all the evidence in the world will continue to fall on deaf ears. Ayn Rand challenged what people took for granted as right and good. Read The Objectivist Ethics and ask yourself what facts of reality lead you to think that suffering is a virtue.
The implication of Bryan's three drivers of poverty - bad policies in 3rd world country, immigration barriers in 1st world countries, and irresponsible behavior - is that any poverty in a 1st world country is exclusively the result of irresponsible behavior. This is probably true of absolute poverty, although even here there could be cases of extreme bad luck, but there are certainly 1st world policies that contribute to poverty and severely mobility, namely:
* land use restrictions which drive up the cost of housing in high-productivity areas (which Prof Caplan mentions)
* very bad public education (which prevents the learning of even basic skills)
* over-incarceration, including for victimless crimes, along with the impact of having a criminal record on subsequent job availability
* occupational licensing, which cuts off access to jobs and reduces labor mobility, and
* badly designed "social safety nets" including with built-in poverty traps.
@Maiahi Which is why I began the second sentence with "This is probably true of absolute poverty....."
He might be suggesting that its impossible to be third word poor in a 1st world country. This certainly seems the case as I have recently come back from India and I live in San Francisco. While its still a tragedy, the typical homeless person on the streets of SF is miles ahead of even the most well off beggar in India. Its shocking how much better off.
@37:50 he literally says that his book doesn't have all the answers because you can't boil down poverty to just 3 things. Nice try.
He gives Bad Luck as a blanket for the things that don't cover irresponsible behavior
He would agree with all of those except the one on education, he believes the government shouldn’t fund it at all.
if one billion people are still making less than $1.25 a day and governments and employers set those prices then poverty is created by the governments and employers....seems that they know what they are doing which is not to eradicate poverty
An employee being paid $1.25/day is wealthier than an unemployed person making nothing. Employment creates wealth; that's why it exists in the first place. Prices including wages are 'set' by the market, not by employers. Governments hamper this wealth creation through regulations, taxes, money printing (inflation), immigration restrictions, redistribution etc. In some cases governments do indeed 'set' prices but the problem there isn't that the prices being set are too low, but that they are too high. For example, minimum wage laws effectively outlaw those modes of production that the least skilled and experienced people are able to participate in, leaving them jobless.
Would also like to hear his thoughts on the lack of law enforcement or rule of law for the poor and contributing to poverty.
because they attack the police units?
@@nixpix814 Huh? No idea what you are talking about. I made the comment because corruption, lack of enforcement of laws on the books, and lack of legal protection contribute to keeping many in poverty world-wide.
@@CJinsoo Sure, doesn't mean that much of it, at least in the west isnt due to poor decisions.
@@nixpix814 agree about the west, but in reality the “poor” in the west aren’t really poor-they are a political chip, and kept “poor” (subsidized housing, food, schools, medical care) -referring to them as poor is somewhat of an insult to poverty. In the real world of poverty, the institutional support and enforcement is a large problem.
So, many poor people are poor because they live irresponsibly. But, move some of those poor and irresponsible people to a place like the United States and they'll live responsibly because they crossed an imaginary line? Yes, they can be more economically productive than in their past country, but add in a welfare state which subsidizes parents who make bad decisions, why would they change their behavior?
" but add in a welfare state which subsidizes parents who make bad decisions, why would they change their behavior? "
The idea of moving to a rich country like the US is precisely that it doesn't do that, so you are actually forced to be responsible.
I think you'll notice a trend with people like Caplan where the only thing that's consistent is making the rich richer and screwing everyone else. There's no other consistency, they're just looking to stuff their pockets with billionaire $$$ at "Liberty" think tanks.
Are you straw manning? Caplan stated that irresponsibility is only one reason. Another is bad developmental policy, hence the existence of poor countries.
I suspect he has addressed this topic, given his thorough thinking on this topic, but, how should immigration policy be structured so that we end up with the productive instead of more subsidizing sloth, illegitimacy, and criminal behavior?
And if that can be addressed sufficiently for immigration policy, then why not apply to government policy that otherwise currently pays for more domestic poverty?
I would bet that he would say that this isn’t an immigration question but a welfare policy question. Stop the programs that incentivize slothful behaviour and less sloths will want to immigrate.
@@soulfuzz368 I agree that ultimately it is a welfare policy question, but there is a significant unintended consequence when the welfare policy has few limitations and is much more difficult to change.
There are other immigration policy approaches that could help here, e.g., giving the immigrant the choice of welfare plus taxes but never citizenship, or citizenship plus taxes but no welfare, or others...
easy Bryan would probably say the problem isn't immigration is the wellfare which is true.
By requiring proof of specialization, you have to study.
TAX LAND NOT PEOPLE; TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS! As described below.
What's the difference between you and a Georgist?
Than you will lower the value to buy real estate unless it is disconnected to the land as the cost will increase. One of the major causes of wealth dispiarty is high cost of housing driven by restrictive development policy. This also means you wouldn't want to own land, which is usually a package with the house.
Tax nothing.
@@gordovious Governments literally print money, they control the supply of money, taxation is basically stealing, let the economy be free and individuals do their transactions without the government middle man.
On how to not be a poor country.
Land doesn't pay taxes, people do.
I agree with Professor Caplan on a lot, but he discounts Culture. Most people don't want to live in a multicultural society and do not want open border regardless of what beneficial economic arguments can be made.
The majority should Learn skills & learn facts. Scientists should deal with theories. Save time of students + provide jobs to students.
The book never appeared, correct?
Where's the book?
The human species began in poverty and standards of living have improved. Pretending it is the other way round is just intellectual BS
The talk started with 2 big unexamined assumptions:
♦️ Is Poverty a Natural Phenomena ?
♦️Is Poverty a Natural Problem or is a Creation of the Human Social Structure?
Professor Caplan ignores one aspect of the historical record and our contemporary experience. This is the consequence of the long history of the private appropriation of what political economists termed "rent." Rent is societally-created, arising as population increases and locations with the greatest potential for yielding wealth (with the same input of labor and capital goods) are all taken up. The best land still available has the potential to yield something less (again, with the same input of labor and capital goods). Thus, the best land now yields a rent independent of what the holder of the best land does or does not do to improve the land held. Justice requires, therefore, that rent be captured by society for use in creation of physical and social infrastructure.
Societies that fail to adopt law that captures rent must raise revenue by confiscation of income flows earned by producing goods and providing services. Such taxation makes impossible sustained full employment without inflation. Some will always be relegated to bare subsistence, to a life of impoverishment.
If you guys knock this down to ten minutes I'll watch!
It seems to me he clearly shows his limitations as a thinker at the start when he talks in that jokey, dismissive way about first-world problems. Of course there are extremely serious problems that people commonly have even in the richest parts of the world - perhaps most notably problems like intense loneliness, feelings of meaninglessness, purposelessness, worthlessness, feelings of being trapped in pointless, mechanistic jobs that allow no creativity, little dignity, little connection with others, etc. (We can't all just choose to become professors because that seems like a fun job, and then do that.)
Recently, Bryan Caplan has contradictory ideas with respect to mass. After 50~60 years, People will try to think about Bryan Caplan’s ideas. This time, We mostly think. He highlights minor underground issues. Government intellectuals can beat his ideas 💡 by showing own status/power/indirect public support & good salaries than Bryan caplan. But, We can really feel these issues. We also don’t wanna say so bcz of majority isn’t saying. But, People really wanna say so as Bryan caplan.
It does seem to me in some way right to say we should (often, certainly not always) treat poor people as in part responsible for their poverty, and even that that can be helpful. It also however seems to me a big mistake to emphasise that responsibility over the responsibility of the rich and powerful to end poverty through courageous, non-greedy and intelligent action, and over the motivating empathy we should feel towards those in poverty. I mean, it seems to me twisted that Caplan is so keen to talk about how people's bad decisions cause their poverty, and so uninterested in considering how people's poverty propels them towards those bad decisions, by doing so much to truly limit their options, their education, their understanding of so many things, and to form their mentalities and their sense of what's possible for them and what's normal, and to even directly put them in harm's way, traumatise them, leave them with severe hang-ups, burdens, etc. And then also shocking to me is that Caplan so little thought here to the question of what has led to concentrations of wealth in certain countries, communities, families - to (not the whole of that picture, but important parts:) histories of brutal exploitation and cronyism and system-rigging - let alone consider the possibility that such things ought to be compensated for in so far as they can be. Caplan's clearly a smart guy, and I'd always appreciate his contribution to any debate, but in some ways his thinking seems very shallow to me, and pretty smug as well.
The U.S in blue? and Europe and Scandinavia in green what ? really we are the best? This must be a joke!
Isn't unprotected sex and high birthrates just a fundamental constant of poverty stricken communities/areas, around which we form policy?
Also child disease and early death rates tend to "compensate" for their higher rates of birth!
I hate to say it but this economist has no idea of what is the cause of poverty. The cause is not simply who but it is also what it is due to. It is due to lack of opportunity, due to land appropriation and speculation in its values. Henry George explained it in 1879 in his classic book "Progress and Poverty" but even today this approach is shunned by less responsible politicians and their supporting economists of which unfortunately this speaker is one!
Really ?! Is a presentation like this really required ? 😳🤷♂️
FINALLY! A college professor who deals in actual facts and puts the blame on the poor for being poor.
The poor make bad choices and that’s why they’re poor in most cases.
Well, if you simply his other 2 diagnosed factors to Zero, yes that's the remaining factor.
You can't skip to that conclusion first without bringing up bad luck and bad policy
llamasarus1 my father came from a family of 12. Poor growing up and likely to stay that way unless he made the right choices. Instead he’s a self made millionaire. Luck or policy had nothing to do with it.
@@darbyohara he lives in a first world country I'm assuming...
@@darbyohara My father did the same, one of 12 brothers, but he went for engineering school, and then I, one of 3, when to computing science school and choose the gold rush of information-technology.
I'm more than half-way becoming millionaire by 30. And I probably will have only 1 child.
Just do the right choices, like not dropping out of high-school to use drugs, like the others, or actually getting to university.
Also, what's the problem with poor people spending so much money in clothes (or alcohol, or shoes), its ridicule, poor people spend half of what they earn on clothes, I never did that because I was poor (It was better to save money or spend it on paying student debt, or paying any debt), even now that I can get any clothing I want, I simply don't do out of not having this bad habit, I just dress like Steve Jobs.
How to not be poor:
1. study
2. learn to save
3. don't make bad decisions, aka, think of the future
People say I had luck, what luck ? not being stupid or something, is that lucky ? I say no, just make the right choices, and that's that.
I'll never understand, even thou my grand-grand-father ran away from literal fascism and started from the literal 0, by working on the fields, it only took 3 generations.
Perhaps Brian is right, people are poor because of bad decisions.
I've heard him before and he basically says 1)blame the poor 2) let 3rd world country people come to US and work for low wages 3) eliminate housing regulations
That's a recipe for making working class Americans even poorer, the rich even more rich and housing would be even worse as more expensive and unsafe. 🤦♀️
No it isn't
@@geolibertarian74 which one is incorrect, please do your best to explain if you can.
@@terkfranks1538 How would making housing cheaper by increasing supply make people poorer?
@@michaelhutchings6602 if you mean cut regulations as in less safe, that's a no for me. If you mean by allowing rich to build expensive micro apartments at astronomical prices, that's a no for me. If you mean, reducing the 3,000 Sq foot 3 car garage requirements in some areas - sure thing 👍
BS
I'm not for the open borders. A nation state's society is more than its GDP.
Well, it's not just GDP. It's the uplift of humanity.
I suppose if you put culture or whatever else over amelioration of desperate poverty, okay. If you think GDP is just numbers and do not see the value of economic growth in the long term, okay.
Please provide a contemporary example where free migration was a *net* negative for the native population.
Certainly, there are isolated instances where some immigrants can be socially destructive, but the same can be said about natives. The spread of ideas across borders probably undermines native culture more than immigrants crossing borders.
I'd highly encourage reading Caplans book on open borders. It addresses this very concern.
The USA has to be protected from criminal, illegal Invaders who are going to rob, steal, rape and murder innocent Civilians including Children.
@@sawyerjonathan
The late Roman Empire, where the immigrants sided with foreign invaders and sacked their capitol city.
I know from knowing immigrants for 40 years how easy or not to get into this country.
This guy is a liar. He does not know. This is why the fairness doctrine needs to be resurrected otherwise policy cannot be weighed by voters.
I think he was talking about legal migration.
It hard to actually do that.
eat the rich
I'll sell you the sauce, forks, plates, and knives.
@@TM-cb2te you trying to get rich?
@@StevenOwensby What does it matter to you, you're still trying to eat the rich aren't you?
@@TM-cb2te they want to eat you when you become rich🤣
that's why you are poor.
the rich is too strong for you to eat, you start with other poor.
eat the poor.
He talks like someone who only reads books to research. Why didn't he live with the poor people. That's the only way to get real accurate data. This is b s.
what?
doh, because there's people who did that and wrote the fucking books ?
and that's not the only way to get data, personal anecdote is not data