I would have liked to hear Anand Giridharadas and Ameenah Gurib-Fakim address Jason Hickel’s point that even regions as “green” as Scandinavia are consuming four times the capacity of our one planet. How does that fit in with their notions of growth?
"Three per cent growth means doubling the size of the global economy every twenty-three years" / "Capitalism is fundamentally dependent on growth. If the economy doesn’t grow it collapses into recession" - Hickel, Jason. "Less is More "
Two things set apart Jason from the other two speakers (and their critique on his views are related to this) - only Jason takes into consideration/is familiar with planetary boundaries and only he takes a global perspective (e.g. global justice). If the other two were also familiar with, and looked at the issues from the perspective on the planet as a whole, they would be much less opposed to his views:)
That’s because Dr. Hickel isn’t going to claim to have all the answers. The point is that we need to have an economic and political system that is operated democratically. He could directly say “We should have Socialism”, but there are still a ton of questions of what type of Socialism? To list just a few: Marxism? Marxism-Leninism? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Stalinism? Trotskyism? Libertarian Municipalism? Anarcho-Syndicalism? Market Socialism? Georgism? Fourierism? Etc. Plus, proposing some specific solution detracts away from the point of the argument, which is that we need to evolve away from Capitalism. The specifics of the system should be worked out by the people in the given society.
@@John-er1cj "He hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism he just said stop it" Other economists have worked on have to create sustainable steady-state economies.
I get the feeling this format/debate isn't seen or used very much in a country like the US which sorely needs to learn what constructive civil discourse looks like.
@Jack McCabe Corporations will take themselves to Mars with your money. Meanwhile you will be poor and generally not very well off. Now this will be only if, corporation greed won't cause our species to die on this planet before the Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk etc. of the future will be able to leave for a Mars colony.
@@John-er1cj The first step is diagnosing a problem and admitting it exists. He doesn't have all the solutions, but he's smart enough to pinpoint capitalisms numerous fatal flaws that have to be addressed. But, sure, attempt to deflect away from the actual problem.
Malachi Washington that's for us to decide- were you not listening? The future system will and must be made by the people to benefit more people, it's up to us to decide and organize, then we make the political system work for us!
@@John-er1cj "How is he the smartest and hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism and how it would work" Other economists have done a lot of work on life-oriented and steady state economies that are sustainable.
Brilliant debate. The speakers were amazing. Jason pulled the voters his way at the end which gave me goosebumps. Interestingly he swayed me the same way as the studio audience. Thoroughly insightful debate.
The best part is if this debate had actually gone far more in-depth, you'd only side with him more. He's got quite the arsenal of points to back up how neoliberal capitalism has been destroying the global South for decades, from coups, to IMF/World Bank structural adjustment, to corporate tax evasion, to unfair WTO representation for poor countries, to "free trade" agreements destroying economies, the absence of a global minimum wage relative to each individual country's wages--the man can go on and on and on and on.
That was such a disingenuous response on Mauritius' tax system. Of course the country is a tax haven. If people use it as a tax haven, then it's tax haven. It just proves the concept of people being self-interested when she hides that fact. No wonder Ameenah's debate position tanked in popularity afterwards (although, thankfully, it wasn't popular to begin with among these intelligent young people).
Jason was so operating on a completely different intellectual level. His "opponents" were just passionately articulating talking points while Jason was actually addressing and unpacking scientific ideas with tangible implications on everyday life.
What struck me is that neither Anand and Ameenah, capitalism's defenders, talk about what it fundamentally is. Anand speaks about regulating change, but under capitalism a tiny fraction own the means of production and thus control the economic levers. And as that one astute audience member noted, corporations and oligarchs have overwhelming influence over government, as well as international groups like the UN and World Economic Forum. Thus whether you want to achieve less economic inequality, as Anand and Ameenah want, or a non-growth based economy, as Jason wants, then the key is to distribute power and democracy out from just the halls of government and into the entire economy. Workers and communities should own the means of production and directly control their societies, not capitalists.
However without the planetary photo-resources to provide the basis of material reality and their current irrevocable eradication by being 'raped and plundered' by all denigrating 'isms' of consumption over production (on a global basis), then all spheres of capitalism are a false god and for us to both survive and thrive we will transform to REGENERISM by 2030.👍😊🌎🌳
Good points Sean, it's always wonderful when you can express your thoughts freely. Every CEOs, owners of means of production should besr certain risk. Risks that could be rewarding or lead to disaster. Rewards plentiful if it turns out ot be successful. On your vein when you mentioned means of production belonging to societies and communities, somewhere, sometime, someone will decide to take risk for better rewards, is he not entitled for the rewards it would bring? Whether the good of the community or for personal gain? Is he allowed to be competitive? Say for instance someone also decides to improve the community and society but doesnt take the risk, infact he is good very good at managing resources. Takes all the responsibility, is he not entitled to get the larger share of the pie because of his efforts? Will he be a le to mamage all the other factors of production because he is that good? Or will it subside away.
Great debate! I like Anand but Jason kicked some ass, and gave a right explanation of what capitalism is. And yes: there were carpet sellers making money in medieval or ancient greek times, and no: they were not capitalists. I also have to give props to the presenter who was a great moderator but also put Ameenah a bit on the spot a couple times with her presumptuous yet totally empty answers.
It is so bizarre to watch a debate like this in Qatar, where not only Capitalism rules but combined here with autocracy, no Human rights and no freedom of speech is allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah, it’s almost like these debates are meaningless and just opportunities for rich people to feel enlightened all while not changing a single thing about their beliefs. “crony” capitalism is just capitalism, plain and simple
Jason's position is the most rational. Growth is not good. It's based on the irrational position that the Earth is infinite, resources are infinite, etc....and several hundred years ago one might be excused for maintaining such a position. However, we know better now. The Earth is finite. The resources are finite. And many other things as well. In fact, growth is not even a part of what economics means, and is usually counter to it.
The host kept trying to put the capitalist's thumb on the scale with her framing of the debate. She took any chance she could to eliminate nuisance and force the speakers into extremes that they didnt initially express.
I am disappointed in the lack of listening done by the participants here. Even from the interviewer not listening to Jason for the first couple of times saying that poorer countries should not abandon growth.Also Anand strawmanning Jason's point as an 'all or nothing approach'.
Overall it was a great debate, but I was disturbed by the lack in content of the guest's responses. The questions were really, really good but the guests were avoiding the answers. It was frustrating to see the rush in ending the debate when it started to become really interesting. That was the point when the guests should have sustained their ideollgies at it's best.
This was an excellent discussion. My only complaint is the question period was entirely too short, and didn’t allow enough time for full answers. One question that I wish was asked, and should be in the future is “what do we do about the capital stock markets of the world, and the owner class that owns most of it? Because they will inherently resist any and all change that is discussed here.”
I'm sorry but I have to say, Jason is the only one who contributed some substantial, helpful (like empirical evidence) and clear points to the discussion. The other two overwhelmingly used a frustrating amount of platitudes, clever sounding, but empty rhetoric and agnostic unclear non-positions.
This comment sounds a little racist, as they made good points about the global south n ending to grow (develop) and about there being corruption in governance and unfair trade relations which is well documented, respectively. To be clear, Jason confirmed as much before contextualizing and differentiating what degrowth is and is not. Make sense?
I was amazed recently when responding to a survey by the New York Times that I am considered low income. I lived through poverty and bad jobs when I was young but I finally secured a job that provided me with a retirement income and health insurance. I made money from selling a home and now live in a rental. The idea that I am low income just makes me wonder how families are surviving today on less than I receive. Something is very wrong and capitalism is the problem.
my 12 year old son said to me the other day... " dad, how can anyone believe that our society can grow forever, it's just stupid on a finite planet" if imperical evidence matters to you, then the obvious evidence would persuade you that the benefits of society need to be shared more fairly and that earth's ecological boundries need to be respected. There is now ample evidence showing what happens to civilizations that don't respect those boundries ....
Brilliant format. Great to see a reasoned and plural debate, and to directly involve our future leaders. An important and complex topic, very well presented and argued. I am most impressed by the insightful and thoughtful questions from the audience. A new power is rising.
I've been seeing the sponsored posts by Doha Debates on Twitter from sometime now and finally took some time out to watch the debate today and I must say, I'm very impressed and thankful that they promoted it on Twitter. It was a very good, insightful and knowledge debate. And I loved how calm and relaxed everyone was, the host was really nice and did a good job. And keep posting new debates. Thanks!
I"m from Canada and I'm spending my weeks in meetings where most people don't understand most of the thing happening in those meetings, and have even less understanding of what is going on in the world. The young people in this audience are already so much more mature, educated and inspiring than most of those people I'm stuck with in my every day life.
Yup. My dad, for eg, doesn't know almost anything. Times are changing. More and more people are realising what the problem is. What do you do ? What kind of meetings do you have ? What do those people do ?
The problem is interest being charged by financial institution, greed and not giving back to the community. We will continue heading in a bad place as long this is not stopped.
@Ronald Reagan maybe landlords are just parasites who commoditize shelter and leave a wake of gentrification and housing insecurity behind them so they can have a passive income🤔
Economists say... They have never and are not able to predict accurately any form of capitalism. Feudalism was all the world knew until the 15th century. To think a post capitalism system is not possible is ridiculous.
Given both sides are very intelligent and tremendously well informed. The question that begs an answer is where will all the energy to feed and keep alive come from? Both Anand and Hickel basically never address the question of carrying capacity - which is clearly related to overshoot and consequent collapse. And Doha? A petrol paradise itself and gone tomorrow to sea level rise.
So Anand, This wonderful course called MBA that spews the wonders of capitalism with platitudes of risk and reward, etc. - all couched in lukewarm social objectives surely begs intense re-examination, does it not? I attribute so many of the ills of the western world from the mid-70s to this MBA craze. Scrape the entire course and get back to commonsensical economics that does not engage in numeric acrobatics.
@Ronald Reagan taking that to its logical conclusion any two people who remotely agree on one thing, aren't having a debate on something they disagree on. The guests clearly all disagreements, unless you didn't actually watch the debate yourself.
@Ronald Reagan "Liberals get sucked into this shit just like mask mandates" The science proves that mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccines all worked and saved lots of lives. That's why people in the GOP in America died at higher rates from COVID--they listened to untrustworthy media outlets and thus were misled about the science. So once again, progressives had the facts on their side.
If capitalism didn’t exist in the medieval era, how would Jason explain the inherent need to form and expand empires that seized labour, land and trade routes for the benefit of elites. Modern capitalism didn’t arise out of thin air.
you are probably bewildered by the various names given to the economic systems during the eras from slavery to manorialism then to feudalism and then to capitalism...I'm pretty sure Jason refferes to the post Karl Marx's capitalism era!
As Jason explains in his book 'Less is More' modern capitalism rose out of end of fuedalism which lead to an enclosure of the commons so that those who held the power could force workers into factories in order to make a living. While empires had an inherent need to continue expanding to continue expand the resource and tax base, you cannot make an robust argument that that was capitalism as it was empires/kingdoms rather than corporations acting in a free market with a profit motive. His point is what Anaan pointed to as capitalism is simply a free market economy. The two are not the same.
Greta conversation-Jason and Anand 💯 The format is rather odd though, I don’t think the big VOG and graphics help with the discussion, causes things to feel rather artificial IMO
I thought Anand was smarter than this. The capialism that America has today is exactly how free market capitalism is suppoosed to work! Profit, profit, profit to the already rich and crumbs or nothing to the poor.
That is not how free market capitalism is supposed to work. Besides, basically no economy in the world is entirely free. Government regulations are necessary it some cases.
Interesting perspective - Thank you Jason Hikel, I aced my Econ paper :) Still unclear why your country is contained within mine :) Exceptional debate, Thank you
54:27 “I think we can’t allow the abuse of a system to define a system because we allow the abusers to be the powerful in that case.” Same point applies to religion-just because there are some who misread fear and hate into the text doesn’t mean that’s what the text calls for.
having listened to the debate the pro growth side seems not to understand the one time bounty humanity has been given by fossil fuels - or the very unique qualities of fossil fuels that simply are not replicated by renewable energy sources - stating how you have seen growth over the last few decades lift up and transfrom a country and people and how this is much preferable to being poor and undeveloped - this is not being argued by the degrowth side - this is a wonderful reality and as such is why the degrowth arguement is so important- for when properly contextualized the benefits of growth will evoprate when growth is no longer able to be achieved , and this fact escapes the emotional yearning for the continuation of the current system - let's just keep doing what we are doing but better..... the message of the climate science and earth sciences in general is that the system of growth is having such profound side effects that those side effects are actrually rgoing to overtake the benefits and actually reverse the gains so hard fought for over the last decades and century.... i think the pro growth side is missing the scale of the ecological crisis and are under valuing equity in human affairs .... degrowth is really the only logical answer to the problems we face as a result of exponential growth of huiman activities over the last 150 years.
I cannot favor one or another. I believe in the necessity of getting to some form of zero growth economy as Jason Hickel suggests. Is that change possible sans catastrophe? If change is going to be possible it would be necessary to morph through series of steps or transitions passing through the soul searching Anand describes with such honesty and clarity. I experience Ameenah Gurib-Fakim as representing the starting point. Where we are now. The mindset that as delivered so much, but we must move beyond
Neoliberal free market economics never produced much in the way of progress that matters, the point of the economy is to produce things we need, optimise its production/design/efficiency, distribute it according to some criteria to people/sectors/groups that need it and in the end produce a net positive outcome. We are at a stage where we have vast technical knowledge, extractive capabilities, organisational capability, outcomes that we agree on based on what people need to live comfortably that are generally universally acceptable - except no ambition to deliver it simply because such act would not return an income or profit. If you wonder why so many live in relative/absolute deprivation - its not because we have a system that needs to grow to reach them, its because it operates under a constant premise: what will I gain from giving it to you? What will you give me for building a sewage and water system in your village that will provide clean water and waste management to all your villagers? It does no benefit to those who need it for the sake of need, it does so for the sake of self interest, not genuine interest. The obstacle lies in solving distribution issues, abolishing crude measures of access to resources - money/capital/funds and innovate to a more comprehensive measure that better represents need. For now taxes are all there is for distribution, and we know they have little to no chance of distributing wealth in a meaningful way giving the ease with which someone with a good lawyer or good imagination can do tax evasion.
What if the real driver is not growth, but rather the idea that I can grow my personal position by eliminating the competition. From a macro-economic perspective the outcome might be growth, but from a micro-economic perspective I just want to grow my business(es) or wealth (and generally relative to the other players in the world). That means at the end of the day people are driven by the idea of how to get wealth transferred from others to themselves.
"That means at the end of the day people are driven by the idea of how to get wealth transferred from others to themselves." THAT could be accomplished simply by taking, and doesn't require growth at all.
Anand is right in saying ‘tax the hell out of super rich’ and reduce the inequality gap is the only way forward. Billionaires can never do this because they damage indirectly more than they tend to help.
Money is finite. You can only take from the billionaires, once. People have to help themselves. Stealing from the rich isn’t an answer. Give a crack head a million dollars. He will then buy a million dollars worth of crack... the problems are deeper then money. When people realize this fact, we’ll all be happier
@@PoliticallyAffiliated You can keep taking from billionaires as long as they keep stealing the money from the labour of their workers, or you can give the workers their fair share of the money they earned. If you are working for scrap you will never be able to help yourself, in Capitalism it's almost impossible for anyone to rise above their economic class, if you are born poor you will probably die poor, because working at Amazon werehouses will never make you enough money. This help yourself narrative is nothing but a fairytale, if you are not born into riches there is not much you can do. 50% of workers in the world today earn less that 10$ per day, go tell them to help themselves.
1997lordofdoom do you choose to use amazon? Did jeff bezos force you to use his product? Did Steve jobs hold a gun to your head and force you to buy an iPhone? The tv in your home, did you willfully purchase it? The company who created that tv, did they come to your home with torches? Or maybe Netflix, did you buy Netflix under your own fruition? Or did Netflix steal 10$ from you? No one is forcing people, to buy the products, these people produce/create. It’s a willful transition of money. You spend your money on what you want. The only time you don’t spend money on what you want, is when you get taxed. If you create a product, the world loves, then you can “steal” everyone’s money, too. If I create good music, am I stealing from my fans? Lol think a little. Your future is in your own hands. Don’t worry about what others have. Opportunity is here for you, it’s urging you to cross the line. And if your goal is to abolish the poor, then you have a very dangerous ideology. And an impossible dream. I worked in a warehouse, now I’m in a trade making good money. Just takes a little HARD work. If you know what that means. The only thing in my way now, is the government, I’m not sure how they are going to waste my tax money, or actually, “steal it”, the government steals from me, way more then jeff bezos.. You’d love the government to steal my money.... a government, who I’m sure, you trust to control the economy lol. Taxing billionaires, doesn’t stop at the rich. It goes allllll the way down.
Anand Girdhardas doesn't seem to realize that renewable sources of energy have their own problems. It is not as if the production of solar panels or car batteries leaves no impact on the environment.
One question: Why is growth only associated to capitalism ? We definitely need growth to improve the lives of people living in the global south but why not achieve growth in a pro-worker way which is a : fair and redistributive b: sustainable and c : capable of improving lives . Guess what , this may come as a shocker , which country GREW from a backward agrarian country with 75% illiteracy to the second superpower in a bipolar world in the 20th century ? Soviet Union . Clearly it didn't follow the path of capitalism to grow .
The problem with the growth ideology is it is one of competition instead of cooperation. Jason's point isn't to limit the growth of developing countries, rather it is to (re)distribute and use our already abundant resources in a far more rational, efficient and fair way that ensures that those countries can develop much more rapidly without requiring further global economic growth. So, yes, in some ways they would continue to grow, but at the expense of developed countries continuing to unnecessarily grow- when they don't need to anymore.
I don't really accept the definition of capitalism right at the top, and part of the problem is the word means different things to different people. Like I'm pretty sure the concept of using surplus value to better your business or craft or whatever existed before capitalism. I think a more valuable exercise word be to discuss underlying economic theories, observed phenomena, and empirical data on a case by case basis. Otherwise it just becomes a kind of religious debate.
How do we not have the same definition of capitalism? Can't we look at the official definition and go from there? Do we need different definitions of what a 'book' is? I know an economic is more complex than a book, but a computer is pretty complex and I bet we could agree on the definition of what a computer is. Give or take a few more or less details, capitalism is defined as a "monetary-market system predicated on private ownership of the means of production for profit." Do you want to add or take away anything from that? But you can't take away that capitalism is a monetary-market system where profit and growth are primary objectives. That's really what Jason Hickel's problem with it is. It's unsustainable. Doesn't matter how moral people are. The system of infinite growth is unhealthy. Just like a doctor discovering a cancerous tumour in a patients body, if it was able to be safely cut out, they wouldn't tell the patient "well, this cancerous tumour will continue to grow and sicken you we don't it out, but let's not cut it out because when it is small you won't notice many symptoms." See the sickness is system. The solution is to transform our system using the tools we have to a more cooperative, sustainable, localized, direct democracy society of abundance and prosperity for all within planetary boundaries. It is not a question of can we do it, it is a question of do we want to do it?
Endless growth is simply incompatible with preventing the collapse of ecosystems and thus our civilization. Thus, all this talk about "green growth" is delusional thinking. To be more inclusive, wealth simply must be redistributed more fairly, and we must stop letting our wishes about growth serve as a distraction from that fact.
Gary O'Driscoll search your Richard Wolff on democratic workplaces. That’s a viable socialist option to capitalism that also doesn’t involve any sort of government.
Consumers are needed for feeding the system that depends on consumption growth. That is the issue, while it's the system that should be designed to feed the citizens.
the issue i see is that we have created a system that we are one part of, like a functioning mechanism, the part that consumes. we have constructed something that does not exist in any real way other than our stubborn insistence on it only to let it enslave us by saying if we don't have this we will not have life. It is very backwards. All of these human created institutions have a much high plasticity and ability to change and mold how we need them too than we act like.
Very surprised to hear praise for Jason in the comments. I thought he just made mundane points. Anand was the only intelligent voice on the stage, perhaps I need to re-hear the debate.
UBI can fuel the change! Its too complex of many issues. slow thoughtful learning and education is required to create the new systems we need. UBI gives everyone the time to pick new ways of being. I believe it will be a strong foundation upon which everyone has a say with their own dollars, how we should go forward. Creating a new class of people that can never fall below an income floor would drastically improve our ability to adapt.
@@ronaldreagan3086 I think you should check your research. Cerb was vital in preventing a harsh recession. In part, it was massive corporate bailouts (injecting money into the global economy) that triggered extreme inflation. Your disbelief in your own right to have a slice of your own countries wealth makes you a fool. Hard cash universally handed out to everyone is real collective investment, builds trust, and is a responsible thing to do. Poverty won't end itself and collective society that doesn't suck requires it. There is no work that will magically be available to everyone all the time. It fluctuates and people fall through the cracks. Again, look into it some more, or you'll be the one that remains, the fool.
@@ronaldreagan3086 massive demand? the whole world was on lockdown which created shortages and supply issues. Its not because average people had money to pay for food and housing. People having a basic income is not going to ruin anything. Also, basic income is not like the covid stimulus. That was a response to a pandemic and was not planned in the budget. Basic income can be planned and the money can be gathered without going into debt. It generates wealth and productivity.
@@ronaldreagan3086 the Ontario basic income failed? That is not true. Its too much work for me to prove to you. That program was cut halfway through and fucked the results. In Finland, their pilot had flaws that made it fail. There are lots of basic income pilots and projects around the world all with great success. There's many in the states right now showing significant life improvements to recipients. Again, I'm not going to write an essay with a bibliography for you.
@@ronaldreagan3086 this last statement from you really proved you are bigoted and misinformed. I wish you the best and that you're heart and mind can open up eventually. Welfare is what creates poverty traps, unconditional basic income does not. You clearly don't know even know the difference between welfare and unconditional income, Take care.
I disagree with Ameenah. She is confusing growth with progress. Progress is needed but eternal growth is "logically" impossible. Current capitalism is a Ponzi scheme that needs growth that's why. This System is going to be demolished by humans or by physical laws. A controlled demolition would be preferable,...but I guess is going to be the other way.
was this filmed before Ameenah Gurib-Fakim was forced to resign that prestigious position she was introduced with due to her corruption and financial scandals? Does not seem like an honest person. Also it should be mentioned she began her argument with a strawman to the first speakers statements. He specifically mentioned that the rich nations drastically reduce growth, Mauritius is not and was not then a rich country, so framing it as needed is misrepresenting the argument.
The word says it already. Capitalize. How did the world ran into environmental problems? Right, fossil fuel capitalization. Now replace that to a form of renewable resource and limits to planet exploitation. I think that will be a part of the solution.
why do we have a youth audience? and a presenter talking like we are teenagers? this discussion has been had before and it will continue until it is resolved.
They are all right in a way. It's just that greed, unnecessary competition, and the consistent insatiable drive towards becoming super economies is grossly undermining genuine capitalism.
What a simpleton view of this problem. Ask what you want. Join us in St.Louis (DSM) we march we hit the street to stop this madness. Turn off your device , burn your phone. go to the streets show them your pain.
Peculiar that we don’t even get a definition of capitalism until the last five minutes of the video and neither are correct. Anand thinks markets means capitalism and Jason thinks infinite growth means capitalism. Simply put, capitalism is a socioeconomic system with a employer/employee class system, where control of the means of production is assigned to the employer. This class relationship is simply a kinder and gentler form of even more immoral forms of socioeconomic systems such as feudalism, slavery, etc… No amount of redistribution of resources can rectify the true indignity of the power distribution. It is this uneven power distribution that is the rot at the core of our world. A brief stroll through history shows that as that power imbalance decreases, the general quality of life increases, even for those at the top.
"Jason thinks infinite growth means capitalism." Jason knows perfectly well that growth alone doesn't "mean" capitalism, but capitalist demands endless growth and requires it to avoid collapse--since previous growth was created in large part by creating new money and debts out of thin air that require future growth to repay.
@@HealingLifeKwikly Capitalism does not demand infinite growth. I just explained that capitalism is a social power relationship. Our current day capitalists seem to want their wealth to increase indefinitely, perhaps, but nowhere in the definition of capitalism is there a requirement for infinite growth. Nor are debts created out of thin air a necessary feature of capitalism.
@@jojomojojones "Capitalism does not demand infinite growth. I just explained that capitalism is a social power relationship." Again, you don't get to make up your own definitions for things and then expect others to play along when there are established and workable definitions for things like growth and capitalism. Capitalism INVOLVES social power relationships, but that is not a DEFINITION of capitalism, it is merely one of many features of capitalism. Marriages, workplaces, teams, societies, etc.--even troops of monkeys--ALL involve social power relationships, so that isn't any kind of definition of capitalism. A typical definition of capitalism looks like "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." Firms are also competing against each other for market share so as to increase their profits, and the drive for largER profits and larger profits than competitors inherently leads to a growing economy and draining wealth from the Earth economy (ecosystem destruction), family/community economy, and public sector economy. While there are various forms of capitalism, ultimately CAPITALism prioritizes the demands of capital and wealthy capitalists over other goals, including human wellbeing, democracy, and ecosystem health. It is ultimately a life-hostile system. Fortunately, there are other forms of market economies we can replace it with.
Was anyone speaking there actually defending profit and rent seeking exploitation? No. So where was the debate? Nothing Ameenah or Anand said was a defence of exiting capitalism. You cannot have inclusion without financial inclusion, which means production for pure rentier profit (M-C-M') is not sustainable. The only way to truly be just is to free worker time without reducing wage share by getting the rich to work too, and the only way to make work produce sustainable goods is to eliminate the profit motive which is biased heavily to produce crap (or luxuries no one truly needs) from cheap labour. One way or another the monetary profit motive has to be eliminated, and the social profit motive enhanced; be that through legislative, regulatory and through moral education, all methods to bear. If you can produce something people need that is essential it will sell with a mark-up providing a firm with investment surplus, there's no need for a boss to take more than they need to live on, to take more than their lowest paid worker. When the boss gets the lowest wage in the firm you've got a form of post-capitalism, a just form. Private ownership of the means of production is classical capitalism, but with no rentiers, but this is no today's actual existing capitalism which is rentier finance and rent seeking parasitic neoliberal capitalism, and that form of capitalism certainly has to go.
Actually Capitalism is not the only system, it is the dominant yes. China, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland are countries that have mixed package systems, where the Government controls and owns a large part and shares some of the rest with the private sector.
They re all pretty capitalist, the only difference between China and every other example you gave is that it s state capitalism as opposed to free market. All the others (maybe except Russia at this point) are absolutely capitalist, they just have better safety nets so you don't hit the ground that hard if you fail. Social policies don't change capitalism, they just make it slightly more bearable
Numerous discussions by amateurs like amand girid, including this video, and people who worship those discussions always come to this conclusion. Leftists always talk logically and lengthily, but they are unrealistic, the conclusions are bizarre, and the results are ruined.
@Ronald Reagan let's see, higher taxes, under funded public school system, corrupt health care industry... I can go further, but it would probably go over your head like most things.
@Ronald Reagan billionaires don't set tax codes.... that's the funniest sh1t I've read today. I should have known.. never argue with an idiot. In case you are not aware Mr. President, you are the Trump here.
Jason seems incapable of separating the idea of growing the GDP and environmental destruction. He isn’t really even intersecting with the other guests’ positions. Innovation, doing more with less, is the backbone of our increasing quality of life.
Hickel is a scholar focusing on growth/de-growth who could, if there was enough time, present the scientific literature that correlates gdp and environmental impact (the correlation is very strong). To claim he cannot seperate the two just shows you are not familiar with his work. He has written a book that is literally called "Less is more" so you might want to check that out.
@@robbzon He can’t imagine how gdp and environmental degradation CAN be divorced. His insistence that a rising GDP must be detrimental to the environment is wrong but refuses to recognize this point.
@@jojomojojones nah theres a heavy amount of evidence that absolute decoupling hasnt happened historically globally, and hasnt shhowed signs of it being possible. theres some relative decoupling that can be done, however nowhere enough to let us sol e our sustainability issues while maintaining growth
So-called pragmatists and realists are killing us. Idealists are what we need, so that sentiment shifts enough that those ideals can be put into practice.
"Jason is an idealist, Ameenah a pragmatist, and Ananda a realist!" Actually, Jason is the one who is a realist about how the web of life works and what we must do to avoid the collapse of ecosystems and societies. Both endless growth and industrialized capitalism are flatly incompatible with preventing the destruction of the ecosystems that support our lives and economies.
@@andrewzcolvin First, I disagree with the premise that all economists are capitalist; even you did not claim that. Therefore, we can and should include economists from different sides in this discussion. Second, even if we accepted that all economists are capitalists, we should still include them as they are around the best defenders of capitalism. Third, economics is a social science. Its models have proven to be highly predictive and useful. Can you elaborate on "its foundation is entirely unscientific"?
@@salaheddinekira1317 what she means is capitalism propose infinite growth on a finite planet. If you read his book, the divide, you will understand what he thinks about capitalism and why. He’s an economic antropologist. That’s why he is able to speak about this.
@@잘생긴내얼굴-g9f why would you need a economist for talking about ecological collapse? Btw, there are economist (nobel prized) who would say the same about this kind of contradictions on capitalism.
at 13:16 the esteemed lady say "Africa ... the youngest continent" When in reality human life originated in Africa at least 2 million years back. Then the camera pans to a bunch of hooded muslim women, who otherwise live like semiotic slaves inside Doha or the royalty of Qatar, which does not permit abortion. Amazing institutional hoodwink at some level.
This debate is pointless as the capitalism is a system that the human ego created. As everyone is egoist and strive to more. More pleasure which means also more money and more respect etc. this includes all the speakers and audience which want more. And the human ego is growing all the time and it cannot be stopped.
If we continue on the path of more we will in fact have less and less, until the planet is a barren wasteland. If we really want a better, more prosperous future, we’ll need to reconsider what’s valuable. The human ego you speak of should begin to realize the catastrophe that capitalism is bringing about.
“Degrowth“ won’t solve climate. Yes the policies they talk about are good socially but they’re not gonna solve much of the climate problem. Yes they should be implemented but not to target climate change but to target inequality, which indirectly will improve emissions. In developed countries most of the consumption is in the form of services which are less impactful to the environment and we are generally more efficient utilising resources. This is not to say we should just keep consuming more and more. We should definitely consume less and transition to green infrastructure. But the truth is that developing countries (with some exceptions) are the ones that produce the most emissions per capita. Now, I understand that we outsource a lot of our production and that is why we should reduce consumption. But to say let’s make the global north consume less but the south grow no questions asked is just nonsense. Bordering wishful thinking. And hoping for burning even quicker. Yes reducing consumption in the north would reduce emissions in other places like china, India etc. basically in places where we outsource production. But, these are not even the most polluting countries per capita. Developed countries are able to have less emissions because of the advanced infrastructure and technology, which makes us much more efficient with resource usage and industries are mostly services oriented. Also We already have roads, houses, infrastructure etc. All this emissions have been done. There’s no changing that. However, In most developing countries all the emissions to build all of the infrastructure still needs to be done. That’s just reality. So, yes we can consume less in the north but we need global policies to safeguard and ensure that development in the global south is sustainable too. Hoping to develop infrastructure in the south and expecting that somehow the west’s consumption is the cure all solution is really unlogical. Particularly, when construction is one of the most polluting industries. Is it fair that the north is more developed at backs of the south. Absolutely not. At the same time we can’t afford, or better yet our planet cannot afford, developing countries to follow the same shitty path of development that took developed countries and the planet to what it is today. Let’s not forget that developed countries constitute a relatively small percentage of the world’s population/ geographical mass and the cost of that development took us here.what do you think would be our future if the vast majority of the world would follow the same path? We need to start thinking globally, cooperate, and stop with petty fights for power and self serving blaming of each other. We need to take everyone out of poverty regardless of where they are. For that we don’t need every centimetre of worlds surface to be developed to the teeth. If we stopped playing country fights we would realise that maybe we don’t need people living in every random place on earth. Maybe having a few populous places across the world but highly dense would be much more efficient and better for the planet. I know it sounds tough and insensitive for the connection some people have to land but maybe we shouldn’t be trying to develop that city or country that barely no one lives or that is barely developed. Maybe saving the planet and ourselves could for once come above anything else. Including our attachment for stuff, land, etc. I feel very fortunate to be born where I did and wouldn’t wish anyone what many people in developing countries have to go through. If I was in their position I’d probably be mad too and I know it is easier for me to say this from my sofa but we really cannot let the south take the same choices we took to develop at any cost. let’s not repeat the same mistakes. We know better. Or at least we should. If we don’t, then good luck cause there won’t be a planet left. But again maybe that’s what we all deserve as humans
So lemme get this straight, you want developing countries and therefore billions of people to stay poor because it would be bad for the environment otherwise. But you don't agree that western countries should reduce their over-consumption. So basically de-growth for thee, but not for me.😐
@@Frostchris4121 I obviously don’t want people to stay poor but if your house is burning you don’t help your neighbours by burning your house faster while you’re in it do you? Maybe you’d turn into a martyr but they still have to put out the fire. What I’m saying is de-growth would work if all including non western nations would do it. But that’s not realistic nor really fair to ask of developing nations. So yes we should reduce our consumption but sending our economy down back to the Middle Ages isn’t making anyone a favour but to those in power of oppressive dictatorships which will gain even more power to turn us into their puppets too. I don’t know about u but with all its flaws I much rather live in a western culture than at the whims of some random dictator.
In order for the south to "take the same steps" it would need to colonize a large part of the world which to take resources from. The fact is that we still live in colonial times where the north is essentially taking away resources from countries that would vastly benefit from it not being the case.
I would have liked to hear Anand Giridharadas and Ameenah Gurib-Fakim address Jason Hickel’s point that even regions as “green” as Scandinavia are consuming four times the capacity of our one planet. How does that fit in with their notions of growth?
Jason Hickel your point is genius! Full on on the degrowth movement! 🌎❤
"Three per cent growth means doubling the size of the global economy every twenty-three years" / "Capitalism is fundamentally dependent on growth. If the economy doesn’t grow it collapses into recession" - Hickel, Jason. "Less is More "
Nature controls what we are and what we do. Only 3% of pur photosynthetic landscapes are within its total control currently.
Jason is amazing. Unfortunate that he's not being listened to. Humanity will end itself while people laugh at attempts to save it.
Two things set apart Jason from the other two speakers (and their critique on his views are related to this) - only Jason takes into consideration/is familiar with planetary boundaries and only he takes a global perspective (e.g. global justice). If the other two were also familiar with, and looked at the issues from the perspective on the planet as a whole, they would be much less opposed to his views:)
He hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism he just said stop it
That’s because Dr. Hickel isn’t going to claim to have all the answers. The point is that we need to have an economic and political system that is operated democratically.
He could directly say “We should have Socialism”, but there are still a ton of questions of what type of Socialism? To list just a few: Marxism? Marxism-Leninism? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Stalinism? Trotskyism? Libertarian Municipalism? Anarcho-Syndicalism? Market Socialism? Georgism? Fourierism? Etc.
Plus, proposing some specific solution detracts away from the point of the argument, which is that we need to evolve away from Capitalism. The specifics of the system should be worked out by the people in the given society.
@@John-er1cj "He hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism he just said stop it" Other economists have worked on have to create sustainable steady-state economies.
I get the feeling this format/debate isn't seen or used very much in a country like the US which sorely needs to learn what constructive civil discourse looks like.
@Ronald Reagan oh ya Ronald
To believe that the economy can grow forever in a finite world, you have to be a madman or economist.
Indeed - second law of thermodynamics
World is finite, but vast majority of it is unexploited.
As a wise man more than once said "Economists, log off."
@@harshitmadan6449 I don't know what planet you're living on.
@Jack McCabe Corporations will take themselves to Mars with your money. Meanwhile you will be poor and generally not very well off. Now this will be only if, corporation greed won't cause our species to die on this planet before the Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk etc. of the future will be able to leave for a Mars colony.
Jason is the most smart of them all, Growth is the problem
How is he the smartest and hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism and how it would work
@@John-er1cj The first step is diagnosing a problem and admitting it exists. He doesn't have all the solutions, but he's smart enough to pinpoint capitalisms numerous fatal flaws that have to be addressed. But, sure, attempt to deflect away from the actual problem.
Malachi Washington that's for us to decide- were you not listening? The future system will and must be made by the people to benefit more people, it's up to us to decide and organize, then we make the political system work for us!
@@John-er1cj "How is he the smartest and hasn't suggested a system to replace capitalism and how it would work" Other economists have done a lot of work on life-oriented and steady state economies that are sustainable.
@@John-er1cj sosialisme
Brilliant debate. The speakers were amazing. Jason pulled the voters his way at the end which gave me goosebumps. Interestingly he swayed me the same way as the studio audience. Thoroughly insightful debate.
@H. Nguyen Care to elaborate on your biased generalization of him?
The best part is if this debate had actually gone far more in-depth, you'd only side with him more. He's got quite the arsenal of points to back up how neoliberal capitalism has been destroying the global South for decades, from coups, to IMF/World Bank structural adjustment, to corporate tax evasion, to unfair WTO representation for poor countries, to "free trade" agreements destroying economies, the absence of a global minimum wage relative to each individual country's wages--the man can go on and on and on and on.
That was such a disingenuous response on Mauritius' tax system. Of course the country is a tax haven. If people use it as a tax haven, then it's tax haven. It just proves the concept of people being self-interested when she hides that fact. No wonder Ameenah's debate position tanked in popularity afterwards (although, thankfully, it wasn't popular to begin with among these intelligent young people).
Jason was so operating on a completely different intellectual level. His "opponents" were just passionately articulating talking points while Jason was actually addressing and unpacking scientific ideas with tangible implications on everyday life.
100%
What struck me is that neither Anand and Ameenah, capitalism's defenders, talk about what it fundamentally is. Anand speaks about regulating change, but under capitalism a tiny fraction own the means of production and thus control the economic levers. And as that one astute audience member noted, corporations and oligarchs have overwhelming influence over government, as well as international groups like the UN and World Economic Forum. Thus whether you want to achieve less economic inequality, as Anand and Ameenah want, or a non-growth based economy, as Jason wants, then the key is to distribute power and democracy out from just the halls of government and into the entire economy. Workers and communities should own the means of production and directly control their societies, not capitalists.
However without the planetary photo-resources to provide the basis of material reality and their current irrevocable eradication by being 'raped and plundered' by all denigrating 'isms' of consumption over production (on a global basis), then all spheres of capitalism are a false god and for us to both survive and thrive we will transform to REGENERISM by 2030.👍😊🌎🌳
Good points Sean, it's always wonderful when you can express your thoughts freely.
Every CEOs, owners of means of production should besr certain risk. Risks that could be rewarding or lead to disaster. Rewards plentiful if it turns out ot be successful. On your vein when you mentioned means of production belonging to societies and communities, somewhere, sometime, someone will decide to take risk for better rewards, is he not entitled for the rewards it would bring? Whether the good of the community or for personal gain? Is he allowed to be competitive?
Say for instance someone also decides to improve the community and society but doesnt take the risk, infact he is good very good at managing resources. Takes all the responsibility, is he not entitled to get the larger share of the pie because of his efforts? Will he be a le to mamage all the other factors of production because he is that good?
Or will it subside away.
Great debate! I like Anand but Jason kicked some ass, and gave a right explanation of what capitalism is. And yes: there were carpet sellers making money in medieval or ancient greek times, and no: they were not capitalists. I also have to give props to the presenter who was a great moderator but also put Ameenah a bit on the spot a couple times with her presumptuous yet totally empty answers.
It is so bizarre to watch a debate like this in Qatar, where not only Capitalism rules but combined here with autocracy, no Human rights and no freedom of speech is allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah, it’s almost like these debates are meaningless and just opportunities for rich people to feel enlightened all while not changing a single thing about their beliefs. “crony” capitalism is just capitalism, plain and simple
Jason's position is the most rational. Growth is not good. It's based on the irrational position that the Earth is infinite, resources are infinite, etc....and several hundred years ago one might be excused for maintaining such a position. However, we know better now. The Earth is finite. The resources are finite. And many other things as well. In fact, growth is not even a part of what economics means, and is usually counter to it.
The host kept trying to put the capitalist's thumb on the scale with her framing of the debate. She took any chance she could to eliminate nuisance and force the speakers into extremes that they didnt initially express.
I am disappointed in the lack of listening done by the participants here. Even from the interviewer not listening to Jason for the first couple of times saying that poorer countries should not abandon growth.Also Anand strawmanning Jason's point as an 'all or nothing approach'.
Overall it was a great debate, but I was disturbed by the lack in content of the guest's responses. The questions were really, really good but the guests were avoiding the answers. It was frustrating to see the rush in ending the debate when it started to become really interesting. That was the point when the guests should have sustained their ideollgies at it's best.
@@andrewzcolvin Not entirely useless ... debates get the topics out there. We could treat them as seeds which we need to plant and water ourselves.
@Ronald Reagan facts dont care about your feels
@@daveruda like you even have a clue what the facts even are
Studio looks amazing. Architects and designers did a great job.
This was an excellent discussion. My only complaint is the question period was entirely too short, and didn’t allow enough time for full answers.
One question that I wish was asked, and should be in the future is “what do we do about the capital stock markets of the world, and the owner class that owns most of it? Because they will inherently resist any and all change that is discussed here.”
I'm sorry but I have to say, Jason is the only one who contributed some substantial, helpful (like empirical evidence) and clear points to the discussion. The other two overwhelmingly used a frustrating amount of platitudes, clever sounding, but empty rhetoric and agnostic unclear non-positions.
This comment sounds a little racist, as they made good points about the global south n ending to grow (develop) and about there being corruption in governance and unfair trade relations which is well documented, respectively. To be clear, Jason confirmed as much before contextualizing and differentiating what degrowth is and is not. Make sense?
I was amazed recently when responding to a survey by the New York Times that I am considered low income. I lived through poverty and bad jobs when I was young but I finally secured a job that provided me with a retirement income and health insurance. I made money from selling a home and now live in a rental. The idea that I am low income just makes me wonder how families are surviving today on less than I receive. Something is very wrong and capitalism is the problem.
my 12 year old son said to me the other day... " dad, how can anyone believe that our society can grow forever, it's just stupid on a finite planet" if imperical evidence matters to you, then the obvious evidence would persuade you that the benefits of society need to be shared more fairly and that earth's ecological boundries need to be respected. There is now ample evidence showing what happens to civilizations that don't respect those boundries ....
They didn't understood Jason's points
or they did not have any solid rebutall to them so they shifted to phrases and talking points
Brilliant format. Great to see a reasoned and plural debate, and to directly involve our future leaders. An important and complex topic, very well presented and argued. I am most impressed by the insightful and thoughtful questions from the audience. A new power is rising.
Brilliant debate. Totally agreed.
We need more debates like this.
I've been seeing the sponsored posts by Doha Debates on Twitter from sometime now and finally took some time out to watch the debate today and I must say, I'm very impressed and thankful that they promoted it on Twitter. It was a very good, insightful and knowledge debate. And I loved how calm and relaxed everyone was, the host was really nice and did a good job. And keep posting new debates. Thanks!
I"m from Canada and I'm spending my weeks in meetings where most people don't understand most of the thing happening in those meetings, and have even less understanding of what is going on in the world. The young people in this audience are already so much more mature, educated and inspiring than most of those people I'm stuck with in my every day life.
Yup. My dad, for eg, doesn't know almost anything. Times are changing. More and more people are realising what the problem is.
What do you do ? What kind of meetings do you have ? What do those people do ?
This needs much more views.
The problem is interest being charged by financial institution, greed and not giving back to the community. We will continue heading in a bad place as long this is not stopped.
@Ronald Reagan maybe landlords are just parasites who commoditize shelter and leave a wake of gentrification and housing insecurity behind them so they can have a passive income🤔
Economists say... They have never and are not able to predict accurately any form of capitalism. Feudalism was all the world knew until the 15th century. To think a post capitalism system is not possible is ridiculous.
Neoliberals are desperate to justify their system. It cannot be justified with a single thread of morality. It's time to end crapitalism.
@@angusorvid8840 ownership by a collective is immoral and dehumanizing. It's never worked and never will
Good debate, food for tought. But 3 years later there still is no signs of change, on the contrary.
Besides Hickel, Michael Hudson is the best contemporary voice on these issues.
Ameenah does not give an answer to an excellent question about double tax, just a very Oxfordian full of flare words.
I find most of what she says to be word salad.
This was a good one. I wish they increase the time towards the end during questions.
Given both sides are very intelligent and tremendously well informed. The question that begs an answer is where will all the energy to feed and keep alive come from? Both Anand and Hickel basically never address the question of carrying capacity - which is clearly related to overshoot and consequent collapse. And Doha? A petrol paradise itself and gone tomorrow to sea level rise.
great debate jason
I’ve just come to discover this debate it’s really, mainly a benefit to us thank you 😊
So Anand, This wonderful course called MBA that spews the wonders of capitalism with platitudes of risk and reward, etc. - all couched in lukewarm social objectives surely begs intense re-examination, does it not? I attribute so many of the ills of the western world from the mid-70s to this MBA craze. Scrape the entire course and get back to commonsensical economics that does not engage in numeric acrobatics.
Probably the best debate watching experience I have ever had. Very civil and comfortable discourse.
@Ronald Reagan taking that to its logical conclusion any two people who remotely agree on one thing, aren't having a debate on something they disagree on. The guests clearly all disagreements, unless you didn't actually watch the debate yourself.
@Ronald Reagan "Liberals get sucked into this shit just like mask mandates" The science proves that mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccines all worked and saved lots of lives. That's why people in the GOP in America died at higher rates from COVID--they listened to untrustworthy media outlets and thus were misled about the science. So once again, progressives had the facts on their side.
If capitalism didn’t exist in the medieval era, how would Jason explain the inherent need to form and expand empires that seized labour, land and trade routes for the benefit of elites.
Modern capitalism didn’t arise out of thin air.
you are probably bewildered by the various names given to the economic systems during the eras from slavery to manorialism then to feudalism and then to capitalism...I'm pretty sure Jason refferes to the post Karl Marx's capitalism era!
As Jason explains in his book 'Less is More' modern capitalism rose out of end of fuedalism which lead to an enclosure of the commons so that those who held the power could force workers into factories in order to make a living. While empires had an inherent need to continue expanding to continue expand the resource and tax base, you cannot make an robust argument that that was capitalism as it was empires/kingdoms rather than corporations acting in a free market with a profit motive. His point is what Anaan pointed to as capitalism is simply a free market economy. The two are not the same.
@@DarkJonas33 Right, so Capitalism is a specific kind of free-market system.
I can't believe the questions of the public, they're wild. Very nice.
Greta conversation-Jason and Anand 💯
The format is rather odd though, I don’t think the big VOG and graphics help with the discussion, causes things to feel rather artificial IMO
I thought Anand was smarter than this. The capialism that America has today is exactly how free market capitalism is suppoosed to work! Profit, profit, profit to the already rich and crumbs or nothing to the poor.
I agree with you 💯
That is not how free market capitalism is supposed to work. Besides, basically no economy in the world is entirely free. Government regulations are necessary it some cases.
Interesting perspective - Thank you Jason Hikel, I aced my Econ paper :) Still unclear why your country is contained within mine :) Exceptional debate, Thank you
What kind of econ?
closed the debate down just when it was getting uncomfortably critical
54:27 “I think we can’t allow the abuse of a system to define a system because we allow the abusers to be the powerful in that case.”
Same point applies to religion-just because there are some who misread fear and hate into the text doesn’t mean that’s what the text calls for.
having listened to the debate the pro growth side seems not to understand the one time bounty humanity has been given by fossil fuels - or the very unique qualities of fossil fuels that simply are not replicated by renewable energy sources - stating how you have seen growth over the last few decades lift up and transfrom a country and people and how this is much preferable to being poor and undeveloped - this is not being argued by the degrowth side - this is a wonderful reality and as such is why the degrowth arguement is so important- for when properly contextualized the benefits of growth will evoprate when growth is no longer able to be achieved , and this fact escapes the emotional yearning for the continuation of the current system - let's just keep doing what we are doing but better..... the message of the climate science and earth sciences in general is that the system of growth is having such profound side effects that those side effects are actrually rgoing to overtake the benefits and actually reverse the gains so hard fought for over the last decades and century.... i think the pro growth side is missing the scale of the ecological crisis and are under valuing equity in human affairs .... degrowth is really the only logical answer to the problems we face as a result of exponential growth of huiman activities over the last 150 years.
I cannot favor one or another. I believe in the necessity of getting to some form of zero growth economy as Jason Hickel suggests. Is that change possible sans catastrophe? If change is going to be possible it would be necessary to morph through series of steps or transitions passing through the soul searching Anand describes with such honesty and clarity.
I experience Ameenah Gurib-Fakim as representing the starting point. Where we are now. The mindset that as delivered so much, but we must move beyond
This intellectual exercise feels like a game show.
Neoliberal free market economics never produced much in the way of progress that matters, the point of the economy is to produce things we need, optimise its production/design/efficiency, distribute it according to some criteria to people/sectors/groups that need it and in the end produce a net positive outcome. We are at a stage where we have vast technical knowledge, extractive capabilities, organisational capability, outcomes that we agree on based on what people need to live comfortably that are generally universally acceptable - except no ambition to deliver it simply because such act would not return an income or profit. If you wonder why so many live in relative/absolute deprivation - its not because we have a system that needs to grow to reach them, its because it operates under a constant premise: what will I gain from giving it to you? What will you give me for building a sewage and water system in your village that will provide clean water and waste management to all your villagers? It does no benefit to those who need it for the sake of need, it does so for the sake of self interest, not genuine interest. The obstacle lies in solving distribution issues, abolishing crude measures of access to resources - money/capital/funds and innovate to a more comprehensive measure that better represents need. For now taxes are all there is for distribution, and we know they have little to no chance of distributing wealth in a meaningful way giving the ease with which someone with a good lawyer or good imagination can do tax evasion.
Hi! What does growth mean? Check the definition of GDP. We can also grow the care-economy, for example! What do you want to grow?!
What if the real driver is not growth, but rather the idea that I can grow my personal position by eliminating the competition. From a macro-economic perspective the outcome might be growth, but from a micro-economic perspective I just want to grow my business(es) or wealth (and generally relative to the other players in the world). That means at the end of the day people are driven by the idea of how to get wealth transferred from others to themselves.
"That means at the end of the day people are driven by the idea of how to get wealth transferred from others to themselves." THAT could be accomplished simply by taking, and doesn't require growth at all.
Anand is right in saying ‘tax the hell out of super rich’ and reduce the inequality gap is the only way forward. Billionaires can never do this because they damage indirectly more than they tend to help.
Money is finite. You can only take from the billionaires, once. People have to help themselves. Stealing from the rich isn’t an answer. Give a crack head a million dollars. He will then buy a million dollars worth of crack... the problems are deeper then money. When people realize this fact, we’ll all be happier
@@PoliticallyAffiliated is it stealing if you take away something that was already stolen? it's called reappropriation.
Adeel Mohsin not sure where you’re going with that... what are you saying, was stolen?
Billionaires steal their way to the top?
@@PoliticallyAffiliated You can keep taking from billionaires as long as they keep stealing the money from the labour of their workers, or you can give the workers their fair share of the money they earned.
If you are working for scrap you will never be able to help yourself, in Capitalism it's almost impossible for anyone to rise above their economic class, if you are born poor you will probably die poor, because working at Amazon werehouses will never make you enough money.
This help yourself narrative is nothing but a fairytale, if you are not born into riches there is not much you can do. 50% of workers in the world today earn less that 10$ per day, go tell them to help themselves.
1997lordofdoom do you choose to use amazon? Did jeff bezos force you to use his product? Did Steve jobs hold a gun to your head and force you to buy an iPhone? The tv in your home, did you willfully purchase it? The company who created that tv, did they come to your home with torches? Or maybe Netflix, did you buy Netflix under your own fruition? Or did Netflix steal 10$ from you? No one is forcing people, to buy the products, these people produce/create. It’s a willful transition of money. You spend your money on what you want. The only time you don’t spend money on what you want, is when you get taxed.
If you create a product, the world loves, then you can “steal” everyone’s money, too. If I create good music, am I stealing from my fans? Lol think a little. Your future is in your own hands. Don’t worry about what others have. Opportunity is here for you, it’s urging you to cross the line.
And if your goal is to abolish the poor, then you have a very dangerous ideology. And an impossible dream. I worked in a warehouse, now I’m in a trade making good money. Just takes a little HARD work. If you know what that means. The only thing in my way now, is the government, I’m not sure how they are going to waste my tax money, or actually, “steal it”, the government steals from me, way more then jeff bezos.. You’d love the government to steal my money.... a government, who I’m sure, you trust to control the economy lol.
Taxing billionaires, doesn’t stop at the rich. It goes allllll the way down.
Anand Girdhardas doesn't seem to realize that renewable sources of energy have their own problems. It is not as if the production of solar panels or car batteries leaves no impact on the environment.
Optimism is a beautiful thing and sorely needed but people like Anand need to temper their optimism with a dose of reality.
@@___.51 Perhaps optimistic books sell more readily even when the optimism is disingenuous.
@@kanchhediachamaar9289 I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt
@@___.51 You are more generous than I am
For degrowth to happen we either need the top 10% make sacrifices or run out of natural resources.
One question: Why is growth only associated to capitalism ?
We definitely need growth to improve the lives of people living in the global south but why not achieve growth in a pro-worker way which is a : fair and redistributive b: sustainable and c : capable of improving lives .
Guess what , this may come as a shocker , which country GREW from a backward agrarian country with 75% illiteracy to the second superpower in a bipolar world in the 20th century ?
Soviet Union . Clearly it didn't follow the path of capitalism to grow .
The problem with the growth ideology is it is one of competition instead of cooperation. Jason's point isn't to limit the growth of developing countries, rather it is to (re)distribute and use our already abundant resources in a far more rational, efficient and fair way that ensures that those countries can develop much more rapidly without requiring further global economic growth. So, yes, in some ways they would continue to grow, but at the expense of developed countries continuing to unnecessarily grow- when they don't need to anymore.
@@ammanite What the hell is 'growth ideology'
@@andrewzcolvin I thinn you have to read the book 'More from less' from Mcafee Andrew.
jason is amazing
TELL THESE PEOPLE WHY YOU WERE SACKED OUT FROM THE POST OF PRESIDENT
Anand is so close, but he could not define capitalism coherently for his life
I don't really accept the definition of capitalism right at the top, and part of the problem is the word means different things to different people. Like I'm pretty sure the concept of using surplus value to better your business or craft or whatever existed before capitalism. I think a more valuable exercise word be to discuss underlying economic theories, observed phenomena, and empirical data on a case by case basis. Otherwise it just becomes a kind of religious debate.
How do we not have the same definition of capitalism? Can't we look at the official definition and go from there? Do we need different definitions of what a 'book' is? I know an economic is more complex than a book, but a computer is pretty complex and I bet we could agree on the definition of what a computer is.
Give or take a few more or less details, capitalism is defined as a "monetary-market system predicated on private ownership of the means of production for profit." Do you want to add or take away anything from that? But you can't take away that capitalism is a monetary-market system where profit and growth are primary objectives. That's really what Jason Hickel's problem with it is. It's unsustainable. Doesn't matter how moral people are. The system of infinite growth is unhealthy.
Just like a doctor discovering a cancerous tumour in a patients body, if it was able to be safely cut out, they wouldn't tell the patient "well, this cancerous tumour will continue to grow and sicken you we don't it out, but let's not cut it out because when it is small you won't notice many symptoms."
See the sickness is system. The solution is to transform our system using the tools we have to a more cooperative, sustainable, localized, direct democracy society of abundance and prosperity for all within planetary boundaries. It is not a question of can we do it, it is a question of do we want to do it?
Intentional country policies are key. But can inclusive growth be pursued concurrently with justice for all?
Endless growth is simply incompatible with preventing the collapse of ecosystems and thus our civilization. Thus, all this talk about "green growth" is delusional thinking. To be more inclusive, wealth simply must be redistributed more fairly, and we must stop letting our wishes about growth serve as a distraction from that fact.
Big fan of free market capitalism. But very much open to having my mind changed... let’s watch...
So was your mind changed?
@@farhan3519 A little. But not enough. I need to delve more into this subject. I Need to understand the "better system" that will take its place.
Gary O'Driscoll search your Richard Wolff on democratic workplaces. That’s a viable socialist option to capitalism that also doesn’t involve any sort of government.
Gary O'Driscoll read Thomas Sowell.
@@maserati1990 I'm literally in love with that man. lol
All these people are so happy. just doing there jobs and having great careers. The well being of your society is not a job its a duty
Way to short. An hour is barely a taste of the info that must happen.
I need more info like this to consume. I am addicted I need more!
Consumers are needed for feeding the system that depends on consumption growth. That is the issue, while it's the system that should be designed to feed the citizens.
the issue i see is that we have created a system that we are one part of, like a functioning mechanism, the part that consumes. we have constructed something that does not exist in any real way other than our stubborn insistence on it only to let it enslave us by saying if we don't have this we will not have life. It is very backwards. All of these human created institutions have a much high plasticity and ability to change and mold how we need them too than we act like.
great speakers and debate even though the moderator seemed a little out of place at times
best question 50:12
Very surprised to hear praise for Jason in the comments. I thought he just made mundane points. Anand was the only intelligent voice on the stage, perhaps I need to re-hear the debate.
Totally disagree with you. Jason is spot on
UBI can fuel the change! Its too complex of many issues. slow thoughtful learning and education is required to create the new systems we need. UBI gives everyone the time to pick new ways of being. I believe it will be a strong foundation upon which everyone has a say with their own dollars, how we should go forward. Creating a new class of people that can never fall below an income floor would drastically improve our ability to adapt.
@@ronaldreagan3086 I think you should check your research. Cerb was vital in preventing a harsh recession. In part, it was massive corporate bailouts (injecting money into the global economy) that triggered extreme inflation. Your disbelief in your own right to have a slice of your own countries wealth makes you a fool. Hard cash universally handed out to everyone is real collective investment, builds trust, and is a responsible thing to do. Poverty won't end itself and collective society that doesn't suck requires it. There is no work that will magically be available to everyone all the time. It fluctuates and people fall through the cracks. Again, look into it some more, or you'll be the one that remains, the fool.
@@ronaldreagan3086 massive demand? the whole world was on lockdown which created shortages and supply issues. Its not because average people had money to pay for food and housing. People having a basic income is not going to ruin anything. Also, basic income is not like the covid stimulus. That was a response to a pandemic and was not planned in the budget. Basic income can be planned and the money can be gathered without going into debt. It generates wealth and productivity.
@@ronaldreagan3086 I guess it depends on where you get your information. All the best to you.
@@ronaldreagan3086 the Ontario basic income failed? That is not true. Its too much work for me to prove to you. That program was cut halfway through and fucked the results. In Finland, their pilot had flaws that made it fail. There are lots of basic income pilots and projects around the world all with great success. There's many in the states right now showing significant life improvements to recipients. Again, I'm not going to write an essay with a bibliography for you.
@@ronaldreagan3086 this last statement from you really proved you are bigoted and misinformed. I wish you the best and that you're heart and mind can open up eventually. Welfare is what creates poverty traps, unconditional basic income does not. You clearly don't know even know the difference between welfare and unconditional income, Take care.
I disagree with Ameenah. She is confusing growth with progress. Progress is needed but eternal growth is "logically" impossible. Current capitalism is a Ponzi scheme that needs growth that's why. This System is going to be demolished by humans or by physical laws. A controlled demolition would be preferable,...but I guess is going to be the other way.
@Ronald Reagan Jaja good joke.
was this filmed before Ameenah Gurib-Fakim was forced to resign that prestigious position she was introduced with due to her corruption and financial scandals? Does not seem like an honest person. Also it should be mentioned she began her argument with a strawman to the first speakers statements. He specifically mentioned that the rich nations drastically reduce growth, Mauritius is not and was not then a rich country, so framing it as needed is misrepresenting the argument.
We can see the effect of Capital ism I a human society on a family level.
Aging population is increasing in Europe.
Haha they don't want Jason to speak.
The word says it already. Capitalize. How did the world ran into environmental problems? Right, fossil fuel capitalization. Now replace that to a form of renewable resource and limits to planet exploitation. I think that will be a part of the solution.
The president lady’s position is the least sophisticated of all
She's a very intelligent and accomplished lady, but when one is defending the indefensible they always come out looking dumb.
Her outdated, self-centred views sound like a mouthpiece for the rich. Her time came and went. Moving on.
#True_love | #QATAR_keep_shining
why do we have a youth audience? and a presenter talking like we are teenagers? this discussion has been had before and it will continue until it is resolved.
They are all right in a way. It's just that greed, unnecessary competition, and the consistent insatiable drive towards becoming super economies is grossly undermining genuine capitalism.
Capitalism has always worked in this way.
Is this a wrestling match or a debate?
What a simpleton view of this problem. Ask what you want. Join us in St.Louis (DSM) we march we hit the street to stop this madness. Turn off your device , burn your phone. go to the streets show them your pain.
Peculiar that we don’t even get a definition of capitalism until the last five minutes of the video and neither are correct. Anand thinks markets means capitalism and Jason thinks infinite growth means capitalism. Simply put, capitalism is a socioeconomic system with a employer/employee class system, where control of the means of production is assigned to the employer. This class relationship is simply a kinder and gentler form of even more immoral forms of socioeconomic systems such as feudalism, slavery, etc… No amount of redistribution of resources can rectify the true indignity of the power distribution. It is this uneven power distribution that is the rot at the core of our world. A brief stroll through history shows that as that power imbalance decreases, the general quality of life increases, even for those at the top.
"Jason thinks infinite growth means capitalism." Jason knows perfectly well that growth alone doesn't "mean" capitalism, but capitalist demands endless growth and requires it to avoid collapse--since previous growth was created in large part by creating new money and debts out of thin air that require future growth to repay.
@@HealingLifeKwikly Capitalism does not demand infinite growth. I just explained that capitalism is a social power relationship. Our current day capitalists seem to want their wealth to increase indefinitely, perhaps, but nowhere in the definition of capitalism is there a requirement for infinite growth. Nor are debts created out of thin air a necessary feature of capitalism.
@@jojomojojones "Capitalism does not demand infinite growth. I just explained that capitalism is a social power relationship." Again, you don't get to make up your own definitions for things and then expect others to play along when there are established and workable definitions for things like growth and capitalism. Capitalism INVOLVES social power relationships, but that is not a DEFINITION of capitalism, it is merely one of many features of capitalism. Marriages, workplaces, teams, societies, etc.--even troops of monkeys--ALL involve social power relationships, so that isn't any kind of definition of capitalism.
A typical definition of capitalism looks like "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." Firms are also competing against each other for market share so as to increase their profits, and the drive for largER profits and larger profits than competitors inherently leads to a growing economy and draining wealth from the Earth economy (ecosystem destruction), family/community economy, and public sector economy. While there are various forms of capitalism, ultimately CAPITALism prioritizes the demands of capital and wealthy capitalists over other goals, including human wellbeing, democracy, and ecosystem health. It is ultimately a life-hostile system. Fortunately, there are other forms of market economies we can replace it with.
@@HealingLifeKwikly everything you wrote is either wrong or not even wrong.
@@jojomojojones Can capitalism function without "Profit"?
Was anyone speaking there actually defending profit and rent seeking exploitation? No. So where was the debate? Nothing Ameenah or Anand said was a defence of exiting capitalism. You cannot have inclusion without financial inclusion, which means production for pure rentier profit (M-C-M') is not sustainable. The only way to truly be just is to free worker time without reducing wage share by getting the rich to work too, and the only way to make work produce sustainable goods is to eliminate the profit motive which is biased heavily to produce crap (or luxuries no one truly needs) from cheap labour. One way or another the monetary profit motive has to be eliminated, and the social profit motive enhanced; be that through legislative, regulatory and through moral education, all methods to bear.
If you can produce something people need that is essential it will sell with a mark-up providing a firm with investment surplus, there's no need for a boss to take more than they need to live on, to take more than their lowest paid worker. When the boss gets the lowest wage in the firm you've got a form of post-capitalism, a just form.
Private ownership of the means of production is classical capitalism, but with no rentiers, but this is no today's actual existing capitalism which is rentier finance and rent seeking parasitic neoliberal capitalism, and that form of capitalism certainly has to go.
Actually Capitalism is not the only system, it is the dominant yes. China, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland are countries that have mixed package systems, where the Government controls and owns a large part and shares some of the rest with the private sector.
They re all pretty capitalist, the only difference between China and every other example you gave is that it s state capitalism as opposed to free market. All the others (maybe except Russia at this point) are absolutely capitalist, they just have better safety nets so you don't hit the ground that hard if you fail. Social policies don't change capitalism, they just make it slightly more bearable
"Government controls" never ends well
Who are the guy's in white
Bozo the clown
Answer: Eliminate Billionaires.
Numerous discussions by amateurs like amand girid, including this video, and people who worship those discussions always come to this conclusion. Leftists always talk logically and lengthily, but they are unrealistic, the conclusions are bizarre, and the results are ruined.
@Ronald Reagan let's see, higher taxes, under funded public school system, corrupt health care industry... I can go further, but it would probably go over your head like most things.
@Ronald Reagan billionaires don't set tax codes.... that's the funniest sh1t I've read today.
I should have known.. never argue with an idiot.
In case you are not aware Mr. President, you are the Trump here.
@Ronald Reagan you are literally too stupid to insult.
Nothing to disprove ass wipe. Go pray to your lord and savior Trump for a brain...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Jason seems incapable of separating the idea of growing the GDP and environmental destruction. He isn’t really even intersecting with the other guests’ positions. Innovation, doing more with less, is the backbone of our increasing quality of life.
U don't listen evry think jeson say is facts
Hickel is a scholar focusing on growth/de-growth who could, if there was enough time, present the scientific literature that correlates gdp and environmental impact (the correlation is very strong). To claim he cannot seperate the two just shows you are not familiar with his work.
He has written a book that is literally called "Less is more" so you might want to check that out.
@@robbzon He can’t imagine how gdp and environmental degradation CAN be divorced. His insistence that a rising GDP must be detrimental to the environment is wrong but refuses to recognize this point.
@@jojomojojones nah theres a heavy amount of evidence that absolute decoupling hasnt happened historically globally, and hasnt shhowed signs of it being possible. theres some relative decoupling that can be done, however nowhere enough to let us sol e our sustainability issues while maintaining growth
@@santeri2790 there’s no evidence for what you’re saying. You’re talking out your ass.
Social Capitalism like in Germany has been the best version of Capitalism so far. Ofcourse it has its flaws
Or Chinas version of capitalism
Or North Korea
Jason is an idealist, Ameenah a pragmatist, and Ananda a realist!
So-called pragmatists and realists are killing us. Idealists are what we need, so that sentiment shifts enough that those ideals can be put into practice.
"Jason is an idealist, Ameenah a pragmatist, and Ananda a realist!" Actually, Jason is the one who is a realist about how the web of life works and what we must do to avoid the collapse of ecosystems and societies. Both endless growth and industrialized capitalism are flatly incompatible with preventing the destruction of the ecosystems that support our lives and economies.
@Ronald Reagan He literally advocates for capitalism. How is that in any way socialist?
and Joe is a psuedo-intellectual who thinks he has made a clever point.
Jason🐅
Nice
A debate about capitalism without a single economist
@@andrewzcolvin
First, I disagree with the premise that all economists are capitalist; even you did not claim that. Therefore, we can and should include economists from different sides in this discussion.
Second, even if we accepted that all economists are capitalists, we should still include them as they are around the best defenders of capitalism.
Third, economics is a social science. Its models have proven to be highly predictive and useful. Can you elaborate on "its foundation is entirely unscientific"?
@@salaheddinekira1317 what she means is capitalism propose infinite growth on a finite planet.
If you read his book, the divide, you will understand what he thinks about capitalism and why. He’s an economic antropologist. That’s why he is able to speak about this.
Economic debate withoit economist lol
@@잘생긴내얼굴-g9f why would you need a economist for talking about ecological collapse? Btw, there are economist (nobel prized) who would say the same about this kind of contradictions on capitalism.
Look at the girl at 15:35 (right side of the screen)
This Anand is just plain wrong.
Demonstrates learning together. It’s healthy
TELL THEM ABOUT ALVARO ,YOU FOOL
at 13:16 the esteemed lady say "Africa ... the youngest continent" When in reality human life originated in Africa at least 2 million years back. Then the camera pans to a bunch of hooded muslim women, who otherwise live like semiotic slaves inside Doha or the royalty of Qatar, which does not permit abortion. Amazing institutional hoodwink at some level.
You’re a moron
This debate is pointless as the capitalism is a system that the human ego created. As everyone is egoist and strive to more. More pleasure which means also more money and more respect etc. this includes all the speakers and audience which want more. And the human ego is growing all the time and it cannot be stopped.
If we continue on the path of more we will in fact have less and less, until the planet is a barren wasteland. If we really want a better, more prosperous future, we’ll need to reconsider what’s valuable. The human ego you speak of should begin to realize the catastrophe that capitalism is bringing about.
Ameenah didn't contribute anything meaningful to this debate.
“Degrowth“ won’t solve climate. Yes the policies they talk about are good socially but they’re not gonna solve much of the climate problem. Yes they should be implemented but not to target climate change but to target inequality, which indirectly will improve emissions. In developed countries most of the consumption is in the form of services which are less impactful to the environment and we are generally more efficient utilising resources. This is not to say we should just keep consuming more and more. We should definitely consume less and transition to green infrastructure. But the truth is that developing countries (with some exceptions) are the ones that produce the most emissions per capita. Now, I understand that we outsource a lot of our production and that is why we should reduce consumption. But to say let’s make the global north consume less but the south grow no questions asked is just nonsense. Bordering wishful thinking. And hoping for burning even quicker.
Yes reducing consumption in the north would reduce emissions in other places like china, India etc. basically in places where we outsource production. But, these are not even the most polluting countries per capita.
Developed countries are able to have less emissions because of the advanced infrastructure and technology, which makes us much more efficient with resource usage and industries are mostly services oriented. Also We already have roads, houses, infrastructure etc. All this emissions have been done. There’s no changing that. However, In most developing countries all the emissions to build all of the infrastructure still needs to be done. That’s just reality. So, yes we can consume less in the north but we need global policies to safeguard and ensure that development in the global south is sustainable too. Hoping to develop infrastructure in the south and expecting that somehow the west’s consumption is the cure all solution is really unlogical. Particularly, when construction is one of the most polluting industries.
Is it fair that the north is more developed at backs of the south. Absolutely not. At the same time we can’t afford, or better yet our planet cannot afford, developing countries to follow the same shitty path of development that took developed countries and the planet to what it is today. Let’s not forget that developed countries constitute a relatively small percentage of the world’s population/ geographical mass and the cost of that development took us here.what do you think would be our future if the vast majority of the world would follow the same path?
We need to start thinking globally, cooperate, and stop with petty fights for power and self serving blaming of each other. We need to take everyone out of poverty regardless of where they are. For that we don’t need every centimetre of worlds surface to be developed to the teeth. If we stopped playing country fights we would realise that maybe we don’t need people living in every random place on earth. Maybe having a few populous places across the world but highly dense would be much more efficient and better for the planet. I know it sounds tough and insensitive for the connection some people have to land but maybe we shouldn’t be trying to develop that city or country that barely no one lives or that is barely developed. Maybe saving the planet and ourselves could for once come above anything else. Including our attachment for stuff, land, etc.
I feel very fortunate to be born where I did and wouldn’t wish anyone what many people in developing countries have to go through. If I was in their position I’d probably be mad too and I know it is easier for me to say this from my sofa but we really cannot let the south take the same choices we took to develop at any cost. let’s not repeat the same mistakes. We know better. Or at least we should. If we don’t, then good luck cause there won’t be a planet left. But again maybe that’s what we all deserve as humans
So lemme get this straight, you want developing countries and therefore billions of people to stay poor because it would be bad for the environment otherwise.
But you don't agree that western countries should reduce their over-consumption.
So basically de-growth for thee, but not for me.😐
@@Frostchris4121 I obviously don’t want people to stay poor but if your house is burning you don’t help your neighbours by burning your house faster while you’re in it do you? Maybe you’d turn into a martyr but they still have to put out the fire. What I’m saying is de-growth would work if all including non western nations would do it. But that’s not realistic nor really fair to ask of developing nations. So yes we should reduce our consumption but sending our economy down back to the Middle Ages isn’t making anyone a favour but to those in power of oppressive dictatorships which will gain even more power to turn us into their puppets too. I don’t know about u but with all its flaws I much rather live in a western culture than at the whims of some random dictator.
@@definitely-not-daniel "I obviously don't want people to stay poor but..."
"We should reduce our consumption in the west but..."
Enough said.
In order for the south to "take the same steps" it would need to colonize a large part of the world which to take resources from. The fact is that we still live in colonial times where the north is essentially taking away resources from countries that would vastly benefit from it not being the case.