This was a refreshing lecture by a renowned Cambridge University economics professor whose knowledge is vast, probably informed by his direct experience with and research of South Korean chaebols, the varied economies of European countries, and US and many countries on the spectrum of free market to centralized economies. He gave specific examples of the pitfalls of oversimplified economic models. This lecture is worth listening to several times. A real “blue flame thinker”!
pragmatic economists like him should get wider attention than those free market preachers like Milton Friedman who sit in their room thinking about those fancy theories which occur only in textbooks
There are lots of economist like him. Joseph Stiglitz is one of them. In 2008, Stiglitz proposed to Obama he should save the debtors (home owners) and, by doing that, the banks would also be saved. For some reason - perhaps the fact the Sec. of the Treasure was a Wall St. banker - he decided to save only the banks. A Yale economist and other creditors wanted to do that but there was no coordination. In the end something like that was done but in smaller scale and too late. The proposal was for Creditors to forgive part of the debts sice housing prices had dropped. They would give a 30% discount so the asset (the house) would be worth more than the debt. Creditors, in the end, recovered only 25% of their credit - equivalent ot a discount of 75%. Around 20,000,000 people went homeless in the US at the time. ua-cam.com/video/5v1EtiEuSEY/v-deo.html The 2nd Ammendment, Abortion ... all this is unimportant if compared to what resulted from Citizens United v FEC. That SCOTUS decision removed all regulation from campaign donations in the US.
The greatest and the clearest explanation about a very complex and complicated subject matter that I have ever had an opportunity of listening to. Thanks a lot for sharing this sort of valuable talk or lecture.
Brilliant outlook on current economic affairs. As for financial systems being too complicated, often way too challenging to understand. It is only because they are built to make money not to explain to the rest on how it is done.
Be aware that the UA-cam automatic captions is not accurate. 2 examples: 9:20 Learned - not lonely / 13:39 unemployment was virtually unknown. With the start of financial deregulations in the late '70s.
This guy is great... I lived through all those so-called crisis... I was retired in 2006 and I thought to myself... They are doing it again!!!! I was a small time builder... In Maine USA... We didn't have the extreme real estate cycles... That is always the usual suspects.. California.. Texas.. Florida.. New York.. I did well regardless of the current state of the economy.... Made most of my money in the down times.. The time to be buying... Not when everybody and his brother is buying!!! Just sayin'
One must note that merely having regulations won't bring the desired results. Yes, deregulation of financial sector comes with it's own flaws. However, there is always a risk of overregulation. Here in India we have many state owned banks but most of them are reeling with bad debts. Reason: management reforms were never pursued and incentives were absent. We still have a long way to go before we find a perfect combination.
You simple do not understand nature of Capitalist economy. Total debt, private and state, always grow. So, that why all banking should be run by government, so voters, democracy decide which loans to give that could not be repaid.
Remember the Banana pinned on wall by an Artist sold for $120K? That’s the financial market today - flawed & baseless speculative valuations backed by cheap Central Banks credits.
Art is not taxed here in Sweden so it is an optimal way of hiding away money from the government. So I sincerely believe that many rich people only see art as a way to hide tax money. And other do this because they have some pathetic need to make themselves remembered - like buying painting which they donate to an arty museum and put their own name on the wall as a generous donor to society... which is how they like to be remembered.. and not as a person who not pay his fair share in taxes and encourage theft of historical artifacts by buying historical objects at high prices. In my opinion are art in a bubble. And the reason is tax evasion by rich people and money laundering by corrupt politicians.
Physicists who say "Dark Matter does not exist" always limit their assertion with the Uncertainty Principle, it's Cosmology that is never wrong. Psychologists can explain the need for Dark Matter as a Negative Reinforcement technique to promote a Theory for which "You can't prove a negative!", aka Disproof Methodology Philosophy. But the point about Economists is well taken, because in the real world economy means little in the absence of understanding complex, probabilistic, (left out of the equation), "Externalities of Ecology", and otherextractive ill-gotten gains, reinvested as corrupt "dark money" matters.
A little confused, on one hand he says banks were/are not major factor in financing Corporate investments, then goes on to describe various kinds of banks; group banks, state banks, commercial banks, that finance Corporate investments
There is nothing wrong with Brexit. Unless you hate democracy and want the neoliberal economic model to be written into law so no other economic system is allowed.
This was a refreshing lecture by a renowned Cambridge University economics professor whose knowledge is vast, probably informed by his direct experience with and research of South Korean chaebols, the varied economies of European countries, and US and many countries on the spectrum of free market to centralized economies. He gave specific examples of the pitfalls of oversimplified economic models. This lecture is worth listening to several times. A real “blue flame thinker”!
pragmatic economists like him should get wider attention than those free market preachers like Milton Friedman who sit in their room thinking about those fancy theories which occur only in textbooks
people like that never do
There are lots of economist like him. Joseph Stiglitz is one of them. In 2008, Stiglitz proposed to Obama he should save the debtors (home owners) and, by doing that, the banks would also be saved. For some reason - perhaps the fact the Sec. of the Treasure was a Wall St. banker - he decided to save only the banks. A Yale economist and other creditors wanted to do that but there was no coordination. In the end something like that was done but in smaller scale and too late. The proposal was for Creditors to forgive part of the debts sice housing prices had dropped. They would give a 30% discount so the asset (the house) would be worth more than the debt. Creditors, in the end, recovered only 25% of their credit - equivalent ot a discount of 75%. Around 20,000,000 people went homeless in the US at the time.
ua-cam.com/video/5v1EtiEuSEY/v-deo.html
The 2nd Ammendment, Abortion ... all this is unimportant if compared to what resulted from Citizens United v FEC. That SCOTUS decision removed all regulation from campaign donations in the US.
Word
Such few comments yet such a powerful lecture here...
this lectutre series is incredbile. i have learnt so much. thank you. i literally have a notebook full of notes from here!
The greatest and the clearest explanation about a very complex and complicated subject matter that I have ever had an opportunity of listening to. Thanks a lot for sharing this sort of valuable talk or lecture.
simple logic for simpletons.
@28:00 Complexity of Financial Markets
Underrated teacher.
Brilliant outlook on current economic affairs. As for financial systems being too complicated, often way too challenging to understand. It is only because they are built to make money not to explain to the rest on how it is done.
You can almost hear how frustrated he is with the system, if you even want to call it that, a system. More like a circus.
Be aware that the UA-cam automatic captions is not accurate. 2 examples: 9:20 Learned - not lonely / 13:39 unemployment was virtually unknown. With the start of financial deregulations in the late '70s.
I’d like to hear a lecture on revolving doors in the financial system.
It's not a lecture but the documentary Inside Job by Charles Ferguson goes into this. He also wrote a book based on the film
This guy is great... I lived through all those so-called crisis... I was retired in 2006 and I thought to myself... They are doing it again!!!!
I was a small time builder... In Maine USA... We didn't have the extreme real estate cycles... That is always the usual suspects.. California.. Texas.. Florida.. New York.. I did well regardless of the current state of the economy.... Made most of my money in the down times.. The time to be buying... Not when everybody and his brother is buying!!! Just sayin'
One must note that merely having regulations won't bring the desired results. Yes, deregulation of financial sector comes with it's own flaws. However, there is always a risk of overregulation. Here in India we have many state owned banks but most of them are reeling with bad debts. Reason: management reforms were never pursued and incentives were absent. We still have a long way to go before we find a perfect combination.
You simple do not understand nature of Capitalist economy. Total debt, private and state, always grow. So, that why all banking should be run by government, so voters, democracy decide which loans to give that could not be repaid.
Thank you !
This guy needs to be President Bernie Sanders US Economic Director or at least have major influence within the administration.
anyone has sources about what he said in Company's source of fund? Stock equity, bank lending, debt securities, retain earning in percentage?
Remember the Banana pinned on wall by an Artist sold for $120K? That’s the financial market today - flawed & baseless speculative valuations backed by cheap Central Banks credits.
Is that a banana in you pocket or are you happy to see me. May West
Bullshit modern art is the way I would do money laundering with large sums of money
Art is not taxed here in Sweden so it is an optimal way of hiding away money from the government.
So I sincerely believe that many rich people only see art as a way to hide tax money. And other do this because they have some pathetic need to make themselves remembered - like buying painting which they donate to an arty museum and put their own name on the wall as a generous donor to society... which is how they like to be remembered.. and not as a person who not pay his fair share in taxes and encourage theft of historical artifacts by buying historical objects at high prices.
In my opinion are art in a bubble. And the reason is tax evasion by rich people and money laundering by corrupt politicians.
Primarily we are so leveraged we cant stop leveraging.
Physicists who say "Dark Matter does not exist" always limit their assertion with the Uncertainty Principle, it's Cosmology that is never wrong. Psychologists can explain the need for Dark Matter as a Negative Reinforcement technique to promote a Theory for which "You can't prove a negative!", aka Disproof Methodology Philosophy.
But the point about Economists is well taken, because in the real world economy means little in the absence of understanding complex, probabilistic, (left out of the equation), "Externalities of Ecology", and otherextractive ill-gotten gains, reinvested as corrupt "dark money" matters.
How convenient for you to put out these lectures after the semester is over,...when I have no useful rebuttals to my neoliberal professors.
Make them here. What are your rebuttals?
@@randyhilton6629 I'd have to ask my former professors who are neolib
Man I thought In USA all professor are now Progressive
A little confused, on one hand he says banks were/are not major factor in financing Corporate investments, then goes on to describe various kinds of banks; group banks, state banks, commercial banks, that finance Corporate investments
❤❤
Ban the products? Or hire me to write better algorithms?
V0te L1bertarian n00bs 💯🔥🔥🔥💪
Cameraman showing same face of Girl.
Prof. Has too much faith in clinical trials.
jajajaja lora no joda mano
There is nothing wrong with Brexit. Unless you hate democracy and want the neoliberal economic model to be written into law so no other economic system is allowed.
Calling people xenophobic is ignorant