Too bad because it really is a class issue. But class is linked to Marx, who still carries a stink (even though he was correct in much of his thinking)
I think the distinction is that “working population” includes high-end workers such as CEOs, celebrities, etc. who are not what we think of as “working class”
Thanks for making this series, I have been trying to expand my limited knowledge, on economics and inequality and why it is important to understand. Gary Stevenson has also been very helpful on his channel. I think i'm starting to make the connections - wealth inequality concentrates capital in the hands of the minority, they then buy more assets which drives up prices and lowers working peoples wages relative to asset prices and the cost of living. Obviously a simplified example, and their are other important issues which you explain in greater detail. I will continue to work my way through the series and grow my knowledge.
I am currently biking through Oman. I approached a town on the coast and noticed this luxurious resort surrounded by 4-bed villas, while in the background you had makeshift containers where all the foreign laborers lived. The two areas were a couple of meters apart. I couldn't help but to think to myself how inequality is a historical and a global phenomenon. No end in-sight 🙁
Maybe I missed it in the video, but I did not fully understand "why should I care?". I mean, in this video I expected to hear the negative consequences of inequality, but I did not.
Excellent lecture by INET, as usual. Two questions: 1. Why is the metric used “probability of moving to the top quintile given that one is born in the bottom quintile”, instead of “probability of moving to the quintile above the one one is born in”? Wouldn’t that show a more positive and realistic prospect? (the top quintile would be excluded from the data, obviously.) 2. Is social mobility that important of a measure? A society cannot have high upward mobility without simultaneously having high downward mobility by definition, correct? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a society with low social mobility but with high economic growth and development, where every generation is better off than the last, as opposed to a society with high mobility but low improvement over time?
This was a great lecture, but their is one thing that Arjun Jayadev missed. When Arjun was talking about inequality due to parental background, I'm pretty shocked that he failed to mention inheritance as a *major* cause of inequality. No one earns their estate, Inheritance is literally just inequality by birthright.
Same question from a labour, why should labour die working if all his own produced wealth is going to serve the children of Bill Gates instead of the children of his/her own?@@JoseFerreira-ms9xi
I think you should recheck the graphs about Labor market polarizing, because the bar legend of high skill worker being declined, and so that your conclusion is that makes inequality larger doesn't makes sense to me. I think the grey one should be High Skill and Blue one should be Middle skill
thank you INET and congrats. great content. Arjunjeee i work with NGO's in Srinagar so im so happy to see it on the picture on your wall . gives me lot of hope to see such a diversity of people from all backgrounds in INET videos. Mehr Boni!
someone wanna just answer this shit for me: Identify the types of inequalities and disparities explained. How do your parents influence life outcomes? How does where you're born influenced life outcomes? Finally, where do you fit AND what should we do to fix this? 1 single spaced page 12 point font it can be longer, NOT shorter
Given that it is a common human inclination to get something for nothing, any controlled economy that would guarantee equality creates this impulse: to take no responsibility and do as little as possible.
"... the concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable, and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation." ―Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever increasing inequality." ―Stephen Hawking "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals." ―Albert Einstein
My dear, sweet child, so full of wonder and grace, Listen closely as I tell you of our land, A place where technology advances pace, And knowledge is at every woman and man's hand. The world is changing, as it has before, But now it moves at such a rapid rate, Machines that think and learn, and so much more, Will shape our future, it is hard to state. AI is leading this charge, it's true, With models trained to understand and know, But with great power comes great responsibility, And we must be cautious as we go. So let us embrace this change with open hearts, And use it for the betterment of all parts.
It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. No one's advocating for equality of outcome. The level of Inequality that exists prevents any semblance of equality of opportunity to exist for most people.
I think it all comes down to the individual. I think individuals have always acted in their self interest, and when they accumulate some wealth, this means taking action to protect it. From there, I think the whole structure builds itself up almost naturally. Isn't this so? Isn't it just that we're kind of selfish?
mvondoom governments are supposed to regulate and steer self interests - if they didn't we'd be living in anarcho-capitalism. The question is how much government should reward selfishness and how much it should redistribute - and right now the world seems to be only rewarding selfishness
Maybe at some historical or metaphysical root, sure. That's not the point. The point is that "the whole structure" _exists_ , and getting steadily worse and more deadly across the planet.
it definitely exists. my point was made because i think there is a tension between saying the individual's choices create the beast, or that there is a superstructure that can be changed (like if we embrace socialism, or something like that). I personally locate the problem with the individual.
but you're definitely right, because what/if we choose to do anything about it, it's going to have to be addressed at many levels. I think structural change and individual change are both obviously called for, we can't naively think it's any different
What I find most interesting is that the lecturer does not answer, or even attempt to answer, the titular question . Presenting the observed reasons that inequality exists and/or persists is not really making any case for how it is allegedly harmful. Even the most heart wrenching anecdote depicting the the migrants dying in their attempt to escape poverty does not provide an explanation as to how inequality was responsible for those deaths or why the place they were fleeing was poor to begin with.
Poverty is due to so many factors baked into our history, how we view the earth that supports us, the legacy of slavery and colonialism. I was fortunate to be white, born in 1945, living in council supported housing in California, taught by white teachers who generally focussed on white children, living with Mexicans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans and poor displaced kids from Oklahoma. We didn't have much in our family of 7 but we did have the essentials of "getting somewhere" being white, with parents who had moderate education, the government which supported our needs for shelter, education and health care. I worked in Factories and shops in the summer in my teens, went onto college and University and landed up as a medical doctor. All of that upward mobility due to the Politics of '45 to about '75 or so, when much of the support ended. Poverty is a man/woman made situation, not an evangelical/given truth.
I'm a little confused and wondering if I'm missing something. ua-cam.com/video/rGK3_lDLHA0/v-deo.html In this chart of Sons Of Bottom 10% Earner Fathers, about 7% move from the bottom to the top decile, about 30% move from the bottom decile to the top half and over 70% move out of the bottom decile of earners. That sounds like good upward mobility to me. Why do the presenter and I interpret this differently?
Have these guys hears of Marx? I mean, the structural reasons for inequality were established some time ago. They should do a catch-up course. Marx is taboo in just about all universities in the world. I wonder why? lol
if it has to be explained and justified to you why you should care, what you really need is that antisocial personality disorder diagnosis& whatever meds keep you from bothering people
The first assumption is already wrong. Rewards are also a result of the build up of cultural efforts of your ancestors. Is it unfair to reap the intergenerational efforts? Bs The assumption of inequality as unfair is ridiculous. The immediately the class structure is mentioned. Variation is within culture of the ability to become entrepreneur. Where you are in the production is the assumption of a static classes and position. So my point is social mobility is the measure of fairness not the current structure. Your view is only the old fashioned socialist way. Laborshare declined due to entry of women to labor force. Extra supply of labor. In 1977 the labor share reached a historic high. Globalisation leveled income as well. Wealth differences are caused by the aging population, globalization and central bank policy. Inequality of wealth is no issue when nobody gets poorer, better in most cases even less poor. On paper wealth of your house increasing in price means nothing to you as you need to live somewhere and replacement cost you the same. The problem arises when your children want to buy a house. He really misses most of the major developments. I can do the series a lot better and totally a-political.
Hey man, I wanna ask you if this channel is a good source for economic discussions or even good economic solutions or is it just another capitalist funded think tank which promotes all that neo liberal BS of free market and all that? I'm asking cause i just found out about this channel and this is the first video I'm watching.
@@shalomsaldanha1267 I don't know about the channel my man. Our professor recommended us this video series as supplementary, all I can say is at least this series are legit.
@@shalomsaldanha1267 As a neoliberal free market supporter, this channel is the very opposite, I can assure you. One of its videos is lazily titled "Tax the rich".
Still don't care. Life isn't fair and it is not our responsibility as human beings to compensate for that. Leave my stuff alone. Your needs are not your rights and are not my responsibilities. Equity manifested in communism is the most evil social idea. You do not have rights to me, my labour, my help or my stuff, even if you need it.
most of things in this class was said by Karl Marx 150 years ago. but i didnt hear his name in whole class....sorry you cannot understand and solve inequality with only in capitalistic view. please mention about socialism view more also.
Hey man, I wanna ask you if this channel is a good source for economic discussions or even good economic solutions or is it just another capitalist funded think tank which promotes all that neo liberal BS of free market and all that? I'm asking cause i just found out about this channel and this is the first video I'm watching.
I find the whole discussion on inequality weird. Why would you focus on the relation between people that some have it good and some have it bad. Could we just focus on the people that have it bad and figure out why they are having an awful time. Why must you attack the ones that have it good right now? Worrying about inequality presumes this zero sum mentality that if someone succeeds he is taking from someone else, which is largely not the case, this should be obvious to the modern man. The wealth of the world is not fixed at all, 100 years ago the wealthiest person was much worse of in terms of life quality than a poor man living today with iphones and whatnot. If someone got their wealth through fraud or other criminal means that is a separate issue, which should be dealt with. But to include that as a premise to this discussion, that all wealth is fundamentally gained by ill means is a mistake and an awful mindset. Also you are ignoring the role of ideas on any of this discussion, for example the immigrant issue. Shouldn't you primarily question why do some countries have such an awful time? Why is mexico having a bad time compared to the United States. Here you are presenting it as just magically united states happened to pop out to be succesful and Mexico happened to be unsuccessful, without relation to anything. Maybe it could be that ideas had to play a role in what happens within a country?
Actually the worlds wealth is entirely finite. We may claim the wealth of the world has grown, but this is incorrect. Wealth represents percieved value, not actual value. Your gold yacht is worthless if it can't be traded for food and you are starving. If the worlds actual resource value is finite, and we divide control of these resources unequally, then those without MUST take from those who have in some fashion in order to grow. Conversely those with a high percentage of control over resources MUST keep those beneath them (or above) from taking their share back down to a more equivalent level. Thats why you cannot ignore the wealthy in seeking to improve inequality. Its the presence of the rich that creates the poor.
@@benjaminhenderson7059 But wealth does represent actual value, you could not make the case that objectively we are not better of from 200 years ago. In terms of many measurable things like life expectancy etc we are much better of. This is the consequence of humanity coming up with new stuff like cars and airplanes and healthcare methods, clearly this is not fixed wealth, but wealth is being created here. If we would take your premise that the wealth of the world did not grow then you could not advance above a primitive hunter gatherer society where you just extend your arm to eat an apple off of a tree, even there as soon as somebody would figure anything out like how to create a sharp stick to hunt animals with, the wealth of the world would have increased. It increases by human beings inventing and creating new stuff. You would not have bought the device, that you are writing this message with if it was not worth more to you than what it cost you. Apple / Samsung / microsoft did not take anything from you by offering you an opportunity to buy that device.
@@Are1i All of the basic building blocks of the universe are the same, yet they combine into nearly infinite complexity. It doesn't increase what there already was, its just a better utilization than we already had. When we discovered crop rotation there wasn't suddenly more tilled land created, we just made the land we already had more useful. This phone, as you point out, I bought. But while you say it was an equal exchange, I have to consider what is the cost of not having one? Can you get a decent job without a cellphone? Clothes are a similar example. I can wear a burlap sack, it has the same function as the clothes, and is vastly less expensive in terms of upfront cost, but the truth is it would cost me more to wear it than I would save. There is no such thing as an equal exchange. Everything has hidden costs, and they invariably play to the hands of the one with greater power. You say a sharpened stick created new wealth. Its a good example. It gives the stick weilder more power than his peers because he created a tool right? But this hunter gatherer lives in a community. He was taken care of as a child by his village. Kept safe by the other tribemembers. He had the chance to consider sharpening the stick because of those around him. So should he really get 100% credit and suddenly tell all the others to go figure out how to sharpen their own sticks? Pull themselves up by their bootstraps like he did? Society creates wealth through perception, and without society wealth is useless. Right now only about 10% of the world actually gets to participate in society. The rest of us have been denied choice by those in control setting up a system rigged in their favor. All the benefits of wealth you and the other wealthy people in this world enjoy are derived entirely from the fruits of society as a whole, and no one part stands alone. All the wealth in a bank is useless if society doesnt punish bank robbers. All the medicine in a hospitol is useless if you are denied its aid. Two very comparable scenarios, yet one happens every day. That's inequality.
@@benjaminhenderson7059 It is the presence of earth which creates gravity, The rich has money and nothing else the value got traded for some good, the person has goods and services and rich has money, Only trade happened, the money gained from trade is equal to the value provided, I provided 10 worth of apple, so value exchanged hands equally. I am rich by apples and the person is rich by money. Even if those who have resources and those who don't will have something in return for each others goods. Suppose if a country has all the resources except one, then they will trade with other country to get what they don't have, same is with other nations, and A nation will only grow to a level of it's carrying capacity.
Thank you for making such quality content available for free.
Don't you mean "...such inequality content..."? ;-)
Thats kind of the point, I believe
Listening from southern tip of India , Thanks internet .
I love how he’s about to say “the working class” but suddenly changes it into “the working population” :)
Too bad because it really is a class issue. But class is linked to Marx, who still carries a stink (even though he was correct in much of his thinking)
I think the distinction is that “working population” includes high-end workers such as CEOs, celebrities, etc. who are not what we think of as “working class”
Very good lecture. Thanks so much. I’ll have to come back and watch it several times.
Im so happy Milanovic is here to speak about this issue, I enjoy his papers and book a lot when it comes to inequality. He explains incredibly well :)
Thanks for making this series, I have been trying to expand my limited knowledge, on economics and inequality and why it is important to understand. Gary Stevenson has also been very helpful on his channel. I think i'm starting to make the connections - wealth inequality concentrates capital in the hands of the minority, they then buy more assets which drives up prices and lowers working peoples wages relative to asset prices and the cost of living. Obviously a simplified example, and their are other important issues which you explain in greater detail. I will continue to work my way through the series and grow my knowledge.
Thanks for this great youtube channel!!!! The best I've found
I am currently biking through Oman.
I approached a town on the coast and noticed this luxurious resort surrounded by 4-bed villas, while in the background you had makeshift containers where all the foreign laborers lived. The two areas were a couple of meters apart. I couldn't help but to think to myself how inequality is a historical and a global phenomenon. No end in-sight 🙁
Just like in Mumbai, on one side you have villas and on the opposite you see slums.
Maybe I missed it in the video, but I did not fully understand "why should I care?". I mean, in this video I expected to hear the negative consequences of inequality, but I did not.
Excellent lecture by INET, as usual.
Two questions:
1. Why is the metric used “probability of moving to the top quintile given that one is born in the bottom quintile”, instead of “probability of moving to the quintile above the one one is born in”? Wouldn’t that show a more positive and realistic prospect? (the top quintile would be excluded from the data, obviously.)
2. Is social mobility that important of a measure? A society cannot have high upward mobility without simultaneously having high downward mobility by definition, correct? Wouldn’t it be preferable to live in a society with low social mobility but with high economic growth and development, where every generation is better off than the last, as opposed to a society with high mobility but low improvement over time?
Excelente thank you for informing the public about the reality of the economics. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for explaining the truth of economics.
This was a great lecture, but their is one thing that Arjun Jayadev missed. When Arjun was talking about inequality due to parental background, I'm pretty shocked that he failed to mention inheritance as a *major* cause of inequality. No one earns their estate, Inheritance is literally just inequality by birthright.
Buddy did you pay attention to the part where he talks about crystalization of wealth. It implies that it works on generational levels.
If you take away the birthright of your children why would kill yourself working
Same question from a labour, why should labour die working if all his own produced wealth is going to serve the children of Bill Gates instead of the children of his/her own?@@JoseFerreira-ms9xi
you shouldn’t have to kill yourself working
I think you should recheck the graphs about Labor market polarizing, because the bar legend of high skill worker being declined, and so that your conclusion is that makes inequality larger doesn't makes sense to me. I think the grey one should be High Skill and Blue one should be Middle skill
thank you INET and congrats. great content. Arjunjeee i work with NGO's in Srinagar so im so happy to see it on the picture on your wall . gives me lot of hope to see such a diversity of people from all backgrounds in INET videos. Mehr Boni!
someone wanna just answer this shit for me:
Identify the types of inequalities and disparities explained.
How do your parents influence life outcomes?
How does where you're born influenced life outcomes?
Finally, where do you fit AND what should we do to fix this?
1 single spaced page
12 point font
it can be longer, NOT shorter
sure bro
Thank you for sharing this interesting lectures 💖💙
Given that it is a common human inclination to get something for nothing,
any controlled economy that would guarantee equality creates this impulse: to take no responsibility and do as little as possible.
Best line in this whole talk… “sometimes it comes from things like guillotines”. 😄
Fantastic lecture. Very well explained.
"Heart rending economics
Gives me a chill
To hear a truth
So butt naked
And so sad .. "
"... the concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable, and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation."
―Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History
"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever increasing inequality."
―Stephen Hawking
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."
―Albert Einstein
Unchecked capitalism and inequality go hand in hand.
Roth Tiberius Cain Inequality always exists, with or without capitalism.
"Sometimes they come from things like the guillotine"
Revolutions. Rebellions. etc.
My dear, sweet child, so full of wonder and grace,
Listen closely as I tell you of our land,
A place where technology advances pace,
And knowledge is at every woman and man's hand.
The world is changing, as it has before,
But now it moves at such a rapid rate,
Machines that think and learn, and so much more,
Will shape our future, it is hard to state.
AI is leading this charge, it's true,
With models trained to understand and know,
But with great power comes great responsibility,
And we must be cautious as we go.
So let us embrace this change with open hearts,
And use it for the betterment of all parts.
This ia amazing. Thank you.
excellent
Inequality isn’t a problem. People are unequal by nature. Making people equal is unfair. I choose fairness over inequality.
Ok, race realist...
Speaking of unfairness income inequality is way bigger than natural inequality between people.
It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. No one's advocating for equality of outcome. The level of Inequality that exists prevents any semblance of equality of opportunity to exist for most people.
I think it all comes down to the individual. I think individuals have always acted in their self interest, and when they accumulate some wealth, this means taking action to protect it. From there, I think the whole structure builds itself up almost naturally. Isn't this so? Isn't it just that we're kind of selfish?
mvondoom governments are supposed to regulate and steer self interests - if they didn't we'd be living in anarcho-capitalism. The question is how much government should reward selfishness and how much it should redistribute - and right now the world seems to be only rewarding selfishness
Maybe at some historical or metaphysical root, sure. That's not the point. The point is that "the whole structure" _exists_ , and getting steadily worse and more deadly across the planet.
it definitely exists. my point was made because i think there is a tension between saying the individual's choices create the beast, or that there is a superstructure that can be changed (like if we embrace socialism, or something like that). I personally locate the problem with the individual.
but you're definitely right, because what/if we choose to do anything about it, it's going to have to be addressed at many levels. I think structural change and individual change are both obviously called for, we can't naively think it's any different
if people stay selfish, i don't think much can be changed at the other levels
Hopefully we will find solutions for inequality, instead of heading into french revolution 2.0 or WW3!
Very interesting, thank you.
What I find most interesting is that the lecturer does not answer, or even attempt to answer, the titular question . Presenting the observed reasons that inequality exists and/or persists is not really making any case for how it is allegedly harmful. Even the most heart wrenching anecdote depicting the the migrants dying in their attempt to escape poverty does not provide an explanation as to how inequality was responsible for those deaths or why the place they were fleeing was poor to begin with.
Reality and inequality are inseparable.
You know what caused it,,,, Lawyers & Corrupt Bankers ..... ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
Inequality can not be changed unless work harder and make more money, this is the rule of nature.
this is the most incredible shit
Indeed
Yeah. Obviously the solution lies on tidying your room. No sarcasm intended at all.
INET ist like the twin of PragerU from the mirror universe.
incredibly shifty analysis that completely ignores self worth and agency
Q.E for the people....
Poverty is due to so many factors baked into our history, how we view the earth that supports us, the legacy of slavery and colonialism. I was fortunate to be white, born in 1945, living in council supported housing in California, taught by white teachers who generally focussed on white children, living with Mexicans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans and poor displaced kids from Oklahoma. We didn't have much in our family of 7 but we did have the essentials of "getting somewhere" being white, with parents who had moderate education, the government which supported our needs for shelter, education and health care. I worked in Factories and shops in the summer in my teens, went onto college and University and landed up as a medical doctor. All of that upward mobility due to the Politics of '45 to about '75 or so, when much of the support ended. Poverty is a man/woman made situation, not an evangelical/given truth.
INCREDIBLE THANK YOU
Accurate
Fantastic!! Keep making those wonderful and informative videos please.
Very nice content guys :)
I'm a little confused and wondering if I'm missing something.
ua-cam.com/video/rGK3_lDLHA0/v-deo.html In this chart of Sons Of Bottom 10% Earner Fathers, about 7% move from the bottom to the top decile, about 30% move from the bottom decile to the top half and over 70% move out of the bottom decile of earners. That sounds like good upward mobility to me. Why do the presenter and I interpret this differently?
It’s not fair I cannot sing like Elvia Presley I cannot play golf like world champion I cannot win Olympic gold for swimming
Amazing lecture!
Thank you so much
Have these guys hears of Marx? I mean, the structural reasons for inequality were established some time ago. They should do a catch-up course. Marx is taboo in just about all universities in the world. I wonder why? lol
ok so everything we already knew already
if it has to be explained and justified to you why you should care, what you really need is that antisocial personality disorder diagnosis& whatever meds keep you from bothering people
The first assumption is already wrong.
Rewards are also a result of the build up of cultural efforts of your ancestors.
Is it unfair to reap the intergenerational efforts? Bs
The assumption of inequality as unfair is ridiculous.
The immediately the class structure is mentioned. Variation is within culture of the ability to become entrepreneur.
Where you are in the production is the assumption of a static classes and position.
So my point is social mobility is the measure of fairness not the current structure.
Your view is only the old fashioned socialist way.
Laborshare declined due to entry of women to labor force. Extra supply of labor. In 1977 the labor share reached a historic high. Globalisation leveled income as well.
Wealth differences are caused by the aging population, globalization and central bank policy.
Inequality of wealth is no issue when nobody gets poorer, better in most cases even less poor. On paper wealth of your house increasing in price means nothing to you as you need to live somewhere and replacement cost you the same. The problem arises when your children want to buy a house.
He really misses most of the major developments. I can do the series a lot better and totally a-political.
Capitalism supporters be like "work hard if you want to get rich" while the system awards the capital rather than hard work
Hey man, I wanna ask you if this channel is a good source for economic discussions or even good economic solutions or is it just another capitalist funded think tank which promotes all that neo liberal BS of free market and all that? I'm asking cause i just found out about this channel and this is the first video I'm watching.
@@shalomsaldanha1267 I don't know about the channel my man. Our professor recommended us this video series as supplementary, all I can say is at least this series are legit.
@@shalomsaldanha1267 As a neoliberal free market supporter, this channel is the very opposite, I can assure you. One of its videos is lazily titled "Tax the rich".
So basically you figured out that reality counts ehehe
Still don't care. Life isn't fair and it is not our responsibility as human beings to compensate for that. Leave my stuff alone. Your needs are not your rights and are not my responsibilities. Equity manifested in communism is the most evil social idea. You do not have rights to me, my labour, my help or my stuff, even if you need it.
most of things in this class was said by Karl Marx 150 years ago. but i didnt hear his name in whole class....sorry you cannot understand and solve inequality with only in capitalistic view. please mention about socialism view more also.
Hey man, I wanna ask you if this channel is a good source for economic discussions or even good economic solutions or is it just another capitalist funded think tank which promotes all that neo liberal BS of free market and all that? I'm asking cause i just found out about this channel and this is the first video I'm watching.
@@shalomsaldanha1267 Learn from Richard Wolff. He’s much better.
Here's your solution: eco-socialism. Done.
I find the whole discussion on inequality weird. Why would you focus on the relation between people that some have it good and some have it bad. Could we just focus on the people that have it bad and figure out why they are having an awful time. Why must you attack the ones that have it good right now?
Worrying about inequality presumes this zero sum mentality that if someone succeeds he is taking from someone else, which is largely not the case, this should be obvious to the modern man. The wealth of the world is not fixed at all, 100 years ago the wealthiest person was much worse of in terms of life quality than a poor man living today with iphones and whatnot.
If someone got their wealth through fraud or other criminal means that is a separate issue, which should be dealt with. But to include that as a premise to this discussion, that all wealth is fundamentally gained by ill means is a mistake and an awful mindset.
Also you are ignoring the role of ideas on any of this discussion, for example the immigrant issue. Shouldn't you primarily question why do some countries have such an awful time? Why is mexico having a bad time compared to the United States. Here you are presenting it as just magically united states happened to pop out to be succesful and Mexico happened to be unsuccessful, without relation to anything. Maybe it could be that ideas had to play a role in what happens within a country?
Actually the worlds wealth is entirely finite. We may claim the wealth of the world has grown, but this is incorrect. Wealth represents percieved value, not actual value. Your gold yacht is worthless if it can't be traded for food and you are starving.
If the worlds actual resource value is finite, and we divide control of these resources unequally, then those without MUST take from those who have in some fashion in order to grow.
Conversely those with a high percentage of control over resources MUST keep those beneath them (or above) from taking their share back down to a more equivalent level.
Thats why you cannot ignore the wealthy in seeking to improve inequality. Its the presence of the rich that creates the poor.
@@benjaminhenderson7059 But wealth does represent actual value, you could not make the case that objectively we are not better of from 200 years ago. In terms of many measurable things like life expectancy etc we are much better of. This is the consequence of humanity coming up with new stuff like cars and airplanes and healthcare methods, clearly this is not fixed wealth, but wealth is being created here.
If we would take your premise that the wealth of the world did not grow then you could not advance above a primitive hunter gatherer society where you just extend your arm to eat an apple off of a tree, even there as soon as somebody would figure anything out like how to create a sharp stick to hunt animals with, the wealth of the world would have increased. It increases by human beings inventing and creating new stuff.
You would not have bought the device, that you are writing this message with if it was not worth more to you than what it cost you. Apple / Samsung / microsoft did not take anything from you by offering you an opportunity to buy that device.
lol, is this a real person?
@@Are1i All of the basic building blocks of the universe are the same, yet they combine into nearly infinite complexity. It doesn't increase what there already was, its just a better utilization than we already had.
When we discovered crop rotation there wasn't suddenly more tilled land created, we just made the land we already had more useful.
This phone, as you point out, I bought. But while you say it was an equal exchange, I have to consider what is the cost of not having one? Can you get a decent job without a cellphone? Clothes are a similar example. I can wear a burlap sack, it has the same function as the clothes, and is vastly less expensive in terms of upfront cost, but the truth is it would cost me more to wear it than I would save. There is no such thing as an equal exchange. Everything has hidden costs, and they invariably play to the hands of the one with greater power.
You say a sharpened stick created new wealth. Its a good example. It gives the stick weilder more power than his peers because he created a tool right? But this hunter gatherer lives in a community. He was taken care of as a child by his village. Kept safe by the other tribemembers. He had the chance to consider sharpening the stick because of those around him. So should he really get 100% credit and suddenly tell all the others to go figure out how to sharpen their own sticks? Pull themselves up by their bootstraps like he did?
Society creates wealth through perception, and without society wealth is useless. Right now only about 10% of the world actually gets to participate in society. The rest of us have been denied choice by those in control setting up a system rigged in their favor. All the benefits of wealth you and the other wealthy people in this world enjoy are derived entirely from the fruits of society as a whole, and no one part stands alone. All the wealth in a bank is useless if society doesnt punish bank robbers. All the medicine in a hospitol is useless if you are denied its aid. Two very comparable scenarios, yet one happens every day. That's inequality.
@@benjaminhenderson7059 It is the presence of earth which creates gravity, The rich has money and nothing else the value got traded for some good, the person has goods and services and rich has money, Only trade happened, the money gained from trade is equal to the value provided, I provided 10 worth of apple, so value exchanged hands equally. I am rich by apples and the person is rich by money. Even if those who have resources and those who don't will have something in return for each others goods.
Suppose if a country has all the resources except one, then they will trade with other country to get what they don't have, same is with other nations, and A nation will only grow to a level of it's carrying capacity.