Economic Schools of Thought: Crash Course Economics #14
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- We talk a lot about Keynesian economics on this show, pretty much because the real world currently runs on Keynesian principles. That said, there are some other economic ideas out there, and today we're going to talk about a few of them. So, if you've been aching to hear about socialism, communism, the Chicago School, or the Austrian School, this episode is for you.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Fatima Iqbal, Penelope Flagg, Eugenia Karlson, Alex S, Jirat, Tim Curwick, Christy Huddleston, Eric Kitchen, Moritz Schmidt, Today I Found Out, Avi Yashchin, Chris Peters, Eric Knight, Jacob Ash, Simun Niclasen, Jan Schmid, Elliot Beter, Sandra Aft, SR Foxley, Ian Dundore, Daniel Baulig, Jason A Saslow, Robert Kunz, Jessica Wode, Steve Marshall, Anna-Ester Volozh, Christian, Caleb Weeks, Jeffrey Thompson, James Craver, and Markus Persson
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday, did't happen today."
-Laurence J. Peter
false theories tend to be wrong, while the obvious one hasn't even had the opportunity to be tried in modern times
Economists and weather forecasters are the only people who can be wrong all the time and keep their job.
Lmao.
lol
And religion teachers.
Neoclassical be like that
Not Mises, tho
Wrong
"This guy looks like Mark Cuban, but not as attractive or rich" - Mark Cuban
Hilarious
Khiem Luong Cuban is a big fan of Ayn Rand
No one:
Malthus: 'We all are going to die of hunger.'
ROBO karizma haha classic economics
We really are I'm not joking.
Haha chicken go cluck cluck
Aviral Gupta buy some canned food and a gun
My wife is a Keynesian.... she's always spending herself out of depressions.
Great episode!! Rock-on!!
*Main outtakes of this lesson*
- Economic theories are constantly being proven, disproven and revised.
*Incorrect theories*
Thomas Malthus - In 1798, he argued that population growth would outpace food production.
Social darwinism - assistance to poor people and welfare are socially immoral. Combined ideas of Darwin & Malthus.
*1) Capitalism* - free markets and private property
Adam Smith - "The wealth of nations", 1776. A person following their own self-interest could end up serving the common good.
David Ricardo - Theory of comparative advantage: two people or countries can both benefit from trade, even if one of them can produce more of everything (when both focus on what they're best at and then trade, everyone benefits).
John Maynard Keynes - markets and economies don't self-correct quickly because prices and wages take time to adjust. During recessions, the government must get involved by using monetary and fiscal policy to increase output and decrease unemployment.
*2) Communism* - collective ownership of the means of production in a stateless and classless system
- _Communist Manifesto_ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848 - history is explained by the conflict between workers and property owners. Establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922.
*3) Classical economics* (capitalist ideas)
- _Principles of economics_ by Alfred Marshall, 1890. Government intervention is seen as harmful for the economy.
- Supply and demand. Marginal utility.
*4) Socialism* - the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.
- Private property and markets. Government ownership of industry. Significant regulation. Big public programs like universal healthcare. Examples: Norway, Sweden, Spain, France...
*5) Austrian school of economics*
- Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.
- Regulation and government involvement has never produced the results it promised. It's seen as a problem, not a solution.
- Milton Friedman in the US - Chicago School of Economics, proposing privatization, deregulation and school vouchers.
*6) Monetarism* - Monetarists focus on price stability and argue the money supply should be increased slowly and predictably to allow for steady growth.
*7) Supply-side economics or trickle-down economics* - Deregulation and cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes.
*8) New neoclassical synthesis* - Unified theory that includes ideas from classical economics, including monetarism, and Keynesian economics. It is the basis of mainstream economics today. China and Cuba are not communists anymore, they're capitalists. North Korea is communist.
I am a 70 yr old Grandma from India , and knew very little about the terms used in Economics as I was a student of Biology, but thank you guys and ur team for making this so simple and clear.Though I wish you could go a little slow .Thank you once again!😊
socialists, capitalists, soc dems, and libertarians can at least agree on one thing: nordic countries arent socialist
Dudes just helped me aced my test by 80/95.
Thanks Crash Course dudes!
Hum
Is the 15 points you missed due to mislabeling social democracy - a reformist capitalist ideology - as socialism?
“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
-Adam Smith, Scottish political economist (1723-1790)
Inorganic Vegan
That's because you've been fed fascist propaganda from lunatics like Murdoch and the Kochs, that cherry picks and omits facts so they're not in their proper context.
Smith was Enlightened and prescribed to EQUALITY, Natural Human Rights and certainly wouldn't support any of the fascism foisted under his name by irrational, greedy and tyrannical USA.
Hitler and Mussolini would both be proud of current-day USA, though.
Madog Llewellyn piss off, you-lying-lunatic.
Get some credible sources and don't spread lies on my posts, thx.
+Inorganic Vegan the goal of capitalism was to produce wealth that everyone can grow off and enjoy, i would say it has been derailed that the situation is still salvageable if we can save it before the communists destroy more cultures and freedom
Stikibits Sadly you speak the truth The US government holds too much power to be puppeteered by major corporations and other lobbies If American citizens fail to get a hold back on our government in an intelligent manner we wont be the only ones to suffer the fallout. Places like Taiwan and South Korea could suffer greatly if we slip too far. We used to actually stand for protecting freedom. We fought a bloody war and took to the streets for each other. US history is, may be was, a story of extending the freedoms of the Constitution to everyone in the country, but I think we may have lost our spark.
Alex Sitaras The Government is the People.
Think poorly, vote poorly, get governed poorly.
It's the fascist tyrants who hold too much power; people like Murdoch, the Kochs and all those greed-crazed, corporate lunatics (fascists).
The USA isn't an objective, enlightened and equitable society of good conscience, so it's shit.
Denmark isn't Socialist.
Michael Porter They're Democratic socialist
72.5% kek Asian You're half right they're free-market capitalists while having a strong welfare state.
"Social Market Economy" is probably the best term and the one used by influential European leaders.
Bruh, if you don't consider a country where you pay 50%+ of you income in taxes yearly like Denmark, then I don't know what is.
Rhonda
Sweden, Denmark and Norway have a Social-Democrat economic model = free market economy and capitalism. The leaders in the Scandinavian countries do not call it socialism.
Really hard to belive that they are experts. When they said that scandinavia is rule by socialism, when there is nothing more capitalism that a country with free market
Which has the worse comment section? CCEconomics or CCHistory? Vote now!
+mergele1000 What history one
Franklin D. Roosevelt World history.
history, is that even a competition?
+mergele1000 Ha true. Everyone has an opinion on economics or history because they think they know something about it. In contrast, most people have no opinion on electrons or the Higgs boson, which is why you see fewer stupid comments for educational videos on the pure sciences. ↑↑Watch my videos on economics!↑↑
Ayyyy... 👹👹🔥
Opportunity Cost - - one of the most underrated subtopics of economics.. yet, one of the most important subtopics in economics imho.
>A: Any socialism is bad
>B: Scandinavia has some successful socialist policies
>A: Nah, those just appear socialist, they're actually free market capitalist
>B: Fine, let's implement them
>A: But that's socialism
The problem with labels
The problem is 'successful' is subjective. People in European countries accept restrictions for additional benefits and security that perhaps Americans would not.
Firstly Scandinavia is a nightmare. Secondly yes they aren’t socialist. big government =/ socialism
Thirdly We don’t have implement everything not socialist
The problem is that the social policies in Scandinavia are left-wing (some use the label socialist) whilst the economic policy is questionable.
People are against the importing of these social policies.
The economic policy is too varied, it depends where we zoom in. In the case of where there is a socialist industry (for example, Beveridge healthcare in Norway), the general consensus is that it is only successful (if it even is successful) because of the much smaller population sizes (source: Euro Health Consumer Index).
Scandinavian countries are monarquies 💁🏻♂️
ZombifiedFish I was talking about market socialism. No doubt that Scandinavia has big government but calling it socialist would be arguable. They don’t call themselves socialists and most citizens don’t think of their country as socialists. At the end it all comes down to the interpretation of the term socialist.
>Scandinavia
>Socialist
This is how you tell if someone has never read a primary source in their life
?
@Aileron you talking to me?
I fear i don't find anywhere in the video where one of them said that that any of the scandinavian countries are socialist. Bad strawman from Tavo H.
@Aileron No, he only said that they are pursuing socialism (which they are), and that their socialist policies are apparently doing well.
@Aileron Don't know about the trends in Sweden or Denmark, but Norway is definitely turning more red. More regulations and taxation on businesses, private property rights are limited, tariff barriers are high, tax burden is getting bigger (sugar tax increased by 87% this year) and labour policies are strict.
looks like it’s always been easier to
imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism, right Malthus?
Scandinavian countries are one of the most free market places in the world, despite the huge welfare system. Just look at the international rank of economic freedom.
What exactly does "economic freedom mean"? Does that mean least regulated? Population with most disposable income and consumer freedom? I think a clear definition of "economic freedom" is important. Becuase I'm not sure the US will enjoy Scandinavian success if we just de-regulate everything.
Pretty sure Nordic economic freedom is high due to relatively low corporate taxes and regulation. The individual on the other hand is taxed dry. I seriously doubt my country can come even close to the US in consumer purchasing power. Another factor that contributing to Nordic success is relatively high IQ average, we are ethnically homogeneous and crime is low, as that tends to correlate with stability.
@@Ianassa91 When corporations and politicians come together to create crony capitalism, it is the people who are "taxed dry." It is good to have a high IQ but is also important to be business and finance savvy. The general public lacks in this area and therefore, they are taken advantage of. There is plenty of crony capitalism (Trump termed the swamp) that occurs in the which fortunately Trump is eliminating during his presidency. Trump lowered corporate taxes and this seems to have been passed on to workers in the form of higher wages and consumers through stable somewhat. Nonetheless, individuals in the USA have high taxes and pay the corporate tax as well; how? In the end, corporations have to make a return, after tax, for their shareholders and this comes at consumer higher prices when corporations and businesses are taxed more.
Timothy Smith
It isn't that worker's wages aren't increasing. Rather, the corporations have the tax cuts that they reinvest in themselves. This creates more jobs and increases the supply of their goods and/or services, thereby reducing the price and making the dollar of the consumer worth more.
@@Ianassa91 ah the alt right theory supported by no casual data
I've never gotten less than expected from crash course. You guys are simply good at what you do. Simple, brief and fun.
Social democracy and socialism are very different.
and so the 100 year flamewars in the comment section begun...
+shreder89 luckily some idiot will make a comparison to the Nazis and all will converge on said fool.
"Water. Earth. Fire. Air. Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked. Only the Avatar, master of all four elements, could stop them, but when the world needed him most, he vanished. A hundred years passed and my brother and I discovered the new Avatar, an airbender named Aang. And although his airbending skills are great, he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But I believe Aang can save the world
+Jared Theurer I think i just found the Best Comment ever ! ahaha
+Jared Theurer DAMN YOU, YOU BEAT ME TO IT!
+shreder89 Yo, The comment section makes the best mix tapes.
Never mind, they just called Scandinavia socialist.
+Dave Kiely Social Democratic. Outside of North America, this is the term used for centuries and really the only one you should use. Basically, socialism is the abolishment of private property (that is to say, no one can own means of production) while social democracy is a mostly Keynesian capitalist society that has very strong regulations and social services.
+Artur Yeon Pretty sure socialosm is the abolition of private ownership of the meams of production, unless the definition is different outside Murica
+notreallymuslim means*
notreallymuslim
English isn't my native language, that was what I wanted to say. And Scandinavia is thus not socialist, even though they are regularly painted out to be by US politicians.
+JMan But socialists don't. It's a misuse of the word. It's one thing for the everyday person to get it mixed up after 80 years of propaganda likening keynsianism and the welfare state to communism and socialism, but another for an educated person- let alone an economist- to get them confused or peddle this bunk. Socialism is abolition of private control of the means of production for empowerment of the working class, end of story. We can sit around jerking ourselves off over Scandanavia and Bernie Sanders all day but socialists and communists are trying to take the label back and not making progress because of this sort of thing.
oh my god imagine thinking denmark is socialist I can't
It's like saying that North Korea has capitalism.
North Korea has capitalism, but Denmark is not socialist.
Egoist Solidarity imagine thinking Denmark is even real. (p.s. nice profile picture)
@@comrade1158 Denmark isnt socialist but neither is Bernie Sanders. They are both merely Social democratic something which has a lot of traction in Europe and in the American populace(polls reveal a plurality support for policies like Medicare for all), which the mainstream media and US politicians are brainwashing the public by calling these ideas fringe
Geeky Media I don’t recall any politicians saying Denmark isn’t real. Most politicians seem to agree that it is real. That is the real brainwashing. Wake up sheeple.
Supply-side economist Thomas Sowell says that “trickle-down” is a misconception
Glad to see his name in this comment section
Trickle-down is merely a derogatory/colloquial term used for political purposes. Thomas Sowell knows what he's talking about, and if you are studying Sowell, then you are in good company.
Cause it's more like "trickle-on" amirite?! :D
@@chrisrichardson5462 MISES > SOWELL, lol
@@treboleekem499 how so?
If a UA-cam video is ignoring UA-cam comments, I'd say they're doing it right.
+TomHasVideo Most comments are awful, but occasionally some have valuable feedback. So I wouldn't ignore all UA-cam comments. ↑↑Watch my UA-cam videos on economics!↑↑
Econ Cow I agree. My comments are the good ones!
+TomHasVideo I like your style.
your name is suitably ironic
+TomHasVideo The producers can't ignore the comment section. Here is where their public are ! Giving all the client feedback information they need.
Milton Friedman is a very smart and wise man
Said no one ever
***** Was that supposed to be funny? Is everyone who disagrees with Friedman about anything automatically economically illiterate? Why do you live in such a pathetic, stunted world? I have so many questions.
A myriad range of macroeconomic concepts, beautifully summarized. Well done @crashcourse . This is great content!
“Here I am. Crawling through barbed wire, over landlines through rivers and mountains, so that I can escape the evils of free market capitalism” - said no one, ever
I'm sure some people did in the early years of the Soviet Union;
All the people who contributed into the creation and production of this episode.. you are awesome. Thanks.
People here really seem to believe they're experts at everything and can't possibly be wrong.
This isn't really a good way to learn about things.
+Sexual Potatoes "Here" in the comments or "here" on CrashCourse?
Onodera1980 Comments of Crash Course economics, specifically.
I agree
+Sexual Potatoes Agreed, on the last comments section I was trying to explain this to a guy who was saying anyone who deviated from his libertarian view was obviously an idiot. People rarely see themselves as dogmatic. "But it's a fact! I'm right!".
+Sexual Potatoes If a person is not an expert in a field, then trusting accredited experts over non-experts is the correct course of action. I know little about physics, so should I put more trust in what Stephen Hawking says or what the Time Cube guy says? If I know nothing about physics, I still know that those who are experts are considered as such because they learned a lot about physics and have views which are defensible for other people who know a lot about physics. For people that spout off information that most experts reject, yes there is a chance they're right but it's a very low chance because there are so many more ways to be wrong about a subject than there are to be right about it, and people who aren't experts are under far less pressure to be rigorous as long as they're talking to a lay audience exclusively.
Disagreeing with experts is fine, if a person has done the research and learning needed to become an expert him/herself. Otherwise, what has most likely happened is s/he just made an error that's hard to see without expert knowledge and training.
So the people who don't trust what non-experts have to say when those non-experts disagree with experts are being rational. It simply takes an understanding that sounding plausible and being true are two uncorrelated skills, and the former is a LOT easier than the latter.
So, the game has a lot of bugs and economists update the game very so often to fix it, but...
These bugs don't disappear.
You guys are great. I'm an engineer getting lots of new stuffs watching your videos. Keep up the good work.
It upsets me that, too frequently, discussions about economic policy are presented as moral debates. One side complaining that politicians don't care for the poor, with another griping that the "undeserving" are reaping the benefits of entrepreneurship. At the end of the day, what we all want it simple - for everyone to have as much as possible for as little as possible. At the heart of these disagreements isn't a difference of moral opinion, but of economic paradigm. I wish we could have more discussion about what economic policies actually do, with less inflammatory rhetoric about the moral stature of minds from different schools.
aren't you assuming what people want?
xenoblad I'm not assuming. I realize that there are significantly sized groups that wouldn't agree with those ends, but I think the majority of lay people can get behind the idea that more and more accessible wealth for all is a good thing. My skepticism is about large, widespread differences in fundamental values. I think disagreement is often about empirical questions (what the end results of different policies would be), but the national debate doesn't reflect this.
+Taylor Bennett You're assuming that what's best for the group is best for the individual (most economic growth for society as a whole), or philosophical collectivism, which is already a moral stance. The way wealth should be distributed is a political and moral issue and we can't ignore that.
+Taylor Bennett One would think doing the right thing is the ideal all humans aspire to. Do you not like it when people mention malthuse and social Darwinism?
+Taylor Bennett Even if you make the debate only about what is the best system so everyone has as much as possible you will have people disagreeing with one another. (and i think in pure capitalism everyone will have much more than in any other system)
But how do you know that the goal of everyone having as much as possible is a worthy goal to pursue without having a moral argument in the first place.
Economics will forever be tied to morality and what is wrong and right.
Otherwise you do not have any reason to believe one thought of economics is better than the other.
You have to measure it based on some scale and that scale has to be based on some sort of morality.
And your statement is inherently flawed because you say everyone.
While economics doesnt work that way. You cannot equally make everyone have more of everything.
You have to decide if everyone having more means everyone has equal?
Or do you mean that everyone in the country has way more as a group but some people have less.
All those nice people in the credits section are great too!
" The Curious Task Of Economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design " Frederich August Von Hayek
The Fatal Conceit
Always quoting your master eh?
budiman 31 nice, a lolbertarian
5:52
Adriene: (Austrian School of Economics) They also have a very vocal fan base in our comment sectiom
Me: 👀 😗
Lotta ancaps here
Thanks Jacob and Adriene, and the rest of the CrashCourse team. I just subscribed and this is my second video and I've learned a lot. Definitely going to be making an Economic Reading list. Loved the video!
They acknowledge the different economic schools, but they keep going on teaching the Keynesian equations.
"The specific anticipative understanding of the conditions of the uncertain future defies any rules and systematization" Ludwig Von Mises
Because Keynesian economics is the mainstream economic system and is the best economic system.
Grant Kirby Best economic system to promote for the left and justify their coercive powerful government, and indoctrinate it into the youth like the government is their best friend, like it is a cornucopia, to make them believe it is absolutely necessary.
They went into this at the end of the video. Watch the entire thing before commenting.
+Nat Wright I meant as in their next economics lessons, they just go on with the Keynesian doctrine.
Delbert Frost Keynesian economists teach Keynesian Economics.
Next time Dante goes to the ninth ring of hell, Lucifer's going to have a fourth, yellow head eternally chewing Milton Friedman.
That AC/DC belt though 10/10
trickle down economics XD. The hope that rich people will forever re invest in their business.
people who believe trickle down works are stupid. its like feedinf a cow until its fat, then hoping it will give you its meat
So what your saying is we need to kill the cow?
+ShedGaming no, we need to impregnate the cow with a bull
Luis Avila can i be the bull
ShedGaming yes. i dont mean kill rich people, i mean we have to redistribute the money not hope theyll give it away
Love the show, watched every episode!
I even went as far as adding silly comments.
thanks guys! very nice of you do to this! appreciate it! cramming for a test tomorrow and it was nice to hear your breakdown.
as much as I love and appreciate learning about economics, I would love a bonus episode where they roast all of the UA-cam commenters
I love these videos! It's fantastic that I can keep learning all the time, even after school hours and during school breaks! Thank you!
I wish I had your videos when I was studying economics in business school, you guys definitely put everything into perspective very well.
Thanks Crash Course!! for all your Economic Videos!
Here a supporter and a fan, keeping forward everyday.
9:18 hear that now in 2020
Great video! It's important to recognize that the Soviet Union was actually a socialist country by any definition of socialism, with communism as the ultimate goal of the state. (You mentioned in a previous video that communism has never fully been achieved). Calling socialist countries communist and socialist-influenced capitalist countries socialist is actually somewhat misleading.
One part of Keynesian economics is spending during a recession, the other part is SAVING during the good times.
The problem is that no government ever SAVES, they only spend.
Hence why Keynesian economics will never work when practised by government.
Cibby Kwaka there’s a problem with the economic infrastructure, which is way countries don’t save in good times.
Keynesian policies were used between 1930/40 and 1970. During that time no big recession appeared and state debts didn’t raised nor was money saved. It just stagnated.
But someone had to make debts as our money system works like that. When someone wants to save money, someone have to make debts for it.
In the Keynesian time the Private Households saved money and the Companies made the debts through loans which they invested to increase productivity.
With higher productivity the real wages followed in line (“Keynesian rule 1940-1970”), increasing purchasing power which increases demand, giving companies the incentive to invest again.
They forced to go into debts and invest by high taxes.
Only the war made the state taking debts, which they paid in a few years back.
This whole infrastructure has changed, wages don’t follow productivity and taxes are low, companies become savers themselves forcing only the state making debts.
They using the Keynesian emergency tool wich is Deficit Spending to rescue the economy, but won’t use the Keynesian system to pay back the debts wich was caused by deficit spending. Of course it doesn’t work, if you change the circumstances.
This isn't true, many countries do through sovereign wealth funds. It's the reason for Norway's continued economic success.
Agreed
Cibby Kwaka what a JOKE! How can saving be the purpose of Keynesian economics when it favors inflation as a means of incentivizing consumption instead of savings? 🙄
I once saw a description "Keynesian = Spending => Economic Growth ||| Austrian = Savings => Economic Growth"
In the Keynesian model, Spending is key. You could save money to spend in the future (meaning no spending until later), OR you could use debt to spend RIGHT NOW! and pay off what you spend now over the next 237 years.
Meanwhile Austrian model says Saving is key. The more savings people have, the more they're able to spend, and the more able and willing they are to do so. When you pay cash for something, and don't finance it, you reap the FULL fruit of the investment, and don't loose 80% of the revenue potential to for 360 months. When an investment generates 4x the standard cashflow for the same price, that's what REAL growth looks like.
Adrian and Jacob you have done a fantastic job in explain economics ...thanks a lot.
Thank you very much for your enthusiastic approach and catching, lively and informative overview of economic theories! I enjoyed your video and, yeah, you guys are awesome. Thanks for your effort! ❤
I like your videos. I'm teaching economic theories at high school in Sweden and we start even earlier, with Mercantilism as an economic idea. Aside from that, I find your film very usable in my education. Thanks!
Please, teach them about Human Action.
this video series has been really helpful for my preparation of level 1 cfa exam, thank you so much, your videos are really interesting and make the otherwise confusing economics seem so simple
For Those About to Rock... We educate you!
I loved it!!!! Thanks for putting together this course...
This is great stuff.. thanks so much for putting this series together, and with such enthusiasm for the subject matter. You're both so alive!
Actually, Classical Economics mostly ended with Ricardo and Mill. Alfred Marshall and his entourage are Neo-Classics, which are pretty different form classical economics in all ways possible.
It’s kinda contradicting when you first when describing communism defines it as “classless and stateless society” and then use USSR, PRC and North Korea as examples, societies where the states expands greatly and does more than exist. Also, Scandinavia isn’t socialistic, we are social democratic with welfare states. Sure social democracy builds on Marxism but it was a long time since any Scandinavian social democrat or major politician called for a socialist society or mentioned Marx or anything socialistic.
Excellent SO far... 3 mins into the video am i am already say YES !!
I love this CC series!
Tsk...I guess I'll step in then
Main outtakes from the lesson:
1. In 1798, Thomas Malthus argued that population growth will outpace food production leading to starvation and death. This idea combined with the idea of Charles Darwin led to "Social Darwinism".
2. In 1776, Adam Smith published "Wealth Of The Nation" where he advocated Free Trade. David Ricardo later proposed "The Theory Of Comparative Advantage"- When both focus on what thy're best at, everyone benefits.
3. 1848 saw the birth of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels which look at economic clashes as conflict between workers and property owners.
4. 1890, Marshall embodied "Classical Economics" with a book 'principle Of Economics".
5. John Maynard Keynes launched the field of macroeconomics after the great recession. They claimed that during recessions ,it is necessary for government to get involved using monetary and fiscal policy too increase output and decrease unemployment. He challenged the classical economist who saw government intervention harmful for the economy.
6. Austrian School Of Economics: by Friedrich Hayek And Ludwig Vonmises argued heavy state involvement has never produced results and regulations were problems. They rejected all form of monetary and fiscal policies.
7. In that same vein, Milton Friedman and the Chicago School Of Economics advocated privatization of many functions which were assumed by the government.
8. Monetarism: It focused on price stability and argued money supply should be increased slowly and predictably to allow steady growth.
9. Supply Side Economics A.K.A Trickle Down Economics advocates deregulation and cutting down taxes especially corporate taxes.
10. Modern economics takes idea from classical economics including Keynesian and monetarism. This unified theory is called the Neo-Classical Synthesis
Thank you, @Crash Course team, for making awesome videos!!
yay I'm excited to see acdc economics team up with crash course!
The Scandinavian countries have a freer economy, Denmark is economically freer than the US.
Exactly
Scandinavian countries do not have minimum wage laws.
if you define freer as having high tax burden and a lot of redistribution of capital then yes...
They are freer because they have a lower regulatory burden.
GoldenRaven20 Can you be more exact? In what sphere?
The contents of the «Manifesto», as well as «Capital», are about Capitalism, not about Socialism or Communism...
Shout out to Jack Kennedy. I just saw your name on the credits and Thank you for your contribution jack, Thought cafe is really cool and super creative. All in all I love your guys channel really helps me while school is down
Very useful. The way they present is very interesting. Thanks a lot
Humm I was really hoping they would get into the mechanics of how communism works. Guess I have to read Das Kapital
no, you will burn your neurons
Look SSCB and see how socialism and communism work. There are lots of theories in the world. They do not work in real world. Just look at tianmen massacre or 1921 and 1932 starvation...
Murdy Baskan Agreed. I am a Finance student who has a lot of leftist friends. I am interested because after taking accounting I just don't see how it could be better or even more fair than capitalism.
Look up the anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish civil war.
Some social working systems work in highly moral societies in small scale, small monasiteries apply that. But, there is no incentive to work and risk yourself in socialist communities. Lots of suffering, but no gain...
I expected so much more :/ I dunno, it seems the other crash courses give so much more detail of the subject matter...maybe it just seems like this because I study this? ^^
+Salokin92 This could potentially lead to a deeper dive into each of these systems and how they were implemented, for now it's a brief overview of the various schools of thoughts and from there it could expand into something greater.
Also, this is a show primarily aimed at high school kids taking AP Econ. If you're studying Economics at a higher level than this, maybe try looking for other resources that provide that deep dive you're looking for?
You are probably right, but if you compare to certain aspects of other crash courses (History, Biology) they tend to be more "factual", especially when compared to Astronomy it seems much less, for lack of better term, "try hard". I have yet to find a sufficient Economics channel on UA-cam, thus I wanted CC to tackle it. :)
Maybe Khan Academy? Theirs is much more cut and dry and has less of the cheery animations but from what I've heard it's much more thorough and gives much more concrete examples. Again, with the caveat that I'm not terribly familiar with it save for a few episodes...
To CC's credit, economics is an evolving science that has much more gray areas than many sciences and trying to paint it as a black and white "factual" science (bio, astronomy, etc.) would miss many of the issues that are still debated today. I mean hell, most of these new schools of thoughts emerged less than 50 years ago. Given that most of their audience is only going to want to focus on the classic Keynesian models; the fact that they took a look at this deserves merit.
I really like your videos! Keep them coming.
All of you makers are just wonderful. Thank you.
You know, kudos to them to actually treat each aspect equally unfairly.
Especially since it is so condensed I can appreciate it.
>communism is a stateless and classless society
>communist countries like china, cuba, and north korea
why did you think explaining multiple ideologies in one video would be a good idea
They're communist ideologically. I know this comment is well intended, but don't be pedantic.
Slinky Dad Shoutcasting None of the named countries above are currently socialist, the only legitimate socialist nations were the Soviet Union until 1956ish and Albania until 1991. Liberals still can't understand that socialism is not anything the government does.
Hoxha Edits That's why he said communism not socialism.
Slinky Dad Shoutcasting China, Cuba, and North Korea aren't Communist.
People view Communism as on-going process not a final goal. As it can most likely never be 100% achieved. Similar to how full 100% capitalism can't be achieved because not all property in the world is private property.
Thank you so much. This was a very helpful video.
thank you so much for this. You just said out the answers to my summer homework.
It's always weird for me to hear references to my country, Denmark. Usually it's so small that it gets ignored and nobody even knows it exists xD
Venezuela's Economy is one of the biggest and best examples to demonstrate why hard government intervention is not the correct way to go, balanced within private and government sector is probably the best approach. But still, in that specific economy there are so many factor to take into account. It would be nice to see a video about that case study.
What a superbly done episode!!
Very Well Done !!Many Thanks Crash Course Economics Team !!!Many Thanks Crash Course !!!!
Austrian economics, I believe is the best solution to our current situation.
+TankMusic no it isnt. 100% of communist countries ended up on starvatiom or ended up opening their markets.
+TankMusic communism cant properly allocate goods efficiently in an advanced economy
***** Very poorly, not to mention that division of labour cant be properly implemented in socialism. Also, in a post revolution stateless communist society, the lack of surplus could be devastating to an economy is people get put of out work because of something like a flu, in such economies goods would only be produced up to demand, rather than flowing with the market in order to set prices efficiently
***** What do you do if there is a lack of people in a specific specialized job field, for example surgeons (which i personally dont think we will ever have a lack of) but lets just use it as example. it would be extremely difficult to push anyone torwards these specialized jobs without the incentive that the supply and demand of a market provide for workers or coercion.
Can we get a video focusing on Political Economy?
James M. Buchanan is my boy!
great work, love the series
You guys are great. It's very difficult to supply such information as you do.
It's much appreciated by those who are here to expand their consciousness.
Austrian school is where it is at.
Labour Have you converted to socialism since this?
Corbyn you are drunk go home :P
@lil recycle bin no he's turned into a homeless anti-semite
Keynesian Economics is the reason for all our economic woes now. This tremendous government debt needs to be taken care of some time. Keynesians are all about pushing the consequences of our bad policies into the future for short term benefit. We know that as individuals if we have uncontrollable spending and debt, we will have to suffer sooner or later. Maybe not right away because we get to buy lavish homes and cars but it comes at a cost. Keynesians gave you the 2008 recession. Austrian Economics is very appealing. Perhaps this video doesn't do it justice but have a listen to the likes of Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Jim Grant, Peter Schiff etc. These guys understood a lot of the problems that led to the 2008 recession and predicted the recession. They continue to gain credibility as the Keynesian Federal Reserve continues to lose it.
Friedman isn't Austrian lmao. He hated the Austrians. He was a huge critic of the ABCT.
Friedman was Chicago school, kinda like the Austrain school but their methodology isn't a joke
Also, neoliberalism isn't Keynesianism
On monetary economics Friedman was a Keynesian, and methodologically he subscribed to an extreme variant of positivism: the opposite of rationalism and the logical deductive method.
Austrian economics was tested in many emerging markets and failed. It was heavily exported to South America in the 70s and it destabilized their economies tremendously. One yeah you had a 5% growth to have a 3.5% DECREASE the next. Hell Pinochet was criticized for taking left leaning economic changes in the 80s but only then the Chilean economy stabilized and now right wing economists give him credit for saving the Chille economy. Funny thing is he saved it from himself and their ideas.
Overall the history of radical free market experiements is a history of failure because people who support it view economy as a religion and if their ideas don't work they just say "more deregulation" ad infinitum. I'm in no means a fan of communism (I just dislike people who are factually incorrect) but there have been national experiements far closer to what the Austrians wanted to what Marx wanted. The only remotely true communist experiments was a brief period right after the Russian Revolution but that's too short to study and what Allende was trying in Chille but his economy was under US embargo and it was heavily reliant on natural resources
Another great video! Well done!
This has really helped me in my studies..... Thanks crash course
Quantitative Easing IV, just started again a couple of months ago. The Austrian School is sitting pretty comfortably. Too bad the world will have to learn the hard way, yet again...
Correct me if im wrong but Keynes and Hayek are not classical economists, they are neoclassical economists, also neoclassical economists aren't called neoclassical because the thoughts of Keynesian and monetarism followers are merged but purely because of Marx calling bulgar economists any economist who didn't follow David Ricardo's theory's of political economy and the value of labor, the "neoclassical" economist gave value to labor depending on the relation of the individuals with the utility of the produced good.
In the video they never said that keynes & hayek were classical economists. Hayek is from the Austrian school, while Keynes is awesome enough to have his own name used; keynsian economics
+Strikie To be fair, "Hayekian school" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Great video in these uncertain times.
This is very good video, didn't not use it in my school project because it was tooooo good, thank you come again
Malthus didn't say we would all starve and die off. He predicted that only the spillover population would starve to death.
And he was wrong since "spillover population" is a scam
Pokoirl YaSe It's not, it's still very possible that population outgrows food production.
africa anyone
You are correct John, that he was talking a spillovers from the steady state population. Although his theory still does not work. Because he believed the main two factors of production was Labour and Land. Hence, he failed to account for capital accumulation - which can occur indefinitely and hence provide long run growth. This is why in the 60's, economic theory (at least the neoclassical side) began to follow the idea of the Solow Model, instead of the Malthusian model.
Wasn't a scam in Malthus' time. It very accurately described populations before the industrial revolution.
Austrians came before Keynes and they refuted him and socialists too. It's a shame if this video is not corrected.
They may have come before, but they weren’t influential. Hayek was defeated by Keynes at that moment in time.
Hayek was after Keynes, and he was the most important of the Austrians
@@dhv2852 oh no no
In your dreams
@@dhv2852 Hayek refuted Keynes but he was the inferior to Mises. Rothbard was the true successor of Mises.
Thank you very much. You are doing an amazing job
thank you for these nice courses :)
It's painful to see economic illiterates argue in the comments section. I mean I'm just a first year undergrad student of economics, but even I can disprove a lot of the rubbish that is being spouted in this comment section.
Asy B I love it how the 9 likes this got a probably from people who would fall under this category.
Austrian economics FTW!
This video is amazing, particularly for a newbie like me. I'm an engineer currently taking economics classes in graduate school. I have problem understanding the lecture content and following through class discussions, but videos like this really help to fill the knowledge gap more quickly than reading alone. Thanks for being such an amazing bunch! :)
great efforts. thank you Crash Course team