"Capitalism demands the best of every man-his rationality-and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him." ~ Ayn Rand

This is the smartest thing I've heard all week. You have a new subscriber

Awesome video Bryan Caplan! Way to go! A simple and clear video that makes the point fast on the power of markets and the bias against them, even in overcoming difficult challenges of commons like pollution.

@Learn Liberty, can you explain how resistance to a carbon credit is anti-market bias and not resistance to further government regulation?

@_epic730

6 жыл бұрын

if government makes economic polices then its regulation

It hasn't been a minute and I'm already confused. Should I start cutting?

Give it another decade or two and we will be growing organs!

@theDoubleA1245

10 жыл бұрын

Implying I don't have a few kidneys and a heart in my basement... O.o

It's the superficial surface that most people look at. When they think of people selling organs for money, it sounds grim. In practice, those who would be most willing to part with a Kidney, are those who need money the most, and likewise, those who need a kidney, will be willing to part with money for it. There is no logical argument against it. The only mounted attack against it is the knee-jerk emotional barrage that, unfortunately, seems sufficient to sway the minds of most voters.

I appreciate the Fountainhead Reference.

More Econ Chronicles!!!!!!!

Roark's architecture. I love you guys.

can somebody help me. what did he mean when he said economists from the past would say "the internet will never happen because it provides to much for free"? Was he saying often even economists under estimate the potential of things to make money and be successful?

@CarbonGlassMan

10 жыл бұрын

He meant that the idea of the internet, providing content for free would not work if you asked economists back then because the only reason anyone does anything is to profit off of it. The economist didn't see the potential of advertising on the internet because it was something that never existed before. We get KZread for free because other companies pay KZread money to place their companies ads on the website so that millions of people will see their company ad. If economists in the 1980s' would have knows about ad revenue and how many people would have personal computers and use the internet, they would have agreed that the internet would be successful.

i think in general free markets are great and in the scope of what bryan caplan is actually addressing, which is his anti-market bias detailed in his book, this video makes perfect sense. it is true free markets do not always work, but when people vote with the idea in their head that free markets always fail and reward evil and greedy people the ideas put fourth in this video should help clear up their confusion.

Part of my objection to to pollution markets is what is called a pollutant on these exchanges. CO2 is a requirement for life on this planet, and it is considered a pollutant by politicians today. If you did it for Surfer, Mercury, and Heavy Metal emissions, I would be all for it, but no one even begins the discussion without CO2.

@ruzzaruzza

7 жыл бұрын

Never heard of man-made climate change? Probably yes, but somehow you choose not to believe it. Somehow you choose to believe a consensus on supply and demand but refuse a consensus on man-made climate change. Am I right? Unless you are a researcher or an expert in the particular field who can convince other peers that the current theory is wrong, why not just embrace a consensus that might even go against your common sense (light is particle and wave at the same time) or religion (evolution). For example, I have watched a lot of stuff about Quantum Mechanics and it does not make any sense to me and it just seems bonkers. But I do not go around at shout at people Quantum Mechanics is a conspiracy of physicists! What do you think? I hope am not create a straw man argument here and misrepresenting your views. Take it as a food for thought!

@Brantoc

7 жыл бұрын

Well quantum mechanics has several competing theories, and is currently impossible to prove. Man does have an effect on the environment, but not what you think. It's far from a consensus, and has at least as much politics in it as science. If Global warming was so provable that it was man, they wouldn't need to keep changing the historical records. And what happened from 200 to 100BC? What about 950 to 1200 AD? Greenland was called green land for a reason. Climate has always changed, never stayed the same without any help from humans and if it is going to change, warming is better for mankind than cooling. Remember, only a few scientists believed in plate tectonics for 50 years, and the majority of scientists said they were fools. Now we know they were right.

Loved the Fountainhead references!

I'm not the only one who got the Roark's Architecture/Cortlandt Homes reference right?

Hello? Bio ethics?

Glad this found me

I appreciate the Ayn Rand reference at 1:11

Roark Architect.... Epic!

Only issue with the internet thing is describing everything as "free" considering the ads and data collection.

It should be noted that everybody EXCEPT the donor makes money transplanting organs! Occasionally, a hospital or doctor will waive their fee, but usually - they make money. Why is that not immoral, too? Also, the patient pays for that kidney, too. There is a charge for it on the hospital's bill.

I'm sorry but I can't support "Tradeable Pollution Permits." It's a manufactured market trading worthless pieces of paper that determine how much productivity you are allowed to create. Markets aren't the kind of thing that can be created from the top-down, otherwise market distortions and economic misallocation that comes with government intervention inevitably result. I wouldn't be shocked if the manufacturing of worthless goods with fiat value resulted in an asset bubble anyhow. Also, everyone should know the permits by its more modern name, "Cap & Trade."

Pollution is an externality, children can be seen as externalities in a divorce. I think we should continue to make sure the air, water is as clean as possible. I know you can't get all of the pollution, but we should keep and gradually reduce pollutions to lower levels over time...Tradeable pollution permits is a much more efficient alternative to Cap N Trade by President Obama; under-polluters profit while over-polluters have an incentive to clean up.

@Joe11Blue

10 жыл бұрын

The Universe is a closed system, therefore there are no externalities.

@hag12100

10 жыл бұрын

Joe11Blue Externalities in economics, not the universe.

@badassmotherfucker588

10 жыл бұрын

Joe11Blue care to elaborate on these mugs?

@evdoku2481

10 жыл бұрын

More like inefficient companies benefit all other companies suffer.

@ab-ul1yz

5 жыл бұрын

hag12100 So tradeable pollution permits would be fine if the limits to pollution are extremely severe... At this point I'd also like those permits to be taxed at 22% and I'd be fine with it.

Rick Perry at 0:26?

1:10 Howard Roark's Architecture! Lol! #TheFountainhead

I didn't know this channel advocates cap n trade..

emissions trading scheme hey?

This is why you need basic income and social democracy. You dont sell your kidney because of greed but because of poverty.

@_epic730

6 жыл бұрын

"You dont sell your kidney because of greed but because of poverty." exactly why we need capitalism becuse evry one is better off the less regulations their are better in every metric you can think of

I really like this video. Allowing a kidney market would also destroy the black market hold on it.. just like ending the war on drugs and decriminalization of prostitution would basically destroy the black market as a whole. Gangs and cartels would shrivel up and prisons would have at least 30% more room.

Yes, well Smith also believed in "FREE" markets. The real question: what's the minimal amount of freedom needed to produce a real free market, a market like the so called "Black" Market & the emergent crypto-currencies? Just do it seems the best advice.

Why did you not mention that Iran has a legal Kidney exchange and thus has no chortage of organs?

Heh... 1:13 Rand Reference?

@notmousse

10 жыл бұрын

Sure was.

@ryankelly3579

10 жыл бұрын

I was about to say. XD Btw, you guys should read Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Very educational book with interesting insights into 1960's politics.

Cap and trade on CO2 failed in the EU. Ten years ago I thought it was great market solution! Now I don't. I think it is time to try a carbon tax!

@asterion205

7 жыл бұрын

how has it failed ?

@ruzzaruzza

7 жыл бұрын

www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576388-failure-reform-europes-carbon-market-will-reverberate-round-world-ets Badly implemented I guess or maybe hard to implement? Still think it is about time to try carbon tax!

@jonathancole3149

5 жыл бұрын

@@ruzzaruzza A carbon tax is a horrible idea.

Roark's Architechture :)

Actually the surest way to get rich is to be friends with the issuer of the money.

Don't like the cap and trade idea, but like the free market organ thing.

@NielsZussblatt

10 жыл бұрын

Well, what solution do you propose for dealing with air/water pollution since opposed to the establishment of a market to try to deal with it?

@CarbonGlassMan

10 жыл бұрын

Niels Zussblatt I don't know, but cap and trade isn't a market. It's government control of output and a way to tax business more. I think our air and water has been getting cleaner without cap and trade though.

@CarbonGlassMan

10 жыл бұрын

***** You can see in California now.

@NielsZussblatt

10 жыл бұрын

GunsNpolitics So is that a function of government regulations over the past couple decades (i.e.: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), the general de-industrialization of the United States in the same time frame, or something else? And again, if we determine that pollution is a problem, how do you propose to deal with it without either regulations, or establishing a market in pollution allotments for companies to trade in?

@CarbonGlassMan

10 жыл бұрын

Niels Zussblatt No, the air quality was trending cleaner before those acts. The government just jumped in front of that trend then claimed responsibility for it. I've read that a few times. Again though, I don't know. All I do know is that cap and trade isn't about controlling pollution. It's about controlling business and taxing the crap out of productivity.

tradable polution permissions have nothing to do with free market...

@theDoubleA1245

10 жыл бұрын

They do somewhat. They are free to buy and sell the permits.

@sebholding

10 жыл бұрын

right, i mean it's not libertarian, it's enforce by the state

@sarahwrt4356

10 жыл бұрын

theDoubleA1245 Maybe freeISH markets, but not free markets. They're still tainted by the state.

@theDoubleA1245

10 жыл бұрын

Sarah wrt Yes, which is unfortunate.

This is what I learn from learn liberal. Business can solve all problems! Problems that can't be solved by business would be solved by the government. We don't need the government because business can solve all problems. They sound so hypocritical.

Organ market? Great. Cap'n trade? Not so much...

How about 3D printing kidney? It's also capitalisme and no social backfire.

@markcrawford5810

3 жыл бұрын

Do you mean growing a kidney?

We must all submit to the Free Market god. Unregulated markets and money equals best things in the universe.

I want a kidney.

GREED IS GOOD

Ok, than what about hearts? If we follow your logic that should be legal too.

@LearnLiberty

8 жыл бұрын

Now there's an interesting question! That same logic could be applied to hearts, as long as the owner of the heart voluntarily agrees to give it up or sell it. Do you think we should be able to sell other organs or even sex? What are the limits? If you haven't watched it yet, this video should interest you: www.learnliberty.org/videos/should-you-be-allowed-to-sell-your-kidneys/

@bugra6340

8 жыл бұрын

+Learn Liberty I think that individuals shouldn't have property rights on humans and there body. Someone else shouldn't be able to own your body (I have more problem with the buying party). Same thing for liberty. You shouldn't be able to sell your freedom of speech for example. It's about what we consider as property and not. Or i don't know maybe i'm not libertarian enough :) For the records i'm disgusted by prostitution i have no respect whatsoever to the persons providing or consuming it. However prostitution is a service and as long as the law is concerned it should be legal.

@thevoidreturnsnull62

7 жыл бұрын

Here's what I would ask -- do you or I have the moral right to use whatever level of force necessary to prevent individuals from selling parts of their own body? If we do have that right, then aren't we making the assumption that we have a higher claim and authority on their own body than they do? Do they then not ultimately have a right to self-determination?

why not allow slavery, as long as one sells himself voluntary?

at the end where you say that they wouldn't believe it is because you're not explaining it properly. these websites are NOT free, they get their money through ad revenue and you pay by seeing those ads. if you explained that there are many "free" websites that offer services, but also have advertisements on them, they'd understand what you're talking about since there was much of this going in in the 1800's in the way of paid promotions, roadside signs and such.

@xXGwAxHaRdScOpEsXx

10 жыл бұрын

No, the point is that the technology would baffle them.

@flamedrag18

10 жыл бұрын

xX_GwAx_HaRdScOpZ_Xx yes, the technology would baffle them, but the idea that websites offering "free services" while showing ads wouldn't and that's what he's getting at. back then they still understood advertising and the offer of something "free" for looking at such advertisements.

@jacksonofalltrades2665

10 жыл бұрын

You're right. In fact a lot of libertarians point to TNSTAAFL (there's no such thing as a free lunch) meaning someone somewhere is paying for it. What they mean by free websites with free information is that it is of no detriment to the user to see a few annoying adverts here and there:) for instance I was researching the rolling block mechanism for an MG-53 build I'm working on and I got all the info I needed for free (although tnstaafl, so someone is paying for it) but I click through a few pop-ups and only the advertisers lose. :) hope this helped

Ah, so much win. Even the fake yelp reviews, haha.

The legal sale of organs is one of the easiest things to support when you realize that it would completely solve the problem of 15 people dying each day waiting for a kidney and that the supposed drawbacks are not drawbacks at all.

Actually the Internet could be feasible in 1985 since we already had it and it was on campuses like MIT. Maybe before 1969 it would have been a fairy tale.

HUMMMMM Cap and Trade???

The moral dilemma comes when a rich person with a broken kidney due to excessive consumption, tempts a poor mother of four children with 3-4k to buy a kidney. She will obviously do it to get out of an urgent rot where her children are concerned, no matter how short sighted thinking that would be. A year later she dies from kidney failure. A few years later the rich person buys another, and another. Should a person be able to buy body parts of others in distress who are easily persuaded? - If so, then I have multiple great business ideas. I will use the lists of people in debt from the bank who have a family and are at risk of losing their home. I will offer one of the parents to sell all their "spare parts" to get out of debt. I can get it at bargain prices! Then I rent the body parts out to those who can afford it, and harvest them when they die. It's perfect. You can choose from multiple product categories. Second-, third- or even fourth-handed products. The old ones are cheaper, but those harvested from younglings will cost you! $$$ catchiiing.

@LucisFerre1

10 жыл бұрын

Is it better that they remain poor and the rich guy die? Realize that EVERY ONE profits from the transplant industry except for the person investing/giving the most, is thst fair? Black markets beget exploitation, not free markets. Prohibitions create black markets.

@Galgus2000

10 жыл бұрын

Couldn't taxes pay for replacing the kidney of the poor mother with kidney failure in that case, not unlike current health spending on the poor? I doubt that situation would be statistically significant enough to be much of a cost.

@LucisFerre1

10 жыл бұрын

LightofLand Do you know where tax revenues come from?

@fjoo

10 жыл бұрын

LucisFerre1 I'm simply copying the money lending business. It's not directly exploitative, but it's preying on people's poor decision making abilities, which is particularly poor in difficult situations.

@LucisFerre1

10 жыл бұрын

fjaurler You're not seeming to get it. Your hypothetical poor person is in the situation they're in, in any case. Is it better that she continue to suffer at great risk to herself and kids, and that the rich guy die, or is it better that they trade, voluntary trade to mutual benefit, which, from their own perspectives, improves both of their lives or they wouldn't choose to trade. You're also not seeming to get that great risk to her and thus exploitation is a product of a black market, not a free, above board market where laws apply.

"tendency to collapse" haha

Well I think Mr. Caplan made an interesting case for cap and trade, but I have some serious reservations especially when an authoritative institution like the government is involved in creating and controlling the system. Who controls the permitting process and distribution? How would we determine how many permits to issue? What is preventing government from creating biases when giving out permits? Would this arbitrarily created permit process hurt some business more than others? The cost of new rules, taxes, and regulations have a bigger impact on small start ups more than large established business.

I like your videos and presentation , and agree that many things would work given perfect market conditions. I also agree that in the main many of the worlds advances have come from the free market. Unfortunately like many economists you've fallen prey to the notion that Adam Smiths preconditions are already in place.For example. i) Open Markets ii) there cannot be just one buyer or one seller who can control product prices iii) No producer can hold a pivotal private technology, iV) there must be more or less truthful information across the whole market (available to all) v) Governments must enforce property and contracts. Under conditions like these your models might work. Unfortunately , rarely do any of the above hold true. As any neoliberal will admit , there has to be a tax dollar to provide for the government to enforce these (no-one, not even Nozick, has found a way to allow government to be market function in a democracy). Indeed most big business make it part of their function to break those preconditions , it would be naive to think otherwise. In europe Pollution trading permits have failed utterly, due to mismanagement , vested interests , corruption, market manipulation etc etc. It would be interesting for you to have a look at this case study and perhaps go a little deeper into the way that market economics really works. I would be interested to see how open minded you are when presented with these real word scenarios

Great videos, Bryan... but you talk too fast. There is sort of a panicked feel to your speech, and it's a bit unsettling (no offense). Also, there are studies showing that people who speak in a slower, more measured voice tend to be more persuasive. So, slow down your speech and you'd be 1)more persuasive, and 2)be easier to listen to. A more pleasing and persuasive video... with only a minimal increase in video length.

@ruzzaruzza

7 жыл бұрын

Also easier to understand for ESL speakers.

"Poor people 'rich'"? Perhaps not the best choice of words now, eh? "Rich" for their standards, perhaps, but certainly not in the longer vision. Let's be a bit more accurate if we're trying to prove a point.

So please tell me connection to free web sites and you SELLING your kidney. I'll tell you, advertising just like T.V. But that it really has nothing to do selling a kidney its just fluff to distract you from the point that selling a kidney on the a market, because it would go to highest bidder not the most in need.

cap and trade - booooo; the problem with it is creating an artificial market along with another bureaucracy. Why not give tax breaks instead? Top 10% of energy producers that have the lowest pollution per energy output ratio get huge tax breaks; top 50% with lowest ratio get a tax break as well. No cap and trade, no additional market place, creates incentive to keep pollution lower than competition and rewards those that do.

the land of capitalism with the most expensive healthcare system.

@damiendeecee

5 жыл бұрын

Where there's way too much gov intervention in the healthcare market.

@markcrawford5810

3 жыл бұрын

@@damiendeecee 👍🏻

I suppose if god so loved the world he wouldn't have sent his son; he would have sent kidneys. Who's the "good guy" here, the life saver who needs some cash or those hoping love will save us all?

this video makes a classic blunder assuming that we live in a free market. in today's world, the surest way to get rich is not by providing a service but through political favoritism.

@metriccruiser

9 жыл бұрын

Smart and very true, a truth that this Economist would never deal with.

@_epic730

6 жыл бұрын

i would deal with it no politicians/government then they can't bribe people simple or make anti competitive regulations (all of them)

well you would end the kidney shortage but am i the only one who thinks that eventually only poor people will sell their kidneys ending up in a state where having two kidneys will be a privilege only available to the rich? people under the risk of home foreclosure will be forced to sell their body to pay the bills. quite a grim picture.

People don't have an anti-market bias, they have prescience. Market solutions to control natural resources have not only failed to be equitable but they now threaten the ecosystem and hand off costs to the public and future generations. Experience has proved the "tragedy of the commons" has become "tragedy of the private", when corporate interests, desperate for returns on investment, elect to exploit our national resources for short-term profits. That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of selling organs, but that isn't making the poor "rich". They still live in socially immobile society and in the end they are really left with one less organ to sell. At best, it is a brief respite from poverty. Of course, in a true Capitalist society, when the poor need their kidney transplants, they'll just die, so I don't see Capitalism saving a lot of lives in this respect compared to a civilized society.

@JasonParthum

10 жыл бұрын

A Capitalist (free market) society is simply one where the threat or initiation of force is not tolerated. What form of society do you see as being more 'civilized'?

@theDoubleA1245

10 жыл бұрын

The same could be said for government solutions to pollution. They have a much poorer record of cleaning our environment. "That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of selling organs, but that isn't making the poor "rich". They still live in socially immobile society and in the end they are really left with one less organ to sell. At best, it is a brief respite from poverty." It may not make the poor "rich", but it will make them richer. Why shouldn't we be able to sell our own organs willfully? The society we live in today (socialist/crony capitalist) makes social mobility much harder, not capitalism. Remember the 1920's? "Of course, in a true Capitalist society, when the poor need their kidney transplants, they'll just die, so I don't see Capitalism saving a lot of lives in this respect compared to a civilized society." This is down right absurd. Who's to say that private donations and charity cannot provide a kidney for a poor person? In a truly capitalist society the price for the operation and kidney would be much cheaper as well. Why do you act as if a capitalist society is not civilized?

@arcanekrusader

10 жыл бұрын

Wealth destroyed by government activity has to be replaced in order to maintain standards of living. Wealth is when labour is combined with resources. Prices determine the most desirable utilisation of resources. Corporations are a result of government. All increases of wealth are due to capitalism. Wealth is the greatest factor in 'saving lives'. Government cannot create wealth, only destroys it. The only thing that kills more people than the state, is malaria. Capitalism mitigates many deaths from malaria. In a true capitalist society, even the poor would be able to afford kidney transplants. The few who are incapable of, or are too irresponsible to cater for their own needs would be the beneficiaries of charity. Etc, etc...

@Magicwillnz

10 жыл бұрын

OK, sorry, someone flagged as spam LEGIT comments, which is not cool. Even if I don't agree with them, I am 100% anti-censorship, and I don't need to be "helped" in this way. I'm embarrassed as a left-wing person that another left-wing person felt the need to do this. Please don't mark as spam LEGIT comments with LEGIT points, even and ESPECIALLY those that are against me.

@Joe11Blue

10 жыл бұрын

Nothing about life is equitable, and never will be. You are living in delusion trying to obtain something that will never happen.

What's wrong with that! Hail to the capitalism. Poor people should be able to sell their organs to rich in order to make their living. Perhaps the next step is the human farms, it is far more efficient. We can raise people for their organs,slaughter them and feed others with the ones that we slaughtered. We can also make slaves and even sex slaves out of them.Think the endless posibilities. The economy will also grow, and governments can have more tax. Businesses will make so much money. BUT WAIT A SECOND, WE CAN ASK PEOPLE TO BECOME AN ORGAN AND A TISSUE DONOR AFTER DEATH, AND PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL SERVICES TO EVERYONE LIKE MODERN HUMANS

What Bryan Caplan is talking about is the standard strawman of capitalist critique. It's very interesting that he doesn't really address that many of the problems people have with markets, is the inability to deal with material needs such as a home or transportation or how they cannot deal with biological needs such as food and water. Capitalist's or Free Market apologists more specifically, usually quote Adam Smith out of context regarding self interest, because Smith also spoke ill of self interest as he put forward a number of examples of free market self interest, one of those examples being slavery and selling of forced labour. It's important to understand that while yes, many critics of capitalists will agree that markets do help people who need it, it can also be used to deprive the lives of others. Take the housing crash for example, it was recently that one of the big contributors of the housing crash, Wells Fargo, was in an area of motivated profiting self interest to break the law by forging mortgage documents allowing them ownership of the house. So now Wells Fargo is being investigated for defrauding people based on profiting. And before the standard free market apologetic response comes in about nonaggression principle or the typical Rothbardian strawman, you need to remember one thing here, markets as they exist are not moral entities. They're amoral for all intents and purpose if you base your entire ideological transaction on self-interest and profit. So in short, the strawman erected by Bryan Caplan here is unconvincing but may in fact only be speaking to those who have already drank the free market koolaid. That being said here, before any of you dimwit morons start accusing me of being a socialist or communist... I'm actually a technocrat so don't even bother.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

What VoR is talking about are the standard socialist fallacies. No economic system can eliminate scarcity. But capitalism - being entirely responsible for the improvement in compensation, working conditions and prosperity in a trend since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has done more to ensure people have access to homes, transportation, the meeting of their biological needs and the resources to engage in charity so that others may have these things than anything else ever devised by the mind of Man. This is clearly not a "problem with markets", but rather a disconnect from reality associated with the socialist position. It's hardly surprising then that a common mischaracterization of Adam Smith (who advocated "perfect liberty" and saw no such "problem" with markets) is coupled with the characterization of state imposed conditions (slavery and forced labor) as, hilariously, examples of "free market self interest". Take the housing crash for example, created entirely by government, more specifically, the Fed flooding the market with liquidity and then Fannie and Freddie creating and maintaining an artificial market for mortgages that could never be sustained in a free market. This is not to say that there were not bad actors in the marketplace, but they were nit the cause of the crisis. Moreover, it must be remembered that no economic system can make human beings perfect. The issue is whether or not an economic system can react to or minimize the actions of those bad actors and the evidence is overwhelming that socialism and government regulations do a miserable job while the market penalizes bad actors pretty effectively. Madoff, for example, could never have done the damage he did in a market where investors took responsibility for their own due diligence rather than relying on the SEC. And that's just one tiny example. That markets are amoral is true, but that's not the same thing as immoral and, because they operate ultimately to mutual benefit, when allowed to do so they identify bad actors and so make it difficult for them to operate that the incentives to cheat are nearly always overwhelmed by the incentives to keep customers happy in order to stay in business. That's why millions and millions of businesses in the US operate without moral difficulty. Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, those who drink the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement Kool-Aid who may self-describe as "technocrats" are not fooling anyone. They are unabashedly socialist.

@az7426

10 жыл бұрын

I fail to see how you have refuted even a single of Caplan's claims made in the video. The only assertion which seems to try to accomplish this is that _"markets are amoral for all intents and purpose if you base your entire ideological transaction on self-interest and profit,"_ which is a false claim. Markets are by definition based on some form of property rights-which means that the acceptance of markets are a _result_ of one's political ideology, rather than some amoral happenstance. When libertarians like Caplan talk about markets and self-interest; it is always in conjuction with a presupposed system of private property rights. Pointing out negative scenario's where people act out of self-interest within a framework of non-libertarian property rights is therefore a pointless endeavor if one wishes to actually address the viewpoints libertarians endorse.

@voiceofreason4677

10 жыл бұрын

FletchforFreedom "What VoR is talking about are the standard socialist fallacies. No economic system can eliminate scarcity." 1. What I talked about has nothing to do with scarcity. 2. What I am referring too is not a "socialist" viewpoint in the slightest, it is a technocratic one. So nice try uninformed strawman. "But capitalism - being entirely responsible for the improvement in compensation, working conditions and prosperity in a trend since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has done more to ensure people have access to homes, transportation, the meeting of their biological needs and the resources to engage in charity so that others may have these things than anything else ever devised by the mind of Man." Capitalism isn't responsible for any of that. Advancements in technology and human ingenuity is responsible. For all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant what system of markets they're under because everything you're mention has to do not with making a dollar, because scientists such as Michael Faraday weren't interested in making millions. In fact, Faraday did all of his inventions and experimentation as a means to find out how the world worked. How very droll of you to undercut everything the greatest ever did to make things possible such as Tesla and Faraday, and lay every single achievement they made to that of capitalism, a system that was never meant to be applied to markets as a business scheme. "This is clearly not a "problem with markets", but rather a disconnect from reality associated with the socialist position. It's hardly surprising then that a common mischaracterization of Adam Smith (who advocated "perfect liberty" and saw no such "problem" with markets) is coupled with the characterization of state imposed conditions (slavery and forced labor) as, hilariously, examples of "free market self interest"." Actually no, Adam Smith did see a problem with markets, this is why he even talked about the dangers of the invisible hand. As apart of these dangers he pointed to the slave trade market. He did not advocate "perfect liberty" as you so subscribed because he saw problems in such a view, in fact he actually outright advocates for the use of government and taxes to deal with problems the market will have. He was one of the few people who understand externalities in the age that he did. So yah, if you have a problem with what I said about Adam Smith, then you obviously have a problem with Adam Smith and not me, because he's the one that made the arguments, not me. "Take the housing crash for example, created entirely by government, more specifically, the Fed flooding the market with liquidity and then Fannie and Freddie creating and maintaining an artificial market for mortgages that could never be sustained in a free market." What the fuck are you talking about? There were regulations put in place to prevent loaning industries, bank's and investment firms from merging interests until the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, by free market advocates. What happened next was a plethora of companies clamoring around, selling houses to people and promising them a return on their investment, all the while betting against the value of the house going up. How exactly was the government responsible for this when free market advocates themselves were the ones that brought it about? And what the hell are you talking about? The Fed did not flood the market with liquidity, you're just making that shit up. You have no evidence to support yourself on this and the only thing you will say in response is that I am ignorant of the world and need to get educated in economics. It's the standard go to response, so I'm surprised. "Moreover, it must be remembered that no economic system can make human beings perfect." That's not the argument, but whatever, I suppose actually addressing what I am saying is hard so you have to prop up a strawman. "The issue is whether or not an economic system can react to or minimize the actions of those bad actors and the evidence is overwhelming that socialism and government regulations do a miserable job while the market penalizes bad actors pretty effectively." Really? Why is Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Canada, France and so many other socialist government with regulations of the market so successful? And what happened with the U.S. regulations on market from the late 1950s to the early 1980s which made us so successful and only started becoming more regulations and key deregulations happening between the late 1980s and 2005? The answer is simple, the healthy balance of regulation and deregulation has been dismantled to favor corporate interests. It's obvious that government regulation works and government regulation also works, but its also obvious to anyone that a healthy balance of the two is what makes a strong economic monetary system. But then again you would know that if you knew anything about markets, economics and free markets. You obviously just don't understand your own position and instead are acting like market regulations are antithetical to free markets, which they're not. Take your Rothbardian strawman somewhere else because we don't need it. "Madoff, for example, could never have done the damage he did in a market where investors took responsibility for their own due diligence rather than relying on the SEC. And that's just one tiny example." Using a hypothetical example as an example of how it will not happen in the real world is ludicrous for one because here's the obvious flaw in your argument. In order for investors to be held accountable, they must have laws maintaining punishment for them to be so. So there's the first problem with your Rothbardian solution. The second problem is obvious and staring you straight in the face, even if that is the case, how the fuck do you prevent these people from repealing that law that forces them to be held responsible? So yah, even in the world of hypotheticals, your solution doesn't bare its fangs so much as show me gum lining with no teeth. "That markets are amoral is true, but that's not the same thing as immoral and, because they operate ultimately to mutual benefit, when allowed to do so they identify bad actors and so make it difficult for them to operate that the incentives to cheat are nearly always overwhelmed by the incentives to keep customers happy in order to stay in business." If markets are amoral, then they're incapable of recognizing bad actors when the incentive to become corrupt and engage in corrupt behavior is fostered by an amoral market system. That being said however, market's in and of themselves don't do any fucking thing. They don't identify and prosecute bad actors because nobody is a bad actor in a market, they're just an actor with the decision of making more money, losing money or making less money. It's people that decide who is a bad actor and why. It is people who punish those who are bad actors in a system outself of economics, which is legal. You apparently don't understand economics and instead have anthropomorphized a system of creating and distributing goods, which I might add, is not the purpose of the free market. "Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, those who drink the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement Kool-Aid who may self-describe as "technocrats" are not fooling anyone. They are unabashedly socialist." Um... excuse me? You clearly do not understand technocracy if you think its socialist. Allow me to clarify, TZM/TVP/technocrats do not advocate for the following (all of which I might add are things that socialists advocate for) as being apart of our system: 1. Worker control over the distribution and production of resources/goods which is central to a socialists system. 2. The use of law and legal systems to protect workers rights. 3. A fare pay for all within the system. 4. Social safety nets such as government run programs to catch those that slip through the cracks of the system. 5. Taxes and monetary incentives for work. 6. The use political economies. 7. The use of conventional politics. I can keep going on for things that Socialists advocate for which is primarily central to socialist systems that TZM/TVP/technocracy do not advocate for. But then again, this is coming from someone who believes markets are self-conscious beings and someone who never read Adam Smith telling me what Adam Smith wrote.

@voiceofreason4677

10 жыл бұрын

Gurimbom "I fail to see how you have refuted even a single of Caplan's claims made in the video." I don't need to address anything because the arguments being put forward and the responses therein constitute a strawman. Do you not know what a strawman is? "Markets are by definition based on some form of property rights-which means that the acceptance of markets are a result of one's political ideology, rather than some amoral happenstance." You apparently do not understand the difference between political economy and markets. What you're talking about is an aspect of the political economy, i.e. the economy that operates under a political environment. The two are not the same. "When libertarians like Caplan talk about markets and self-interest; it is always in conjuction with a presupposed system of private property rights." How's that system of abused private property rights working out for yah so far? "Pointing out negative scenario's where people act out of self-interest within a framework of non-libertarian property rights is therefore a pointless endeavor if one wishes to actually address the viewpoints libertarians endorse." So you want a critique of libertarian political economies? Okay... how about software patents and how they have fundamentally broken an entire industry as a result? Or how about copyright laws that protect a studio's property rights that are currently being abused for monetary gain? So yah... either way its not looking good.

@FletchforFreedom

10 жыл бұрын

voiceofreason4677 Wow. Your penchant for purveying (long debunked) factual inaccuracy is quite impressive. Where to begin? 1. You argued that Caplan “doesn’t really address that many of the problems people have with markets, is the inability to deal with material needs such as a home or transportation or how they cannot deal with biological needs such as food and water.” By definition, that is a scarcity argument and, recorded history demonstrates that capitalism has made more of these things available to more people - particularly the poor and working classes - than at any other time in history. The Venus Project, aptly named because its adherents demonstrate the same level of brain activity as someone forced to endure the Venusian atmosphere for hours, stupidly (there is just no other word for it) claims that scarcity is an artificial result of the market economy, as opposed to (obvious) reality. 2. Were you actually informed, or had a grasp of the proper use of the term “straw man”, you would see how stupid your response is. Any exercise of the powers of ownership over the means of production, either by the state, society as a whole or a body of technocrats is, BY DEFINITION, socialism. Unless you plan to make decisions solely for yourself and other voluntarily engaged technocrats while leaving everyone else alone, you are a socialist. That you have identified a number of things that specific groups of socialists advocate that socialist technocrats do not helps your case not in the slightest. It would be like saying Koji Uehara (closer for the Red Sox) is not a baseball player because he doesn’t bat, doesn’t run the bases, etc. There is one, and only one, criterion for whether or not one is a socialist, and you (and other VP dolts) meet it. That you are uninformed about the proper use of terminology doesn’t make ME look bad. As those with an actual grasp of history and economics already know, technology and human ingenuity cannot (and demonstrably did not) massively improve the conditions of the masses until capitalism - specifically the application/protection of private property rights, the division of labor and the free flow of capital and resources to the most beneficial avenues in direct response to the price system - made it possible. The non sequitur about Michael Faraday shows a glaring (and inexcusable) ignorance of both economics and history (a prerequisite for the VP). Regardless of what Faraday’s motives were, all his desire to learn how the world works would have come to naught in a pre-Industrial Revolution agrarian society in which he would most likely have spent eighteen hours a day working the fields from a very early age absent capitalism. Instead, he was able to maintain himself and give himself the opportunity to better his condition by becoming an apprentice to a bookbinder. And ultimately, his discoveries in the fields of electricity and electromagnetism would have amounted to nothing absent the ability to convert those discoveries to things both useful and widely available to society, which requires a means of allocating the resources to provide them of which only capitalism is capable. It is objectively impossible for a technocrat or a computer even with infinite data and instantaneous response to make useful allocation decisions absent prices (look up the “economic calculation problem”). The VP loons can’t even grasp the difference between resource efficiency and economic efficiency, for cryin’ out loud! For that matter, complex machines would be impossible to create absent capitalism. The worker building the blades for a jet engine has no market for his output except as part of the whole aircraft and the whole aircraft will not be ready for sale until months or years after his task is complete. He cannot afford to wait and requires a mechanism - that capitalism provides - for rewarding his performance in a timely manner. I haven’t undercut anyone’s motives (least of all those of Faraday or Tesla). I’m just not such a blithering idiot that I believe that their efforts could take place in a vacuum. The canard that the presence of a price system devalues anyone’s achievements is absurd on its face. You are utterly and completely ignorant of Adam Smith’s positions. I wrote my first published work as an economist on Adam Smith (and got a kind review by, arguably, the world’s foremost authority on Smith, Prof. Gavin Kennedy) and you don’t even come within a parsec of his positions. No such warning about free markets (or of the invisible hand - which appears in his work but once and is only alluded to further in the entirely favorable reference in the butcher and baker comment) exist in Smith’s writing - in no small part because he was not stupid enough to refer to the state-maintained institution of slavery as having anything whatsoever to do with free actors in the marketplace. He EXPRESSLY advocated “perfect liberty” in The Wealth of Nations, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and several other writings. In fact, The Wealth of Nations is almost entirely an attack upon government intervention, specifically mercantilism, the guild system and the poor laws (passed to help the poor and ensure their maintenance but with devastating results). I am not responsible for your ignorance of economics and recent history either. The only aspect of Glass-Steagal repealed had to do with the ownership of bank holding companies (evidence: the law itself). It had nothing whatsoever to do with any lending instrument - all of which (that were - inaccurately - blamed for the crisis) having been legal and without problem for, at minimum, several years and, in most cases, were never restricted at all. That the government flooded the market with liquidity (altering risk signals and undermining the natural brakes on higher-risk lending - evidence: you can check the changes in the money supply in the mid-2000s and see this easily checked fact but you’re probably too lazy) and then made matters worse by maintaining an artificial market via Fannie and Freddie (evidence: check the mortgage resale market at the time) is what actually happened. The evidence (actually, proof) completely vindicates my stance and obliterates yours. No doubt you are not surprised at the suggestion that you educate yourself in economics. Given your glaring ignorance of the subject, no doubt you receive the suggestion quite often. Sadly, you’ve never bothered. As to why are [fill in the blank] so successful? Just keep throwing those softballs. To put it bluntly, they aren’t. Every time someone uses this argument, it only exposes the unbelievable ignorance of the socialist (including technocrat) position. Norway’s “success” is due entirely to their oil exports (an accident of location) without which their standard of living would be orders of magnitude lower than it is (and than in the US). Each and every one of the other countries lag behind the (at least until recently) more capitalistic US and have, as a rule, fallen farther behind (again, until just recently). The Scandinavian “miracle” is largely apocryphal. Sweden, in particular, succeeded tremendously on a market model and plateaued upon the adoption of significant socialism. The US also has the finest health care system in the world (or did until recently - long debunked WHO rankings, notwithstanding) with the highest life expectancy on the planet adjusted for instant deaths from murders/accidents and the longest survival rates upon diagnosis of a serious illness (including the poor and uninsured). The US success dates to LONG before the 1950s (and became an economic powerhouse a century earlier as it grew much faster than more regulated and unionized Europe). And the economic growth in the US was much higher in the 1980s and 1990s (in the wake of deregulation) and even to 2005 than during the period you’ve chosen as the ideal. The data YOU have chosen completely refute your stance! The evidence is literally overwhelming that regulation is harmful to the economy. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about (as evidenced by discarding a very real world example as a “hypothetical” one). Are you trying to look foolish or is it just a happy accident? Here’s an example of “ludicrous”: “In order for investors to be held accountable, they must have laws maintaining punishment for them to be so.” It’s almost as if you are deliberately trying to make me look a genius at your own expense. As anyone with an IQ higher than that of pulverized coprolite (have mommy look it up) can figure out, the market has no problem holding people accountable. People engage in exchange in the marketplace in their own self-interests. Those who engage in fraud (or offer things that are too good to be true - absent useless assurances from government) are quickly shunned and go out of business. The incentive to stay in business and make more money has always proved to be the best incentive (by several orders of magnitude) to ensure fair dealing than any regulation ever passed. Given that fact, the remainder of your commentary about hypotheticals collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. Markets are amoral - they are nothing more than a collection of activities (neither self-conscious, nor beings). People are not amoral and have little difficulty (again, absent useless assurances from government) identifying and punishing bad actors. And since markets demonstrably incentivize moral behavior (as opposed to corruption), the remainder of your rant is disconnected from reality (at least you’re consistent).

The Internet is still a horrible place. Just look at this comment.

Look at it another way. Do you own your body? Yes. Therefore selling your organ is not wrong.

Horrible :) Is this man even in touch with reality? Well, i suppose some of his ideas could work, but only with heavy, heavy regulations.

@az7426

10 жыл бұрын

Why ruin a great thing with regulations?

@Anonymous247n

10 жыл бұрын

Because it would be a horrible thing unregulated ;)

@az7426

10 жыл бұрын

Anonymous247n Sorry chap; but I will sell my kidney if I desire to. You may call the cops, drag me into prison, and pat yourself on the back for being in touch with reality.

@Anonymous247n

10 жыл бұрын

Gurimbom Yes, and you're not the only one who would do such a stupid thing! :) Who else would do it? Well, the poor, selling their lives to the rich now literally. My objection is that it's immoral! And if you'd argue that it's not immoral by itself, it would still be because of the consequences that would follow.

@Anonymous247n

10 жыл бұрын

Gurimbom You must understand, the people who sell their organs should NOT worry about being dragged to prison :P That should be the least of their concerns. And that's why i mentioned regulations, don't let people who would DIE sell their organs at least, if you want this kind of deal you need to make sure only those who can really survive such procedures would do it.... And that's why i mentioned being in touch with reality, because that will never happen - there will be exploitation and people will get scammed out of their health and lives.

Problem is that those that cannot afford to buy kidney would not get one

@markcrawford5810

3 жыл бұрын

Supply and demand and supply goes up price goes down.

While I understand the value of an organ market, the legitimisation of such a practice would almost certainly give rise to black markets. Homeless people and illegal immigrants will start disappearing.

@CarbonGlassMan

10 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure how. You still won't be able to walk into a hospital with a kidney in a cooler and sell it. Tests need to be ran on the donor before the kidney is even removed. Consent has to be given. If it was that easy, I'd think that a dying person could just go cut the kidney out of a homeless person now and tell a doctor to put it in the dying patient. Living is more of an incentive to do that than making a few thousand dollars.

@szililolabu

10 жыл бұрын

"......the legitimisation of such a practice would almost certainly give rise to black markets." Did you know black markets exist where the legitimate market is outlawed? In fact, making a transaction legal eliminates the need for a black market. Is there a black market for groceries? Is there a black market for cars? For alcohol?

@SaulOhio

10 жыл бұрын

No. What we have NOW is black markets. A legal trade in organs would eliminate the black market.

Ummm...this guy just advocated cap-and-trade. Unsubscribing in 3...2...1...

Wow. Have low-income citizens desperate to make ends meet sell their vital internal organs for a couple thousand dollars to rich people who can afford a private market organ. Dr. Caplan, perhaps you can be the first to demonstrate what a great idea this is. Since removing kidneys and the like is such a snap and never without health complications, perhaps you could put up your own kidney for sale?

End capitalism