These are both informative and entertaining, something Hollywood could only dream of being.

Why are there so many accusing this channel of biased towards "libertarian" values, concepts like "tragedy of the commons" are elementary in Economics, any half competent freshman Econ major student would know it. There is no biase, just teaching some basic economic concepts.

@nickfisher9334

5 жыл бұрын

Because they don't like that basic economics supports libertarian values and opposes their views.

@hunterhoose9375

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe if basic economics wasnt inherently supportive of libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism to a greater extent, they be less concerned. But since it does support both of those they call it "biased" because they dont like the basis on reality and facts this channel has.

PLEASE CONTINUE UPLOADING!!! LOVE THIS CHANNEL!

I love this show I thought it had stopped so I was so happy when u saw it pop up in my sub box. Keep up the good work guys :D

Fantastic! Great mix of criticisms and praises for the movie's future predictions. A great general statement in saying that we project our problems forward without considering the solutions that will emerge.

washing the dishes in a shared apartment...

If they lived in the space for 700 years, they need to have some kind of recycling. At least the air needs to be recycled. If they can recycle air, why did they need to look for plants to know if life was sustainable on Earth ? They could just make life sustainable !

@DuelistDragonRey

8 жыл бұрын

+Rick Apocalypse I will speculate that multiple ships are enclosed systems and it would be impossible for them to work it out with open air environments. Speculation is just fun.

@TheOsamaBahama

8 жыл бұрын

DuelistDragonRey So why not create enclosed systems on Earth ? It's easy than trying to create a flying giant spaceship that does space warp.

@scruffythejanitor1969

3 жыл бұрын

What really bothered me: why the hell are the robots compressing the trash and stacking wherever it lay? If they want it to break down, they shouldn't compress it; if they want it to be out of the way, they should be stacking it far away from civilization.

@franklinbadge1215

3 жыл бұрын

All that is true but the thing that bothers me the most is thinking why the hell did the gravity of the ship change when it tilted. In space. Where there is no up and down.

HA! The opening is priceless!

Actually, the subjective value is my least favorite part. But I know that wasn't a true statement for all viewers. I love these series nonetheless.

@SergeantExtreme

10 жыл бұрын

FINALLY. Someone else who hates Subjective Value. That has to be the most annoying part of these videos.

@5002strokeforever

4 жыл бұрын

I think hes being sarcastic about it being everyone's favourite part

Yes, a thousand times yes. I got here thanks to the shoutout from PBSideachannel, btw.

Great! I think it's the best so far.

Really excellent video!

Excellent video! I love all your videos, but this one especially. My kids watched it. They were thoroughly entertained and learned some economics on the way.

Did you miss it???? Get ready for robots, romance, and the 19th century economics of Thomas Malthus! In this latest episode of #EconPop, we discuss Disney Pixar WALL•E. Subjects include the environmental impacts of scarcity, private property, and the Tragedy of the Commons!

@essen9329

10 жыл бұрын

Great every time. Thanks guys.

@UNTBC

10 жыл бұрын

THAT OPENING WAS GREAT!

@SergeantExtreme

10 жыл бұрын

EconStories Well, I agree with you on most of the video. There is, however, one part that is factually incorrect. "USB drives have saved more trees than Arbor Day campaigns in the last 10 years." This is what I call the "Green Fallacy". The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) did a study that ranged 100 years (1900-2000) on trees. Their study concluded that we have more that three times more trees now than we did 100 years ago. The study mentioned that this was the result of the large printing industry that has grown over the years, as demand for trees (and subsequently tree farms) has risen. With that being said, you can clearly see the fallacy in calling something that reduces paper consumption "green". The most "green" product you can buy today is a paper book. I'm genuinely surprised you guys "sold out" to the green movement in contradiction to the very laws of economics you guys claim to support.

@sylvan47070

8 жыл бұрын

+Captain Obvious so can you separate which is the causative factor? we have improved technology. we also have more trees. are we using less or more paper per year is the sole question. In fact, for North America, paper consumption has dropped from 102 million tonnes in 2000 to less than 80 in 2009 in a steady drop. If USB drives existed in 1900, your EPA study would have more validity. as it is, the study (along with the agency itself) is hopelessly outdated.

@SergeantExtreme

8 жыл бұрын

sylvan47070 The only thing that's hopeless is your lack of knowledge of economics. Even an 8th grader can tell you than when demand for a product drops suddenly, the amount of product supplied must drop as well. For example, why don't you take a look at the horse population and compare it to the pre-automobile 1900s. It's declined significantly because the horse was replaced by the motor vehicle. Same with trees. You can't logically expect trees to remain if demand for them falls. This actually happened down south. A 300 acre tree farm liquidated, and all 300 acres were harvested. It's now 300 acres of empty field. This actually gave environmentalists a chance to study the effect. The average local temperature went up by 5 degrees. So congrats, by clinging to your stupid e-reader, you are helping cause global warming.

I laughed out loud at this.

Droll! Great job!

Well this is just hilarious

It's a shame this video has so few views. :D

Laughed my ass out, as the Detroit joke.

I want to send a message from Spain to those who are doing such a great work with this channel, in order to express my support. It's not just the difficulty of expressing the message, but to make other people respect that your opinion may be different. So I hope you continue with this channel, and I wish that the things you want you say are listened by all the people

This channel need so much more SUBSSSS and not the sandwich kind

What about the economics of Harry Potter

@SaulOhio

10 жыл бұрын

Gringot's Bank is on a gold standard, so not much tocriticize there.

@billypilgrim1

10 жыл бұрын

Yes I know but you forget about the skill magicians have to summon random objects, what if they could summon muggle money then buy some gold in the muggle world to sell it in Gringot's, inflation my friend.

@SaulOhio

10 жыл бұрын

fedemonsalve Does that happen in the movie? Not sure they will talk about it if it doesn't happen in the movie.

@SaulOhio

9 жыл бұрын

***** They do not hide it from the entire world. They have their own world, their own society, where they practice magic freely.

@CellLord01

9 жыл бұрын

BillyPilgrim Go into Muggle world, buy a bunch of silver. Go to Gringots, trade silver for gold. Go to Muggle world, sell all the gold. Repeat as many times as necessary for infinite cash.

Superb!

When we be getting the next one?

FANTASTIC.

Is anybody's favorite part of the show actually Subjective Value? Or can everyone agree it should be cut out entirely?

The only reason I love Eco

Emu...that's a funny word. Great video, glad someone else thought the future Pixar envisioned was flawed.

EconStories Andrew are we going to see another econpop episode soon? Really enjoy watching your videos.

This guy has the best delivery. He's especially great when he does hate mail on the FBN independents.

Econ pop series is pretty cool. This would i believe attract more people to learn economics.

This is something I find myself pointing out any time I have an argument with someone about global warming or, most recently, sustainability and meat industry (I have vegan friends). Everybody likes to extrapolate our existing problems, but they all seem to forget that we are better than any other creature at adapting to our environment, and just as importantly, the inverse. Adapting our environment to us. It's too hot? We close the windows and turn on the air conditioner. We can literally alter our environment to suit us. They forget that every time we are faced with a problem, we solve it, in one way or another. We don't have permanent settlements in the arctic circle because we give up at first sign of adversity.

@MrZephy

5 жыл бұрын

Not every time. And if we do it with the whole Earth we're screwed. We could be a whole-planet Easter Island, or Roanoke Colony, or Vikings on Greenland.

WALL-E has a point. Be sustainable and smart with your consumption.

Nice.

Love Andrew Heaton. I recently had him on my podcast Economic Rockstar. Check it out on iTunes: itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/economic-rockstar/id941441148?mt=2 or on Stitcher Radio: itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/economic-rockstar/id941441148?mt=2 A very witty and entertaining episode with Andrew.

You're AWESOME. Can you come to my schools econ class?

This channel should win some type of libertarian award. An award I like to call, a Libby.

can you do economics of the movie the purge

Please do Ku! Kin-dza-dza (2013) next.

This guy is my hero.

wow i instantly liked the host is so charismatic!

Insane economics of the WALL-E.

4:49 Lions and UNICORNS are endangered??? LOLOLOL! XD XD XD Not sure how this got past the comment section, but I think there was a Freudian slip for another horned animal that is less mythical, aka the rhino. Still, really funny to me that no one has seemed to comment on this yet and the statement just came out so naturally. :P

wow, Kate Upton bot. that's an exercise machine. weight problems solved!

Shout out to Cato!

#EconPop - The Economics of WALL-E! Great job EconStories !

The biggest irony of the movie is that, in real life, all that trash would have broken down and decomposed to dirt on its own in less than a century. Yes, even the plastics and. The plants would have grown like mad in the CO2 rich atmosphere, and the planet would have re-greened itself completely well before the 700 year mark.

Do Escape from Planet Earth next! They live on a seemingly AnCap world! www.imdb.com/title/tt0765446/

A quick question does the tragedy of the commons extend to institutions like cooperatives, creative commons, open source tech, and the like? These areas to one extent or another are held in common by those utilizing or running them. If anyone has some sweat sweat articles talking on this subject I'd be very grateful :D. If you have an opinion though... we'll be BFFs forever and for always (Insert deep breathing cat here)

@sergioccs74

10 жыл бұрын

Well, I can answer you that, with cooperatives.. They own the land and is in their best interest to take care of that and with creative commons and open source there's still the sentiment that you own it.. For example, if I make a software and something happens you feel like is your duty to fix it because is something that you create. Tragedy of the commons is something that belongs more to the things that you feel that are sure to you without your involvement.. Like a green area or the athmosphere, I'm in no way telling you that we need to privatize the athmosphere.. That would be beyond insane.. But yes, because that's a something that no one owns (not even the state) and it has always been there.. You don't feel the need to do something to save it.. That feeling is changing though... Thanksfully.

@ericpipe141

10 жыл бұрын

With things like open source, work is put in to create the subject first, creating with it a sense of ownership. With common land and things like that, including cooperatives which have a historically bad record, the stuff is there first, provided by an "overseer." An interesting way to think of it, is that things that are provided for free are worth nothing. Communes have existed at many points in time, they all eventually fail, lasting no more than a generation, if they are lucky. Most eventually learn the tragedy of the Commons lesson, or just that people don't respect things they haven't earned. A Israel commune found that requiring people to pay for their own electricity, instead of paying communally, results in less waste of electricity, less outside friends invited over for parties, etc. Even if not immediately, this lesson gets learned by all.

@Grit992003

10 жыл бұрын

So basically (@ both Eric Pipe and sergioccs74) if I understand correctly the tragedy of the commons would be better understood as the-tragedy-of-the-commons-where-noone-actually-owns-it. It can be an entity like a group of corps, or individuals but as long as the group is saying we own X it will be managed properly. Makes sense to me thanks BFFs lol. Oh and Eric I'm an econ student looking into the efficacy of coops and I've heard conflicting reports some good some bad could you point me to some coops that you know of that have failed or are exemplary of your findings? And @ sergioccs do you think a cooperative ownership structure may work for the environment in your opinion? Or is there another economic or political mechanism you think would better address the tragedy of the commons in the environmental sphere? PS - Feel free to answer either if your so inclined it's nice to meet sane people on youtube :)

@ericpipe141

10 жыл бұрын

Tragedy of the Commons refers to the historical practice, from England (for sure) and Europe (I think) of "the Commons" a place where sheep could graze for "free." A lord would provide space for the public. One of the consequences is they where consistently over grazed. The public had no reason to move the sheep until the grass was gone. So, no one actually owns it, is part of "the Tragedy of the Commons." As to specific examples, damned, but I'd have to do a lot of looking in my stuff to find the specific examples. Instead, I'm going to have to point you in a direction: Look at Israel currently, as there are still examples of them, though they are called kibbutz. France had many know as communes (they are where Marx got some of his idea's from and where we get the word communism from) back in the 1800's. They failed pretty consistently. Much of the problem with positive v negative results is the positive are usually short term, the negatives long term. An other example, though I would advise against using it unless you want to draw the attention, is that Jonestown, of the Jonestown massacre and drinking the kool aid, was a Commune. That is a great example of failure... Though it is an extreme example of failure... I am also a Economics student, though, it's more of a hobby (my major is computer science, because it's the economic choice). Nice to meet/talk/post at you.

@Grit992003

10 жыл бұрын

Feelings mutual ;) I'll look into the Paris Commune, kibbutz, and communes to see the difference as well as the British Commons they sound like a good start. Though at least with me when I first of heard of coops I was looking at stuff like the morning star company and mondragon which have been pretty well established for a while. I'll do a comparison on them and see if there's any differences I'd be happy to share my findings with you if your game if not thanks again for the great convo :)

"Subjective Value" isn't as good as the rest of the video, and it gives the impression that the main feature is going to be much longer. People who might give 5 minutes to an econ video might be turned off by an 8 minute one. Maybe make the SV segments separate videos.

Breaker

Technology doesn't really solve problems, tech transforms a problem into another problem, hopefully one that we can simply export elsewhere or we can live with. For example, to solve the NYC crap problem, the solution is to pack it and ship it on train to another state, namely Texas. Japanese solve their trash (and fuel) problem by burning trash in high tech furnace, essentially transforming the problem into pollution problem. Though Ebook may save some tree (and that is debatable), the device used to display the text are made using ridiculous amount of resources, not to mention the lives lost due to wars fighting for those resources (aka. rare earth metals). Similarly electric car (which solves the air pollution problem for some cities) takes a lot of natural resources to construct and maintain so the problem is again exported to another place. The true tragedy of the commons is that we have so many people who believes that people are creative and can be industrious even in the absence of incentive and yet can't seem to believe that people can be selfless and take appropriate action to take care of the commons together. If we can teach people to not dump trash on the street I think we can teach people to take better care of the commons so that everyone becomes steward of the common: It is just a matter of cultural change and education.

I went into this channel hoping it would be objective, but it plays out like a prageru video

@edgar7456

5 жыл бұрын

But the tragedy of the commons is an elementaru concept in economics

Not quite sure that "technological progress make our world cleaner" is the right way to put it. Since, you know, our world is not cleaner than 500 years ago. And when you say that private property rights are the solution, what about things that can't be owned ? Like space, seas or the atmosphere. Don't do any good there, and they are...well, you know, essentials for life xD P.S: I apologize in advance for my lack of econ knowledge !

@DuelistDragonRey

8 жыл бұрын

+leto Or lakes and rivers near cities. This is why I think there should be some government oversight over "communal land" but I know there is too much crony capitalism to trust the government right now. Unfortunately the only way I can think to fix it is taxes or the sudden expansion of vast amounts of people getting educated to know who are the hypocrites and special interest helpers. I don't see either of these happening any time soon for the USA.

If the purpose of this series of videos is to popularize the strong points of Capitalism, you are doing a great job. However, it is truly beneath your original work in the sense that you have degraded yourself to the level of a mere apologist. The profound impact of "Fear the Boom and Bust", lies in its dialectic nature that ultimately allows the viewer to come up with his/her own conclusions and even more importantly functions as food for thought for those who desire to understand the full ramifications and significance of the theories presented in such a playful yet ingenious way. Hence, it is a tremendous disappontment to watch the merciless repetition of a particular set of ideas that have been around for, at least, since 1776. Has it never occured to you that the truly valuable question in social sciences is not the benefits but the inconsistencies of a particular Idea? Let me rephrase my point. If we suppose that Liberalism holds all answers to how society should be organised, has human history, since the triumph of Liberalism, been a joyous journey to material and moral bliss. If not what gave rise to anti-Liberal, "communal" ideologies? It is easy to quote Smith or Bastiat, however, true sevice to the cause of Natural Liberty would be to comprehend its contradictions and work on them. Otherwise what you produce is amateur pseudo-philosophy.

@ClintDecker148

10 жыл бұрын

Capitalism only work when it encourages people to be smart, ambitious, and versatile. I'm talking about education, and people who are jobless because their skill set isn't valuable enough.

@evankant5965

9 жыл бұрын

ClintDecker148 People are out of work because some gentlemen invested our money in a bubble and when it burst money was gone. People are out of work because the State through taxation is covering the losses of the gentlemen mentioned above, thus undermining our spending power. People are out of work because so many silly people do not understand that the "Free Market" does not function when it is truly free. In my opinion, that is only the onset of a circle of deprivation. The next crisis will be even more severe. Time will show who is correct and who is not.

@agriffin00

9 жыл бұрын

***** Well technically I believe like Milton Friedman that NO way is perfect or the absolute right way. But I think letting people be free is the best way to have an economy thrive. Why has China emerged as a world economic leader when in the 60's they were the bottom of the barrel? It was the free market they installed in the economy that set everything on fire and has exploded them to the biggest economy world wide.

@evankant5965

9 жыл бұрын

***** The advent of the social system that we describe as Capitalism revolutionized human societies to an unprecedented extend. That is a fact that even the enemies of Capitalism concede. However, along with its fruit the system contains inconsistencies that we must address otherwise we engage in parallel monologues. From my point of view, inequality in contemporary Western societies constitutes the major predicament of our times with economic, social and political ramifications.The "blind" apologists of the "Econ Stories" breed forget that the Smithian-beget vision entails Justice and Equality along with Freedom and prosperity.

@agriffin00

9 жыл бұрын

***** I really like what you are saying. You are open minded to facts and that sometimes seems rare these days. Most of the founding fathers were very anti government when the nation first started and wanted the free market to have no government regulation. I see why for example there is a small beef company in Montana that guaranteed their meat didn't have mad cow (this was obviously a few years ago) because they tested every cow. This cost them more but they knew they could guarantee it. However enter the big companies who only tested 1 in a 1000 cows and they filed a lawsuit and got a law passed with their connections that you couldn't make a guarantee like that. This is why I absolutely hate Government involvement it actually hurts our products and companies. I have a career where I work with so many people in hundreds of industries and I can't tell you how many stories like this one I have heard. Free market works if it is allowed to go. Income tax and government involvement didn't really start until the 1910's but leading up to that time period our economy went from very weak to the strongest in the world in a little over 100 years. Standard Oil cut oil prices by 80% could you imagine that happening today?? Gas would be so cheap. But I also know a pure free market isn't perfect but I think it's the closest we can get. Socialism is bad in any form food stamps, medicare or complete socialism it's all bad.

What if you own it collectively AND you have an incentive to take personal responsibility for it? Like fees. In "The Tragedy of the Commons", the scenario is a bunch of farmers sharing a pasture with no incentive to limit their consumption of grass or contribute to the growth of the pasture. What if each farmer had an allowance of X grass-units per day and everything above that was charged a user fee? What if, at the end of the month, all the farmers were given a check equal to the ([UserFees]*[1+{GrowthOfThePasture}])/[NumberOfUsers]? Then everyone would have the large incentive to not use more than their allowance and to contribute to the growth of the pasture. I don't think there's a tragedy there as long as it's not just "FREE ALL YOU CAN EAT PASTURE"

This may seem irrelevant, but I wanted to compare those environmental loving left wing environmentalists with those right wing Tea Parters. 9/12/09 tons of people went to Washington, D.C. and spent the day celebrating that they recognized that something had happened on 9/11 and that they loved our Constitution and wanted the country to return to our capitalistic, constitutional governmental system. No one told any of them to clean up after themselves. They simply love Our City and have respect for it, and when they left, the Mall was immaculate as every single person there took home his own trash. No candy wrappers, not a piece of paper was to be found. No one had to clean up after the Tea Partiers. Compare this to how those who attended Obama's inaugural left Washington. Have you ever seen the pictures? And these leftists think they have the authority to teach conservatives how to protect our environment? HA!

Wait a second.. The insight is 'over population and pollution will never happen' because we'll.. hopefully figure things out.. How is he comfortable betting his children's future on chance? Polute all you want! It'll fix itself somehow!

@sonictech1000

10 жыл бұрын

If that's really what you got out of it I suggest you watch it again, possibly after you've sobered up.

@agriffin00

9 жыл бұрын

I think you missed some points. If you let people be people than the world won't go crazy on you. A famous book was written back in the seventies that if the population kept growing than we would run out of food. Well he would have been right but technology has helped farms be more efficient than ever before. Now we have so much food that it won't be a problem for a long time (yes there are people starving out there that is a food distribution problem not a food producing problem). I trust the future and the new inventions and that everyone will look out for themselves which will keep the world cleaner than any centralized laws could.

@sonictech1000

9 жыл бұрын

Amanda Perry You're right but it goes all the way back to Thomas Mathis.

@josephfox9221

9 жыл бұрын

Gary Sanders 3D printers will produce food. once they are able to create Molecular 3D printers then farms will become obsolete. and hopefully we will be independent on the natural environment for food.

So privatization will fix everything. Ok, lets privatize the.... air... and like.... you know... the area.... in California's Central Valley so it won't be so god damn polluted that way I won't have developed asthma as a kid. Ah yes, problem solved. No, privatization doesn't always work because privatization is not always applicable. Also youre little quip about your apartment stairwell is funny but, isn't the apartment complex privately owned? Shouldn't it be clean because it would be in the owner's best interest to clean it?

The saddest part of this is the narrator presenting his conclusion as "I believe" instead of presenting evidence for his belief, reducing this series to mere hyperbole.

Capitalists love to point to the imagined problem of the tragedy of the commons in an attempt to shunt your logic into believing they hold the only alternative. However, as humans, we understand innately that we must rely upon each other and the environment in order to survive. Provided with a relevant education we can share this planet with each other and fulfill every human need without a price tag. Please investigate a resource based economy.

@emilioslaughter8742

9 жыл бұрын

Frank Flores I want more than you. I take more. have too many kids. I don't work cause I don't want to. Any of these actions completely fucks your system. Also if we innately understand that all we need to do is help each other, then we would all be Marxist.

@josephfox9221

9 жыл бұрын

Frank Flores although I do agree that we need to take care of the commons Communistic nations have worse records for environmental conditions. and seeing a large number of capitalistic nations are service based and not resource based Imust ask. what alternative do you suggest?

@michealdrake3421

8 жыл бұрын

+Frank Flores They've actually covered this, between Castaway (specialization) and The Lego Movie (top-down planning vs bottom-up).

Love the series, but I am really finding it hard to believe that you are single. I mean, come on- you are a cute intelligent, funny nerd! If I wasn't already married to someone with those benefits I would go for you :)

This channel is hands down my favourite series to be entertained by something that I disagree with almost entirely. Super entertaining, but fundamentally flawed analysis of basic political philosophy concepts like the Tragedy of the Commons. Yes, people take better care of their front yards than commonly held spaces like city streets and the Pacific Ocean, but the answer isn't signing over ownership of lakes, forests, community pasture land, and mineral rights to private individuals and companies, it's a basic level of oversight and penalties for abusers. The Pollyanna view of private ownership completely ignores the possibility of bad private owners dumping crap in rivers and not giving a damn if anyone else likes it. Are any of us really so naive as to think this kind of thing after more than a second's reflection? Economics is supposed to be all about incentives and disincentives motivating people to act in their rational self interests (something fairly easy to disprove as a foundational premise, but let's let that pass for the moment), both from natural market forces and through directed intervention by entities like governments. How is it that so many libertarians have gone to a position of demanding all carrot and no stick, ever? The commons are very often things that really ought to stay in the commons, like water, air, and lighthouses (a bit of a dated reference, but a very useful clear case for illustrative purposes); the idea that putting ownership of these things ought to strike people as absurd, because they are. A particular public park may or may not be better served by private interests, that's possible to disagree on, but air pollution drifting from one city to another, from one country to another, breaks the private ownership system completely, and leaves the Tragedy of the Commons in all too full effect. At the end of the day, picking apart the political philosophy of a children's movie with almost no dialogue for the first two acts is going to involve more than a little reading into the material, and the message of "Consumerism = BAD", while certainly present, is hardly a position that anyone in the real world holds in such stark, simple terms. Buying and owning stuff isn't bad in and of itself, it's more the push towards planned obsolescence, to disposable everything that's being targeted as a dangerous trait within consumerism in general. There's nothing wrong with wanting a new cell phone, or with buying and selling it, but when the landfills start to stack up with last year's cell phones because this year's model is available in a different colour, with little or no functional difference, is that really in the interest of the common good?

nah, smh at carrying the Tragedy of Commons flag. You know there are lots of criticisms against it. Stand up straight. You're leaning to the right a bit much, and then you could just fall over.

Too bad this channel is just Capitalist propaganda. Otherwise the concept of economically analyzing movies would be great.

this channel is pure propaganda