Daniel La Calle, es lo más 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 muy interesante entrevista y debate, gracias

Gracias por subirlo sin doblar! 👍

KZreadr translator (to english): Profesor Very Funky XD

13:31 "...a monopoly cannot exist unless the state perpetuates it, or implements it..." Oh, you sweet summer child.

@AndreasZetterlund

3 жыл бұрын

This just seems silly to me. I don't understand how he can think that.

@sk8_bort

3 жыл бұрын

Don't forget that patents are also a creation of the state that prevents other individuals to use and further develop your idea. It's effectively a privilege that eliminates competition.

@luisfelipemerida6267

3 жыл бұрын

It is the truth

Really left me wanting more debate the 53 minutes flew by

I got caught in this debate and watched till the end.... what a great content

The only thing Varou and Dani have in common is their lack of eyebrows. Just kidding Great debate!

This was great. So much respect for both these titans. But Yanis impresses me every time I listen to him. His ability to analyse the talking points and abstrahere it directly into a conceptual argument is astonishing.

Daniel Lacalle's arguments are not only repetitive but verge on fanatic propaganda, very sad, because if a professor then he adoctrínales from the "pulpit, it is over, we are tired of that! Thank you Yanis Varoufakis for refreshing honesty and the openness and clarity that only dialectic thinking brings about. Thirsty for honesty and dialectic of truth, truth is said through my lies! Dora G.

@FeelMetalMan

2 жыл бұрын

are you quoting yourself at the end?

I hope we will have a second part although they say second parts are never good lol

Very Good

Yanis made sure he got the last word and disguised it as courtesy. Well played.

@fibonachi4127

3 жыл бұрын

To have the last word is a 101 movement in politics 😁👌🏻 Yanis has politics experience. Daniel is tough, but he thinks more like a corporate guy. He doest have yet the natural poison politics experience provides...:)

The fact that some monopolies lose market power at some point does not mean that they enjoy it while it lasts sometimes for years. Monopolies are not eternal

Amazon is not a monopoly. Where profesor la calle lives??? Ask any small store. Well you can’t because they hardly exist !!!

@luisfelipemerida6267

3 жыл бұрын

is not a monopoly

Buenísimo Varoufakis

Richard Werner, who would often not agree with Yanis, has demonstrated that banks DO create money out of thin air. He wrote a good book with colleagues about it. 'Where does money come from?' I think Yanis is 100% correct on that one

@dagobertodominguez4624

3 жыл бұрын

I think the point of Daniel Lacalle that he couldn't explain here is that the "money out of thin air" that private banks create is oriented towards profit anf therefore they seek to invest in productive sectors, qnd if they fail they just crash like any other bussiness, without affecting the entirety of the economy, while central banks doesn't seek to profit and therefore they reorientate money from the savers to the so-called zombies so they destroy value and cause crisis due to the lack of fear to failure and profit search

@drakekoefoed1642

3 жыл бұрын

sure they do. warren mosler, who has been there, got the t shirt and had mmt printed on it for him, explains that the bank approves a loan, posts the air money into the borrower's account, and then posts more air money into its federal reserve "reserve" account, which it pays to have. thus, the banks create money from thin air, but they have to have permission from the federal reserve to do it.

@jrvr4538

3 жыл бұрын

@@dagobertodominguez4624 , Lacalle seemed to suggest that the process of Bank operations is tied strictly to deposits. This isn't entirely accurate. e.g. thanks to fractional reserve banking. A Bank with a 10% reserve requirement is effectively able to take $1 and create $9 through loans. Through this process, the bank is creating money simply through an accounting procedure. Practically speaking too, banking is different in nature from other businesses, because the flow and circulation of money is necessary for the capitalist economy to operate (at least on the scale of a modern economy). If one bank fails, and its depositors and investors lose their money, because of fraud or poor prudential risk management by the bank, that might not be a big issue. But if 1,000 banks fail at roughly the same time, it tends to have a wide spread economic impact (this isn't a hypothetical case either -- these bank failures happen repeatedly in capitalist economies). When enough bad banks fail, otherwise healthy banks and businesses tend to get sucked into the vortex as the supply of money evaporates and productive activity grinds to a halt. This is one of the reasons that we have developed things like deposit insurance, and reserve requirements, and bank auditors (all state interventions of a sort). As a purely practical matter, Banks create money. Lacalle is wrong on this point, when he states that it is "only the Federal Reserve and Central Banks" that do so.

@dagobertodominguez4624

3 жыл бұрын

@@jrvr4538 Lacalle obviously knows about fractionary reserve, so as I said earlier I think He's not denying that private banks can't create money out of thin air, but his point is that private banks wouldn't have the incentive to create money if the risk outplays the potential benefit. So without a central bank or the state to rescue them some banks would crack due to poor decisions but a widespread collapse wouldn't happen because most banks would not loan money to anyone without checking anything like they did in the housing bubble days just because it is a poor bussiness decision when its not backed by the fed.

@jrvr4538

3 жыл бұрын

@@dagobertodominguez4624 he said that a private bank can't print itself out of insolvency, therefore it doesn't create money. It's true that banks are constrained in their money creation, but the ability to turn $1 into $9 is still money creation. The lending doesn't even have to produce a return in the first instance. Simply based on the process of fractional reserve banking, a bank creates money. This is a hard and counter-intuitive point to grasp at first, but this is practically how the process works. A lot follows from this understanding as well with respect to macro-implications.

Yes, there are plenty of corporate zombie companies!

Yanis, remember Singapur as leading privately based health system with universal coverage.

It would have been helpful to have a definition of monoply. The use of Google too -- or any tech company in the U.S. for that matter -- is a bit odd as an example of pure, stateless innovation. If the Clinton administration hadn't broke up Microsoft's browser monoply in the 1990s -- a state intervention into the market -- it seems highly unlikely that we would have a search engine that wasn't more closely wedded to Microsoft's platform. Additionally, the entire tech sector has been massively subsidized by public dollars going back decades. The internet itself is a byproduct of public research and development money. The idea that you can abstract out and separate state power from these technologies is a kind of mystification of their history and the current reality.

@sk8_bort

3 жыл бұрын

Innovation ends up happening anyways, even when competition seems absolutely impossible. The thing is that, because of its very nature, the shape that those innovations will take is completely unpredictable. In the Microsoft case that you mentioned, competition came in the form of smartphones and tablets, which use android. I tend to believe that this would have happened regardless of antitrust laws and I cannot find any reasons to think otherwise.

Yanis ...is a great intellect ... good debate .

I admire how two economists coming from a very different traditions can debate with a soft tone and listening very respectfully to each other. Anyway, Lacalle is completely wrong about two basically things: 1) Banks can create money out of thin air 2) Value and price are not the same. Positive externalities from a universal public health sistem give it a value higher than the price in terms of market.

@PolRomeoInvestor

3 жыл бұрын

Value is subjective. Price are objective

@augustojosegarciareyes6997

3 жыл бұрын

Lavalle IS not Wrong. Because he explain what happened really with Leader of Market. If you coul purchase between a Lamborghini and a Ford mustang, what would you choose? It is something like that. The Central Banks are The most danger to the Free Market, and Saving . Not Private Banks. Private Banks react to coercitive action from The Central Banks.

@juancarlossimarrobautista5876

3 жыл бұрын

@@PolRomeoInvestor Value is subjective until value is priced, I mean if you price the positive externalities for having a public health system it will be more sustainable than it actually is because is offered at a social price. When you are measuring everything from an orthodox view of price public goods and services are out of the system, even the work of so many women at households. I recommended you Mariana Mazzucato's book "The Value of Everything".

@juancarlossimarrobautista5876

3 жыл бұрын

@@augustojosegarciareyes6997 Central Banks can be the danger or they can be the savoir wether they act in orthodox ways or they can be more creative as today some of them are doing. Why not create enough money to fight COVID and return the economy at least to the pre-pandemic situation? Economies are not working at full capaticity so the inflation danger is not on the table. This is a point of priorities. Now, in Europe, ECB is mainly prioritizing monetary policy and the response it could be financial bubbles and worsen the economic situation.

@PolRomeoInvestor

3 жыл бұрын

@@juancarlossimarrobautista5876 value is subjective

Cronyism is indeed a problem but a child's game compare to speculation from big private corporations. Lacalle is denying the fact that the main problems that have caused all the crises since the beginning of capitalism have come precisely from those private corporations of the financial and banking sectors. And also the fact that absolutely all developed countries became 'developed' precisely due to state investment and planning. In other words, the current liberal countries went liberal once they got a strong economy thanks to statism, not before. Lacalle is simply an ignorant when it comes to history of economics.

Oh my God, This Daniel and the naturalización of poverty!

@drakekoefoed1642

3 жыл бұрын

i loved the way he had to attack the aborigine culture as if england brought the blessings of capitalism to them. Imagine the british seaman, suffering from poor diet and overwork, paid nearly nothing for his labor. He is blessed that he is not an aborigine who can sleep in any day until his friends come to see if he is all right, and remind him low tide is coming soon, everyone was going to dig clams today, and uso's wife even made you a new clam basket, sleepy head!

@thesapphirem5469

3 жыл бұрын

You need to work if you want the money... Communism is SLAVERY

@veramarquesalves7744

3 жыл бұрын

@@thesapphirem5469, if I were you I would read something about contemporary poverty, so has ti understand that Many of the nowaday poors work!

@sk8_bort

3 жыл бұрын

@@drakekoefoed1642 Ok, but then why are we not still in the Stone Age? I despise that very cliché romantization of aboriginal cultures. It turns out that we always seek improvements in our quality of life, and for good reasons: don't forget that those aboriginals were dying from diseases that had been erradicated in Europe centuries ago, they didn't have a developed legal system that protected even their most basic and fundamental human rights, they didn't have any technology whatsoever, meaning that work was extremely tedious and inefficient, their average lifespan was probably around 50, etc., I could keep going forever. I find it very disrespectful to label primitive tribes as people who understand true happiness because they value the things that really matter instead of material posessions, due to the fact that they have not been alienated by a capitalistic society. I've come across countless people who think like that, but the reality we live in is that people in poor African countries can go to their local bar, turn on that old TV, and see for themselves how we live in Europe. As a result, hundreds die every single day trying to cross the mediterranean sea. It is simply cruel to romanticize poverty while every single society in the world, including ourselves here in the western countries, are universally trying to give our children an easier life than the one we had.

As well intentioned as Yanis is there are too many inconsistencies in his philosophy. Having said that I enjoy listening to him. Interesting debate.

@iberico8174

3 жыл бұрын

Yanis Varoufakis goes like a chicken without head. From "erratic Marxist" in 2015 to literally "I'm a liberal. I HATE the State" in this video. The theoretical consistency of jelly.

@perobusmaximus

3 жыл бұрын

@@iberico8174 but marx was a liberal also, wasnt he? at least on 18 brumaire he sugested less state in france.

@javiergutierrez1088

3 жыл бұрын

@@perobusmaximus well he advocates its dissappeareance after socialism.

@perobusmaximus

3 жыл бұрын

@@javiergutierrez1088 this was said by engels, not marx. but anyway, it was wishfull thinking, almost poetry without scientific consistence. engels wrote this in "Anti-Dühring" and "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State". Marx never wrote such thing. he wrote about his dictatorship on the Communist Manifest, and later tried to fine tune his ideas, given the amount of bs people were writing at that time. but criticized the french state a lot on "18 Brumaire", never asking for "more state" as following so called marxists would implement.

Try to get the market to solve the covid pandemic instead of the government

Humbly and shortly: I do think private banks can create money out of thin air, it's called fractionary reserve. However, I also think that they wouldn't have as much incentive of doing this if it weren't for governments and especially central banks who give them all the privileges and bail them out when they fail. In other words, if everytime you played the lottery and didn't win the government refunded you the ticket, wouldn't you play as much as you could? Of course you would. So the root of the problem is the state and the desire to plan the economy, or in other words, socialism. On a side note, even though I am a libertarian, I respect Varoufakis immensely and he's my go to leftist economist when I want to know when a private company has been naughty. I couldn't agree more with his diagnosis of the problem. It's his solution I am concerned about. What he proposes of "one man, one share, one vote" is basically a cooperative company and this is something that the current system allows. Which means that there are reasons why there is not one single cooperative among the world's top 100 or even 1000 companies. Technical reasons, not just political ones. The truth is that I don't even know whether a cooperative management can handle the level of complexity of a modern big company that's already established, let alone build one from scratch. You seriously believe that a part time student delivery guy with a bike having the same amount of say in how to run Amazon that Jeff Bezos and his managerial team has will not result in a catastrophic drop in performance for Amazon? And if it will, then in order to implement Varoufakis' system everybody has to be ready to become much poorer. And for what? Just so Jeff Bezos has less power? How does this help the poor bastard with the bike? That he can "feel" more empowered? Then let me ask you this. Most of us watching this video probably live in democracies. How do you guys feel? Do you feel empowered? Do you feel like your vote changes something? Well, then it's safe to assume that it's going to be the same with companies as it is with countries. Your "one share, one vote" is going to be dissolved among thousands of other shares and votes and you still won't have any power. In fact, I'm sure that after like a week, all the bike riders will just vote for Bezos to run the entire company again.

@TheUngoliant

Жыл бұрын

You define socialism as simply "state's desire to plan the economy". By understanding socialism in that way (as if socialism was purely an economic theory) you leave out all the other changes that it attempts to bring to society. For example, you minimize the importance of the fact that Amazon / Google / Facebook / etc have the amount of power they have. I can tell you from working as a software engineer for quite a bit already that the harm that tech monopolies are doing to our society is immense. Everything we are building nowadays is aimed towards squeezing as much attention from us as possible, at any cost, including the mental health of the individual or the tremendous damage to democracies by feeding echo chambers and targeted propaganda to shift elections. Everything is a market good nowadays. If free market's idea on how to combat this is "lets just wait until the dinosaur gets replaced by another dinosaur" (that will follow the same practices of course) then we are basically doomed.

No sabéis el valor que tiene poder ver a Yanis Varoufakis, con el tiempo lo valoraréis, y más hablando con alguien de bajo nivel como es Daniel Lacalle.

I believe Prof. Lacalle choose a very bad example to defend with Amazon. Amazon indeed is a monopoly and not only that, Amazon used its monopoly power to extend its monopoly to various other markets. The market it "competes" with Walmart (in fact an oligopoly) is totally different from the market it competes with Google. And with Google it does not compete in the search engine market where Google is the king but in cloud services. The example with Edison is even less defendable but unfortunately Prof. Lacalle was not allow to counter punch

@perobusmaximus

3 жыл бұрын

in which country do u live? in europe n brazil theres no such thing as amazon monopoly

@vihodanyet

3 жыл бұрын

@@perobusmaximus in Europe everybody use Amazon, what are you talking about?!?

@leandroalonzoburgueno9719

3 жыл бұрын

That's the difference. Everyone chose buying in Amazon and thats not makes Amazon a monopoly. There are other options to buy online, even most of the companies have their own website where you can purchase

@FeelMetalMan

2 жыл бұрын

@@vihodanyet that's your perception, many people browse the web for specialized websites, amazon is only sort of a "monopoly" on giving a platform to retailers selling

The guy on the left may own more books but Varoufakis sold more. Even in capitalist terms he wins

Something I'd like to hear less of, is when a speaker (Yanis) tells another person what they think, instead of qualifying their position first - Ask them, don't assume. If one does that first, it would better formulate one's next thoughts. Instead he (Yanis) depends on articulating a view that Daniel doesn't hold and continuing to criticize by attributing it to him.

I like Daniel much better in english than in spanish lol, he for some reason becomes much more of a libertarian

mr. lacalle must read the works of richard werner

sadly, the argument made against the analogy for monopolies/the example of aborigines is completely non-sequitor and of course in the usual manner of excessive reductionism of how subjective choice works.. no, it's not about people "freely choosing" google.. what kind of kindergarden logic is this hahahah

Yanis runs circles around this neoliberal ghoul Lacalle

lacalle speaks with no arguments just stereotypes!.

The Bolivians did not recuired FMI credits to get one of the biggest economies in the world for years. They had a central bank and it worked good

@cesarsantagadea8079

3 жыл бұрын

As a bolivian let me tell you. Bolivia is poor. We have a central bank like any other country. And finally the Imf still audit the government of bolivia by the article 4.

@christiansieglin731

3 жыл бұрын

@@cesarsantagadea8079 Of course, Mexico and Brasil has a great amount of population in on going poverty. The improvements in each country is different, but in Mexico the inequality grew extremely high the past years, and that wasn´t the case of Bolivia.

@thesapphirem5469

3 жыл бұрын

Bolivia is the most poor country of south america my dear... is a shithole.

@thesapphirem5469

3 жыл бұрын

@@christiansieglin731 the poverty in bolivia is GENERAL, in mexico and brasil is just a portion and people still have oportunities to improve. Bolivia is ALL ABOUT POVERTY AND SHIT

@christiansieglin731

3 жыл бұрын

@@thesapphirem5469 They improved enourmously, and being a denier of the reality, the historical reality isn´t going to work with me. So sorry, but i´m not a stupid one

Terrible mediator.

No se en que mundo vive Varufakis o que historia ha estudiado, cuando dice que el capitalismo ha generado una pobreza jamás vista antes. Antes de 1900 la mayor parte de la población mundial vivía con 1$ al día de valor actual. Me merecen bastante poco respeto sus afirmaciones.

@fraternitas3649

3 жыл бұрын

Medir la pobreza en términos monetarios no es muy razonable. Lo razonable es medirla: 1. en términos reales. 2. poniendo el foco en la capacidad para acceder a los bienes y servicios básicos para tener una vida digna por parte del conjunto de la población. 3. teniendo en cuenta el desarrollo tecnológico y productivo de cada período histórico. 4. teniendo en cuenta la capacidad de la mayoría de la población para vivir dignamente sin depender de la voluntad arbitraria de otros. Además, hay que partir de la constatación de que las sociedades que llamamos capitalistas no son sistemas estructuro funcionalmente integrados, sino que son sociedades en las que entran en sinergia diferentes modos de producción además de legislaciones de diferente tipo. No tiene nada que ver las sociedades europeas del siglo XIX, con regulaciones públicas notoriamente alineadas con los intereses del capital, con las sociedades europeas de los años 50, 60, 70 y 80, con un molde de derecho público notoriamente anticapitalista. Las reducciones de pobreza y los avances democráticos se dan principalmente en el siglo XX gracias al empuje y a la organización del movimiento obrero. La democracia, la protección social y las fuertes limitaciones al poder del capital fue posible gracias al movimiento obrero. En cambio, si nos remontamos al siglo XIX, las sociedades europeas fueron infiernos sociales. En siglos anteriores la plebe tenía muchas mayores cotas de libertad (independencia material) gracias a las importantes extensiones de bienes comunales. Las jornadas de trabajo eran mucho menores en siglos anteriores y las relaciones económicas se establecían a través de mercados notoriamente más libres que en el siglo XIX, XX y XXI, en donde gran parte de esas relaciones económicas de mercados libres fueron subsumidas dentro de una institución económica como la empresa capitalista donde había de todo menos relaciones libres.

@GG-fl6ob

3 жыл бұрын

@@fraternitas3649 da igual como midas la pobreza. Esta se ha reducido como consecuencia de la expansión del capitalismo. Decir que le movimiento obrero es el que artífice de la reducción de la pobreza denota sus anteojeras ideológicas. Es como decir que la mujer es más igual al hombre hoy en día gracias al movimiento feminista. No. Fue la tecnología (p. Ej. píldora anticonceptiva) la que ha conseguido sacar a la mujer de su cautiverio.

@hugodec7331

3 жыл бұрын

¿Realmente crees que los a los aborígenes australianos (o a los campesinos españoles de finales del 19), que mantenían el mismo estilo de vida desde la revolución neolítica, les hacía falta dinero, o aún menos, dólares, para subsistir? No proyectes el rol que tiene hoy la moneda a la hora de garantizar la provisión de bienes materiales a épocas pasadas; tu análisis acaba siendo un absurdo, con perdón.

@GG-fl6ob

3 жыл бұрын

@@hugodec7331 obvias que los aborígenes australianos tenían una expectativa de vida 20 años menor. Hacéis análisis de barrio sesamo, sinceramente.

@jorgegallego6243

3 жыл бұрын

@@GG-fl6ob Dices que da igual como midas la pobreza y acusas al resto de hacer un análisis de barrio sésamo? Cual es tu análisis entonces?

Se nota que Lacalle está comprado.

Daniel Lacalle da vergüenza ajena. El problema de los economistas de derechas es que no entienden ni de antropología, ni de sociología, ni de historia, ni de Filosofía. El resultado es el que se observa en este video: patético.

@fraternitas3649

3 жыл бұрын

Totalmente. Hubiera sido pornográfico ver un debate entre Antoni Doménech y Lacalle.

@tomymarquez43

3 жыл бұрын

Te recomiendo, si no lo conoces, que piques algo del profesor Miguel Anxos Bastos, economista de derecha vieja como se llama a si mismo, una delicia filosófica y multidisciplinar. Bebe mucho de la obra de Murray Rothbard, economista anarquista también de derechas que además domina la política y la historia

@iberico8174

3 жыл бұрын

@@fraternitas3649 más bien Armesilla vs Lacalle. A Domenech aún le quedan años vendimiando.

@petal9547

3 жыл бұрын

El problema de los economistas de izquierdas es que no entienden de economia.

@MauroRincon

3 жыл бұрын

Solo entienden de economía ...

One brought Greece to bankrupcy. The other one is an economist

@chemain.tension7412

3 жыл бұрын

Nope..

@hippettyhoppitty5592

3 жыл бұрын

Who brought Greece to what? Do some basic research before trying to promote such blatant lies. Start with dates, as in when the crisis happened, when Greece went bankrupt and when Yanis took over as minister of economy as well as for how long, what policies he did or did not implement etc. You will be surprised how inconsistent your statement is with such data.

@f1016

3 жыл бұрын

Greece was bankrupt precisely because it was forced to do what economist like Lacalle forced them to do, and then Syriza came to power.

@Holobiont420

3 жыл бұрын

@@f1016 so Greek politicians got forced to fraudulently enter the euro zone?

@f1016

3 жыл бұрын

@@Holobiont420 No, they were forced to apply austerity politics that were unsustainable with the critical position that they had, just because german investors wanted their money back, at expenses of greece going bankrupt