Please try to convert the US into a Good Society . Having too many drug addicts and homeless people on the street are not good signs of Good Society .
@davidhowson6152Ай бұрын
Very good information!!
@nycjordiАй бұрын
Please study, deeply, the topic of vaccines and masks. You are repeating the narrative pushed into us by big pharma and its colleagues in the media. Study and listen other scientific narratives.
@theotherway16392 ай бұрын
Social media is no longer "social"...it's hypnotical. The idea now is to grab people's attention at any costs, mostly for likes and monetization. I believe everyone needs a break from it. The workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels goes great with Jonathan's book. I went a couple months while not using it and it was like a bath for my brain...just felt so clean afterwards, and now i cringe when I look at what people post and look at.
@nevadataylor2 ай бұрын
Fuck capitalism and all its proponents too! If everyone just accepted the peer reviewed Science, we would finally be done with this unfounded, delusional, barbaric, archaic, racist, misogynistic, anti-scientific, destructive, bias, belief based economic religion! Hearn Studies kzread.info/dash/bejne/gKB_o7d9YJa6nrg.html Princeton U. study kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z6iplZR8c6TFeco.html Panama Papers kzread.info/dash/bejne/nWZ1sruJmre9ips.html Harvard U. study kzread.info/dash/bejne/g4R_rbOnmc3Uo7A.html Evidence of rigged markets kzread.info/dash/bejne/naiMt9qFZpPSnJs.html Research by Piketty kzread.info/dash/bejne/eoBhu7eNdtTapaw.html
@normaanderssonrealtor53043 ай бұрын
I have been a Jonathan Haidt fan for two decades and this is precisely why I will always be.
@Hhoom-rc8le3 ай бұрын
Heckman's argument is based on an estimate thats so novel and potentially precise that it makes him cum vs one from a data set he acknowledges has massive isssues and data gaps. My dog is more convincing when they play dead. That's ignoring the ideological blinders he has on.
@ALBERTO301143 ай бұрын
Great interesting indeed talk Prof. Stiglitz, as usual, thank you. Best regards from the Geisha and Karaoke country.
@BillBordelon4 ай бұрын
An excerpt from a 1980 Review of some Book the speaker wrote around that time: "But enough. This is a ridiculous book. If it can be said to possess a virtue, it is that it demonstrates with particular clarity the secret of Richard Sennett’s success. For he is an author who over the years has managed to trick out just about every advanced cliché about modern life in the language-and, as it were, with the “authority”-of respectable philosophic and sociological thought. " And he's high in this Center for Capitalism and Society? Poor capitalism. Poor society.
@sacredsoma6 ай бұрын
it's a torture listening to Esa's banal verse, overrated and vapid
@user-eb1zv6sr9e6 ай бұрын
And a lot of it is a facade bot accounts running chat bots sock puppet troll account ect. I'm pretty damn good at spotting the fake accounts on X now. Right now we're winning the chat bot wars online but it really a fucking mess. It's mostly damage control right now trying too keep it from getting worse.
@CarolPrice4p6 ай бұрын
Jeff Sachs aka Mother Teresa aka Jeff Tracey (by me)... 🙂🥳😸
@AdenwalaM6 ай бұрын
Professor Stiglitz says that for a society to be good and continue to be good, innovations should also be directed towards creation of jobs for unskilled people. There is an underlying assumption in the argument that investments that produce such employment must be profitable too. This is not at all necessary. When the world built pyramids or temples or monuments like Taj Mahal, profitability was not at all a consideration. Perhaps government policies can be directed to build modern day monuments and thereby provide employment to the unskilled people in the society.
@AdenwalaM7 ай бұрын
Thanks for an insightful and an honest talk. It is rightly claimed that we need to find a democratic version of political system as well as a system of market economy that, on an ongoing basis, can ensure mildly increasing welfare levels in the society. Democracy is difficult to be maintained because: Harold Laswell says in an article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of social sciences published in 1933: “We should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests; they are not. The best judges are us, the elites, smart guys, the cool observers, and we must, therefore, be ensured of the means to impose our will for the common good….. This will require a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses.” Propaganda is necessary because democratic societies cannot control anarchy resulting from frustration or greed by force. This argument assumes, rightly so, that masses can be led towards aims decided upon by the elites in the society. In other words, stupidity is an attribute of masses, which can be exploited by the elites towards their own ends. Bonhoeffer has commented on dangers of stupidity in detail (Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity - Sprouts - Learning Videos - Social Sciences (sproutsschools.com) The challenge for the policymakers, therefore, is to at least control the stupidity of the masses sufficiently so that they can ensure their own good, or to control the forces that exploit this stupidity to their own ends. Long back Plato had argued that King should be philosopher. The challenge is how to go further.
@clancyhughes7 ай бұрын
Monopoly, unregulated, game over - capital divergence, 1177 BC, 410 AD, Industrial revolution and colonialism, 1969 globalization. Still underestimating capital divergence Rethink Cript’s and Godals Sectorial Balances. Trade def. Results in loss ofmid class wealth, increased multinational corporations wealth, government deficits, printing money and inflation.
@clancyhughes7 ай бұрын
Glad to see you on YouTub
@17thsavior7 ай бұрын
Why start the talk with a strawman?
@Owl3508 ай бұрын
The only thing to say about capitalism is not nice. Obviously it always turns into fascism with criminals bribing people. Then no one is safe around criminals with the bride money. And that will never be the right Healthcare or a government !
@knobtata8368 ай бұрын
kzread.infosgu-dC0_cvM?si=iUKmwlL7e-e-wHlz
@knobtata8368 ай бұрын
To clarify on the India-Canada incident. With all due respect to Dr Stiglitz.
@AmericanAnomie8 ай бұрын
Modern monetary theory and the not good people who made it up is what is destroying our society. US is not a good society.
@netizencapet8 ай бұрын
Allowing people to eat during the talk was a supremely bad idea.
@presterjohn16978 ай бұрын
The nation-state is being replaced by the corporate-state. Fascism is the new black.
@presterjohn16978 ай бұрын
The Center for the Commodification of Society. Commodify Or Die
@vidamida73568 ай бұрын
Sachs is a lovely man and has a solid intellect
@gulaschnikov53358 ай бұрын
Individualist realism at play
@saattlebrutaz8 ай бұрын
Sachs is an arrogant buffoon psychopath who cluelessly facilitated the destruction of Soviet Russia. He's a total charlatan, fraud.
@e-naa41188 ай бұрын
Incorrect!
@leoj708 ай бұрын
"Capitalism is just trade" is both an oversimplification and an incorrect description of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods. Saying capitalism is good for the bodily needs because people "are not starving as much" because it "makes us richer" ignores the reality that for a large section of the population, it doesn't, and it's a system that prioritizes individual wealth of the capitalist class, while increasing the gap between those and the working class. Social mobility has also plummeted in the last decades of capitalism. It also ignores how China, which had been capitalist for decades (they called it "communism with chinese characteristics), and in the recent years has taken a more communist approach, has taken out of poverty more people than any other country on earth (I'm obviously not supporting any other practices such as the dictatorial and totalitarian regime, but we're talking exclusively about economic systems here). Moreover, communism as an economic system also involves trade, the difference is in the ownership of the means of production. For example, there can still be large scale production and distribution, but the workers are also represented in the companies interest, and not just the interests of the capitalist class that controls them in capitalism. With a planned economy, the products could fulfill the needs of the community, and not incentivise the work ethic that would lead to the biggest profits, which are the main motors of any capitalist company. In fact, kinship is actually invirgorated in a communist economic system where equal representation and equal retribution is expected, instead of the alienation that happens with many of today's jobs. Kinship is put on a lower pedestal when the capitalist owner decides that making a bigger profit is okay even when it involves destroying ecosystems by deforestation, pollution of natural resources and increased carbon emissions. Capitalism puts you in a highly individualistic point of view, which might be expected through the bodily system you mention, but it isn't the ideal system for a social species that also depends on the environment. It's also by no means the "natural" state of being, capitalism, as many other isms, was invented and implemented through a series of trials and errors, and while it was incredibly useful and it helped grow cities like we know them today, it's also become obsolete when you think about the constant growth and expansion it needs, in a world with finite space and resources.
@59gris8 ай бұрын
impressive to consolidate some of marx’s work into a short paragraph! bravo! in parts of the world where marxism as a thought has not been systematically oppressed, the speaker would be booed and laughed at.
@tetraquark44778 ай бұрын
Adam Smith's vision of capitalism was based on the idea of free markets and limited government intervention. He believed that when individuals were free to pursue their own self-interest, it would lead to the greatest good for society as a whole. In his book The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that the invisible hand of the market would lead to competition and innovation, which would benefit everyone. He also believed that government intervention was often harmful to the economy, and that it should be limited to protecting property rights and enforcing contracts. The current form of capitalism in the US, on the other hand, is much more concentrated and regulated than Smith envisioned. A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy, and the government often intervenes to protect their interests. For example, the US government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations each year. This gives them an unfair advantage over smaller businesses and makes it more difficult for new businesses to enter the market. The US government also has a number of regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses. For example, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between US ports be transported on US-flagged ships. This law raises the cost of shipping for small businesses and makes it more difficult for them to compete. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations has led to a number of problems in the US economy, including: Wage stagnation: Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have soared. This is because corporations have been able to use their market power to suppress wages. Inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening in recent decades. This is because corporations have been able to extract more wealth from the economy, while workers have seen their wages stagnate. Monopoly power: A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy in many industries. This gives them the power to raise prices and stifle innovation. Adam Smith would likely be appalled by the current state of capitalism in the US. He believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy, and he would have seen the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations as a threat to competition. Here are some specific examples from The Wealth of Nations that illustrate Adam Smith's vision of capitalism: Smith argued that the government should not interfere in the free market, except to protect property rights and enforce contracts. He believed that the government should not subsidize businesses or try to pick winners and losers in the market. Smith believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy. He argued that competition would lead to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, and innovation. Smith was a strong advocate for free trade. He believed that countries should be able to trade goods and services freely with each other. The current form of capitalism in the US is in many ways a departure from Adam Smith's vision. The government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations, regulates the economy in favor of large corporations, and allows a small number of corporations to control a large share of the economy in many industries. It is crucial to recognize that the intrinsic nature of hierarchical systems does not automatically guarantee their inherent benevolence. In fact, these structures can be regarded as malevolent or even fiendish. Capitalism, on the other hand, can be perceived as an ideology influenced by militaristic principles, which prioritizes profit maximization as the zenithal aim while justifying collateral loss of life as an unavoidable outcome in business pursuits. The individuals who have the potential to misrepresent socialism are currently wielding control in the realm of capitalism. The crux of the matter revolves not around socialism, but rather around specific actors and their deeds. Simultaneously, the tenacity of humanity challenges the idea that competition fueled evolution. In truth, competition appears more as a byproduct of civilization than an innate characteristic of human essence. It is imperative to note that capitalism can perpetuate and intensify avaricious behavioral tendencies and that an unquestioning belief in its faultlessness could denote a dogmatic affinity. Indeed, one can find striking resemblances between capitalism and religious organizations. Wealthy individuals frequently depend on less advantaged members of society in order to exploit susceptible populations; this dependency raises ethical questions regarding accountability and whether collective action is necessary to intervene in these abusive practices. Affluent individuals are often shielded from hardships endured by those belonging to lower socioeconomic groups. When confronted with financial adversity, they might be lifted up by a bespoke social safety net designed exclusively for their echelon. It is important to emphasize that wealth accumulation often arises from inheritance or fortuitous circumstances rather than pure meritocracy alone; indeed, good fortune has a pivotal role in deciding wealth distribution outcomes. Both communism and capitalism (along with feudalism) display inherent imperfections marked by a fortunate minority exerting control over the majority. The assumption that one's prosperity relies solely on hard work disregards the ubiquitous influence of luck in determining socioeconomic standing. Contemporary society reflects consumerism more accurately than capitalism, as initially envisioned by Adam Smith in his monumental publication, "The Wealth of Nations." Today's economic framework mirrors communism under a different guise, capitalizing on the disadvantaged through unique methods. One might contemplate how capitalism coalesces with the teachings of Jesus Christ and religious principles. In essence, economic systems consistently fall short in addressing the varied requirements of human communities. A society devoid of currency can still survive, liberated from the materialistic competition epitomized by rampant consumerism. Lastly, scriptural excerpts from the Gospel (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22, Luke 14:33, Matthew 6:19-21, and Mark 10:21) underscore the significance of renouncing material possessions and prioritizing spiritual virtues. By engaging readers through positive reinforcement and appealing to their higher sensibilities, we can inspire change in behavior that transcends engrained socio-economic paradigms.
@spookyargument75378 ай бұрын
Get out of Eurozone and get back monitory policy. Otherwise Italy will become duty-free dumping ground for German goods
@Stafus8 ай бұрын
capitalists and people who like capitalism don't see inequality as a problem, they see it as a delightful necessity to compensate for their malformed emotions.
@sandrameza16448 ай бұрын
I get it. Had to slow it down but I liked the light put on the systems at play.
@TheJimtanker8 ай бұрын
Inconstrained capitalism is just as bad as I constrained communism or socialism. We have barely constrained capitalism in the US.
@sergiosatelite4678 ай бұрын
Oh, the Romanticism of Numbers!
@unkleskratch9 ай бұрын
Bring on that Carrington Event 2.0 !! the global reset button.
@saraofnorthwales9 ай бұрын
The real problem is Organisational Capture of democracy. This will happen wherever fake organisations are allowed to gather together into higher fake organisations. The whole concept of what an organisation is - is it Natural (real) or Un-Natural (fake). My channel contains a videobook on this subject called The Individualist Manifesto. One should study this in the light of these discussions.
@madaxe6069 ай бұрын
27:45 Mr Haidt has previously advocated for heterodox thinking, so I wish he had explored this a bit more. Part of the reason for radicalization on the Right has the capture of virtually all major institutions by the Left. Conservatives have been rendered effectively extinct in places like Academia, Hollywood, Tech, and even old bastions such as the Corporate world. That is necessarily going to push many otherwise centrist conservatives to the extremes, irrespective of the ways social media influences people.
@Joker2259310 ай бұрын
I've been saying this about Babel for years!
@williamclayton956610 ай бұрын
The dating market has changed DRASTICALLY. Over 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. Women report NO decline. The market has skewed to a power law distribution. On the dating apps, about 4.5% of men are receiving 90% of the "right swipes." Women report 80% of all men as "unattractive/below average". What does this show (other than the fact that women are bad at math)?
@SongSwan10 ай бұрын
Yes let's blame everything but ourselves.
@marshalmcdonald747610 ай бұрын
One of the best, of many, by Jonathan.
@neilifill481910 ай бұрын
I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg: the rise of social media or the propensity to overprotect our kids? They definitely affect each other. I also applaud Dr Haidt for identifying “affective polarization.” I’m stealing that.
@hereigoagain505010 ай бұрын
The good news is that Gen Z's anxieties are mostly self inflicted and can be reversed with changes of lifestyle (don't rely on social media for affirmation, join groups, help others, ...) and attitude (develop detachment).
@tristan721610 ай бұрын
What I get from this is 4chan was founded in 2003 and it made democracy better, and it seemed like history was going to end, but then twitter ruined the internet with the retweet button 😸
@l.w.paradis210810 ай бұрын
How come doing harm creates massive fortunes, that put the kings of England to shame? And, if harm wasn't created, what would Haidt write about?
@l.w.paradis210810 ай бұрын
People made fortunes investing in social media stocks. Capitalism . . . I never joined Facebook, etc. This is my first account of any nature, and joined during the insane lockdown mainly to save videos.
@l.w.paradis210810 ай бұрын
Look, in 1970, a kid could get a minimum wage job and save up enough money over the summer to pay for a year of state college. And three roommates could get minimum wage jobs and rent an apartment ANYWHERE --- San Fran, Manhattan . . . Those were different people. Who created the world where that became impossible?
@studiomarilaura91010 ай бұрын
Exactly! As a young dancer, 20 years old, I moved to NYC in 1980. Lived on W57th between 9th and 10th in a nice apt with three roommates. I worked lunch at a local restaurant, paid for my two or three dance classes a day, bought airline tickets to visit family and friends 3!or 4 times a year. I went out to eat, always had food, money for clothes and dance wear with a few hundred dollars in the bank.
@l.w.paradis210810 ай бұрын
@@studiomarilaura910 I am so happy you got to do that! That was living.
@studiomarilaura91010 ай бұрын
@@l.w.paradis2108 thank you! yes it was!
@phaedrussmith19498 ай бұрын
"Who created the world where that became impossible?" Apparently it was the people who grew up in a world where that was possible.
@l.w.paradis21088 ай бұрын
@phaedrussmith1949 A VERY SMALL segment of that world --- although actually, Ronald Reagan and Bush I are from an earlier generation. (Did you ever look up to Bill Gates, btw? I always saw through him and others like him.)
@jshays00710 ай бұрын
This video was posted well before the Bud Light Fiasco ... lol ... It's almost like Jonathan Haidt saw it coming ... I recommend all of his books. The Coddling of the American Mind stands out to me above the others. The Audiobook with Jonathan Narrating his and Greg's work is what I would suggest.
@l.w.paradis210810 ай бұрын
"Walking on eggshells?" People are vastly more vicious to one another now than was ever socially acceptable before. Presidents, mass media, etc., never conducted themselves like they do now. During the pandemic, they shamed people who lost their businesses and called them grandma killers. They debated whether an unvaccinated person should get a hospital bed if they get sick, and it sounded reasonable to most people to say they should go to the back of the line. Plus, you can broadcast this all over the world instantly, and create that infamous permanent record. Maybe that's the reason for fragility?
@palmereldritch_666910 ай бұрын
And our Congress is largely populated by blue haired people that can barely operate a coffee machine, many of whom are absolute RWNutjobs, have refused to regulate the social media. Probably because they are bought off. And, we are on the verge of cyber war led by AI that can deep fake pretty easily. We are in deep, DEEP trouble.
Пікірлер
Progressive gaslighting
Please try to convert the US into a Good Society . Having too many drug addicts and homeless people on the street are not good signs of Good Society .
Very good information!!
Please study, deeply, the topic of vaccines and masks. You are repeating the narrative pushed into us by big pharma and its colleagues in the media. Study and listen other scientific narratives.
Social media is no longer "social"...it's hypnotical. The idea now is to grab people's attention at any costs, mostly for likes and monetization. I believe everyone needs a break from it. The workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels goes great with Jonathan's book. I went a couple months while not using it and it was like a bath for my brain...just felt so clean afterwards, and now i cringe when I look at what people post and look at.
Fuck capitalism and all its proponents too! If everyone just accepted the peer reviewed Science, we would finally be done with this unfounded, delusional, barbaric, archaic, racist, misogynistic, anti-scientific, destructive, bias, belief based economic religion! Hearn Studies kzread.info/dash/bejne/gKB_o7d9YJa6nrg.html Princeton U. study kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z6iplZR8c6TFeco.html Panama Papers kzread.info/dash/bejne/nWZ1sruJmre9ips.html Harvard U. study kzread.info/dash/bejne/g4R_rbOnmc3Uo7A.html Evidence of rigged markets kzread.info/dash/bejne/naiMt9qFZpPSnJs.html Research by Piketty kzread.info/dash/bejne/eoBhu7eNdtTapaw.html
I have been a Jonathan Haidt fan for two decades and this is precisely why I will always be.
Heckman's argument is based on an estimate thats so novel and potentially precise that it makes him cum vs one from a data set he acknowledges has massive isssues and data gaps. My dog is more convincing when they play dead. That's ignoring the ideological blinders he has on.
Great interesting indeed talk Prof. Stiglitz, as usual, thank you. Best regards from the Geisha and Karaoke country.
An excerpt from a 1980 Review of some Book the speaker wrote around that time: "But enough. This is a ridiculous book. If it can be said to possess a virtue, it is that it demonstrates with particular clarity the secret of Richard Sennett’s success. For he is an author who over the years has managed to trick out just about every advanced cliché about modern life in the language-and, as it were, with the “authority”-of respectable philosophic and sociological thought. " And he's high in this Center for Capitalism and Society? Poor capitalism. Poor society.
it's a torture listening to Esa's banal verse, overrated and vapid
And a lot of it is a facade bot accounts running chat bots sock puppet troll account ect. I'm pretty damn good at spotting the fake accounts on X now. Right now we're winning the chat bot wars online but it really a fucking mess. It's mostly damage control right now trying too keep it from getting worse.
Jeff Sachs aka Mother Teresa aka Jeff Tracey (by me)... 🙂🥳😸
Professor Stiglitz says that for a society to be good and continue to be good, innovations should also be directed towards creation of jobs for unskilled people. There is an underlying assumption in the argument that investments that produce such employment must be profitable too. This is not at all necessary. When the world built pyramids or temples or monuments like Taj Mahal, profitability was not at all a consideration. Perhaps government policies can be directed to build modern day monuments and thereby provide employment to the unskilled people in the society.
Thanks for an insightful and an honest talk. It is rightly claimed that we need to find a democratic version of political system as well as a system of market economy that, on an ongoing basis, can ensure mildly increasing welfare levels in the society. Democracy is difficult to be maintained because: Harold Laswell says in an article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of social sciences published in 1933: “We should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests; they are not. The best judges are us, the elites, smart guys, the cool observers, and we must, therefore, be ensured of the means to impose our will for the common good….. This will require a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses.” Propaganda is necessary because democratic societies cannot control anarchy resulting from frustration or greed by force. This argument assumes, rightly so, that masses can be led towards aims decided upon by the elites in the society. In other words, stupidity is an attribute of masses, which can be exploited by the elites towards their own ends. Bonhoeffer has commented on dangers of stupidity in detail (Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity - Sprouts - Learning Videos - Social Sciences (sproutsschools.com) The challenge for the policymakers, therefore, is to at least control the stupidity of the masses sufficiently so that they can ensure their own good, or to control the forces that exploit this stupidity to their own ends. Long back Plato had argued that King should be philosopher. The challenge is how to go further.
Monopoly, unregulated, game over - capital divergence, 1177 BC, 410 AD, Industrial revolution and colonialism, 1969 globalization. Still underestimating capital divergence Rethink Cript’s and Godals Sectorial Balances. Trade def. Results in loss ofmid class wealth, increased multinational corporations wealth, government deficits, printing money and inflation.
Glad to see you on YouTub
Why start the talk with a strawman?
The only thing to say about capitalism is not nice. Obviously it always turns into fascism with criminals bribing people. Then no one is safe around criminals with the bride money. And that will never be the right Healthcare or a government !
kzread.infosgu-dC0_cvM?si=iUKmwlL7e-e-wHlz
To clarify on the India-Canada incident. With all due respect to Dr Stiglitz.
Modern monetary theory and the not good people who made it up is what is destroying our society. US is not a good society.
Allowing people to eat during the talk was a supremely bad idea.
The nation-state is being replaced by the corporate-state. Fascism is the new black.
The Center for the Commodification of Society. Commodify Or Die
Sachs is a lovely man and has a solid intellect
Individualist realism at play
Sachs is an arrogant buffoon psychopath who cluelessly facilitated the destruction of Soviet Russia. He's a total charlatan, fraud.
Incorrect!
"Capitalism is just trade" is both an oversimplification and an incorrect description of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods. Saying capitalism is good for the bodily needs because people "are not starving as much" because it "makes us richer" ignores the reality that for a large section of the population, it doesn't, and it's a system that prioritizes individual wealth of the capitalist class, while increasing the gap between those and the working class. Social mobility has also plummeted in the last decades of capitalism. It also ignores how China, which had been capitalist for decades (they called it "communism with chinese characteristics), and in the recent years has taken a more communist approach, has taken out of poverty more people than any other country on earth (I'm obviously not supporting any other practices such as the dictatorial and totalitarian regime, but we're talking exclusively about economic systems here). Moreover, communism as an economic system also involves trade, the difference is in the ownership of the means of production. For example, there can still be large scale production and distribution, but the workers are also represented in the companies interest, and not just the interests of the capitalist class that controls them in capitalism. With a planned economy, the products could fulfill the needs of the community, and not incentivise the work ethic that would lead to the biggest profits, which are the main motors of any capitalist company. In fact, kinship is actually invirgorated in a communist economic system where equal representation and equal retribution is expected, instead of the alienation that happens with many of today's jobs. Kinship is put on a lower pedestal when the capitalist owner decides that making a bigger profit is okay even when it involves destroying ecosystems by deforestation, pollution of natural resources and increased carbon emissions. Capitalism puts you in a highly individualistic point of view, which might be expected through the bodily system you mention, but it isn't the ideal system for a social species that also depends on the environment. It's also by no means the "natural" state of being, capitalism, as many other isms, was invented and implemented through a series of trials and errors, and while it was incredibly useful and it helped grow cities like we know them today, it's also become obsolete when you think about the constant growth and expansion it needs, in a world with finite space and resources.
impressive to consolidate some of marx’s work into a short paragraph! bravo! in parts of the world where marxism as a thought has not been systematically oppressed, the speaker would be booed and laughed at.
Adam Smith's vision of capitalism was based on the idea of free markets and limited government intervention. He believed that when individuals were free to pursue their own self-interest, it would lead to the greatest good for society as a whole. In his book The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that the invisible hand of the market would lead to competition and innovation, which would benefit everyone. He also believed that government intervention was often harmful to the economy, and that it should be limited to protecting property rights and enforcing contracts. The current form of capitalism in the US, on the other hand, is much more concentrated and regulated than Smith envisioned. A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy, and the government often intervenes to protect their interests. For example, the US government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations each year. This gives them an unfair advantage over smaller businesses and makes it more difficult for new businesses to enter the market. The US government also has a number of regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses. For example, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between US ports be transported on US-flagged ships. This law raises the cost of shipping for small businesses and makes it more difficult for them to compete. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations has led to a number of problems in the US economy, including: Wage stagnation: Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have soared. This is because corporations have been able to use their market power to suppress wages. Inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening in recent decades. This is because corporations have been able to extract more wealth from the economy, while workers have seen their wages stagnate. Monopoly power: A small number of corporations control a large share of the economy in many industries. This gives them the power to raise prices and stifle innovation. Adam Smith would likely be appalled by the current state of capitalism in the US. He believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy, and he would have seen the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations as a threat to competition. Here are some specific examples from The Wealth of Nations that illustrate Adam Smith's vision of capitalism: Smith argued that the government should not interfere in the free market, except to protect property rights and enforce contracts. He believed that the government should not subsidize businesses or try to pick winners and losers in the market. Smith believed that competition was essential to a healthy economy. He argued that competition would lead to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, and innovation. Smith was a strong advocate for free trade. He believed that countries should be able to trade goods and services freely with each other. The current form of capitalism in the US is in many ways a departure from Adam Smith's vision. The government provides billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations, regulates the economy in favor of large corporations, and allows a small number of corporations to control a large share of the economy in many industries. It is crucial to recognize that the intrinsic nature of hierarchical systems does not automatically guarantee their inherent benevolence. In fact, these structures can be regarded as malevolent or even fiendish. Capitalism, on the other hand, can be perceived as an ideology influenced by militaristic principles, which prioritizes profit maximization as the zenithal aim while justifying collateral loss of life as an unavoidable outcome in business pursuits. The individuals who have the potential to misrepresent socialism are currently wielding control in the realm of capitalism. The crux of the matter revolves not around socialism, but rather around specific actors and their deeds. Simultaneously, the tenacity of humanity challenges the idea that competition fueled evolution. In truth, competition appears more as a byproduct of civilization than an innate characteristic of human essence. It is imperative to note that capitalism can perpetuate and intensify avaricious behavioral tendencies and that an unquestioning belief in its faultlessness could denote a dogmatic affinity. Indeed, one can find striking resemblances between capitalism and religious organizations. Wealthy individuals frequently depend on less advantaged members of society in order to exploit susceptible populations; this dependency raises ethical questions regarding accountability and whether collective action is necessary to intervene in these abusive practices. Affluent individuals are often shielded from hardships endured by those belonging to lower socioeconomic groups. When confronted with financial adversity, they might be lifted up by a bespoke social safety net designed exclusively for their echelon. It is important to emphasize that wealth accumulation often arises from inheritance or fortuitous circumstances rather than pure meritocracy alone; indeed, good fortune has a pivotal role in deciding wealth distribution outcomes. Both communism and capitalism (along with feudalism) display inherent imperfections marked by a fortunate minority exerting control over the majority. The assumption that one's prosperity relies solely on hard work disregards the ubiquitous influence of luck in determining socioeconomic standing. Contemporary society reflects consumerism more accurately than capitalism, as initially envisioned by Adam Smith in his monumental publication, "The Wealth of Nations." Today's economic framework mirrors communism under a different guise, capitalizing on the disadvantaged through unique methods. One might contemplate how capitalism coalesces with the teachings of Jesus Christ and religious principles. In essence, economic systems consistently fall short in addressing the varied requirements of human communities. A society devoid of currency can still survive, liberated from the materialistic competition epitomized by rampant consumerism. Lastly, scriptural excerpts from the Gospel (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22, Luke 14:33, Matthew 6:19-21, and Mark 10:21) underscore the significance of renouncing material possessions and prioritizing spiritual virtues. By engaging readers through positive reinforcement and appealing to their higher sensibilities, we can inspire change in behavior that transcends engrained socio-economic paradigms.
Get out of Eurozone and get back monitory policy. Otherwise Italy will become duty-free dumping ground for German goods
capitalists and people who like capitalism don't see inequality as a problem, they see it as a delightful necessity to compensate for their malformed emotions.
I get it. Had to slow it down but I liked the light put on the systems at play.
Inconstrained capitalism is just as bad as I constrained communism or socialism. We have barely constrained capitalism in the US.
Oh, the Romanticism of Numbers!
Bring on that Carrington Event 2.0 !! the global reset button.
The real problem is Organisational Capture of democracy. This will happen wherever fake organisations are allowed to gather together into higher fake organisations. The whole concept of what an organisation is - is it Natural (real) or Un-Natural (fake). My channel contains a videobook on this subject called The Individualist Manifesto. One should study this in the light of these discussions.
27:45 Mr Haidt has previously advocated for heterodox thinking, so I wish he had explored this a bit more. Part of the reason for radicalization on the Right has the capture of virtually all major institutions by the Left. Conservatives have been rendered effectively extinct in places like Academia, Hollywood, Tech, and even old bastions such as the Corporate world. That is necessarily going to push many otherwise centrist conservatives to the extremes, irrespective of the ways social media influences people.
I've been saying this about Babel for years!
The dating market has changed DRASTICALLY. Over 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. Women report NO decline. The market has skewed to a power law distribution. On the dating apps, about 4.5% of men are receiving 90% of the "right swipes." Women report 80% of all men as "unattractive/below average". What does this show (other than the fact that women are bad at math)?
Yes let's blame everything but ourselves.
One of the best, of many, by Jonathan.
I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg: the rise of social media or the propensity to overprotect our kids? They definitely affect each other. I also applaud Dr Haidt for identifying “affective polarization.” I’m stealing that.
The good news is that Gen Z's anxieties are mostly self inflicted and can be reversed with changes of lifestyle (don't rely on social media for affirmation, join groups, help others, ...) and attitude (develop detachment).
What I get from this is 4chan was founded in 2003 and it made democracy better, and it seemed like history was going to end, but then twitter ruined the internet with the retweet button 😸
How come doing harm creates massive fortunes, that put the kings of England to shame? And, if harm wasn't created, what would Haidt write about?
People made fortunes investing in social media stocks. Capitalism . . . I never joined Facebook, etc. This is my first account of any nature, and joined during the insane lockdown mainly to save videos.
Look, in 1970, a kid could get a minimum wage job and save up enough money over the summer to pay for a year of state college. And three roommates could get minimum wage jobs and rent an apartment ANYWHERE --- San Fran, Manhattan . . . Those were different people. Who created the world where that became impossible?
Exactly! As a young dancer, 20 years old, I moved to NYC in 1980. Lived on W57th between 9th and 10th in a nice apt with three roommates. I worked lunch at a local restaurant, paid for my two or three dance classes a day, bought airline tickets to visit family and friends 3!or 4 times a year. I went out to eat, always had food, money for clothes and dance wear with a few hundred dollars in the bank.
@@studiomarilaura910 I am so happy you got to do that! That was living.
@@l.w.paradis2108 thank you! yes it was!
"Who created the world where that became impossible?" Apparently it was the people who grew up in a world where that was possible.
@phaedrussmith1949 A VERY SMALL segment of that world --- although actually, Ronald Reagan and Bush I are from an earlier generation. (Did you ever look up to Bill Gates, btw? I always saw through him and others like him.)
This video was posted well before the Bud Light Fiasco ... lol ... It's almost like Jonathan Haidt saw it coming ... I recommend all of his books. The Coddling of the American Mind stands out to me above the others. The Audiobook with Jonathan Narrating his and Greg's work is what I would suggest.
"Walking on eggshells?" People are vastly more vicious to one another now than was ever socially acceptable before. Presidents, mass media, etc., never conducted themselves like they do now. During the pandemic, they shamed people who lost their businesses and called them grandma killers. They debated whether an unvaccinated person should get a hospital bed if they get sick, and it sounded reasonable to most people to say they should go to the back of the line. Plus, you can broadcast this all over the world instantly, and create that infamous permanent record. Maybe that's the reason for fragility?
And our Congress is largely populated by blue haired people that can barely operate a coffee machine, many of whom are absolute RWNutjobs, have refused to regulate the social media. Probably because they are bought off. And, we are on the verge of cyber war led by AI that can deep fake pretty easily. We are in deep, DEEP trouble.