Yaron Brook: 3 Reasons Why People Believe Bad Economics

Posted on

33 thoughts on “Yaron Brook: 3 Reasons Why People Believe Bad Economics”

  1. I think the basic concepts that he outlined on economics are extremely easy, and intuitive almost. He keeps saying that Econ isn't easy, but it's not a difficulty that's making the subject unpalatable to liberals, it's that there is no hero and villain to love and to hate – No cosmic boogeyman or systemic ingrained malevolent actor to blame, and therefore results are a result of impersonal phenomena. As a corollary, if the problems are as a result of the tragedy of the human condition and of scarcity, then there is nothing that anointed, elite, humans can do about it, no place for them, no purpose for their special input. I don't even mean "elite" as in the few, I mean those who see themselves as elite and enlightened morally (liberals).

    It has almost nothing to do with the difficulty of economic principles, and a lot to do with elites fearing the loss of identity and purpose of their lives. If the problem is unsolvable (by me), then who will I be?"

  2. I am alway’s amazed at these Big shops that sell very expensive clothes but they alway go down. There are better more variety in shops that sell clothes right up to date and much cheaper good quality. Take M&s for instance. They coned they people for years that M& S made their own clothes. No they never. china made a lot of M&S clothes. They were very expensive but not any better than a clothes item from Tesco or Asda. They also were behind on what youngsters were wearing. A bit old fashioned. That was a big looser for a start. The price was another. They also went online later than some shops. Big mistake. BHS went the same way. Clothes go out of fashion too quickly to pay over the too for lets say a dress or a coat. Fare too expensive and Debenhams are going the same way. Look at the food shops. M & S have lovely food but very small portions of it. Asda is pretty good but going off the rail a bit so is Tesco. Far too expensive. Aldi’s will out perform them. Smaller profit bigger turn over at the end of the year. Why more people shop regular in Aldi’s. These shops like M&s get too greedy also BHS and Debenhams. They put their shops in the best places then the huge over heads. Not good at all. People like up to date cheaper good quality clothes and good quality food at a lower price. Lets hope this changes when we leave the money grabbing EU. Their tariffs are far to high. Greed again. It will finish the EU. They live far too high massive Pensions more than Donald Trump gets. The EU Mafia are very selfish controlling greedy people and will end up crashing. Wait and see if I am right. Member States can only take so much. 60 new Laws coming in. The EU will be gone in les than ten years maybe earlier. All to do with greed like dome of the shops. Big mistake.

  3. People alway’s should learn from experience. This is what I tell people that are not sure about Britain leaving the EU. Look at History and how great Britain was at World trading since the bronze age. They must look at History. People were more independent in the nineteenth Century. We were bold and more determined. More Enthusiastic. Not afraid to go forward.

  4. A 4th reason that I think is a huge contributing factor is the desperate desire to find determinism and expediency. So any idea or proposal that would promise determinism and/or expediency is slurped up without much question. The reality is that the way the world works, including economics not in any deterministic fashion but as an "heuristic", technically as stochastic processes. And, it often takes time for those processes to produce "end" results.

    Evolution is not a deterministic process that the result is predetermined a priori and the result is deterministically that which was predetermined. The environment is a stochastic process. The make up of relative populations of species is a stochastic process to obtain an equilibrium balance state such that the relative populations are sustainable. And when there is some sort of shock to the system, it is then a stochastic process to find the proper "solution" in response to that shock. And this process takes time to obtain. The economy is the same thing.

    What is the economically proper price of X relative to Y? That depends on a variety of factors. And those factors have to play out over a number of iterations of stochastic processes of various and numerous econoimc transactions, of bidding prices up, bidding them down, until the "solution" is found that those prices obtain the desired goods and services in the desired proportions.

    But people don't want to wait for that process to obtain the correct "solution", they want solutions now. Expediency. And it seems "obvious" that we ought to be able to decree, deterministically, the prices and such that we want to have. We want lower prices for food because we think it should be so, even if those prices actually result in less food being available. We think that some types of work that create very little value should nonetheless be paid far more than the value they create because those people have an entitlement to obtaining some deterministic amount from the economy regardless how little they contribute to it. We should be able to just decree, deterministically, that that is how it is rather than waiting for the {apparent} vagaries of random events, to maybe or maybe not produce the outcomes we just want to have. The problem is that just because we want an outcome, does not mean, not only can it not just be decreed to be so out of a desire to "know" deterministically it will be so, but it may not even be a physically obtainable result. You cannot obtain deterministically by fiat and decree goods and services that are simply not produced. That is, in either case, just because a thing has been decreed to be so out of a desire to have it deterministically be so, that simply does not mean that will be the outcome. In fact, most likely it will not be the outcome in the end. You can decree that all people shall have food for free, but what happens when the producers of food stop producing food and there is not food to meet that decree?

    Calling for a deterministic end to poverty in Venezuela by fiat and decree did not obtain that result. In fact, the fiat and decree in a vain attempt to obtain an outcome deterministically resulted in the exact opposite of the hoped for deterministic outcome.

    And when people say "but free markets cannot provide a solution" {to some perceived problem}, what the actually mean as a matter of reality is that free markets won't deliver the hoped for solution in an expedient enough time from to satisfy them. The reality is that free markets will not only obtain a solution, but will obtain the only actually economically sustainable outcome (well, not that there is only one unique solution, but this is the only mechanism by which to obtain any of them). Now, it make take some time – it is a stochastic process which takes time to iterate to obtain a solution, but it will do so nonetheless.

  5. This man is a filthy jew who wants to enslave the goyim. You morons need to think for yourselves. Anything not socialism=good is fake news its about the money power doofuses… They control it through state power at one end and the market at the other this cunt would have your children in factories from 5 if he could. Shake off your jew conditioning ffs

  6. I think Brook overstates the difficulty of understanding economics because he doesn't have much of a grasp of it himself. Much like the standard SJW of present, he advances a half-formed argument, spiced up with objectivist philosophy, attacks on other scholars, and simplified examples that illustrate nothing in particular.

  7. Such an amazing man he is really interesting and intelligent. I can't imagine how tough his life has been because of his speech impediment but he is absolutely brilliant because he was socially awkward and isolated from everyone around him.

  8. The very rich give to alot to liberal causes to protect their image and to not appear as robbet baron. Microsoft is a ruthless corporation that crushes the competition anyway they can. Bill Gates play Jesus with third world countries. The tech giants are basically monopolies but because they are liberal they protect themselves. The Robber Baron didn't have PR firms.

  9. 18:09 Wrong not just wrong dead wrong.
    The rich vote for "left" leaning governments because.. it helps them get richer.
    How? Regulation. You break one you get fined. Warren buffet can afford to pay the fine and keep on breaking regulations ,as long as he makes more money by breaking them than the fine is.
    ME? i get fined , i go out of business. Who benefits? Buffet. He does no need competitors eating at his share of the market.

    See? simple! The rich vote for big government because.. big government protects them. it keeps more people form competing with the existing rich, eating at their market share and profit margins.
    You really think rich people vote against their interests because of .. ideology?
    Dude there is only one ideology the rich have, the one that allows them to become richer by stifling competition and innovation.
    Economics is simple man.
    Stimulus packages don't work because ..no one is going to go out and spend the extra money. They are going to save them for sending their kids to college, or for rainy day. They definitely not going to go on a spending spree.
    Get away from your ivory tower and talk to some real people. You may actually learn how and why the market works.
    Intellectuals! I swear they exist to complicate the simplest things.

  10. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution.

    Ben Shapiro

  11. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics will tune out almost immediately. This guy is full of shit. Government is needed because industry will not internalise negative externalities. They will impose pollution and environmental/social degradation on you to turn a profit. If you really think government is the problem, look at countries that don't have functioning governments, are they a utopia? Fucking ludicrous.

  12. so how does he explain himself supporting everything that would repeat and cause a global economic collapse? He seems to know the history so why is he repeating? He seems to know economics yet he would still repeat everything from our past with his knowledge of economics. Economics is not as hard as he is talking about, he just finds it hard to comprehend because it's not a system that is designed to result healthy economies. He has to decide if he wants a fair economic system or an unfair economic system- it is that simple. If he wants a fair economic system then if you have a minimum wage you must also have a maximum wage – basic math what you do to one side you must do to the other side in a fair and equal equation. An unfair system results great wealth at the cost of creating great poverty which this guy doesn't believe the wealthy should be held responsible or accountable because they are "JOB CREATORS". He truly believes anyone who has self interest without accountability or responsibility is how things "work" – it's pure insanity. So why does his own biased views that have proven mathematically flawed theories can't change and want systems that works for everyone?

    Good video sadly everything he just explained why people believe bad economics is exactly all the reasons he himself believes in his bad economics. He truly believes his bad economics works – it's like magic – he can't understand himself because there is zero logic because it's BAD ECONOMICS. His own words describe someone who has zero value for human life, it's the mentality of money over people and shame anyone who points out that insanity. Global economy is collapsing, majority of the planet won't survive doomed to just keep repeating the same old patterns unless the majority that survive are smart enough not to support this level of bad economics.

  13. Very insightful and pleasant to listen to, yet seemingly willfully ignorant at the same time. How come the humongous costs for those 900+ military bases aren't even questioned once?

    I guess they just aren't up to debate. How much is a threat really worth if it isn't believable? Mammon is both the fuel for and the goal of this daydream called american exceptionalism, after all.

  14. Mr. Brook decries the opinions of Warren Buffet, as a demonstration of objectivism? Objectively, Buffet is the third richest individual on Earth, while Brook is nowhere to be seen on the Forbes 400.
    If I'm to follow an economic philosophy, I'm choosing Buffet…just sayin!

  15. I think he’s overselling how difficult it is to learn economics. Read “Choice” by Robert Murphy. It’s sound economic science explained in plain language. Once you read that book you could read “Man, Economy and State” by Murray Rothbard if you want and you’d have a great understanding of basic economics.

  16. This guy is spot on! All you a**holes who are bagging on him because of his speech impediment are doing so because you people have nothing else to say about the guy. He's absolutely correct and y'all know it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *