Noam Chomsky on Peak Oil, Economics, Financial Markets, Bailouts, Investment, Climate Change (1998)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ef_cbZ-Pc&fs=1&rel=0]
Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline. Global production of oil fell…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsYxVe0KE8&fs=1&rel=0]
“Why has Globalization Increased Inequality in Developing Economies?” A Lecture by Eric Maskin, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; Nobel Prize Winner in Economics Berlin International…
Noam
They want to turn everybody into an atomized consumer…who recognizes that
life is essentially worthless ….. you can’t control your productive
life….you can’t control your work life… and you can’t talk to anybody
else because ..you have to isolated & atomized..and you get your
gratification from consuming more commodities that you don’t want
Dork lol
I love how the last ignorant coming on youtube can feel himself
unrestrained at bashing against one of the top game theorists of the
planet. Thanks for this too, internet.
Just remove labor movement barriers between US and Mexico!
Why don’t these endowments of rich schools share their cash with the poor
colleges of the USA. Is in not obscene Harvard has a massive endowment of
rich preppy brat students yet pays no taxes on it?
Gee whiz, Derek Smith assures us that Eric Maskin is an idiot and a retard.
That’s a hoot! And, remember, Derek has read the Wealth of Nations! So we
can all rest assured that his insights are
astute.
ya
He’s a gay poodle, ready to piss on your leg if he gets too excited….
The mexican went from 5k to 10k/year and the american went from 50k to
150k… so both are better off and the income inequality has increased as
well. That’s a good thing.
3) Countries that have higher income inequalities have less political
stability – no evidence whatsoever of a causal or even a pos. correlated
relationship. I could give contrary examples, but that wouldn’t prove
anything and that’s my point. This whole line of argument is a
non-sequitur. Then he cites China, says more unrest due to more inequality.
What? Chinese peasants were much poorer 50 years ago, rich middle class is
becoming restless for political change. This guy is an idiot.
Next point. This guy has never raised corn. In the US, it is a very high
skilled task. It yields much more productivity/hr in large part because we
have the capital (thanks to high wealth inequality), in the form of a $250k
tractor, to support that worker and his high wage. Raising corn in the US
is every bit as complex as software programming. I’ve worked a farm and
written in BASIC, C++, java, and read Wealth of Nation + Human Action, etc.
Wanker above has done none.
Yes, there is greater inequality in China, for instance, but no doubt
everyone has enjoyed more products and services and more freedom than
before. This can be credited in large to globalization. Without
globalization, China would still be a closed economy with much greater
inequality.
This guy, I don’t think, has read Wealth of Nations. I have. He get’s the
theory of comparative advantage totally wrong. It says each person in the
exchange will benefit, so there is a net gain. It doesn’t prescribe
anything about the magnitude of difference in their resultant gain from
trade. One may benefit slightly, while the other benefits enormously – but
they both benefit and that’s what drives free trade. This guy’s such a
retard.
How did I know all this misguided BS would lead, ultimately, to some
hair-brained utopian scheme? Maybe it was the Harvard + Nobel combo. What a
laughing stock. His solution is to misdirect capital from high yield
investment to low yield investment and the definite result will be a lower
total productivity and therefore an absolute aggregate drop in GDP.
Bullshit is debunked that easily by truth. Eric just made a laughing stock
of himself. What an embarrassment. I’d pull that clip…
Prof. Maskin dismisses the notion that workers would invest in their own
education. (Too expensive he thinks). He may be wrong. This is the weakest
part of the argument.
Next point. We’re doing a thought experiment, OK, now he’s Einstein…
Nope, he’s no Einstein. His argument doesn’t make sense at all. Here’s a
counter example; The US makes wooden widgets of it’s own wood. Bam, no
tarifs. Now it buys wood for a $1/widget from Mexico. The price of wood
doubles and so does the salary of the mexican sawyer, who makes $10,000/yr.
The widget maker in the US sells widgets for $10/widget to the Dutch. His
income increases from $50,000/year to $150,000/year.
Don’t waste your time people. I heard almost this whole talk – it’s all
sputum. This man is a complete wanker.
Bad talk. This guy need work on his presentation skills. Get to the point.
He takes FOREVER to say almost nothing. But that’s style – let me address
content: 1) Moral argument – he confuses the concepts of equal treatment
with equal outcome. Equal outcome would require unequal treatment to
achieve – therefore income equality is immoral, by this “professors” own
lame argument. 2) For his second point, he immediately refutes his initial
assumption – that everyone’s average income is higher,..
short term YES…long term NO
False dichotomy – it’s not two classes, have and have-nots. It’s have very
little, have a bit more, have even more…. Country is not largely rich
because it has more skilled labor, it’s rich because it has a lot of
productively employed capital… this man isn’t too sharp. He sounds like a
high school student to me.