Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • This lecture is called "A Short History of Economic Thought"

  • We're going to explore, in an almost haphazardly concise manner,

  • the most notable attributes of the historical unfolding

  • of the market-based economic tradition, as we know it.

  • And while we could go back thousands of years in such an analysis,

  • we'll be focusing mostly on the most relevant, causal, influential ideas

  • emerging from the 17th to the 20th centuries.

  • As an aside, even though this will likely be the most boring presentation

  • you hear today [laughter]

  • I personally find economic history incredibly interesting

  • because it's really a history of perception.

  • If you were to ask a pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer

  • what their economic model was, if they could even conceive of such a thing,

  • it would likely have something to do with strategic harvesting

  • around seasonal periods of earthly regeneration,

  • locating optimized yields, tactics for physical storage and the like.

  • Today, of course, things have become much more complicated.

  • Yet, we should not be intimidated by modern economics,

  • regardless of how sophisticated it may appear.

  • In fact, I would say that our current practice

  • originated in exactly the same way all the other practices did,

  • with people basically just making stuff up as they go along,

  • based around apparent evidence that seems to make sense,

  • with usually a grace period of sorts before the inevitable fallacy

  • of certain assumptions surface, through negative consequences.

  • As a final introductory note, I would like to set the tone

  • by stating outright that the vast majority of what we call economics,

  • as it is presented in universities and financial circles today,

  • is really an outdated, irrelevant

  • and increasingly detrimental form and system

  • when it comes to the actual maintenance of life on the planet Earth.

  • "It's life-blind" is a great term.

  • There is no structural recognition of any basic natural law processes,

  • principles of earthly sustainability,

  • public health factoring and the like;

  • in the view of the market, these are externalities.

  • And in the millions of pages of mainstream economic theory printed

  • from the 17th century onward, you will likely find not one sentence

  • about the natural, technical processes

  • that actually create and assist in meeting human needs,

  • the sociological importance of meeting those needs

  • for social stability and invariably public health,

  • generating optimized industrial methods

  • to ensure overall efficiency or anything of such.

  • To paraphrase economist Thorstein Veblen,

  • who'll be mentioned again in a moment (a prominent historical figure),

  • there are really two systems at work;

  • there's a business system, and there's a technical or scientific system.

  • The business system has no active recognition of the technical system,

  • hence the natural science behind it, and it works in the modern era

  • to now "Perpetually... sabotage" in the words of Veblen,

  • our scientific capacity and possibility

  • due to its outdated, narrow frames of reference.

  • The point being that true economics can only be understood

  • within the context of physical science.

  • And the traditional market logic has been backwards in its orientation,

  • with most everything centered around short-sighted, subjective intuitions,

  • mostly having to do with human behavior and human nature.

  • PRE-CAPITALISM

  • Medieval feudalism, which spanned roughly from the 9th to 16th centuries,

  • was a system of mutual obligations and services

  • going up and down a set social hierarchy,

  • with the entire system essentially resting

  • on an agricultural foundation, an agrarian foundation.

  • There is great speculation with respect to what happened in Europe

  • to transition out of feudalism,

  • but technology appears to have played a major role,

  • as it has, in fact, with virtually every major social shift.

  • Advanced agricultural transport, enhanced regional trade,

  • better connecting different settlements

  • facilitating the development of markets in more regions,

  • generating an increasingly more prominent system of merchants

  • (a merchant class, if you will)

  • where the artisan producers of the medieval period,

  • which were prior to the point-of-sale, for the most part, for their goods,

  • began to more frequently sell wholesale to these merchants

  • who went afar and re-traded for profit.

  • This commercial expansion, around the late 16th century,

  • helped facilitate what is now retroactively termed "mercantilism,"

  • which operated in Europe up through about the late 18th century.

  • Mercantilism has many definitions these days, depending on who you ask,

  • but it essentially is characterized by state-driven foreign trade monopolies

  • to ensure what they call a "positive balance of trade."

  • In short, it was a powerful collusion

  • between the state and commercial industries.

  • And a notable characteristic of mercantilism,

  • something that carries over to this day, was the large amount

  • of national conflict because of the restrictions

  • and protectionist policies put forward by different nations,

  • economic warfare, in effect. And it was in this overall environment,

  • in the late 18th century, Adam Smith,

  • one of the most well-known economists

  • with respect to market theory today, wrote his classic text

  • "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"

  • In this, he writes an extensive criticism of mercantilism,

  • advocating instead a form of trade and interaction which was to operate,

  • ideally, without national coercion and restrictions of the state.

  • And while many of us might criticize Smith today

  • for his shortsightedness, as I will discuss more in a moment,

  • we should realize that it was an important move

  • in the evolution of economy and the development of civilization.

  • The "free market," as it is termed, opened the door

  • to a kind of immature, unstable, yet creative experimentation

  • facilitated, in truth, by the parallel growth of science and technology.

  • However, as with lots of creative immaturity,

  • as we might see in young children,

  • such active behavior does not necessarily constitute responsible

  • or sustainable behavior, as we will discuss.

  • So, to quickly generalize this evolution from the Middle Ages,

  • it went from a rather static, localized, agrarian society

  • with a strong social order and hierarchy,

  • to further advancement of technology, more expansive trade,

  • communication and commerce, furthering an ever-increasing merchant class,

  • which simultaneously reconsolidated nation-state power.

  • And then from Adam Smith onward,

  • we find a slow, subtle breakdown

  • of protectionist trade techniques occurring,

  • both domestic and international, working to, in theory, promote the freedom

  • of the producers and hence, the freedom of society itself,

  • with what is now abstractly generalized as the free market

  • or free-market capitalism, as it worked out by the mid-19th century.

  • Now, what's important to understand here

  • is the apparent shift of the power center itself,

  • a move from large scale state economic control

  • to so-called business or personal freedom.

  • The problem, however, is that the state economic interests

  • and corporate business interests are one and the same.

  • All we have done in this overall process, in effect,

  • which again, was indeed helpful to a certain degree,

  • as it expanded our capacity,

  • was go from state control of business to now business control of the state.

  • Today, we live in an advanced manifestation of this,

  • with the advent of what can be deemed the "corporate state,"

  • where business interests hold final decision-wielding power at every turn,

  • with, gesturally speaking,

  • the elitist kings and nobility of the feudalist period,

  • redefined, behind the scenes, of course, in the form of a constituency

  • of financial and corporate powers.

  • In other words, while change did arguably occur

  • for the better in very basic ways,

  • it has only occurred within a very rigid, locked framework

  • of class elitism and power allocation that is, indeed,

  • based on the same basic, underlying, elitist philosophical worldview.

  • CAPITALISM

  • Before we delve into the psychological and sociological assumptions

  • that underlie the socioeconomic condition we endure today,

  • let's quickly review the core characteristics, structurally,

  • of the free-market capitalist system.

  • 1) Market-Based Production/Distribution

  • Commodity production is based around interrelationships

  • that usually do not involve direct personal interactions

  • between producers and end consumers.

  • Instead, supply and demand is mediated

  • by a mechanism called "the market," using money.

  • 2) Private Ownership of Production Means

  • Society grants to private persons the right to dictate

  • how the raw materials, tools, machinery and buildings

  • necessary for production can be used.

  • 3) Decoupling of Ownership and Labor

  • Capitalists, by historical definition, own the means of production,

  • but yet have no obligation to contribute to production itself.

  • Everything produced by the laborers,

  • who, in effect, only really own their labor itself,

  • is owned by the capitalist by legal authority.

  • I'll touch upon this again in a second.

  • 4) A Self-Maximizing Incentive is Assumed

  • Individualistic, competitive and inquisitive interests are necessary

  • for the successful functioning of capitalism,

  • since a constant pressure to consume and expand is needed

  • to avoid recessions, depressions, loss of growth and other negatives.

  • Underneath the surface of these four characteristics

  • are essentially six fundamental premises,

  • and we will talk about these in pairs, as they relate.

  • Property and The Labor Theory of Value

  • Utilitarianism and The Utility Theory of Value

  • The "Invisible Hand" Metaphysic

  • and the Conclusion that Classes, Imbalance and Suffering is Inevitable

  • If everyone in this room can understand the failed intuitions,

  • truncated frames of reference and general fallacy of these six concepts

  • as they are defended by proponents today,

  • you will be able to break down pretty much every PhD Economist's

  • arguments in support of the current model.

  • Property and The Labor Theory of Value

  • Property, in function, is a basic intuition

  • found throughout all of human society,

  • based around a territorialism of sorts

  • that can also be found, of course, across the animal kingdom in general.

  • The argument isn't the obvious necessity to be secure

  • with our means and tools of survival,

  • recognizing that protection has been needed

  • as we evolve out of these long periods of scarcity,

  • hence the generation of constant conflict.

  • The problem is the application of the theoretical concept of property itself,

  • its value assessment and how it is rationalized in input and function

  • within the internal logic of the capitalist system.

  • I can say a great deal about the sickness of our property culture today

  • as fueled by the consumption ethos pushed like a bad drug,

  • but that will be for another talk.

  • However, let it be said that property as a means of useful function is viable.

  • Property as a unit of vanity and social status

  • is an underlying social distortion,

  • which, when extrapolated in its effects, as quaint as it may seem,

  • is extremely destabilizing.

  • Philosopher John Locke, who died in the early 18th century,

  • published a highly influential book

  • "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" in 1689,

  • and in Chapter 5, Locke expresses his view regarding the origin of property,

  • which is carried over, in one variation or another,

  • into modern free-market economic theory as we know it today.

  • As was natural to that period of time in Europe,

  • Locke's premise for defining property

  • was derived from a Christian perspective,

  • stating "God gave the world to men in common;

  • but since he gave it them for their benefit

  • and for the greatest conveniences of life, they were capable to draw from it;

  • he can't have meant it always to remain common and uncultivated."

  • I don't know about you, but I always enjoy it when humans redefine

  • what God actually meant. [laughter]

  • In short, Locke states that property is created

  • when a person "Mixes his labor with it,"

  • the logic being that the labor energy put into the making of a good

  • must naturally be the property of the person performing the task,

  • and hence that property labor is transferred into the good itself.

  • So, God put stuff on the Earth in common,

  • we attach the right of property to it because we are mixing our labor with it,

  • and then we use it for our purposes. Fair enough.

  • Adam Smith clearly agreed with Locke's labor-based property definition,

  • and later applied this logic to what could be termed

  • the "labor theory of value."

  • The labor theory of value

  • suggests that the labor put into the creation of something

  • not only assigns ownership or property,

  • it also determines, in part, where its value or exchange value is sourced.

  • He states "Labour was the first price,

  • the original purchase money that was paid for all things.

  • It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour

  • that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased;

  • and its value, to those who possess it..."

  • David Ricardo, a firm disciple of Smith, a generation later

  • (very influential) reinforced the same basic idea, stating in mild variation

  • "Possessing utility,

  • commodities derive their exchange value from two sources:

  • from their scarcity and from the quantity of labour required to obtain them."

  • He continues with the logic "If the quantity of labour

  • realized in commodities regulates their exchange value,

  • every increase of the quantity of labour must augment

  • the value of that commodity on which it is exercised,

  • [as] every diminution must lower it."

  • However, there's a problem here.

  • If we are to respect these rules of property, value and such attainment,

  • how does money fit in?

  • How does money serve as both a store of value

  • and a medium of exchange, when, in effect, its value attainment

  • has no causal connection to anything related to human production?

  • We just decide it has value and put it into circulation.

  • Money, whether on the gold standard or fiat, is completely decoupled

  • from the process of value and property creation.

  • John Locke and Adam Smith

  • make it clear that true wealth, the wealth of nations,

  • is not a function of how much gold or silver or hence, money economy has.

  • It's actually the sum of the production,

  • the goods and services the economy produces.

  • That is the true definition of wealth, as per Adam Smith, who states

  • "The annual produce of the land and labour of the society is its wealth."

  • And the main punchline is that money can buy labor.

  • What does this mean?

  • It means that one can buy the actual process

  • of value creation and ownership creation

  • with a fake commodity

  • that has neither of these causal attributes built into its existence.

  • Capitalism's dominant feature exploits this,

  • as the private ownership of the means of production, including labor

  • through money, or "capital" as it's called,

  • enables a form of power and wealth consolidation that is unprecedented

  • as an economic system, in causality,

  • maximizing the use of this fraudulent, made-up commodity.

  • This basic contradiction, as minor as it may seem, is actually quite dramatic,

  • and it's been observed by many critics throughout history.

  • Karl Marx, likely the most demonized economic thinker of all time,

  • had a great deal correct with his criticisms of capitalist philosophy.

  • I might not agree with his socialist conclusions,

  • but his criticisms are quite acute.

  • He states "At first the rights of property seemed to us to be based

  • on a man's own labour. At least, some such assumption was necessary

  • since only commodity owners with equal rights confronted each other,

  • and the sole means by which a man

  • could become possessed of the commodities of others

  • was by alienating (giving up) his own commodities;

  • and these could be replaced by labour alone.

  • Now, however, property turns out to be the right,

  • on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate...

  • and to be the impossibility on the part of the labourer,

  • of appropriating his own product" (the product made).

  • "The separation of property from labour [has been]

  • the necessary consequence of a law that apparently originated in their identity."

  • (referring to the capitalists, by definition).

  • Economist Thorstein Veblen,

  • a brilliant sociologist, perhaps my favorite social critic,

  • also rejected the idea of private property and that it was a natural right,

  • often expressing the absurdity of thought

  • that leads the, what he called "absentee owners,"

  • the owners that don't do anything,

  • to claim ownership of commodities produced, in reality,

  • by the manual labor of others,

  • highlighting again the irrationality of the long-held principle

  • that from labor comes property.

  • However, Veblen went further, and he expressed

  • something much more profound than everything I've just talked about.

  • He expresses the social nature of production

  • and how the skills and knowledge accumulation inherent

  • completely voids the causal justification of property rights

  • in and of themselves, stating

  • “[The] natural-rights theory of property makes the creative effort of an isolated,

  • self-sufficing individual the basis of ownership vested in him.

  • In doing so, it overlooks the fact

  • that there is no isolated, self-sufficing individual...

  • Production takes place only in society,

  • only through the cooperation of an industrial community.

  • This industrial community may be large or small...

  • but it always comprises a group large enough

  • to contain and transmit the traditions, tools, technical knowledge,

  • and usages without which there can be no industrial organization

  • and no economic relation of individuals

  • to one another or to their environment...

  • There can be no production without technical knowledge,

  • hence no accumulation and no wealth to be owned...

  • and there is no technical knowledge apart from (the) industrial community.

  • Since there is no individual production and no individual productivity,

  • the natural-rights preconception... reduces itself to absurdity,

  • even under the logic of its own assumptions."

  • Think about it. How can we create anything

  • of ownership in a physical or intellectual sense and be isolated?

  • How can we source anything to a single individual or select group?

  • Veblen recognized, basically, that we live in a group mind;

  • we live in a shared concept, whether we like it or not

  • and we share our ideas and skills.

  • And you know this rhetoric today we hear (it's very common in the right,

  • in the conservative circles) "You get what you work for."

  • In this ethic, your contribution is the only thing

  • that can manifest and improve life.

  • Yet, did anyone in this room invent the automobile?

  • Yes, we might have to pay for it at this time,

  • but the general intellectual design and the (hence) thousands of years

  • of scientific inquiry and awareness that manifest that piece of technology,

  • was given to us, given to our generation for free,

  • along with countless other inherited lifestyle realities we take for granted.

  • While our intuition and basic interest in our own well-being

  • seems to support, again, this justification of property,

  • whether physical or intellectual, the whole thing falls apart very rapidly

  • when we take the perspective of social, intellectual development

  • over generational time. So, the next time someone tells you

  • that "You only deserve what you work for," tell them to go find a new Earth,

  • reconstruct the entire edifice of human civilization as we know it,

  • from the ground up, inventing everything as they go along. And only then

  • will they deserve to have such things as a cell phone,

  • mathematics, air conditioning, modern medicine or the like.

  • [applause, cheers]

  • Moving on.

  • Utilitarianism and the Utility Theory of Value

  • Utilitarianism is, in many ways,

  • both a psychological theory of how people behave

  • and an ethical theory of how they ought to behave. Keep this in mind.

  • It has many different schools of thought today. But in short,

  • it is a model of behavior which is based around something

  • of an impulsive, hedonistic assumption of human action in general.

  • It deals with pleasure and pain and the idea that human beings

  • basically react in favor of pleasure and work to avoid pain, on all scales

  • (very convoluted, as I'll describe).

  • A notable figure and proponent of utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham,

  • who died in the early 19th century.

  • He stated "Nature has placed mankind under the governance

  • of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.

  • It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do...

  • By the principle of utility is meant that principle

  • which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever,

  • according to the tendency it appears to have to augment

  • or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question."

  • Utilitarianism is at the core of the microeconomic behavioral assumptions

  • put forward by what is called "neoclassical economics" today.

  • The assumption of people working to maximize their happiness

  • and reduce suffering is a guiding principle,

  • and various behavioral models of high complexity have also been created

  • in these intellectual circles.

  • Within this assumption, there are lots of other ideas

  • built-in naturally, such as the idea that humans are insatiable,

  • and we have infinite material wants which never make us satisfied.

  • We have deeply ingrained need to be better than others

  • and other competitive nuances and the like.

  • However, before we address the obvious problems with these assumptions,

  • it's important to point out what utilitarianism, as a behavioral model

  • and eventually as a model of value, actually accomplishes.

  • With the labor theory of value, the workers in a capitalist institution

  • were simply another good to purchase,

  • with value basically extracted systematically.

  • However, as the relationship goes,

  • the more workers are paid, the less profit is available for the owners.

  • This is basic cost efficiency stuff you hear about in Economics 101.

  • However, a troubling awareness underneath the surface,

  • which was recognized by David Ricardo, Adam Smith and others,

  • is that this highlights a conflict

  • between workers and owners.

  • The owners wish to maximize their profits,

  • while the workers wish to maximize their wages.

  • David Ricardo made this very clear in his writings,

  • that the interests of workers and capitalists were always opposed.

  • "If... wages should rise" he often said "... profits would (necessarily) fall."

  • Now this, of course, is quite true without dispute,

  • but it's extremely inconvenient

  • for those who really wish to believe

  • capitalism is a system of social harmony.

  • And the Utility Theory solves this.

  • The Utility Theory of Value

  • states that a good value is mostly not derived from labor,

  • but is based on the mere perception of those who wish to own.

  • This new view, in effect, enables a detour from the class war problem,

  • essentially reducing everyone to self-maximizing exchangers,

  • and since everyone is exchanging, on their own hedonistic behalfs

  • and in their gleaming self-interest,

  • they are all operating in an abstract, "equal playing field"

  • in some bizarre philosophical logic.

  • I'm not kidding! This is an historical defense.

  • Marx, of course, in all of his general belligerent glory,

  • was very aware of this strange logic and stated

  • "Indeed, insofar as the commodity of labour is conceived of

  • only as exchange value, and the relation in which the various commodities

  • are brought into connection with one another is conceived of

  • as the exchange of these exchange values...

  • then the individuals... are simply and only conceived of as exchangers.

  • As far as the formal character is concerned,

  • there is absolutely no distinction between them...

  • as subjects of exchange, their relation is therefore that of equality."

  • Veblen, who was probably even more horrified

  • by the neoclassical economic assumptions,

  • saw the idea that all human economic behavior was to be reduced

  • to a hedonistic interplay of self-maximization and preservation as absurd.

  • He even joked that "A gang of Aleutian Islanders slushing about

  • in the wrack and surf with rakes and magical incantations

  • for the capture of shell-fish are held, in point of taxonomic reality,

  • to be engaged in a feat of hedonistic equilibration

  • in rent, wages, and interest. And that is all there is to it!"

  • In the end, the problem with utilitarianism is that the distinction

  • of what constitutes pleasure and what constitutes pain

  • is not only utterly subjective, it is only predictive in the context

  • of the most impulsive and shortsighted reactions.

  • It is an apt recognition because, again, in the competitive market model

  • of economics, this tendency is actually clearly reinforced.

  • It reinforces this impulsive shortsightedness, structurally, all the time.

  • For example, a corporation might not want to suffer the financial pain

  • of proper disposal of toxic byproduct,

  • so they dump it into a river next to the plant.

  • However, when those local people go home

  • to their families and turn on the tap water, not knowing that this river

  • leads to a reservoir to which their water is sourced,

  • they are going to suffer a great deal of pain

  • in the long-term due to cancer

  • and other health problems that would result.

  • I hope that is clear, as this perspective is likely the most dangerous

  • of all perspectives in modern economic thought.

  • The selfish self-maximization of utility, as an assumption of behavior,

  • leads only to short-term pleasure,

  • at the expense of long-term suffering.

  • The Invisible Hand, Suffering and Class War

  • As a final set of premises, let's now examine

  • the metaphysical notion of the famed "invisible hand"

  • and the basic historical assumption of immutable class imbalance

  • and human suffering.

  • Returning to Adam Smith,

  • it could be argued that his most notable contribution

  • to the philosophy of capitalism was his general suggestion

  • that, even though individuals might act in a narrow, selfish manner,

  • there was what he called an "invisible hand" at work

  • that secured a positive social outcome in the long run.

  • He stated "As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can

  • both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry,

  • and so to direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest value,

  • every individual necessarily labours

  • to render the annual revenue of the society

  • as great as he can. He... neither intends to promote the public interest,

  • nor knows how much he is promoting it...

  • he intends only his own gain and he is in this,

  • as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end

  • which was no part of his intention...

  • By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes

  • that of the society more effectually

  • than when he really intends to promote it."

  • This nearly religious ideal

  • had a powerful effect on the post-Smith era,

  • giving, in fact, a very socialist vindication

  • for the inherently self-maximizing

  • arguably anti-social behavior common to capitalist psychology.

  • Implying a basic utilitarianism as well, under the surface of this

  • is, of course, a glaring paradox.

  • Smith considered the "laissez-faire" or completely open form

  • of capitalism as the highest mode of socioeconomic operation,

  • stating that it was a "system of natural liberty"

  • and "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice,

  • is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way,

  • and to bring both his industry and capital into competition

  • with those of any other man or order of men."

  • Well, today with 1% of the world's population

  • owning 40% of the planet's wealth,

  • one billion starving,

  • literally not meeting nutritional requirements on a daily basis,

  • and almost half the world in deep relative deprivation,

  • there's ample proof that the mechanisms of the market economy

  • clearly gravitate towards power consolidation

  • and, in effect, the limiting of freedom, the limiting of health

  • of many billions of people in the world today, systematically.

  • However, it's really interesting to see this consequence,

  • because if you really examine Smith, Ricardo

  • and now Thomas Malthus, if you examine their writings in detail,

  • you'll notice something very interesting, that the invisible hand

  • which suggests, implies, in fine print,

  • the betterment of all, is really only acknowledged

  • to help a deserving subsection of the population.

  • Throughout all of their writings, in general,

  • they imply that suffering will remain, regardless,

  • and in the case of Ricardo and Malthus,

  • they actually emphasize not helping the poor in some cases,

  • as it only gives them false hope in the long run.

  • The term "naturalist fallacy" can be applied here,

  • as these thinkers were taking their intuitions about the limits of society

  • and assuming they were empirical, just as they did in the Bible.

  • "You will always have the poor among you..." ~ Matthew 26:1

  • And while we do not hear much about Malthus these days,

  • with respect to his incredibly incorrect population theory,

  • which stated, among other things, that it was a law of nature

  • to have rich and poor, along with the inevitable consequence

  • of increasing reproduction as wealth increased,

  • implying that the poor must exist or be repressed,

  • since the carrying capacity cannot possibly handle

  • everyone maintaining a quality standard of living as he knew it then.

  • And these theories, unfortunately,

  • still underlie the very core ethical assumptions

  • pushed forward by the market economy's basic social approach today.

  • So I ask you, if the dominant, most influential historical proponents

  • of this economic model, a model which has spread across the world,

  • planted this intellectual seed that it was impossible

  • to take care of everyone and that poverty was inevitable,

  • and that it's only a higher, moral class, in effect,

  • that really deserves the fruits of a decent life,

  • do you think that maybe it might explain

  • why there has been virtually no real effort

  • on the part of any large-scale establishment

  • to actually resolve global suffering on any real level,

  • even though it has clearly statistically been technically possible

  • for many, many decades now due to advancements in technology?

  • In conclusion, I wish to point out, again, that the capitalist market economy

  • did facilitate a stage of improvement on a very basic level,

  • as with anything in the course of evolution.

  • There's no such thing as wrong if the mechanism of understanding,

  • correction and adaptation is working properly.

  • And that's the problem today;

  • we're not adapting fast enough.

  • I see it is an issue of social maturity.

  • If we look at cultural evolution as a process of adaptation

  • and with the needed vulnerable acceptance of new knowledge

  • as the mechanism of change, we can begin to see that we are stuck

  • or moving in a very slow way,

  • when it comes to the way we think about economics.

  • Naturally, due to the extremely powerful reinforcement it has,

  • generation after generation, it compounds this value neurosis

  • over and over, creating increasing fear of change.

  • And I hate to sound condescending,

  • but right now I put the maturity level of human society, in this regard,

  • at about the age of 9. [oohs]

  • We have an entire species of children selfishly running around the earth,

  • hoarding toys, many still believing in Santa Claus,

  • fighting over abundant toy blocks, pushing to the front of the line,

  • jockeying for mommy's attention and status,

  • creating little gangs to feel wanted and to feel powerful.

  • And it isn't that we can't see a path of maturation;

  • it's rather the sickness that exists in this household we share,

  • the water we swim in, the foundational values and beliefs

  • that currently embody the whole of our society,

  • our ideological parents, the zeitgeist itself.

  • And that's why we're here.

  • It's now an issue of growing up, and whether anyone likes it or not,

  • they are in The Zeitgeist Movement, one way or another.

  • Thank you very much.

  • [cheering, sustained applause]

  • www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

This lecture is called "A Short History of Economic Thought"

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

2013年 "時代精神日"。彼得-約瑟夫|"經濟思想史"[11篇中的第2篇]。 (Zeitgeist Day 2013: Peter Joseph | "History of Economic Thought" [Part 2 of 11])

  • 21 3
    王惟惟 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字