Capitalism Reflects Wealth Distribution in the Economy
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
45 951 Рет қаралды
"Freedom for the Heron is Death for the Fishes"
The Problem with Capitalism contains censored swearing
UNDERSTAND, SHARE & PUSH BACK
WEBSITE - www.garyseconomics.org
TWITTER - / garyseconomics
FACEBOOK - / garyseconomics
INSTAGRAM - / garyseconomics
TIKTOK - / garyseconomics
KZhead - / garyseconomics
PATREON - / garyseconomics
DISCORD - / discord
SUBSCRIBE, SHARE & START A CONVERSATION
Performed by Gary Stevenson
@garyseconomics
Produced by Simran Mohan
@mohanmedia
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - What is Capitalism?
01:30 - It Should Provide Incentives
02:20 - The Actual Outcome
03:40 - It Works for Money
04:45 - If Things Were Equal
05:33 - In Democracy £1=1 vote
06:50 - Protect Wealth Distribution
08:00 - Capitalism reflects the Economy
"capitalism doesn't reward you for doing what people want, capitalism rewards you for doing what people with money want" In all my years no one ever revealed this profound nuance to me but you good sir.
This was my favourite quote too!
The alternative being what the commisar (unelected) tells you to do, and decides how much you get paid.
It's a nice quote, but it's not accurate. The owners of Lidl, Aldi, Home Bargains etc make a lot of money by doing what mainly poor people want, which is to sell products of reasonably high quality for a relatively low price. Rich people couldn't care less what it costs for a basic can of beans.
@@davec3974 collectively as a whole the population has money so it is still accurate. The shareholders of those companies aren’t struggling for cash therefore they’re still driven by profits. People want the cost at the supermarket to be lower but the shareholders want their money so profits are made. The farmers want more money but supermarkets refuse to pay more to protect profits. They’re following what the people with money want still, the shareholders, whilst trying to keep the customers happy. It’s a different business model to the obvious luxury apartment yacht type arrangement but it’s still driven by profits and what the shareholders or owners want.
@Jon P every business is based on profits, including that of the farmers supplying supermarkets. If they didn't make money, then they'd stop doing it. The quote is true in the sense that everyone has some money, i.e. it's not a point about rich vs poor. Managing to create low-cost products that many poor people want can be more financially rewarding than creating a few high-cost products that a few rich people want.
Capitalists during the good times: "we took all the risk, so we deserve all the profit!" Capitalists during the bad times: "Uh yeah, our risk didn't pay off, we need a bailout."
So true. Next time, we need buyouts, not bailouts If the public funded it, then the public should own it!
Socialists. Er the trillions we took off you for the socialist welfare state and the £16 trillion debt wth no assets. That's not socialism is it.
@@unknown_name_389 during the 2008 crash ordinary people could have been bailed out and let the banks fail
Thats a huge part of the problem. The rich aren't capitalist. They're just greedy. Capitalism is broken as soon as failure doesn't cost.
@@ltmundWhere are the trillions that the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
As the last vestiges of humanity are sold for shares on the human stock market it's time to admit that we have the worst system of resource management and sustainability ever created. The impact on human psychology and the planet should tell us all we need to know. Led by a minuscule minority by our wallets to the grave...
Yeah let’s try communism again that’ll work a treat
Hi Steve Parker 8065, very prettily put if I may say so!. It is not often that I read such statements that encapsulate everything that take me many paragraphs to express!. The thing that frustrates me the most is the resolute insistence that so many demonstrate that bad as this system may be we would be worse off without it!, that so many just cannot that money itself and all the 'rules' we have for it are just human inventions and could be modifies in any way we choose, in particular changed to try make life better for everyone not just some self-indulgent elites. Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 Thank you and agreed, money is a human construct used to allow a tiny minority to own and control the vast majority of the World's actual resources - water, land and human labour. Most people only see the carrot dangling in front of them and ignore the hand in their back pocket.
What a disingenuous hypocrite. There is another system, (socialism for example,) and you don't ever mention it.
@@johnrueda3595 socialism just puts the means of production in the party of the states hands and has always led to authoritarian kleptocratic party officials who basically trade places with the billionaires in a capitalist system. It cannot just be capitalism Vs socialism surely man can come up with another option?
Please don't just comment on this page. As Gary has said repeatedly - we must get politically active. I stood in the local elections last week and continually related to inequality and the disappearing middle class during the campaign. I topped the poll in a middle-class property owning ward and got the highest vote in the new boundaries and the highest vote overall since 2007 on the old boundaries. We have stop the decline of the middle by people from the middle taking power from the elite and then taxing the wealth of the elite to grow the middle and save the economy and the planet.
Good on you! 💪🏻
I'm afraid that UN2030 will be carried out and the globalist cabal have paid off all the political pawns in the game. The West is finished as we knew it. Welcome to neo-quasi-communism
Totally agree, keep spreading the word! Congratulations, and thank you for what you do! Combining a socialist core with capitalism on top could potentially address the drawbacks of each system while preserving their benefits. For example, a strong social safety net could provide a foundation for individuals to take risks and innovate without fear of losing access to basic necessities. At the same time, a capitalist system could incentivize entrepreneurship and growth, leading to economic prosperity for all members of society.
Well done…but what party offers this? Labour are just too similar to the blues aren’t they?
@@firstpestcontrol276 best we have right now. I am so not a fan of Labour right now. But even if they are a skimmed version of the Tory’s full fat. It’s better than nothing. 🤷🏻♂️
"Capitalism is democracy, but £1 = 1 vote" 👏 thanks for putting that out there; I've been saying exactly this for ages to explain why I think capitalism and inequality hurts democracy
Same! I think it was a Korean Economist at Oxford who I heard it from… Pretty sure I might have seen Gary in one of the recorded lectures, too! It’s such an important point that free marketeers struggle to wrap their heads around.
Yes exactly. The problem with "voting with your wallet" as they say is that people with bigger wallets get more votes.
@@alicequayle4625 yes it was! His book “edible economics” was absolutely fantastic, too!
@@perrymason866 ah not heard of edible economics thanks will checkitout... I read 23 things a while back was good.
@@perrymason866 Giddens wrote about voting with your wallets many decades ago
He finally did it. He said the thing! The C-word, in a title. Keep it up, Gary. ✊
Sadly, he then went on to give a completely useless definition of capitalism because it is not unique in anyway. All the things he described in his definition of possible under work owned enterprises for example. All the critiques and analysis of capitalism that are of any value start from the relationship between ownership of enterprises and the labour in those enterprises. Everything else is a distraction because all the logic of capitalism flows from the relationship between ownership and labour.
@@michaelrch You're right, a bit disappointing. I generally like his stuff a lot, so I commented excitedly before I hit play. I guess he's trying to keep stuff *really* simple for normies, although a simple preliminary mention of the issue of who owns the means of production wouldn't have hurt his message. If anything, it would have helped.
@@WayneNoorey I watch all his stuff. He always makes this mistake so I knew before clicking play that this was coming. I know he knows some Marx so it's strange that he keeps on with this. Btw a great book/audiobook which is a great analysis on this stuff is Consequences of Capitalism by Chomsky and Waterstone. It draws the lines between the system of capitalism, it's logic and it's real world consequences due to that logic. I highly recommend it.
The way he inaccurately describes capitalism is the way people with wealth describe capitalism. Not a personal dig at him but the whole "capitalism is not too bad" opinion comes only from a position of financial privilege
@@michaelrch Indeed, just finished watching. He comes close to the edge, but steps back for some reason, perhaps because it is the system that allowed him to get rich in the first place (not a personal criticism, it's a human emotion). He has to recognize that capitalism by its very fundamentals will constantly move towards unequal wealth distribution, no matter how much you try to regulate it. It will always, even if slowly, surely find a way. And it has, throughout history.
I had this exact realisation in my early 20s. My issue with capitalism is the type of people it creates. I had a debate with a gentleman who beleived i was wrong and that capitalism creates the best types of people ... later on in the debate he quite accidently revealed that employers should have the right to fire a single female employee if she fell pregnant. I really dislike the type of psychology Capitalism creates. In the word civilisation, is the word civil. To be Civil is to be courteous, to be courteous is to be considerate of others.
Erm name a system or a time in human history where you don’t have idiots say or do silly things or worse. To somehow single out capitalism as if that would only create a bad individual is laughable
The guy is right technically and that would be the case in a truly Communist society. You would understand if you had your own small to medium-sized business. Only the big corporation can support maternity leave funnily enough. If you want communes to be a thing then you also have to accept that you either work or die. If you can't work then you're useless to the commune. You can't have half the work force off with 'anxiety' once or twice a week. Only the corporation can barely keep that one going.
@@lilscottieme my main issue with your post, which btw you're entitled to have your opinion, is that you've likely NEVER lived under any other economic system. All your fears were taught to you by capitalist institutions. This your fear is palpable and likely a manifestation of your education as opposed to any objective unbiased reality. That being said your fears are your own, though I may not like it, I may not also be entirely warranted.. and certainly is not a justification for the seemingly unquenchable and rampant greed that is promoted under this system.
@@lawrencebolt3540 I may never have lived under another system but I also fully understand that human history is littered with individuals doing shitty things to other fellow individuals under the many systems we have tried. No system is perfect but I am grateful to live in a society which has afforded me way more than the very basics of human existence and without fear and persecution. The individual and society as a whole can always improve and we should always strive for better but i will never be presumptuous to think that somehow living under a different economic system will suddenly make those individuals who wish harm on others to magically disappear.
Yes, and remembering our humanity, ‘ People First ‘ where is the Poverty Index, do we even have one , we will see clearly where we are headed, peace
Capitalism only serves money not people. Capitalism only works if people have money. My lesson for today, cheers Gary.
Well understood!
@@garyseconomics Yeah, so the most obvious solution to me is Universal Basic Income. That can have two forms; The first is Unconditional Basic Income, which leads to a parabolic democracy in terms of wealth distribution, because some people will remain richer that others. The second form is Conditional Basic Income, which leads to a flat/equal democracy where everyone is equally funded to participate altruistically in a public crowd fund.
@@blindstagehand I've heard Unconditional Basic Income before and for me it's called minimum wage although that is conditional whereby you have to work to get it which for me is better because only those who are contributing to society get paid. I've never understood how if something is unconditional you can get people to contribute to society as people work on what benefits them generally. Conditional basic income is new on me. How would you iron out the issues which are already obvious such as; Who sets this level and for what, why should one set of people get more than others, how do you deal with massive civil unrest as a result of telling everyone you don't earn as much any more, how do you stop people jumping ship and aiming for the higher paying jobs which then, by description will have an over supply of people trying to get them thereby reducing their value under what is the current system meaning they should get paid less. I'm sure someone has explained this somewhere in an article but the whole concept is new to me and others I'm sure so I'd like to learn more. Currently I don't see how it would work. Also I know it won't unless there is a major movement amongst the population to make it happen. Thanks, JP.
Capitalism is great at generating wealth (in every sense of the word), but it also produces inequality. Just use capitalism for its productive power, apply sensible regulations, and tax the wealthy more.
@@davec3974 Agreed. Tax wealth not work.
"Capitalism doesn't reward you for what people want. Capitalism rewards you for what people with MONEY want" that is such a good quote ngl
The relationship between who owns the means of production and labour is what differentiates Capitalism. However, its very importhat Gary is speaking about it as he has a unique opportunity and talent to communicate with ordinary working people.
Yeah I wish he would get prof david Harvey on
This is really brilliant - it’s so tiring to constantly come up against the idea that the only options are pure capitalism or pure communism and that therefore any change would necessarily involve a bloody destructive revolution. My other issue with capitalism is that it incentivises addiction and rewards the creators of addiction. I believe the biggest issue facing most western countries today is addiction. Not just alcohol and drug addiction. But porn addiction, gambling, addiction to screens and social media, addiction to ultra processed foods. Addiction turns a “want” into a “need”. When people have limited money, they’re going to spend it on the things they need and if they are addicted it will be spent on their addictions. And the unscrupulous will create things designed to trap people on a cycle of addiction in order to suck up all the wealth.
Wow. Well said. Good insight imo.
On USA pages you hear that argument all the time that any humane change in economic or social policy = communism.
Where are the trillions that the workers have paid the socialist welfare state? Wealth inequality is caused by the welfare state.
Agreed, especially with social media it is definitely addiction. When we decided the internet was going to be free we inadvertently drove the whole business model to advertising. 20 years later none of the services are about delving services that people need - its about addicting people to the services so that their attention can be monitised to advertisers. It's incredibly damaging.
@@paullegend6798 I wonder what it would be like if it actually did produce and deliver services that people need.
Love how clear and common sense your takes are. Critiquing capitalism without self-aggrandising bollocks is a powerful thing.👌
*CAPITALISM MEANS* "I have lots of money therefore give me more money for doing nothing"
Where are the trillions that the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
That's socialism but Instead I have money, it's I have no money give me money for doing nothing and having no job and being a single parent. Or I ate and smoked my own way to heart disease give me money to treat it
Keep giving Gary, people feel powerless in this cycle of grinding economics. Where ideology trumps basic economy. The rise and fall of nations is always hampered by ideology masked by religion.
The problem is hes not offering solutions. We all know the systems fucked
@@jamespaul6315 Knowledge is a big part of the solution. The status quo depends on ignorance. Without that ignorance, the status quo is unsustainable
@@dotsgrey sorry if your gonna make such a video with such a negative take on capitalism you can at least include solutions on how to bridge that wealth gap
@@dotsgrey we need people who will actually do this though. We need a new party
@@dotsgrey I did 😂😂
Wow, you've described the true lived experience of capitalism 👏 once people understand this, they won't feed into it 🙄
I'd love to think this but I think a lot of people get off on the idea of the have and the have nots as bizzare as that sounds.
What do you mean by “they won’t feed into it” ?
@@lilscottieme look at all the people pushing back against nurses getting a proper wage because "we can't afford it" By supporting inequality over nurses, they are feeding into the system. This behaviour will change, the more people inderstand how money works on the national and global scale
Yeah , Right ! We want to be like North Korea . Everybody has the same standard of living . Perfect !!
@@2msvalkyrie529 so a small elite living in opulent luxury, while the majority of the population struggles to cover the cost of living? Am I talking about North Korea, or the UK? 🤔
Everything you've said is true. Capitalism rewards those who are rich, while the rest take all the risks with very little gain: job loss, wage decrease, hunger, poverty, illness. There are certain key things human being require that don't work under Capitalism: health is one, energy and water provision is another: these things are a human right not a privilege, yet we seem to be going back to the days of The Citadel when healthcare was "privatised" and our waterways were polluted and therefore disastrous for ordinary people. Another thing: Capitalism requires the making of and increase in profits, so it needs the economy to keep growing ad infinitum, and much of what we need to keep it growing requires constantly sourcing raw materials from the natural world. The problem with that is what ecology economists are now saying: continual growth in a world of finite resources just isn't sustainable in the long term. The longer it takes for governments and corporations to realise this, the more likely we will see economic and social collapse.
I wonder how Gary's ideas fit with Doughnut. Economics.
Capitalism doesn't reward the rich and people that take no risk. That only happens when people have been allowed to gain undue power and influence over a market. Not only do governments fail to police markets these days, more often than not they are the conduit through which people buy undue power and influence.
Yeah we need to get rid of capitalism if we're going to save the planet. 🌏 ❤
@@connecting_the_dots24 Oh come on grow up. You seriously believe that China hasn't polluted the planet and that all the green technologies haven't been innovated in the free markets of the West. Clueless.
More insight and common sense from you Gary. Thanks for all you do.
Very well said - "rewards you for what people WITH MONEY want" - exactly this. If you don't have money then you can't do anything - even eat.
Presumably you know a Country where food / housing / clothing etc is Free ? ! Can you tell us where it is ?
@@2msvalkyrie529 I think you missed the point mate.
Great video. Learning all the time Gary.
Try getting job instead of living on Benefits ? You won't have so much spare time on your hands ?
@@2msvalkyrie529 ?
Wicked video as always Gary. Keep fighting the good fight! Thank you 👍🏾🙌🏾
It’s sooo refreshing to hear someone talking sense about the economy in a way I have been thinking but not heard. Thanks Gary!
Always look forward to your videos. Appreciate it! Reinforced/New Learnings
£1 = 1 vote ~ spot on brother x money is the real unit of democracy, not ballots. Equality and Diversity are both functions of wealth in a economic society x love your work bro x
Thanks Gary, real good sense as usual.
Another great video. Thanks for what you're doing Gary.
Gary mate, I am LIVING for this content. I teach economics in a university and the lack of specificity about "capitalism" as a term drives me mad. I've tried to make a really clear definition for my students, which is: Capitalism is an economic system organized to facilitate and prioritise property owners using their property to acquire more property.
"Capitalism is an economic system organized to facilitate and prioritise people with money using their money to acquire more money" is probably better for a general audience, but we talk about a range of assets in class, so go for the broader "property"
I’m with you 100% brother! 🤙🏾
Thanks for that Gary. Such an interesting way of framing capitalism that I've never thought of before. I would just like to add that another problem that's developed from capitalism is a pattern where folks trying to sell stuff are exploiting elements of our psychological nature (i.e. fear) to make us believe that we need whatever it is that they are selling and fear what life would be like without it. So it's not even what folks need, it's what folks can be manipulated into believing they need. And this seems to be the most effective marketing tactic and you can't blame people for exploiting it when the goal in this system is to make as much money as possible.
The war is between the deceivers and the deceived.
Thank you Gary 😊 The markets have no conscience
Gary, another great talk. You have been a pioneer of sorts and a few other commentators are now speaking about how the rich are accumulating assets
Cheers from australia you explained capitalism and democracy well.
Thanks for another excellent video, the simplicity of explantion for complex topic is remarkable. (It helps when talking to my kids) I was wondering about your thoughts on land tax as a way to address inequality and hyperinflation in housing market). I think dividend and capital gain tax is an obvius first point of action but long term land seems the missing point of taxation
A 1% transaction tax on the purchase of all goods and services could rend all other taxes obsolete x
Simple and wrong. Where are the trillions that the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
"Capitalism is democracy where one pound is one vote" that's an outstanding way to put it! But really, these videos are so clear and eye-opening throughout, even for someone like me, who generally knew about the problems you talk about. It's really evident you have an intuitive, deep understanding of the economy, which is refreshing to see. I was familiar with the critique of mainstream economy and with many of the concepts you use in your analyses, but man when I hear you talk I understand I had never really understood them. I am so grateful towards Novara Media for letting me discover such a golden yt channel!
Another great video with excellently communicated, logical explanations
Thanks for the video, so good at explaining this stuff in a clear and concise way!
Yeah....provided you have a single figure IQ . It makes perfect sense.
@@2msvalkyrie529 Exactly, if someone with a single figure IQ can understand it, then it's been well explained!
Spot on gary 🙌
Inspiring and insightful! I don’t know where this will end up but I am appreciating the journey.
It will end like the old East Germany . An economic shambles .!! Anyone who criticises will be thrown in prison and sanctimonious p****s like Gary will be The Government . ?
It will end like the old East Germany . An economic shambles .!! Anyone who criticises will be thrown in prison and sanctimonious p****s like Gary will be The Government . ?
Another excellent talk Gary x
Really insightful video. I've never viewed capitalism in this way. I've been walking around for a number of years now thinking what is going on. After watching your videos everything is making sense. We need to get your message out there.
Great video Gary!
bruv you're so on point here, i hope you continue to blow up and spread your points, russell brand was a great platform, keep it coming, eat the rich or maybe just have a wealth tax
Hi Garry.Much love from Kenya.
One of the best explanations of what I've witnessed happening in our capitalist society that I've ever heard.
I appreciate that you started with the disclaimer of capitalism/definition because this isn't historic/ political economy definition but is probably the way most people generally think of it. There are deeper issues to be sure.
1:02 come on Gary. One minute in and you've already lost me. All of those things you described are not unique to capitalism. Markets, regulation, taxation, low, or high, et cetera. These are all perfectly possible under other economic systems. What is unique to capitalism is the relationship between the owners of enterprises and the workers in those enterprises. This is the single fundamental defining feature from which all other capitalist logic flows.
Extreme wealth inequality is the problem that capitalism and democracy faces. Unless you want to live in countries where most live in slums, freedom and democracy curtailed and opportunity severely limited, a more equitable wealth distribution results in a better country by every measure other than the wealth and power of the richest. Nothing to do with communism, Lenin etc
id love to see more long form content, even if its just to give your thoughts about broader economic ideas/concepts and your understanding love the current content, just cant get enough!
er.....there are things called " Books " ! You can study them and try thinking for yourself ?!? I realise that's probably a shock for you....
Maybe watch my long Novara interview if you've not seen it yet
Gary, you are a STAR. Imagine even if at least 80% of the wealthiest became supercompasionate, the greed will disappear and there will definately be a change.
Unsurprisingly clear concise and totally persuasive well done Gary cannot wait for the book your videos have sparked such interest for me can you signpost me to other sources and have you any merchandising branding spreads the word
Great video. Id add that one of the largest contributers to the failure of distribution is we seem to have removed the price of failure from the rich. At least in perception. Bailing out the banks for example.
I think we also have to say that right now wealthier jobs are also the easier jobs, as the system is so developed that of course people in power, because they have power do the least for their money.
Great episode. Good points. From my lived experience, the one thing I have learned is the difference between Neoliberalism (Thatcherism) and a more mixed economy (Nordic model capitalism) is enormous. Tiny shift in type of capitalism, enormous differences in results. We've had 40 years of socio-economic degradation and decline for 99.9% of us. A big revolution would be ideal, but a tiny revolution makes a huge difference. Corbyn's Labour would have made similarly tiny changes with enormous consequences. Now we got 3 Neoliberal parties again
Amazing!!!
Superb and accessible analysis of the flaws and advantages of capitalism.
As a dentist, I can concur with his dental analogy!
It’s not an analogy - it’s a choice
Brilliant explanation
Thanks Gary
Capitalism died the minute 'too big to fail' became a thing. We've been living in a form of corporatism since at least 2008 where banks backed up by government power have created a new form of feudalism. How you undo years of money printing to bail them out is difficult...
Sensible contribution 👍 maybe a temporary wealth tax, to expire in 3 years and make sure the money goes to fund infrastructure only.
I agree with the need for a better wealth distribution. And what you need for this is a property owning democracy. More than redistribution (through social security), you need to correct predistribution. You need employee ownership in the companies they work, and profit sharing arrangements. You need high and progressive taxes on inheritance. You need taxes on the value of land, to make sure the value of nature and the value communities create go to everyone instead of just the owners of land.
Such a good summary of capitalism and when it works, and what is needed to make it work for us 👍
I works for middle class not higher taxes
Hey hey Gary, on a tangent to this: what are your thoughts on the concept of universal, or close-to universal workplace democracy? I've thought of it for a while as a way we can try and "evolve" capitalism into something better and more stable, in a way that's ammenable to all through a form of collective decision making (including that protection of distribution you would seek). Would love to know your thoughts!
Great video Gary! To be fair and balanced in your views, could you please produce videos expressing your educated opinion on the effects of prolonged low or negative inflation on society and also the opposite aspects to a capitalist society with all its pluses and minuses. Looking forward to that! You are an eye opener Gary, we’ll done and keep doing what you are doing mate.
Thanks Gary! Great work! I’d say that capitalism, especially in the UK, has descended into a process of harvesting wealth rather than creating wealth. The people with their hands on the controls just can’t get enough. They don’t seem prepared to invest over the long term to create wealth, but happy to take what they can of what already exists. Greed is bad!
This is the best video so far. For me, I love capitalism, but I also love socialism. I would like to see a society where both are represented in equal measure. For example, a business needs educated, healthy workers who can focus on whatever the business requires. Well, then we need the worker to be housed, fed, educated and kept healthy. We don't want the worker stressed out and focused in getting a meal on their table. We need a worker who has time to relax and think - maybe bringing new and productive ideas into the business, or creating a new business, or creating some art in their spare time. A worker who can spend quality time with their families. A business needs a worker to produce children - so the business needs to 'collectively' provide for those children because they are the next tax-payers and workers. If workers can't afford children, then the business will search for workers from other countries. There is the immigration problem that is build into capitalism. However, the workers will eventually see that their low salaries do not provide for even a low-level standard of living. Solution? Look around the world and you'll see it - have as many children as possible. Hopefully enough will survive to bring enough money into the household to take care of the parents when they are old and sustain the family - concept being: a lot of a little is enough to survive. The UK is transitioning to this '3rd world' system right now.
"I don't want things to be very very s**t" second best quote :)
Nauff Respect Gary.
Hey Gary. What you are describing is capitalism as a totemic word for the socio-economic circumstances that we live in today. Capitalism in itself is just an economic theory. As you said there is no country with a pure capitalist system like anarcho-capitalists want. The problem is that as an economic system, capitalism's ultimate goal is profit. That, you cannot fix. It's just an axiom. So if you have capitalism as the economic basis of our society you will *always* have inequality. To have equal distribution of wealth (cause if you don't want equal distribution then nothing changes) then it will be incompatible with capitalism. Unfortunately it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Equal redistribution of wealth would entail you not living in a £1mil flat in Canary wharf. Cause what you have earned in your life and what you own now is a product of the inequality yourself want so much to see gone.
Profit is one important factor in how capitalism operates but that is downstream of the ownership model in capitalism. It is the fact the operating profits of the enterprise go to a tiny class of shareholders, and that those shareholders control the enterprise that inevitably leads to ever increasing inequality. If workers owned and controlled their enterprises, the logic and incentives in the economy would be radically different.
@@michaelrch What lays in the core of capitalist economic theory is profit. That is the ultimate goal. Nothing else. Capitalism doesn't care about equality, ethics, the planet etc. The only thing capitalism drives human beings to do is *profit*. Gary knows this all that well working in the banking sector. As long as you have capitalism as the basis of what forms our society you will *always* have inequality. There is no escape from that unfortunately. so if we are talking about workers owning and controlling thei enterprises we have to take the moral argument out of the way as in it's core capitalism will always have the upper hand. UNLESS we want to live in an extremely authoritarian state where capitalism is harnessed to provide only for the "working classes". I agree that workers should get shares in the companies they work for as their labour provides value and adds wealth to these companies but all of this conversation has to be done through the prism of capitalism and hence not criticising it.
@@dimitrisblane6368 I don't disagree with most of that but I think you miss the central point. When a company is owned and control by a class of capitalists who don't work, who don't engage in the community where the company operates, who don't even have to live in the same country as a company, then you get a completely different operating logic and set of incentives vs if you have only one class of workers who cooperatively own and manage the company. Even if workers have some shares in a company that is radically different to them completely owning and running it. It's not just a moral argument when comparing the fairness of who gets the rewards from the labour that is done. It's also about the dynamics that are in play when the owners are a tiny elite class who have no material interest in the pay of the workers, the conditions of the workers, the location of the workers, the environmental damage done to where the company operates, who is in government to regulate the company, etc etc etc The ownership model is the central determinant of how the system will operate because it determines for whom the company operates.
@@michaelrch Yes it's all good. But I have trouble understanding how you would do that. Cause it sounds like you want to keep the existing system based on capitalism but change the owners. The problem is that if capitalism exists and is the basis on which our society is formed (owning things, owning more things, owning better things, owning bigger things) then *profit* will still be the driving force. When some workers are getting paid more than others, when you have managers in "better" positions with better working conditions then that will create tensions. And following that a class struggle. As long as capitalism drives people to seek profit, oppresion and suffering will exist. Maybe not for you and maybe not even for people in this country but someone *needs* to suffer for capitalism to work. You need the poor otherwise the whole thing will crumble. On another note, how would you change ownership of Argos for example? So that workers would own it? What would be the process? Cause someone needs to invest the capital to built Argos in the first place. do you get the state involved to force the owner of Argos to give it to the workers?
@@dimitrisblane6368 If workers own there workplaces then capitalism no longer exists. That's the first thing to say. Capitalism is literally defined by a model where there is a class of capitalists who own everything and a class of workers who provide the labour. Once the workers own the "means of production" then capitalism is over. This is definitions I'm talking about. Gary's use of the word capitalism is very unhelpful because it is not unique to our current system. Using Karl Marx's (and Ricardo and Smith's) definition is much more useful. So then you can consider how an economy behaves when there a no longer capitalists making the decisions. So imagine a workplace where everyone votes on the way the company is run. The structure can be simple or complicated with some direct votes and some decisions via representatives. Pretty much all the incentives change radically. Workers won't vote to work in unsafe conditions for crap money. They won't vote for massive pay inequality though they will still have to operate in a market for labour so better qualified or unpleasant jobs will still attract more pay. There won't be an inexhaustible desire to make profits at the expense of the community or the environment because the workers themselves live in that community and that environment. Workers won't pressure the government to invade other countries to steal their resources because they are not in a position to take advantage of foreign conquests because, unlike global capital, they can't just flow across borders with a few keystrokes on a bankers keyboard. And the dynamics of competition in the market change because workers cannot simply buy up their competition and monopolise a sector. There is also less opportunity to be too cutthroat and exploitative because again, the workers won't vote to exploit themselves. So competition is actually more healthy under worker owned conditions. Consumerism which you identified as a serious problem is much less strong because absent capitalists who want to endlessly acquire more wealth, the economy will be less driven by profits and more be driven by utility. Though this is not an all or nothing thing. There will be just less requirement for consumerism. Not least because capitalism also demands growth. It actually collapses without growth. An economy more focused on utility does not need growth. Etc. There is a lot to say about this. I strongly recommend a book/audiobook called Consequences of Capitalism. It explains clearly what capitalism is, what logic that creates and the real world consequences of it on the world. As for the process of getting to a worker owned economy, that is a complicated subject. It certainly won't happen overnight. Capitalism coexisted with its predecessors, feudalism and slavery for many decades. There are ways to make it happen though. The rules of the economy are written by the government, if they change the rules to end the vast privileges of capital, and give worker coops a leg up, then it will happen. Note there are plenty of such enterprises that exist today. Not many in the U.K. but they are well known in Italy, Spain, Switzerland and France,
Just 2 words: BANG ON!
There was a great guy in the audience on Question Time this week. He endorsed the position you are taking. He said the the Super Rich - the billionares - have so much money they could not spend it all in their whole lifetime. Why does one person need or have so much money. Crazy system.
This was QT on 27.04.2023 / 25 mins. QT can be frustrating. Audience members often fail to make their point well. Nerves probably. But this guy was articulate, succinct and used language that just hit the nail on the head. It resonated and is the kind of thing you remember long after the show has finished. Keep up the good work Gary. Your films help me understand a financial world that outsiders like myself do not always fully comprehend. Thank you.
amazing video keep it up
what's your thoughts on a land-value tax, the old Henry George idea? I think it could be one of the ways to solve the housing crisis in Britain as it would incentivise building of affordable houses and would bring in lots of tax revenue. Would love to see a video of you covering that
“Live as through you are already free” RIP David Graeber
Another critique of capitalism which is perhaps more important to its instability as a system is this: the workers who make the commodity are also the vast majority of the consumers who buy the commodities. However, if the commodities were sold for the same amount the workers were paid to make the commodities, then there wouldn't be profit for the capitalist (the business man or corporation) to pocket. So although it can be put off through various means, capitalism inescapably trends towards a situation in which vast amounts of commodities are left on the proverbial or literal shelf because no one that wants to buy them can afford to buy them. Then because capitalism demands endless growth, and because no one can buy the commodities so the production becomes a waste of money, all the businesses begin to go bankrupt and shut down leaving all the demand without anyone to meet it and even less jobs to work which results in an economic crash yes but worse, this applies to food and housing and other essentials of living meaning capitalism trends towards mass death from deprivation as all the wealth which people need to live gets gradually siphoned into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is an innate and irrevocable feature of capitalism and cannot be fixed without abolishing the capitalist class entirely because the problem is that they are siphoning off surplus labour value.
I love these videos
What a phrase - capitalism isn’t one person one vote, it’s one pound one vote! - I’ve never heard it said better. So I used to be a sculptor. Switched to art & about 15 years ago. I thought I’d do a little business selling prints cheap. 10£ a pop. people could frame them themselves to make it affordable. All signed. I would go to markets up and down the country. & my gf sold them in cape cod when she was over there for her summer photography business. It was a disaster. People would come up & say how much they loved both types of prints ( teddybears & architecture & fishing scenes. ) but we found few people would ever buy stuff. I didn’t understand. A few years before I’d been doing custom installations for rich people for serious money. The whole idea was well it cheap so your average person could buy some art. Cause being around rich people was getting me down. & I’d do, paint and even light an installation then never see it again because it’s in some millionaires house. What I found was this. People still love art. But the working class ( of which I’m one ) are so siphoned of money that the idea of buying even cheap art is a dying idea. So what you are saying is right. & even more so now that it was 10+ years ago. The rich have taken all surplus wealth from the poor & they have absolutely no buying power. So a whole industry has formed around servicing the rich. It’s the death spiral of society we see. & I saw it 1st hand. - amazing work 👍🏻
Mate. Glad you finally said the "c" word. You're right, it is frustrating to say that's the problem. If frustration was the only problem with that prognosis, we would be very lucky indeed. Instead of the car analogy, i would offer this: Someone went to a doctor with a horrible rash. The. doctor tried to treat the rash. But the rash turned out to be a symptom of changes in the body brought about by stage IV cancer. Of course, the doctor would try to alleviate the pain of the rash, but every day the cancer went untreated would be another day lost to helping the patient live longer. Of course, it's stage IV cancer, so, no matter what, the patient will die, sooner than later, of cancer. Now, this is not a perfect analogy, but i think it comes closer to the truth of our collective situation. For 500 years (give or take) the cancer has been growing. It has now taken over the entire body, i.e., the world. We can try to alleviate the symptoms of the cancer, but we are in stage IV. If we don't organize ourselves radically, i.e., address the root of the problem, the mass death (what has been dubbed The Holocene, or The Sixth Mass Extinction) of life on this planet will continue. Add to that the mass death and destruction we are just in the opening stages of that global warning is causing and the picture becomes very stark. Jason W. Moore proposes a different theory and name to describe the era we're in: The Capitalocene, because, not only has capitalism caused and exacerbated these apocalyptic conditions, it is a system incapable of stopping on its own. Why? The logic of capitalism, the engine, or the basic rules capitalists follow as a whole, is ceaseless accumulation and the commodification of everything. That ensures exploitation and destruction. It is homicidal, and ultimately suicidal. Well, I'd like to address everything you said, but this is already way too long for this format. I've given my ideas of how to proceed in other comments. I've also talked about some of the biggest problems in the way of truly radical collective action. By the way, he's not the only person to talk to, but I'm sure Jason would be happy to talk with you if you want to learn more. As long as they're in good faith, I'm happy to answer any questions I can from anyone who has made it this far. - Cheers
Thank u for this video, finally someone who calls on "capitalism is the best economic system we have got. " Idea and explaining it. Capitalism leads to a democracy under the corporations and communism leads to tyranny.
I so agree here. Calitalism *is* broken, but its broken like a car with a design flaw. Replace that flawed part with an aftermarket modification, aka regulation or regulators, for the things we want, not just the things that people with money want, and we'll get another fifty years of useful work out of it. We do need to start actively scheming for what economics should look like with AI and automation in play though or we're going to have an even harder job that weve already got to find the right aftermarket mod.
I worry that non-specific "capitalism is the problem" messages leave people feeling hopeless and defeatist. The situation can be vastly improved by improving the wealth distribution. We can fix the problem if we understand it specifically.
UBI would help provide working classes with economic liberty which we are desperate for, Robin Hood taxation
Gary can you do a video discussing perpetual growth economics and how this is playing out ecologically? maybe talk about external factors and/or the fact nature left alone has no monetary value (perhaps tourism/nature reserves is an exception) to us or how the cost of natural depravity isn't accounted for in costing. short-termism vs long-terism
Problem is fixable in theory, but greed and wanting to be superior is just in some people’s nature
I like how he, Gary, spells things out in plain and simple words. I'll be looking for any videos that talk about how to fix the "distribution", as that now becomes a word as vague as what Gary mentions for "capitolism". I've always wondered if there's a system for generating money without scarcity? Something where someone can create a job for something that nobody wants and have it be subsidized by government. Example, would be a homeless person decides to clean the streets he/her lives on, shows proof of the effort and collects a social security, maybe even a stock for their self made job.
Loving Gary's videos. Is there any where he outlines what he would do different? How would he tax the rich and how would he redistribute in a fairer way?
Just discovered your videos, they're really interesting so thanks for all of your work. I do have a question - you've often mentioned that we're in danger of losing the middle class due to the wealth being transferred to the elite, and we'll be back to where we were 100 years ago. I'm curious how we moved in the other direction over the last 100 years, thus creating the large middle class? I'm not aware of a large taxation on the elite so where did the middle class come from?
I'm sure Gary had a video where he talked about the post war economy where there was the political will for big changes. The debt was bad but they went for it.
Ive heard it said by opposition politicians numerous times over the last few years that "bottom up" rather than "top/trickle down" is what would boost the economy, now i see clearly how it directly correlates to the whole system
Brilliant
Gary is honest and straight forward equal distribution of wealth for all not just for the rich, we need a fairer and more balanced society.
Kim Jong Il shares your ideas ! Amazing !!
6.00 : Conway's Law in action; "Capitalism [is so dynamic] it creates the physical infrastructure to perfectly mirror the distribution of wealth" (i.e. the management matches the money [cf Conway's 'product']) !
tremendous!
A change is needed, but not easy. But rarely are good things easy
Very smart.
"I'm not a philosopher" - says the guy with a masters of philosophy 😉 In every system the devil is in the details and this is a great explanation of that. I love Gary's pragmatic approach.
@Garys Economics potentially Video idea suggestion: Thought experiment on Limiting Profit .
Would it be possible to find out if the people who advised Ragan and Thatcher knew this would happen, or at least had predicted it might?
Yes, this has been known about since at least the mid-20th century (Gini, Lorenz, ...).
Again, like you said, it serves thise with capital. Rules made can be undone. It lately it relys heavily on scarcity, so i think it could only truly work in post scarcity, where theres no lack for anything forcing inmovation.
gary is quite right , redistribution would solve most of the problems for most of the people, once we have done that (and moved to carbon neutrality) we can talk about other systems but this really is an easy proven fix
I agree with the fact that it doesn't really matter what we call things. All we need to do is find the thing that creates the kind of society we want to live in. The problem is the kinds of conversation about what we might want. If conversation remains at the level of a child who just wants everything - i.e. rich and famous, we will get the society we want now. Society has to be unequal if people want to be immensely rich. If people start to value other things over that, we might find true change.
At one extreme, the logical conclusion of capitalism is that capital accrues into the hands of fewer and fewer people. It has to be regulated to prevent this from happening. A good example is the monopolies commission that will prevent one company taking more than 40% of a particular market.
Gary. Love your channel and hear what you're saying. I do have a question though and it relates to the wealthy, it is this: Why is enough, never enough for the wealthy? Is it greed, power, prestige or a combination of all three plus other reasons? It confuses me why; when will too much, be enough? I'd be interested in your reasoning?
I think it's easy not to realise how automatic it is for the rich. They have enormous fortunes which are managed by portfolio managers and automatically grow relatively quickly. It's not an active choice, it's the default.
Yeh, sadly it makes sense. Haven't put a video out for a while gary, hope you're okay @@garyseconomics 👍
Legend
Predominant capitalist way of thinking is "why should there be distribution, and how is it fair?". Would be great if you could do a video on that please.
Quite simply if there’s loads of people without money how can the economy function?