5 Inequality Myths


ANTONY DAVIES: Myths about inequality. Myth number one. Profit and plunder are the same thing. Imagine a person who provides services to
society. Maybe he mows lawns, or fixes cars, or paints
houses, and in return for these services he provides to others, he asks for something
in return, maybe some food, clothing and shelter. Now, suppose it’s the case that the society
values what this person provides tremendously, maybe because these are things that society
really needs, or maybe because there are very few people who are able to do these things. But, for whatever reason, society places a
great value on the things this person contributes. And let’s suppose, also, that society places
a relatively low value on the things that he asks for in return. Perhaps it’s because these things are easy
to produce. There’s lots of them laying around. For whatever reason, imagine that society
places a low value on the resources this person asks for in exchange. We would look at this person and say, “This
is a person who we would like to have. He contributes more to society than he asks
for in return.” But, now take this person and superimpose
on top of him a monetary system, where instead of exchanging the things he does for society’s
resources, he exchanges the things he does for money and uses the money to buy resources
from others. This is what this would look like. The person provides value to society and society
gives him dollars in return, and the dollars are commensurate with the value that society
places on these things he offers. Society highly values the services, and so
people are willing to pay him a lot of money for these services. And then in return, the person takes some
of this money that he’s earned, and he buys resources from society. And because society does not place a large
value on the things he’s asking for in return, they don’t ask for much money for these. And so if you look at the system, what’s happening
is that the person is accumulating dollars. He will have more dollars coming in than there
are dollars going out. We call this profit. Now, many people look at profit and say that
profit is, in some sense, a bad thing because it represents something that someone is taking
from society, but if you look at it in this context, profit is actually an indication
that this person has done something good, that he has provided more value to others
than he has asked for in exchange. And so as he provides this value and asks
for things in exchange, he accumulates these dollar bills. We call them profit. Steve Jobs with $80 billion in the bank, and
he’s an example of this person. Where did Jobs come up with this $80 billion? He came up with the $80 billion because these
people liked the things he was offering better than they liked the dollars in their pocket,
and so they gave dollars to Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs gave iPhones to the people. This was the transaction. At the end, Steve Jobs dies with lots of money
in the bank, but the world ends up with lots of iPhones as the other half of the exchange. Profit is not a sign that people need to give
back to society. In fact, it’s the reverse. Profit, when attained in a free market environment,
is a sign that society actually owes the person more goods and services than he has already
consumed. Now suppose, conversely, the person accumulates
dollars not by offering goods and services to society, but instead by co-opting the government
and using the force of government to take money from others and putting it in his own
pocket. Then, in that case we have this kind of situation
where the person just simply is using the force of government to take money from the
people. The person then uses some of this money to
buy goods and services, and maybe he has some leftover. But this, although it looks like the same
pile of dollar bills, we no longer call it profit. We now call it plunder, because although it’s
the same pile of dollar bills, how the person came about those dollar bills is very different. He did not come about them by offering someone
something in free exchange for something else. Instead, he came about them by co-opting the
power of government to take money from others. We have plenty of examples of this. The agricultural lobby lobbies government
for things like ethanol requirements, despite the fact that there are many studies showing
that ethanol is not necessarily good for the environment. It does not give you better gas mileage. It doesn’t reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, and yet big industries will lobby the government for ethanol requirements because
these industries make their money from growing corn. And so what happens is, these large industries
collect lots of money in exchange for providing people with nothing in return. This is the difference between profit and
plunder, so myth number one, profit and plunder are the same thing. The fact is, profit is good. It indicates someone is providing something
for society. Plunder is not. It indicates that someone has actually taken
something from society. Myth number two. One can be for equality. These three kids face equal opportunities,
although unequal outcomes. Each one stands on a box. They have equality of opportunity, but because
they are different heights, one can see the game. One can’t. They have inequality of outcomes. These three kids face equality of outcome,
but inequality of opportunity. One has two boxes. One has no boxes. Their opportunities are unequal. Despite the fact that all three can see the
game, their outcome is equal. The moral of the story is, you cannot be for
or against equality. You can only be for or against a particular
combination of equality and inequality. If you are for equality of opportunity, then
by definition, you are also against equality of outcome. And if you are for equality of outcome, then
by definition, you are also against equality of opportunity. And the reason for this is because people
are different. Some people are born smarter than others. Some people are born luckier than others. Some people are born faster or stronger than
others. And because people are born into different
circumstances, when we leave them alone, we give them equality of opportunity. Some will naturally rise higher than others
and we will have inequality of outcomes. In fact, because people are different, the
only way to achieve equality of outcome is to impose an inequality of opportunity to
boost the people who are less smart, less skilled, less educated and hold back the people
who are more. So, myth number two, one can be for equality. The fact is that equality and inequality are
actually inseparable. We can only be for a combination. Myth number three. We understand what equality means. These children are suffering, but they’re
not suffering because they’re unequal. They’re suffering because they’re poor, and
to the extent that we focus myopically on equality. We run a real risk of missing a real problem. The real problem being poverty. Look at these people. Let’s suppose that the people on the left
earn $30,000. These people earn $40,000. Those earn $60,000. And the people on the far right earn $70,000. We can look at this and we see that there’s
lots of inequality here. But, imagine that these people are in different
stages of their careers. The people on the left have just started their
jobs. The people in the middle are mid level career
people. These are people, on the right, who have spent
lots of time in the workforce. They’ve achieved lots of education, lots of
experience, and commensurately high incomes. To the left of these people are students who
are learning skills and preparing to enter the workforce. We have inequality here. And if I move time forward, you will see that
this inequality persists. Always we have inequality. People on the left earning less. People on the right earning more. However, over time each person has moved through
each circle, and so each person has earned, over the course of his or her career, a total
of $200,000. That is in this example. We have persistent inequality, and yet everyone
is completely equal. That’s not to say that there is no such thing
as inequality in outcome. But, it is to say that when we talk about
inequality, we tend to take a snapshot. We look at the world and we see some people
who are poor, some people who are middle class, and some people who are rich. And we say, “Look at the inequality,” when
the right way to do this is to look over time and watch over time how people move. Some from the poor to the rich, some of the
rich move down to the poor. And if we look over time, we will still see
inequality, but we will see markedly less than we see when we just take a snapshot. Steve Jobs, as we said, died with $8 billion
in the bank and he got his money from people like clip art woman, who handed it over to
him in exchange for I things. Now, when we talk about inequality, we focus
on the flow of the dollars. We completely ignore the flow of the goods
and services. Next time you’re in a crowd of people, ask
for a show of hands. How many people here have at least $50,000
in the bank? And you’ll find very few hands going up. Then ask. How many people here have a smartphone? And you’ll see every hand go up. Notice the difference. When we look at dollars, we will tend to see
inequality, but if we look at the goods and services that arise in response to those dollars,
we’ll actually see tremendous equality. Economists measure inequality on the Gini
Index. Zero means everybody’s equal. One means one person is incredibly rich and
everybody else is destitute. The two most equal countries in the world
are Sweden and Afghanistan. On the Gini index, they rank .25 and .28. In terms of planet Earth, this is as equal
in income as countries can get. And yet, if you look at these two countries,
what you will find is that the average income in Sweden is $54,000, while the average income
in Afghanistan is $600. That is, equality doesn’t necessarily mean
that we’re all well off. We can be equally miserable. So, problems with inequality. First, inequality diverts our attention from
a real problem. The real problem being poverty. Second, people can be unequal persistently,
and yet perfectly equal if we look at them over time. Third, inequality ignores completely half
of the economy by focusing on dollars, not goods and services. And then finally, when we’re done, equality
isn’t necessarily good anyway. So, myth number three is, we understand inequality,
and the fact is, most of us actually don’t. We confuse it for, equality exists at one
point and time for equality that actually is much less over time. And at the end, we actually end up thinking
equality is necessarily good, when in fact, it may not be. Myth number four. The middle class is disappearing. This is the distribution of households in
the United States in 1970. All the numbers here are adjusted for inflation. The height of the bar is not income. It’s the fraction of households that exist
in the income level, so here we have what today we would call less than $15,000. And in 1970, about 15% of US households had
incomes that would be the equivalent of what today we would call less than $15,000. And in 1970, about 10% has $15,000 to $25,000
of income. The largest percentage of households were
in the $50,000 to $75,000 range. And then, what you see is, way over here very
few households, about 1% in 1970, earned what today we would call more than $200,000. That’s the United States in 1970. Now, let’s move forward 10 years. Here’s 1980 and you see slightly fewer households
in this poorest category. A little bit more here. A little bit more here. A lot less here. A lot less here. And we have more in the rich categories. This is 1980. Here’s 1990, 2000, 2010, and the last year
the data is currently available, 2013. Notice a pattern here. As we look at the fraction of households in
each income category, amongst these poorest categories, we see far fewer households in
this lowest category, about the same in this category, and a little bit less here. So, in total amongst the low income categories,
we have fewer American households here today than we did in 1970. In the middle income households, we have less,
fewer households in this category, fewer households in this category, about the same here. Amongst middle income Americans, there are
fewer households than there were in 1970. The middle class is indeed disappearing. In fact, so are the poor classes. And where are all these Americans going? They’re going here. From 1970 to the present, of course there
are exceptions. But, here we see a trend. The trend is, over time and adjusting for
inflation, Americans are leaving the poor categories. They’re leaving the middle income categories,
and they’re showing up over here in the rich categories. So, myth number four, the middle class is
disappearing. The fact is, it is. It’s joining the upper class. And the poor classes are disappearing, as
well. Myth number five. People are becoming worse off. In 1798, Thomas Malthus published a treatise
claiming that over the next few years, we were going to see massive starvation as the
population grows and grows, and we are now unable to feed ourselves. And Thomas Malthus wrote in response to looking
at the data you see here. This is the world population going back to
10,000 years B.C. up to the time of Thomas Malthus, and you can see what happened. The number of people on the planet was rising
exponentially by 1798, so at this point, Thomas Malthus looks at this and says, “If this trend
continues, we will never be able to afford people. We’re going to have mass starvation throughout
the globe.” Well, let’s move forwards. This is the point in which your grandparents
were born, and population between Thomas Malthus and the time your parents were born had grown
by two billion people. This is the point at which your parents were
born. We added another one billion people between
the time your grandparents were born to the time your parents were born. This is the time most college students were
born. And between the time your parents were born
and college students were born, we’ve added about two billion people. And from the time today’s college students
were born until the present, we’ve added another 1.5 billion. Thomas Malthus was back here looking at this,
saying, “How can we possibly feed this many people?” At the time of Thomas Malthus, 98% of the
world lived in abject poverty. Since Thomas Malthus, this is what’s happened
to population. And yet, what’s happened to world poverty? In Thomas Malthus’ day, over 95% of the world
lived in poverty. By the time today’s college students’ grandparents
were born, world poverty had dropped to 65%. By the time their parents were born, world
poverty had dropped to just over 40%. By the time today’s college students were
born, world poverty had dropped to 30%. And today, world poverty is less than 10%. At the same time that we have seen exponential,
astronomical growth in the number of human beings, world poverty has declined from north
of 95% down to just 10%. If you want to look at specifics, you could
see here. This is data for the United States, comparing
2011 to 1992 or 1998, what we see here is the number of households who have washing
machines, about the same. More households have clothes dryers. More households have dishwashers. About the same number of households today
as in the past have refrigerators. Fewer have freezers. More have televisions. More have … About the same have electric
stoves. More have microwaves. In almost every category, more American households
today have appliances like these, versus American households a generation ago. This is housing conditions. Fewer households have leaking roofs. Fewer households have problems with pests. Fewer households have plumbing problems. In all sorts of ways, not only does the average
American household have more appliances, it also has better housing conditions. The neighborhoods and communities are also
better. People’s basic needs are better. In all these various ways, what we see worldwide,
we also see in the United States, that on average, people have access to better qualities
of life today than they did a generation ago. Over the past one or two generations, the
rate of firearm deaths are down 50%. The rate of nonfatal firearm crimes are down
75%. The rate of deaths due to war are down 95%. Child labor rates worldwide are down 50%. Global income inequality is down 3%. Global gender inequality is down 15%. Global longevity and education are up 20%. And finally, global income is up 40%. All of this stuff over the past one or two
generations. So, myth number five is, people are becoming
worse off, and the fact is, it’s the exact opposite. The reason this myth persists is because what
we see in the news repeatedly are pictures of people starving, pictures of people shooting
other people, of wars globally. The reason we see these things is precisely
because they’re uncommon. What we don’t see on the evening news are
things that happen every day, because they’re uninteresting. In this way, oddly, the evening news has become
a litany of all the things that aren’t true about your life. Conclusion, the fact is, profit is good. Plunder is not. Equality and inequality are actually two sides
of the same coin. They’re inseparable. Most of us don’t understand what inequality
is. The poor and the middle class are becoming
increasingly rich. And finally, the world is actually becoming
a much better place to life in than it ever was before.




Comments
  1. how refreshing to have someone to show that capitalism is not bad. All you socialists need to watch this once a day!!

  2. Does anyone KNOW how much INHERITANCE TAX Steve Jobs ESTATE PAID?? How much the Keynesian Marxist system "redistributed" of Jobs Estate???

  3. Well most on the left do not want to listen unfortunately, no matter how much you explain. It is really an existential problem , it is far easier to feel things about a group/person that seem like they have been dealt a bad hand than to actually understand the bigger picture (economy, societal structures, politics etc). Most people are completely incapable of keeping up with the modern world because it evolves so fast and it becomes very likely for them to be stuck in their mind with the same problems of the past .
    My only objection to #5 "We are better off" has an exception and that is the environmental problem. We have a lot to work on that score to ensure that the current growth will keep going and also that there is no severe resources/energy problem that could result in catastrophic wars( we also have far more destructive guns today , thats worse as well)

  4. jobs didn't have 80 bil in the bank. he had 80 bil in assets. Is a "free market" even true or possible with multinational corporations and globalization? What about Anti Trust? Monopolies and Duopolies? "Free" would result in a concentration of power. Like Amazon is doing. Is Amazon plundering?

  5. But leftists are going to destroy that wealth.

    Would be nice to see those statistics for countries like Venezuela or Yugoslavia (in the past). The leftists are the ones that destroy wealth.

  6. The Steve Jobs' example is biased, since the services and money exchange aren't doing a straight line between him and the customers. There are the investors, the stock market's game, the marketing plan to convince more customer to buy the product (with scientific experiences to predict the human behavior for the more successful campaigns), which isn't an altruist thing.

    That guy in the video says literally that Steve Jobs is a good guy doing good things with his tiny hands for his fellow humans, and that he got rich thanks to his customers. Go read his biography folks, you could be amusingly surprised. Firstly, he earned his first millions thanks to the Apple II being put into the stock market : meaning that speculation got him rich in the first place. It's not good or bad, this is just to prove that it's nothing that are been shown in this video.

    There are many actors in the world of capitalism, and neither of them rely on self-merit or altruism, because investors would then never want to make a profit over investing if they were altruists… right.

  7. Acceptance of the belief of "CLIMATE CHANGE" is your approval of 1992 UN CONTROL using CLIMATE CHANGE TRICK allowing their us to be reoriented. Control of EDUCATION & MEDIA to re-program common sense thinking to UN controls.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5n4zeEetg&t=389s

    Please watch hundreds of time!

  8. This is confusing. It seems to me that this guy is saying some people are for equality of outcome? Is this real? Are there actually people with such a little understanding of the world that they think equality of outcome can possibly be the right way to go?

  9. hat a load of BS, income between the poor and middle class is more equal between 1970 and now, but with inflation and cost of living they are all poor nowadays

  10. Capitalism: Equal oportunity, you can go from homeless to rich

    Socialism: The poor die poor the rich get poor and the super rich stays rich.

  11. Where did he get his stats on fire arm deaths because in the united states gun deaths have been increasing. In 1999 deaths from guns happened at a rate of 10.3 per 100,000 and by 2017 gun deaths had risen to 12.4 per 100,000. This is all according to the CDC.

  12. If Australia stops giving your tax dollars to Muslims and so called refugees, there won't be an Australian in need and taxation can also be reduced. Oh! and stop voting for corrupt and ideological asses

  13. The Steve Jobs example is a bad one. Society now NEEDS iphones like they NEED fossil fuels to maintain the machine which allows this number of people to function effectively in this space. The reason Jobs died with 80 billion instead of 8 billion was because he (his company) transitioned from one which provided a valuable service (cheap functioning iphones) to one which plundered (built-in obsolescence, propriety service, etc.).

  14. Myth #4 middle class is disappearing has been staved off because since 1970 per household now BOTH spouses are working; they have MUCH fewer or no children and they are up to their necks in debt. In the next few years this will become more obvious as it catches up.

  15. Inequality has soared over the last 10 years. The huge returns from stocks and real estate appreciation was a gift to them from the Fed and other Central banks to those who were able to be in the right place, at the right time, with credit and wealth to invest. Savvy investing did not give anyone this return. This is a completely artificial bubble created with near zero interest rates and massive money printing. Normal real estate appreciation is 3-5% per year and stocks about 7%. Most people will never see such a period again in their lifetimes. Those who were not able to participate have seen their wealth actually decrease. Look at incomes, rent and college tuition. Wealth inequality has been exacerbated by the Fed and government policies. Savers have been punished. So the huge wealth inequality was not created by free markets and hard work, but by the Fed and massive debt leverage. Corporate buybacks have NOTHING to do with creation of products and services. there is no value being created for society. Just higher returns for shareholders, much of it created with cheap debt. In the meantime, try getting a loan from the bank as a small business – good luck.

  16. Necessity is the Father of Invention (Freemarket Capitalism), Equity is the Mother of Decline (Marxist Socialism).

  17. Yet being one of the 'Lucky' I can't afford to give someone on the street,a meal, and elevate them to the next Steave job's

  18. Our school children have not been taught anything like this for over thirty
    years. They have been fed a steady diet of socialism by public teachers
    paid by our tax dollars for many years now. As we may find out in the
    next election.

  19. This is like trying to listen to a 9 year old explain to the poor kid why he deserved more gifts from Santa. The microprocessors and satellites used to make the iPhone such a great tool where NOT invented by Steve Jobs, they were infact developed by university researchers and goverment funded programs like NASA. All he did was take work done by a community of people, slap his name on it and horde all the profits for himself. Joe the bricklayer couldn't do that because you have to already be a millionaire to license out a factory in China to make all those phones, and that's assuming one of Job's employees wasn't the one who came up with the idea in the first place

  20. 13:40 based on the size of the bars,, yeah no. There's a loss of population between graphs. More people are becoming rich yes, but more people are dropping off of the income bracket due to no income or too low income to register on that graph.

  21. It seems to me to be a little misleading to use household income rates to indicate that people are " richer",
    i would like to know how many of the households in the 70s and 80s were 1 income families compared
    to the 2000s+

  22. How can almost 3,000 people click thumbs down on this? It's clear, it's logical, and it reflects reality; in the workplace, in interactions between people, companies, and governments! How much simpler does it have to be? As far as I'm concerned, this video should be MANDATORY VIEWING for EVERY INCOMING FRESHMAN TO COLLEGE IN AMERICA!

  23. Oh boy
    All the improvements that we have attained have unfortunately come at the great cost of the planet. And an unsustainable one

  24. Economically left leaning people probably think this is propaganda, but the truth is that economics is a right wing thing. Socialists and communists just can't make a functional economy. It's practically impossible

  25. "profit, when attained in a free market environment, is a sign that society actually owes the person more goods and services then he has already consumed". This statement is proven hollow no faster then you can look up how steve jobs provided those goods and services to the "masses". Why is this part ignored? Why is the mechanism that gave Steve jobs the ability to earn that profit ignored? Because it ignores the harm and suffering his company apple causes, and the exploitation of it's workers to make said profits. Just like there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. Products do not magically appear out of nowhere, there is a real human cost to them.

  26. This guy needs to play "Monopoly". The world isn't unequal because people do "more valuable work and get paid more" … it's unequal because there is a whole class of gentry who own dozens of houses, and live off the rent money. The rich get richer. There are millions of rich people who don't contribute to society whatsoever, and are remain rich because they utilize inherited wealth.

  27. The actual problem is not inequality but that a good portion of the income distributed to those at the top is unearned, is derived because of the systems of law and taxation that favors rent-seeking over the production of goods and services. There is, in effect, a redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. Caring societies have since the second half of the 20th century implemented social programs designed to mitigate the worst consequences of the underlying systemic problems but have not come close to removing rentier privilege.

    A few economists have endeavored to challenge the status quo and challenge the ideological bias expressed by those on the Right and on the Left. Two who stand out are Joseph Stiglitz and Michael Hudson. However, the one economist who has for more than a half century written consistently on these issues is Mason Gaffney (emeritus professor of economics, University of California). A volume in honor of Mason Gaffney was published recently with the title "Rent Unmasked." This title essentially says all that is necessary to say. If we want a justice distribution of income and wealth the solution is to change the way government at all levels raises revenue, moving away from the taxation of wages, salaries, commerce and tangible goods, and begin to collect the rent of land and land-like assets.

  28. the rats are milking google, facebook, wikipedia.. i onvented tube shape vapes u.s. pat 7,415,982
    they refuse to even show my business. nasically all vapes are pirate product.
    they are simply cheating the whole country in different degrees.

  29. no google is profiting from cheating our free market olace..and rhe pirates they promote.

    the sematists hate it when the outsiders get anything.
    america is over run by jihadists.

    i invented the web, and tube shape vapes, and wrote a billion dollar screenplay (all stolen).
    our society is already crashed, gone.. we are trying to get it back.

  30. no.. they cheet my email, my wikipedia..
    inequality should be based on inteligence, effort and luck.. 3 standard diviations..
    but we have about 6 standard deviations..
    because you have to be in the right business gang, you have to cheat, and be from a rich family too.

  31. “The evening news has become a litany of the all things not true about your life.” He must be talking about fake news.

  32. You can't use "household income stats" from the 70's to present to determine the middle class is not decreasing. 70's = primarily single earner households. Present = primarily double income households. With DOUBLE income there should be a LOT more movement from the lower to higher income categories. Factor in that 2 people making roughly half the amount combines for about the same total and it looks exactly like there is lower income per person/job and a stunting of the middle class. Double workers should result in a A LOT more change upwards. (And that's not even counting all the Millenials living with their parents while they work – so sometimes more than 2 workers per household). Didn't mind the rest, but that was a pretty massive statistical oversight.

  33. Too much profit is bad for the economy because that money that is printed ,and is in the system, and it just sits there, in secret away from the economy as far as possible, as far from the working people as possible , that is why most workers don’t have enough money while prices slowly rise, because of the RICH smarty. Forget about what type of people there are, limit the rich, and you will have a fair playing field.

  34. And if this video was actually watched and understood by the democratic constituency…
    they would never vote for a democratic party candidate ever again!
    The only reason the DP exists is because they fear-monger people to death on these myths…

  35. You want to know the real truth ?..40 years ago when i was 17 myself and my friends would sit around in the schoolyard in Queens and just Bullshit about everything and talk about who is going to be successful and how to get there.We were a group of about 20 of ,all in the lower to normal middle class and we put the United Nations to shame with our diversity.And if i would of wrote down in a notebook my predictions i would of been 20 out of 20..It is still Today exactly what is was back then..It is about your Family's Values or lack of it.The same people who were poorer then are poorer now because they were brought up with lower morals,not because of lack of opportunities.They have been able to act anyway they wanted with zero consequences and have never learned a ounce of knowledge about fiscal responsibility,nor did they ever want to.On the other side we had a smaller group who at that age had a contest on who would have 100,000 dollars before anyone else .and they all did before they were 23..I was in the middle of the pack.I came from a single parent house where money was never talked about ever,Yet luckily the only thing that i ever was good at was Mathematics which eventually paid off for me financially but not until i hit my early 40's.If i would of came from a solid family background with two parents who pushed me from the start not only would i of been successful quicker,but i also would of been a better person in my 20s and 30s without a doubt.Today we pound it in to our kids how important it is not to be like us.but to be better then us, especially at their ages, because it will pay off for the rest of their lives and thankfully they have listened so far and the opportunities we see coming their way are much more frequent and greater then when we were those teens sitting in that schoolyard.

  36. I saved a chart that shows abject poverty that shows 3 different overlapping studies. The most recent one starts in 1980 with 44% of the population in abject poverty, defined as $1.90 a day. It ends in 2015 at 9.6% of the population in abject poverty. As of 2018, 3 year later, that has dropped to 8.3%.
    According to the Brooking's Institute about 26% of the world's population was middle class. ($10 – $100 a day.) As of 2018 it is now 50% of the world's population. (Adjusted for inflation to $11 – $110 a day.) This is faster than they expected.

  37. Myth #2. The image is used to show the difference between equality and equity. And since you don't know the difference then this video is irrelevant

  38. What this isn't explaining is exploitation of profiteers. There isn't a single reason a cellphone that costs $100 to manufacture at best should cost $1000 to consumers. There isn't a single reason that medicine should be upcharged over 1000% beyond cost of production to consumers. There isn't a reason that people should face ridiculous consumer prices in every facet of business to make a transaction.

  39. While this is a good presentation, some of the conclusions need to be questioned.

    Conclusion 1- "World proverty has reduced from 98%-10% since Malthus' time".

    Question: How is this "poverty" defined? The basic definition used today is anyone earning less than $2. This number has increased in many parts of the world.

    Conclusion 2: "The world is better off today…".

    Question: is it? In some ways Yes, we can all drink bottled Coke, and buy cheap phones. But can we afford health care, and education. The costs of these have outstripped whatever income gains the poor and middle class have made.

    Lastly, scale always distorts (economic) statistics. We can say the "world is richer", because the GDPs and per capita income of the top 15% of Nations have increased more than 10,000% in the last 100 years. Such a rise, statically dwarfs whatever incremental movements in whatever direction you'll get from smaller poor countries.

    So it'll be nice to see whether the per capita incomes of the poorest 50% of countries have really gone up that much or at all. Adjusted for inflation GDP of same. Life expectancy of same, etc. That's my take.

  40. Why are there so (relatively) many dislikes for this video? From Marxists? From SJW's? It's a clear, concise, and accurate presentation. I don't get the disdain, at least in the 2.7K dislikes. Cheers!

  41. Well done! But the left will never except we are better off. Why because the left can’t control better off.

  42. Sorry, speaking as one who is conservative at heart, I strongly believe the nature of capitalism and the so called free markets invite both Plunderers and Profiteers alike, and they will most certainly plunder the nation (and other nations) with or without the Government's help.

  43. Wrong!
    Equality of opportunity is exactly the same thing as equality of outcome.

    You’re forgetting that somebody has to pay for that ‘opportunity’ through higher taxes/tariffs etc.
    Therefore reducing their own equality of outcome.

    Both equality of opportunity AND equality of outcome, are equally corrupt.

  44. My message to the world:

    "Live life by the B.E.A.C.H." :

    Benevolence
    Empathy
    Altruism
    Compassion
    Humanitarianism

    Reject greed, selfishness, and the need to dominate, control, and subjugate others. We can have a great world for ALL of us. All we need to do is…

    "Live life by the B.E.A.C.H."!!

  45. what is the metric being used to gauge whether a population is in poverty or not? this precept seems very misleading and doesn't really address relative income, relative purchasing power, or even just the raw and simplistic fact that someone with a billion dollars is a lot less impoverished than someone who has one dollar.

    it's also disturbing that what's being taught here is that the consumer goods of modern dictate how relatively rich people are to one another. that seems to be very in-the-box thinking, the box being consumerism. when talking about other real assets, especially land, there's a nearly zero sum game. those who have a lot more money or a lot more credit are able to acquire. those who have less can't. even worse, those who have money that compete with each other will drive up market pricing. when evaluating who owns land and who doesn't own land, there are pretty vast inequalities and there are a lot of really critical consequences that result from owning vs. renting.

  46. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell.

  47. The point is that poverty is not the same as income inequality, which is not the same as wealth inequality, which is again still not the same as necessity equality. Yet all 4 of these are conflated by the ignorant (especially AOC, who knows how that dumbbell got a degree in economics). The problem to solve is poverty, and in terms of consumption, and especially consumption in necessities (including primary and emergency medical care). The free market system has been doing that better by far than any system over the past 200 years. By far, the end of this video explains that very well.

  48. Not this simple. There is all sorts of marketing and manipulation that changes what people value. Make no mistake, if you have an infection, antibiotics and the doctor who prescribes them has more value than a new iPhone but you will pay more for that iPhone than you will for the doctor visit or the antibiotics. Why? Marketing. Also, people can be convinced what is really important is not important. For instance do you believe caring for children is important? How about taking care of mentally ill and developmentally disabled people? When I say take care of I mean help them learn to make use of themselves while also helping them have food, clothing, a warm place to sleep and a decent standard of living. If you say no, then you are a narcissist and more than likely you've been trained by advertising and media to be that way. If only life were as simple as Prof. Davies says it is here.

  49. I have a little inequality truth for you:
    Until all women are required at age 18 to register with the selective service for the draft like the men have to do then women will not ever be equal with men. So, step up to the plate women and register at your local post office today…

  50. Common Learn Liberty you can do it better, this is a kindergarten presentation, those are just opinions of Davies, there isn't empirical evidence or studies to probe his point, these kind of presentation are poor and funny, it's like to hear a anti-evolutionist making his/her point…

  51. This man's lecture demonstrates his lack of understanding of systems of oppression, the difference between equality and equity, and how profit can be morally wrong based on the means by which it was acquired. I. E. Providing lots of people iPhones and making a profit (net gains) means nothing morally if you are violating human rights via child labor, unsafe working conditions, and unfair wages.

  52. This is classic right-wing (bordering Alt-right) thinking. 'Only the strong survive', 'Being poor is your fault' etc. Just because there are fewer destitute/starving people doesn't mean the system isn't broken.

  53. On paper it appears i make decent money but in reality after the pirates called government rob me i still make no money and then they fine us for breathing and continue to take any money we have earned

Leave a Reply

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