Economic Systems & the Labor Market: Crash Course Sociology #29
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
James
Yes, the Industrial Revolution brought great wealth and also great inequality. However, you're leaving out a key fact: before that pretty much everyone was poor. The Industrial Revolution didn't put more people into working more hours for less pay. They were working for more pay, which is why they went to work in those factories in the first place. Thus far we've just got an insult to those who are wealthy for being wealthy by labeling them as -robber barons- without actually establishing wrongdoing. Hint: they weren't robbers.
-In practice, an economy doesn't do well if it is left completely on auto pilot-
Yeah, no, that's completely false. The economy has done worse with government regulation than without. Saying that the market fails without government intervention because it doesn't allocate resources -efficiently- is just begging the question of what it means to be efficient. Monopolies didn't form in the absence of government like you're saying here. They have primarily popped up as a result of government intrusion. Look up the history of Standard Oil.
Props for pointing out the problems with attempting communism and the state tyranny that it produces.
Income inequality isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's much better to be unequally rich than equally poor. This is shown time and time again with more economic freedom for the individual correlating with higher standards of living.
reply
Yes, the Industrial Revolution brought great wealth and also great inequality. However, you're leaving out a key fact: before that pretty much everyone was poor. The Industrial Revolution didn't put more people into working more hours for less pay. They were working for more pay, which is why they went to work in those factories in the first place. Thus far we've just got an insult to those who are wealthy for being wealthy by labeling them as -robber barons- without actually establishing wrongdoing. Hint: they weren't robbers.
-In practice, an economy doesn't do well if it is left completely on auto pilot-
Yeah, no, that's completely false. The economy has done worse with government regulation than without. Saying that the market fails without government intervention because it doesn't allocate resources -efficiently- is just begging the question of what it means to be efficient. Monopolies didn't form in the absence of government like you're saying here. They have primarily popped up as a result of government intrusion. Look up the history of Standard Oil.
Props for pointing out the problems with attempting communism and the state tyranny that it produces.
Income inequality isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's much better to be unequally rich than equally poor. This is shown time and time again with more economic freedom for the individual correlating with higher standards of living.
reply
Victor
Needless to say, this video is an extreme oversimplification. And it's actually a common misconception; the correct term of the type of socialism that is metioned should be -state socialism-. Alot of socialist put major focus on things like decentralization and co-opertaive ownership of the means of production and so on (which is, more or less, the exact oposit of state socialism. There's alot of people who have strong opinions about socialism but a poor understanding of what it actually means. Socialism is an egalitarian, anti-racist, idealistic and a collectivistic supraideology and is not really a system but rhather a set of ideas and values that can be implemented in many differnent ways and settings, just like conservatism and liberalism. The way the term capitalism is used is also sloppy, it should be called -crony capitalism-. Such a shame, cause I think this series have been very informative so far, and ofcourse it's not easy to give an overall understanding of big subjects like this in under ten minutes, and this time was sertinly a failure.
reply
Needless to say, this video is an extreme oversimplification. And it's actually a common misconception; the correct term of the type of socialism that is metioned should be -state socialism-. Alot of socialist put major focus on things like decentralization and co-opertaive ownership of the means of production and so on (which is, more or less, the exact oposit of state socialism. There's alot of people who have strong opinions about socialism but a poor understanding of what it actually means. Socialism is an egalitarian, anti-racist, idealistic and a collectivistic supraideology and is not really a system but rhather a set of ideas and values that can be implemented in many differnent ways and settings, just like conservatism and liberalism. The way the term capitalism is used is also sloppy, it should be called -crony capitalism-. Such a shame, cause I think this series have been very informative so far, and ofcourse it's not easy to give an overall understanding of big subjects like this in under ten minutes, and this time was sertinly a failure.
reply
Justin
I feel like it should be mentioned that this didn't exactly portray Adam Smith's ideas in context. Yes, he believed that markets could do a lot of good, but he also argued that just as there was an invisible hand there would be a necessary visible hand, and the states that Adam Smith used as an example would have been closer to aristocratic family-owned corporations than to any kind of democracy. He abhorred monopolies and wrote against them more than once.
The episode also entirely left off hybrid economies which the Crash Course Economics team repeatedly made a point of demonstrating as the dominant form of functional economies today including most of the top richest countries in the world.
Normally this series is on point with fair criticisms on both sides but I hope we will be touching back on this. While it does show the dominant western view on economics, this does not reflect an accurate historic view or do the usual break down of other modes of thoughts, and criticisms of different approaches.
reply
I feel like it should be mentioned that this didn't exactly portray Adam Smith's ideas in context. Yes, he believed that markets could do a lot of good, but he also argued that just as there was an invisible hand there would be a necessary visible hand, and the states that Adam Smith used as an example would have been closer to aristocratic family-owned corporations than to any kind of democracy. He abhorred monopolies and wrote against them more than once.
The episode also entirely left off hybrid economies which the Crash Course Economics team repeatedly made a point of demonstrating as the dominant form of functional economies today including most of the top richest countries in the world.
Normally this series is on point with fair criticisms on both sides but I hope we will be touching back on this. While it does show the dominant western view on economics, this does not reflect an accurate historic view or do the usual break down of other modes of thoughts, and criticisms of different approaches.
reply
pezpeculiar
Socialism does not necessarily mean government ownership or involvement. Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and other related versions of socialism aim for more decentralized political and economic systems, and democracy in the workplace. Collective ownership can take numerous forms.
Marxism-Leninism was the prominent ideology in 20th century socialist one-party states, but generalizing its features to all forms of socialism doesn't make sense, particularly as modern forms of socialism tend to be far more concerned with anti-authoritarianism as much as economic injustice.
reply
Socialism does not necessarily mean government ownership or involvement. Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and other related versions of socialism aim for more decentralized political and economic systems, and democracy in the workplace. Collective ownership can take numerous forms.
Marxism-Leninism was the prominent ideology in 20th century socialist one-party states, but generalizing its features to all forms of socialism doesn't make sense, particularly as modern forms of socialism tend to be far more concerned with anti-authoritarianism as much as economic injustice.
reply
My-li
Great video, as always! One note, what about last 3 episodes? Socialist countries were much less developed countries or even just stopped beeing colonies. They were much poorer etc. but please don't pretend that comparison between capitalism and socialism make any sense. IT is like compering who will have a better chance to create big company son of a multibilionere or daughter of poor worker. Both can do it but it it is not just a questions of abilities, comparison of socialism and capitalism is of course possibile but global ineqalities are key factor here.
reply
Great video, as always! One note, what about last 3 episodes? Socialist countries were much less developed countries or even just stopped beeing colonies. They were much poorer etc. but please don't pretend that comparison between capitalism and socialism make any sense. IT is like compering who will have a better chance to create big company son of a multibilionere or daughter of poor worker. Both can do it but it it is not just a questions of abilities, comparison of socialism and capitalism is of course possibile but global ineqalities are key factor here.
reply
Peter
4: 00 - -but in practise an economy doesn't work very well if its left completely on autopilot. there are lots of sectors where a hands-off approach can lead to what economists call market failures, where an unregulated market ends up allocating goods and services inefficiently-
how would you know? how would anybody know? we have never seen an unregulated market. what you have to understand is that when economists talk about -the free market- they are referring to a theoretical model, not the real world.
reply
4: 00 - -but in practise an economy doesn't work very well if its left completely on autopilot. there are lots of sectors where a hands-off approach can lead to what economists call market failures, where an unregulated market ends up allocating goods and services inefficiently-
how would you know? how would anybody know? we have never seen an unregulated market. what you have to understand is that when economists talk about -the free market- they are referring to a theoretical model, not the real world.
reply
tarawrr20
The only reason that the wealth ratio for Socialism is 5-1 as opposed to Capitalism-s 10-1 is because more people are poorer because there is less money. That-s the piece of information left out here. There is far more wealth to be had and created by an individual in Capitalism than there is in Socialism. With Socialism you only make what the government says you can make and no more. But the socialists won-t admit that.
reply
The only reason that the wealth ratio for Socialism is 5-1 as opposed to Capitalism-s 10-1 is because more people are poorer because there is less money. That-s the piece of information left out here. There is far more wealth to be had and created by an individual in Capitalism than there is in Socialism. With Socialism you only make what the government says you can make and no more. But the socialists won-t admit that.
reply
Nelson
Our society is so malformed that we accept capitalism in its most ruthless form as being the physical manifestation of psychopathy. That is how powerful the conditioning is and we are all victims of this corporate psychopathy. Capitalism is when men exploit men whereas communism is just the opposite.
reply
Our society is so malformed that we accept capitalism in its most ruthless form as being the physical manifestation of psychopathy. That is how powerful the conditioning is and we are all victims of this corporate psychopathy. Capitalism is when men exploit men whereas communism is just the opposite.
reply
nonya
2: 30 Factory workers weren't MAINLY poor women and children, they were MAINLY men. When justifying (rightfully so) the worker's right to unionize, the unions might have put women and child laborers at the forefront of their cause to gain sympathy.
reply
2: 30 Factory workers weren't MAINLY poor women and children, they were MAINLY men. When justifying (rightfully so) the worker's right to unionize, the unions might have put women and child laborers at the forefront of their cause to gain sympathy.
reply
Brandon
I-ve seen every single episode and this is my only complain thus far, so when I say you need to add a thought bubble explaining that socialism is means of production owned by the PEOPLE, not the government, that-s all I have to say.
reply
I-ve seen every single episode and this is my only complain thus far, so when I say you need to add a thought bubble explaining that socialism is means of production owned by the PEOPLE, not the government, that-s all I have to say.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
