I drive a fantastic 30 yr old Nissan i love with 275,000mi on it. Everything works but not as well as it used to. Only i can start it with a wink and a nod. My iphone is 10 yrs old and i replace my own batteries which only last 2yrs. Only the iOS will get me eventually. However i am an advocate of LED light bulbs. They cost more but last and use 1/10 the electricity. Flat screen HD tvs are great too compared to my old 45"Pioneer projection SD tv that lasted 20yrs but cost $2200 while my 65" HDTV Flatscreen costs $600. I love it more.

Large scale solar and Wind power are crap. The first gen obsolete nuclear power are still in use with modest improvements over 50yrs. We wouldnt build gen 1 or 2 nuclear today but gen 4 Thorium is fail safe and some designs are modular and can be built in a factory to cut production costs. Solar panels are junk in 10 yrs or after a hail storm and must be replaced without recycling filling up land fills as with wind turbine blades. There is a place for solar and wind but massive farms is not one of them.

Well at least your not a communist.

Regulation well thought out past the 1st stage of initial thought where most politicians get stuck is necessary but most regulation is carried out by power hungry bureaucrats rather than those who with critical thinking skills. Less regulation well thought out is preferable to to much regulation not thought out past favoring a crony constituency.

God, you leftists are insufferable.

I used to be an avid reader of Sowell's books, until I saw a video of his about "The expulsion of Indians from Kenya". I'm a Kenyan historian and everything he mentioned in that video was pulled right out of his arse. Seems he didn't read anything on Kenyan history and he was just making things up as he went along 😂 even a 3rd grader in Kenya could smell the bullshit 😂

Keynes is just internally contradicting Marx anyway.Its trying to do Marxism, but cannot admit, that capitalism is just fundamentally broken

Sowell uses a lot of anecdotal "evidence" and draws a causal nexus between many disconnected events. This is at the heart of his fraudulent ideology. I think he's largely a fraud.

1:19. oh, dear, gotta get that fizzer public partnership example out now that it turns out their vwoosh a tine didnt work at all.

too big to fail put the lie to all the bs about "awwk! paying people to fail. Raaawk!"

Absurd child.

1:02:48 Since Muskrat haven't solved a single damn problem, he disproves himself. Apparently you get paid in direct proportion to the amount of people you can fool.

About tendency of the rate of profit to fall (50:00): None of the empirical graphs mean much because if you actually plot the formula you will find that it doesn't just constantly fall. Initially it rises and falls sharply much later, sometimes after a big rise. Exact shape of the graph is very dependent on the ratios chosen for variable and constant capital. The theory doesn't predict constant falling in the way people seem to interpret it. Neither falling nor rising prices would prove or disprove the theory. We will know if it is true only after a long time and if capitalism collapses. If it is false, it is unfalsifiable because one can always say that we are at the rising stage of profits and some time in the future they will fall sharply. Proving the negative is always harder. If it is true however, we will know in the future since that means capitalism is doomed.

Bad thinking is confusing correlation with causation. Correlation is not causation and confusing the two can only lead to wrong conclusions as the presenter has done.

44:51 Providing empirical evidence for the labour theory of value: Price of things fall with automation and mechanisation because labour time that goes into a unit falls and machines don't add value by themselves. Example: When Ford introduced the production line, labour time per car fell dramatically with the increased efficiency. Increased efficiency allowed higher supply and higher supply led to lower prices. Supply is higher precisely because labour time per unit is lower = lower price. The chart shown and debunked in the video as proof of LTV is kinda a straw-man.

43:29 And that is why markets under capitalism are inefficient and frequently result in market failures. It is precisely because people are not paying attention to underlying values but only see prices. They are not acting rationally because they are ignorant of how a rational and efficient market is supposed to work. Marx's goal was not to explain prices but to explain workings of the market. The discrepancy between values and prices is not showing a problem with Marx but is showing a problem with capitalist markets. They are irrational and inefficient at allocating values. This is the essence of what Marx was saying, but people seem hell bend on not getting it. The logic is straight and simple. Let's go to that deer vs bear hunting example. Deer hunter pays a cost long before any exchange happens to get that deer. Labour he performs to hunt the deer is his cost. If it takes him 2 hours to hunt a deer on average then that is his cost and if he sells deer for anything less than two hours worth of beaver, he will be loosing on that exchange while beaver hunter will be profiting off of the dear hunter since he works less for more stuff=more wealth. Deer hunter would be a fool if he exchanges the deer for less. Therefore in a market that is functioning properly and rationally, deer and beaver price is fixed. Any deviation from the price measured in labour time indicates an inefficiency in the market and means that someone is loosing and someone else is gaining. Sometimes that loss is justified though, when labour is being wasted on something useless. Prices here are not measured in dollars or euros. They are measured in time. Time is the real currency. Therefore Transformation Problem from labour values to prices is a non-existent problem. Labour time values are the rational prices and any deviations are signs of inefficiencies in distributing products and labour. The bigger the deviation, the bigger the inefficiency.

Resolving the Transformation Problem (37:38 ): There is double counting in the price formula given. The formula given for price shouldn't include wage and compensation for the arrow owner because THE DEER is THE WAGE and the arrow owner gets compensated by the portion of deer he is entitled to for the labour he put into the arrows. As a result Embodied Labour Time and Price should equal, since their formulas are the same. Ed = Pd = Ld + La*ad "But we are talking about prices under capitalism", you may say. Okay! This still doesn't justify multiplying labour time with wage. That is counting the labour twice. Where did the wage come from? It comes from the capital. What is capital? Capital if frozen labour. It is labour in an embodied form. Therefore the formula counts labour twice, once as wage and then as labour. In the price formula, wage should replace labour because it is labour in and embodied form. If arrow owner is already compensated by "r" in the formula, why is he also being paid for arrows by "Pa"? Again double counting in the second part too. Therefore the correct formula for price should be Pd = w + r. The argument here is that wage should be equal to hunting labour time (w=Ld) and compensation to the arrow owner should be equal to the labour that it took to manufacture the arrows. (r=La*ad) If not, that would mean someone is being taken advantage of and is being screwed somewhere. Since prices and embodied labour don't match in practice, (Ed not= Pd), someone is being screwed somewhere. That someone is the labourer. Wage is set lover than the actual labour value, w < Ld, and that allows a new term to be introduced into the formula without changing the exchange value. That extra term is profit (p) So the formula under capitalism becomes Pd = w + r + p price = wage + arrow_costs + profit_margin where wage < labour value

34:00 No! You can't do this easily with any commodity like that. "Suppose 10 apples is equal to ..." There, right at the beginning this argument fails because Marx doesn't just "suppose" when he talks about what is equal to what. He uses logic to show that in a rational and efficient market prices would follow labour time. Actual prices not matching with the rational, logical prices just shows that capitalist markets are inefficient. The logical demonstration of why 10 apples should equal 1 bushel is absent from the example given. It just starts with "suppose" and because of that doesn't reveal anything "beneath the facade". The counter-argument itself is a straw-man facade.

33:16 "You've got to give me a good reason why speakers didn't generate any value" Sure. I can give you more than one. Speakers didn't generate any value because; speakers didn't design themselves, didn't manufacture themselves, didn't transport themselves there, didn't set up themselves, and didn't make the music. Without human labour, speakers wouldn't exist. Speakers do have value, but they do not generate any new value. They do not create anything by themselves. Speakers, and all other products, are like batteries that store value which come into being as a result of human labour. As they degrade, they lose that value (they discharge).

As a Chinese American person, the whole thing about "meat and fish could not be stored but grain can" seemed so strange to me and such a modern and western view of food. My ancestry is from a region of China where seafood was particularly common, and people ate and still eat seafood dried all the time. These traditions continue into the modern cuisine and were often used in dishes my parents and grandparents would make growing up. Dried or preserved fish, mushrooms, shrimp, sausages and even pickled vegetables were all common in the cuisine long before refrigeration and have long continue to be a part of our cuisine long after its need has been supplanted by refrigeration. Many large traditional Chinese retailers you can find in places like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc., have stores which stock jars of dried shrimp and scallops that people will use in a variety of recipes as a topping. Many recipes continue to call for pickled and preserved vegetables just in the same way that we continue to eat pickles today despite no longer needing to do it because we can have fresh cucumbers. None of this is particularly "high tech" stuff. In fact people in the Guangdong region I'm from ate so much preserved fish that it researchers tracked down increases in pancreatic cancer in that population to it. Other traditions in this region and throughout China include perpetual soups and stews, which without refrigeration, you just keep on the fire and keep putting ingredients into. You can make large vats of this using leftover surplus fresh vegetables. People before refrigeration have long had ways of creatively dealing with and storing surplus via drying and pickling throughout the world that have probably existed since time immemorial because starvation was a constant threat, especially the older you look into history. Having surplus food and ways of storing it meant you might not starve in bad times.

why would a serious person want to listen to these grade school arguments?

I think there's a big difference between Sowell's attempting to explain and help individuals understand the economy and your personal attack of him. I"m reminded of a comment by the CEO of a major investment company that he does not employ economists because of concern his analysts might listen to them.

economists with econ 101 full of fairy tales, says public health is not rigorous? hay, carumba! economists seldom know anything about biochemistry. i mean, not fauchi but real epidemiologists, for example, know a lot about stats, as well as lots of hard science.

Would you see yourself participating in public debates?

Thanks for this lengthy video! I still disagree with most of it, but it really shed some light on how Sowell uses his sources. If you don't mind, I will write down my objections below, after I get them in order. (I needed notes for this).

you are describing autism in sex and economics. Both believe the theories they are told and think they have a lot to offer until they realise nonconformity is punished.

Isn’t Australia basically Austria but with larger insects?

Awesome! Now do Hayek. 😂

this is an excellent video which, if you listen to it, will pretty much destroy any faith in sowell. he's really a sophist with a collection of good sounding but wrong arguments. and sure, you can quote me on it.

awesome video, mexie is totally great. unlearning economics could benefit with a little more preparation to make it a bit faster moving. it's boring to watch someone spend a lot of time looking for stuff. maybe it could be edited out.

Crucial facts regarding reimbursements

Call me cynical, but I can't see this man as anything other than every other capitalist grifter. He's just peddling lies and misinformation to sell his books and doesn't truly care about anything but getting rich and famous and being respected. He's a useful "authority figure" for the right to call to and that's the only reason they put up with him, an intellectual and outspoken black man, having opinions.

Hold onto your hats, here's important refund info

Exknomics isnt a science Its a speculative fiction mostly ir sci fi that really makes alot of the ideas intersdtinf but a sad delusion that may soothe some

So well reap qhat ypu sow The dangers of being oraised By Hayek is that it simplifies my little world so much that i have to embrace Marx even harder The comfort of comfort is paranoia to me. I hste easy answers eith ideas that make you feel diloyal to your instincts Obly indotnct and will make any real sense in a batshit crazy world

Swiss pr 😂

temporary office work, if you are a guy you ain't getting work. i tried a whole bunch of them once. good scores on the tests, but no joy. i was discriminated against, sure.

when you're a social "scientist" and you're female, you're making less. [cries.] if you take construction, big strong guys tend to be the most useful, and when i was young it was more so. but that doesn't mean women can't do it, it may or may not mean they do the jobs that are hard to fill. but socialism fixes all this crap anyway.

clint reference in my econ video??? well done sir

20:13 Are you ok, Peterson? You seem a little... hysterical.

Oh my goodness. How much more time you will spend on ranting without getting to the point. Lost my patience watching this .

Thomas Sowell is great

biology can be overcome by massive social engineering.....exactly. lol.

"belief gene" can also be called testosterone. It is a real thing that really affects people. People with higher testosterone are more confident in their abilities.

Alaska and South Dakota are the most progressive states? Really?