Amazing series 🙌🙌🙌🙌 In awe of Jayati Mam and the team. I want to seriously appreciate the Editing team for the wonderful division of the lectures. The fonts to the background score everything was on point 🙌👍👍 Thank you to the team for making this masterpiece. We are forever fortunate and grateful 🙏💖
@stephen_pfrimmer
Жыл бұрын
Someone once said that economics is (or should be) a subcategory of ecology. Thank you NET and Professor Ghosh.
@katejudson8907
11 ай бұрын
I like that quote. I also think anything calling itself a science, if it doesn't have ecological reality at it's centre, it's probably truthfully science fiction, following one of the many anthropocentric fictions that humans cherish so much, rather than laws of reality.
@sudanesbp1969
3 жыл бұрын
Great!!! excellent speech, perspective, great truths. We have a lot to change and fight for our presence and perspective on the world, development, economy and life.
@badomaji
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent. An eye-opener for many facets of the economy that under-addressed.
@katejudson8907
11 ай бұрын
Great series.
@niranjanamaheswari
3 жыл бұрын
The same thing I had wondered in my sessions of history of economic thought and I believed that they are so designed so as to take problems of capitalist class and push it on to working-class (educated employee, unskilled, men or women) but my professor was not ready to have a discussion on such topic which are vague according to her. But I respect u a lot, this small session are so encouraging, and teaches us to be bold enough to raise voice of what u think and u have observed and yes major Nobel prize winner are Whites sadly so called educated who are teaching other to be educated themselves are uneducated (high biased, prejudiced, racist in nature reflects clearly ..)
@ishitasingh2037
3 жыл бұрын
LOVE the series.
@dianawolf894
3 жыл бұрын
Money: the planting median for power
@bxbank
3 жыл бұрын
Mistakes are intended. Current economics is designed to give to the corrupt rich and 'powerful'. It is really important to at the systemic problem econlimcis has been designed to be. It comes down to usury currency. No empowered political/social change will happen until we use currency models without any usury: no tax, fees, costs or interest. Only then will we move to trust-based collaborative economics and achieve the empowerment all people are looking for.
@301stface3
Жыл бұрын
"We need to fix this the inequality in the profession", so how they are going to do it? They would exclude capable men or they would force women to study economics? That's the only way to "fix" the inequility in economics profession, I hope this desire for "fixing" things never reach the striper profession.
@khaimgulkovich3368
2 жыл бұрын
You should make Your homework: "The Arrogance of Humanism" by David W. Ehrenfeld (1981).
@claudiaochoacruz
3 жыл бұрын
Great viewpoint about the arrogance of economist!!!
@FletchforFreedom
3 жыл бұрын
What absolute incompetence. The empirical data on comparative advantage (which doesn't require perfect anything) is literally unanimous. It isn't a model; it's so empirically proven that no competent economist argues otherwise (which is why this dimwit argues otherwise). Of course, anyone suggesting that expertise (which is concentrated) is somehow problematic because it is not diverse (particularly given that good economists come form a wide variety of people ... that go where the expertise is concentrated). One of the great things about actual economics is that it yields outcomes that are consistent regardless of the gender, race or cultural background of anyone. Part of the problem with the presenter's claims is that it blames economic thinking for things that are outside the purview of economics, such as whether someone chooses to engage in work time, leisure time or relational time. the only economic question involved is how to meet the needs of the worker to give that worker more choice (demonstrably the free unhindered market - which has been solely responsible for the improvements achieved in pay, working conditions and prosperity). She also assumes (contrary to fact) that government social spending - the opposed of suppose "austerity" measures - is economically beneficial (in any country, economy or culture). She makes a fair point about taxation being regressive (missing that corporate taxes are completely so) but fails to connect the need for taxation to the spending she argues against cutting. She is not a competent economist; she's an ideologue. The "finance doesn't support the economy" myth is so utterly stupid as to render any economic claim on her part immediately subject to dismissal. She is correct about the memory whole for people like Chomsky and Wolff and other socialists when they praised Venezuela and Chile and other inevitable disasters, but that's not the point she's making. And she makes absurd claims about world poverty which has fallen to record lows. And the minimum wage has never resulted in anything but disemployment, which is why the great majority of economists (across the world) would never raise it and nearly half of us would abolish it outright. The research is literally overwhelming on this point. And the science does not support the claim of increased major natural disasters - quite the opposite is the case. This is simply dreadful.
@harrisjm62
3 жыл бұрын
The benefits of the division of labor are regarded unanimously, the benefits of its much bigger brother, comparative advantage, have much less concensus in the field. Perhaps you confused the two.
@FletchforFreedom
3 жыл бұрын
@@harrisjm62 Not even slightly. The latter part of your comment is utter nonsense.
@javierstanziola1328
3 жыл бұрын
Fascinating that the basic economic questions about who wins and who loses from an economic activity, policy or human action is considered "dreadful" "incompetence" when it focuses gender issues. And the empirical data on comparative advantage is not unanimous. It is a bit more complex than that.
@FletchforFreedom
3 жыл бұрын
@@javierstanziola1328 Fascinating that those with such abysmal reading comprehension skills can use a keyboard. No one argued that asking questions was problematic. What's blithering idiocy is the notion that the basics of economics, including accepted theories and laws are in any way altered by a feminist perspective. What's dreadful incompetence is the notion that things like the cultural treatment of women, while having economic consequences, in any way undermines economic theory or entails an economic solution. What's dreadful incompetence is advocacy of policies based on the contention that they are less harmful to women when, in fact, they are entirely harmful. Taking $100+ dollars from every man and giving $100 to every woman would certainly be beneficial to women but, ultimately, would be extremely harmful to the economy as a whole and ultimately would harm women as well. The minimum wage may be earned more frequently by women but that means that even more have been rendered unemployable by a policy that, the empirical data is literally overwhelming, is entirely harmful to workers and has never either raised pay levels or prevented them from falling. And to be blunt, the notion that the empirical evidence on comparative advantage is "more complicated" suffers primarily from being complete bullshit. The evidence to the contrary with regard to the efficacy of comparative advantage is literally *NON-EXISTENT*. Put another way, the empirical evidence on the benefits of comparative advantage *IS* unanimous. The same is certainly true for the division of labor as the other poster suggested. It is also the case that the evidence for unhindered free trade is nearly unanimous and the arguments made by such nutbars as neo-Marxist Ha Joon Chang to the contrary don't bear a moment's scrutiny. There at least an argument can be made that research to the contrary actually exists (even though it is quickly debunked),
@leonardinoooooops3
3 жыл бұрын
@@FletchforFreedom you speak in terms of unanimity and scientific reason. Economics has given you a big puffed up chest and lots of fancy words. This does not entail you to insult someone who is trying to make an effort in highlighting problems of our society which were a direct consequence of neoclassical economics. You should come down from your throne of scientific "truth" and maybe be open to different views on different subjects. Gender awareness had become a big deal in our contemporary society, and these videos are meant to convey why is that. Ofc she's not drafting a scientific method to solve said problems (that's why you're calling her an ideologue) but she's building up the foundation (ideas) for what might be future takes on economics. Stop being such a jerk only cause you think you're smart in a subject, that makes you ridiculous, arrogant and you're probably doing this to feel good about yourself. Maybe train or eat healthy to do the latter, but don't insult people who are making an effort in changing consolidated traditional and outdated views of the world.
@AudioPervert1
3 жыл бұрын
The common housewife is missing ... After all this verbiage is done 👎🏽🕳️
Пікірлер: 33