Intro & Overview - Intro to Political Economy, Lecture1
Summary
TLDRВ этом видео скрипте рассматриваются метафоры быка и лошади, символизирующие экономическую активность и регулирование, соответственно. Автор обсуждает концепцию 'делать или купить', демонстрируя, как рыночная система позволяет людям специализироваться и экономить ресурсы. Также рассматривается 'ошибка разбитого окна' Фредерика Бастиата, которая подчеркивает, что разрушение не создает процветание, а уничтожает богатство. Видео затрагивает и другие темы, такие как протекционизм и его последствия для потребителей и производителей, подчеркивая взаимосвязь экономики и политики.
Takeaways
- 🐂公牛是经济活力和力量的象征,而乐观主义者则被称为牛市。
- 🏛️美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)负责监管经济,特别是反垄断和消费者保护。
- 💪力量和控制的隐喻:雕塑中的马(代表经济力量)和试图控制它的人(代表监管者)。
- 📚政治经济学课程中讨论的主要张力:自由市场经济与监管之间的紧张关系。
- ✏️伦纳德·里德的《铅笔的故事》说明了分工和市场体系如何使生产变得高效和低成本。
- 🪟破窗理论:破坏并不创造繁荣,而是摧毁了繁荣。
- 🛒弗雷德里克·巴斯夏批判了破窗理论,强调破坏不会带来经济上的益处。
- 🌪️飓风和其他自然灾害后,有人认为重建工作会刺激经济,但这忽略了原本可以用于其他生产性投资的资源。
- 🕯️蜡烛制造商请愿书是一个讽刺故事,揭示了保护主义如何损害消费者利益。
- 🔗经济和政治是不可分割的,它们相互影响,共同塑造了经济政策和市场结果。
Q & A
Что символизирует бык с Уолл-стрит?
-Бык символизирует силу, оптимизм и процветание экономики. Люди, которые уверены в росте цен на акции, называются быками.
Какое здание было описано как важное в регулировании экономики?
-Описано здание Федеральной торговой комиссии на Конститюшн-авеню, которое занимается антимонопольным регулированием и защитой прав потребителей.
Что означает метафора человека и лошади в скульптуре перед Федеральной торговой комиссией?
-Лошадь представляет экономику, а человек — регулятора, который пытается контролировать мощные и опасные силы экономики.
Какую концепцию объясняет пример с созданием карандаша?
-Пример иллюстрирует решение «сделать или купить», где экономически выгоднее покупать товары у других производителей, чем делать их самостоятельно.
Что такое «ошибка сломанного окна» и как она объясняется?
-«Ошибка сломанного окна» заключается в том, что разрушение имущества не приносит пользы экономике. Хотя создание новых рабочих мест кажется положительным эффектом, на самом деле ресурсы тратятся на восстановление, а не на создание нового богатства.
Почему утверждение о том, что разрушение приносит экономическую выгоду, неверно?
-Потому что ресурсы, потраченные на восстановление разрушенного имущества, могли бы быть использованы на что-то новое, что принесло бы большую экономическую пользу.
Какое сатирическое произведение упоминалось в контексте конкуренции?
-Упоминалось произведение «Петиция свечников» Фредерика Бастиа, в котором свечники предлагают закрыть все окна, чтобы солнце не конкурировало с их продуктом.
Какую аналогию с сериалом «Симпсоны» использовали для объяснения абсурдности протекционизма?
-Примером является Мистер Бернс, который блокировал солнце, чтобы увеличить спрос на энергию — это аналогия того, как протекционизм может искусственно поддерживать рынок за счёт ограничений.
Как экономика США регулирует цены на сахар, и какие последствия это имеет?
-В США цены на сахар выше мировых из-за протекционистских мер, что приводит к замене сахара на вредный кукурузный сироп в продуктах питания.
Почему политические решения часто приводят к поддержке производителей в ущерб потребителям?
-Потому что выгоды для производителей являются значительными и концентрированными, а ущерб для потребителей — менее заметен и распределён по всей экономике.
Outlines
🐂 Символика быка и регулятора экономики
В начале видео обсуждается знаменитый бык с Уолл-стрит — символ экономического роста и оптимизма. Бык олицетворяет инвесторов, уверенных в будущем повышении цен на акции. Также показана статуя рядом с Федеральной торговой комиссией, где изображён человек, пытающийся приручить мощную, но неконтролируемую силу лошади, символизирующей экономику. Это вводит основную тему лекции — противостояние между свободным рынком и регулирующими органами.
✏️ Производство и выбор: делать или покупать
Лектор рассуждает о том, как мы принимаем решения — производить что-то самостоятельно или покупать. Для примера берется простой карандаш. Задача самостоятельного изготовления карандаша без покупки готовых материалов оказывается невероятно сложной, что иллюстрирует экономический принцип распределения ресурсов. В современном мире мы покупаем товары, потому что это экономически выгоднее, чем производить их самостоятельно.
💥 Парадокс разбитого окна
Лектор рассматривает парадокс разбитого окна, описанный в эссе Фредерика Бастиата. Этот экономический парадокс утверждает, что разрушение, например, разбитие окна, не приносит пользы экономике, хотя может казаться, что оно создаёт рабочие места для ремонта. Однако, если бы окно не было разбито, деньги могли бы быть потрачены на другие товары и услуги, что привело бы к большему экономическому благу.
👽 Стимулы через разрушение: теория Кейнса
В этой части обсуждается тезис Пола Кругмана о том, что массовая мобилизация ресурсов на борьбу с воображаемой угрозой (например, инопланетянами) может способствовать экономическому росту. Лектор отмечает, что разрушение как стимул для экономики — это упрощённая интерпретация кейнсианской теории. Приводится пример урагана, который может якобы стимулировать восстановление экономики через восстановление инфраструктуры.
🕯️ Петиция производителей свечей: сатирическая критика протекционизма
Лектор обращается к «Петиции производителей свечей», где выдвигается абсурдное предложение запретить солнечный свет для защиты рынка свечей. Этот сатирический текст иллюстрирует проблемы протекционистской политики, которая часто приносит выгоду производителям за счёт потребителей. Примером служит ситуация в США, где протекционистская политика поддерживает производителей сахара, что наносит вред потребителям и здоровью нации.
📈 Экономика для потребителей или производителей?
Заключительная часть посвящена вопросу: кому служит экономика — потребителям или производителям? Лектор утверждает, что многие правила и законы разрабатываются в интересах производителей, несмотря на то, что экономика должна, по идее, обслуживать потребителей. Приводится пример регулирования рынка сахара в США, где политическая мощь производителей приводит к большим потерям для потребителей.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Бык
💡Медведь
💡Федеральная торговая комиссия (FTC)
💡Регулирование
💡Экономика
💡Проблема сломанного окна
💡Кейнсианство
💡Петиция производителей свечей
💡Протекционизм
💡Политическая экономика
Highlights
The bull on Wall Street symbolizes economic optimism, but it has been struggling recently, reflecting current market issues.
The Federal Trade Commission regulates antitrust and consumer protection in the economy.
A metaphor showing the regulator struggling to control the economy, represented by a powerful horse, highlights the tension between regulation and market forces.
The 'make or buy' decision: firms and consumers decide whether to produce something themselves or buy it, based on resource efficiency.
Creating a pencil from scratch is impossible for most people, underscoring the global interconnectedness of production.
Frederic Bastiat’s 'broken window fallacy' argues that destruction does not create prosperity but instead destroys wealth.
People often misinterpret natural disasters and wars as being good for the economy because they create jobs, ignoring the broader economic cost.
Bastiat’s example of the shopkeeper's broken window demonstrates that the resources used to fix the window could have been used more productively elsewhere.
The broken window fallacy highlights the opportunity cost of destruction and challenges the idea that spending to replace destroyed goods is beneficial.
Paul Krugman suggested that if aliens attacked Earth, the economy would grow from the defensive spending, echoing a Keynesian perspective on spending-driven growth.
The 'candlemaker’s petition' satirically suggests banning sunlight to protect candlemakers from unfair competition, illustrating the absurdity of some protectionist policies.
Protectionist policies, like U.S. sugar tariffs, benefit producers at the cost of consumers by increasing prices, with high fructose corn syrup as an unhealthy alternative.
Many economic regulations are politically driven, serving well-organized producer groups rather than benefiting consumers.
High fructose corn syrup is widely used in U.S. soft drinks due to sugar tariffs, illustrating the negative health impacts of politically motivated regulation.
The interconnectedness of economics and politics is emphasized, with regulation often being shaped more by political forces than pure economic rationale.
Transcripts
[Music]
we start with this
image who recognizes
it what is it a b
[Music]
it is indeed a
bull it is the bull it is the bull
that's on Wall Street the one that's
been getting its ass kicked the last
couple of days in fact already today
things are not going well for the bull
so the bull is the sort of symbol of
vibrancy and potency of the economy and
Bulls are people who are optimistic
about the projected future path of
equity prices
I'm not going to show the bear I will
show though this does anybody recognize
that and don't say
horse well but what building is it it's
on Constitution
Avenue it's the Federal Trade Commission
this was my first job out of Graduate
School Federal Trade Commission is
charged with regulating the economy
now many federal agencies are charged
with regulating the economy but the
Federal Trade Commission in particular
is in charge of antitrust and consumer
protection now when you look at that you
notice this guy is pretty
hot lot of muscles he's been working out
he's strong but the horse dwarfs him in
strength but it's biting
him so pretty clearly what's going on
here is the horse is the
economy and the man trying to get
control of it is the
regulator so that kind of metaphor here
the freestanding bull that doing what
bulls do helps the economy or here the
man struggling to control this very
powerful but possibly dangerous Force
are the two kinds of tensions that we're
going to worry about in this class this
is a class in political economy
now I'm going to violate the rules and
give a brief lecture even though it is
on the first day because I had sent out
the readings and I hope you had a chance
to look at them so there were three main
readings for today I pencil by Leonard
Reed Frederick bastiat's what is seen
and unseen and the candlemaker's
petition for ey
pencil how long would it take you to to
make a pencil and of course what you
want to know is the
context but suppose you couldn't buy
anything suppose I told you you couldn't
buy
anything otherwise you could just buy a
pencil wouldn't take long to buy
one would you even consider doing it
well do do you make your own
shoes why don't you make your own
shoes well I can say I buy I can buy
them cheaper and better than I can make
them and that's the maker by decision
that all firms and in fact all consumers
face the Mak or by
decision
is rather
unimaginatively should I make it myself
or should I buy it and the answer comes
down to which one uses the fewer
resources which one uses fewer resources
well how long would it take me to make a
pencil if I couldn't buy
anything I'd have to grow the trees I'd
have to mine the graphite I'd have to
mine the metal for the
Pharaoh the fact is I could not make a
pencil for the rest of my life I'm 56
you probably could not make a pencil for
the rest of your lives and the pencils
are pretty
simple mark market system means that
other people work as your
employees other people work as your
employees they go and get stuff that you
need how do they know that you need it
they're
guessing it would be too expensive and
timec consuming for you to hire them
all they work for you by making things
they think you want to
buy what if they're wrong well they go
out of business and you take no risk if
they make stuff you don't want to buy no
one buys it all the risk is on
them so there's two things one a bunch
of other people all over the world who
don't know you are trying to make stuff
that they think you
want that's pretty great in fact you can
get a pencil really cheap the maker by
decision for pencils is pretty simple no
one would think of making their own
pencil
so let's
turn to the broken window
problem natural disasters terrorist
attacks and Wars have one thing in
common they involve a lot of Destruction
but every time there's a natural
disaster or a terrorist attack or a war
you can be virtually guaranteed that
someone is is going to come along and
say that there's a silver lining in all
of this it's good for the economy
because it's going to create jobs when
there's a natural disaster or a
terrorist attack or a war we have to
spend money replacing all the stuff that
gets destroyed this is an application of
what we call the broken window fallacy
Frederick Bosak corrected this fallacy
in his early 19th century essay that
which is seen and that which is not seen
the key point is that destruction does
not create Prosperity destruction
destroys Prosperity imagine someone who
owns a shop the shop has a glass window
now a kid comes along and throws a rock
through the window so the window's
broken shattered glass everywhere the
shopkeeper's upset why cuz his window's
been broken he has to go and pay the
glass maker in order to get the window
replaced now some people might come
along and say well no look you should
all be smiling because this is going to
create jobs you spend money on new glass
the glass maker earns this money he can
then spend it at restaurants and he can
spend it on new clothes and he can spend
it on things that he likes that's going
to create jobs for other people this
money is going to circulate and we're
all going to be richer as a result of
the fact that this kid has thrown a rock
through a window and now we've had to
replace a
window let's think for a moment about
what the policy prescription would be if
it were in fact true that this is a good
idea what we should do instead of trying
to prevent people from breaking things
instead of trying to prevent people from
destroying property we should in fact be
in listing armies of kids with rocks to
go around breaking Windows to destroy
things because after all if this would
require a new spending that would make
us richer that would make us better off
that would be the path to Prosperity
destroying things breaking things and
then spending money to replace them what
we're doing when we indulge this kind of
thinking is we're focusing our attention
on what is seen but we're not taking
account of what is not seen what we
don't see is what the shopkeeper would
have used that money for if he hadn't
had to replace his window he might have
used it to buy a suit this would have
created an opportunity for a tailor the
tailor then could have spent the money
on something else he could have used it
to buy groceries this would have created
opportunities for Grocers maybe he would
have saved it then the money could be
lent to someone who wants to start a new
business he could have done something
else that would have created job
opportunities for other people the world
would have still had the window and it
would have had the benefit of all of
this additional activity that would have
gone on had the window not been broken
in the first place on net Society is
worse off to the tune of one
window whenever we actually destroy
resources that's precisely what we're
doing we're destroying stuff we're not
creating wealth it's important to
remember that it's production that
creates prosperity and not
destruction
so that's a summary of the broken window
fallacy from Frederick bastiat now there
are people who disag agree with that and
they have good reasons that's not a
knockdown argument it turns out that
that argument as far as it goes is
probably Incorrect and we'll talk about
the
reasons however it is certainly possible
to
caricature people who take what is
called the Keynesian perspective as
believing in the broken window fallacy
and it's easy to find examples of
that sounds
hypothetical but there's my good friend
Paul
Krugman and notice that this is a
hurricane so and we have some wonderful
stimulus heading through the southeast
now most of you are probably not from
the south I hope you don't have the
opportunity to experience a hurricane
firsthand hurricanes are really
destructive but often after a hurricane
as Professor Carden says somebody will
say and you saw this after Hurricane
Sandy
thank goodness it's going to be such a
stimulus to be able to rebuild all this
stuff and this is something Paul Krugman
did actually say if we discovered that
space aliens were planning to attack and
we needed a massive buildup to counter
the space alien threat an inflation and
budget deficit took secondary place to
that this slump would be over in 18
months
so what would the most Keynesian man in
the world
say I don't always root for aliens to
steal MERS
Tois but when I do it is because that
would create economic
growth as I said it's a
caricature but there's something to this
argument that's pretty fundamental and
we're going to come back to it again and
again I wanted you to read first the
claims about the broken window fallacy
to get you to
think maybe there's a problem with this
before we give the answers but let me
say there are I think some pretty
persuasive
answers so there's bastiat someone's
thrown a rock through the window and the
claim is that throwing rocks through
Windows is the basic Keynesian
prescription that is what we need to do
is destroy things so that we can spend
more
money and and last the candlemakers
petition had any of you seen the
candlemakers petition before it's
something that's sometimes used in high
schools
well bot is attempting a satirical
letter written from candlemakers talking
about unfair
competition and this unfair competition
is
subsidized there is foreign product
being brought into France and it's
arming the candle
makers and they these foreign producers
have such an enormous Advantage there's
no way the French candle makers can can
compete for at least half of the day
what is the foreign
producer well as you know it's the
sun there's no way that a Candle Maker
can compete with the
Sun so what the candle makers ask is
that we board up all the windows and put
Giant Groves over the cities because
that will improve employment
prospects for the candle makers now you
may
remember Mr Burns from The Simpsons once
actually tried
this so the analogy is here's Mr Burns
and he's he's got this controller he's
putting it up and it ends up blocking
out all the Sun from
Springfield obviously that's
absurd should the United States put
tariffs on products from
China suppose it's literally true that
the US has no way of producing products
as cheaply as can be made in China isn't
that unfair to us
producers maybe it's not so absurd after
all of course the question is how far
would you go with
this because you probably could say that
light bulbs are unfair to Candle makers
so here you see the light bulb being led
to the scaffold as all the candles look
on so the difficulty that this raises
and besot is very careful to raise
it
is are economies designed and do we need
them to produce jobs
or are economies designed and do we need
them to produce stuff for
consumers what should the economy serve
producers or
consumers the answer most people would
give is
consumers but in fact an awful lot of
Regulation serves producers why would
that
be and the answer is
political the benefits to producers are
large and concentrated
the cost to Consumers are also very
large but they're not concentrated so
even larger cost to Consumers that are 2
cents 50 cents the United States pays
twice the world price for
sugar the US pays twice the world price
for sugar there's relatively few sugar
producers in the United States but
they're extremely well organized
politically as a result most of our soft
drinks are not made with sugar they're
made with high fructose corn syrup the
United States is the only country in the
world for which that's true high
fructose corn syrup syrup is really bad
for you even compared to
Sugar but all of this is because we're
protecting sugar producers to the great
harm of American consumers why there's
no economic justification it's
political that's why I believe that it's
difficult and probably
useless to have a class just in
economics or just in politics the two
are inextricably
related and you must think so too or you
wouldn't be here
[Music]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)