60 Second Adventures in Economics (combined)

  • Published on Oct 11, 2012
  • Ever shaken an invisible hand? Been flattened by a falling market? Or wondered what took the bend out of Phillips' curve? David Mitchell helps reveal some of the great dilemmas faced by governments trying to run an economy - whether to save or spend, control inflation, regulate trade, fix exchange rates, or just leave everyone to get on with it and not intervene. You'll learn why Adam Smith put such a high price on free markets, how Keynes found a bold new way to reduce unemployment, and what economists went on to discover about the impact of policy on people's and businesses' behaviour - which may not always be entirely rational.
    Playlist link - tvclip.biz/p/PLhQpDGfX5e7DDGEQvLonjDQsbclAF2N-t
    Transcript link -
    Free learning from The Open University - Economics www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/money/economics
    Study a free course on Managing my money at the Open University www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/managing-my-money/content-section-overview?active-tab=description-tab
    Study R30 BA (Honours) Economics
    The Open University is the world’s leading provider of flexible, high-quality online degrees and distance learning, serving students across the globe with highly respected degree qualifications, and the triple-accredited MBA. The OU teaches through its own unique method of distance learning, called ‘supported open learning’ and you do not need any formal qualifications to study with us, just commitment and a desire to find out what you are capable of.
    Free learning from The Open University
    For more like this subscribe to the Open University channel
    Like us on Facebook: ouopenlearn/
    Follow us on Twitter: OUFreeLearning
    #OpenUniversity #Economy

Comments • 356

  • Erik Olivecrona
    Erik Olivecrona 24 days ago

    That sounds like David Mitchell.

  • Robert Bryant Lock
    Robert Bryant Lock 4 months ago

    Um what, no discussion on how the (very ko$her) "Fed" prints money out of thin air and then has the nerve to charge interest on it...?

  • lamalamalex
    lamalamalex 4 months ago

    The first point about free markets is wrong. Free markets actually respond more quickly than government intervention! We should all check out Milton Friedman instead. And check out Ayn Rand for what capitalism really is!

  • ElfHostage
    ElfHostage 7 months ago

    Damn. All these comments are old.

  • Angelyn Originez
    Angelyn Originez 10 months ago

    my head hurts

  • jwfcp
    jwfcp Year ago +1

    Oh look, another blog calling itself a university.

  • Victor Leonardo Chuquihuaccha Hernandez

    This video is great, thanks for sharing!

  • Coen Billy
    Coen Billy Year ago

    Bác nào có tâm có thể làm Sub việt cho clip này được không? Vì có nhiều chỗ em không hiểu :

  • MySerpentine
    MySerpentine Year ago +1

    The free market ends with Sweeney Todd.
    Also, where is Sam Vimes's Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness?

  • camuhi
    camuhi 2 years ago

    I don't like David Mitchell

  • Dubrae fox
    Dubrae fox 2 years ago +1


  • John Macci
    John Macci 2 years ago

    Well , You rather call it free market economics promotion class!

  • leeeopelle
    leeeopelle 2 years ago

    Qatar airways xd

  • Commando303X
    Commando303X 2 years ago


  • Bogdan V
    Bogdan V 2 years ago

    Awesome story and animation is genius.

  • Dương Lâm
    Dương Lâm 2 years ago

    how do I know which software to make this video please!

  • Anton Samsonov
    Anton Samsonov 2 years ago


  • jojoinhere
    jojoinhere 2 years ago

    automation and abundance will solve all economic problem

  • Anya
    Anya 2 years ago

    Like if you came from UTS Economics for Business.

  • msol G.
    msol G. 2 years ago

    Great video oncece more!! Does anyone know where could I get the script? Thanks in advance!!

    • msol G.
      msol G. 2 years ago

      I'll try to make some activities with this because the material is really worth to work with it over and over again.

    • OpenLearn from The Open University
      OpenLearn from The Open University  2 years ago +1

      Hi Marisol, you should be able to get all the individual transcripts here www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/economics/60-second-adventures-economics

  • Vivek Poddar
    Vivek Poddar 3 years ago

    1:30 - if technology destroys jobs, wages will drop? - why?
    businesses will hire more people? - why when technology is already doing the job?
    not simple.

  • Vivek Poddar
    Vivek Poddar 3 years ago

    What is meant by equilibrium in 'the invisible hand'? Does it only mean Demand=Supply but that idea is not plausible in real world where every moment need is created and destroyed.

  • coffeebean1704 B
    coffeebean1704 B 3 years ago +2

    I think that the thing with economics is that there are way too many people challenging each other, some with a solid foundation and others with no idea or a poor understanding of what they are talking about but who, however, are the ones holding to their opinions the strongest. But it's TVclip, I doubt there are actual people commenting here who know what they're talking about.

  • bcexnopby
    bcexnopby 3 years ago

    Please do more on economics or cap markets!!! Thanks!

  • Marcus Pacheco
    Marcus Pacheco 3 years ago

    Would a global currency and unified static interest rate solve the perfect trinity problem?

    • Alex Turlais
      Alex Turlais 2 years ago

      The whole euro crisis only exists because other currencies exist. a global currency would make lots of the problems it faces disappear

    • Publius
      Publius 3 years ago

      Marcus Pacheco Problem is that places in good financial standing like America or Asia don't want to do that because they will be severely dragged down by Africa/Medit. places in worse standing.
      Just look at the Euro

    • J Roig
      J Roig 3 years ago +2

      Yes but it would bear other problems are we are seeing with the Euro.

  • Rob
    Rob 3 years ago +19

    Dangerous assumption in this video:- . - That governments 'create jobs' when the reality is there is an equal argument that they 'destroy jobs' by entering the market to redirect resources that the market would otherwise use by competing with the private economy on an unfair basis because of the government's exemption from risk of bankruptcy that does not restrain them from paying higher prices. The reslultant effects are government can always win against the private bidders for goods and services.

    • NBA review
      NBA review 2 years ago

      That is true. My English is not the best, but from what i know, business survival in private sector is so much more harder. For government it is easy, they just use our tax money to keep their crap running. But it is the world we live in and we have to accept it as a part of our lives, because it is happening in all countries and it is impossible to deal with.

    • Rob
      Rob 2 years ago +2

      Some call that effect crowding out. More newly created fiat money crowdes out other existing money so prices a rise since there has been no corresponding improvement in efficiencies to produce more goods and services from existing resources.

    • bambo
      bambo 2 years ago +1

      It's called The Crowing Out Effect, right?

    • Rob
      Rob 3 years ago

      So I believe you thnk you know. Do you know how money is created by the reserve banks in conjunction with governements? Do you know from the information you have read? Do you know why it goes from being someything that is worthless to start with and suddenly has gained a value in the private economy. Can you explain that and why counterfeit has not the same effect?

    • MkJnx
      MkJnx 3 years ago

      I don't think you understand which are the mechanism Goverment's have to create jobs, actually I don't think you understand how economy works at all! FYI economy does not pay heed to conspiracy theorists.

  • alueshen
    alueshen 3 years ago

    On to the second point, which is the idea that savings decreases the constrains on lending. That is, that "fractional reserve" system constrains banks by limiting the amount they can lend, thus more savings equals lower interest rates.
    While there is some truth to this, banks are not in any way constrained in their ability to make loans based on savings. Savings take money out of the productive economy and does not offset the lack of spending that results.
    Money x Velocity=Price x Quantity.
    Savings reduces M and unless V goes up (which has been historically constant) or P falls (again historically P is hard to move and often happens out of sync with a decrease in M) Which leaves quantity which must fall (increasing unemployment).
    When people save the governments response should be to balance the equation though increased spending. If people decide to deploy funds in savings, the government should decrease M by increasing taxes or selling of securities (savings).
    AND OMG, falling wages (due to increased unemployment) do not encourage business to hire more people. Business are coin operated. They don't hire unless there is an increasing demand. Increased unemployment means more people with less money!
    Taxes aren't about paying for spending, they are about maintaining the equation MV=Py.

  • alueshen
    alueshen 3 years ago +17

    So.... 30 seconds in I have to stop and point out to our viewers that the first claim made in this video is 100% wrong. Adam Smith used the term invisible hand 3 times in ALL of his works and *NEVER* in the context given here. Since I can't send you a link to something that doesn't exist. I challenge anyone to link back to Smith's work showing where I'm wrong. The longer this stays up here, without refutation, the more it should lend credence to my claims, at least for those who don't wish to search Google or read all of Smith's works to see if I'm correct
    The Irony is that Smith argued against the ideas in what has become known as "Free Markets" the term invisible hand is supposed to represent. The term Free market is simply a euphemism for "lawless markets".
    The myth that Smith is famous for is nothing more than an ideological construct.
    The 1st use of the term in Smiths works was regarding the superstitious Greeks.
    The 2nd use was when Smith pointed out how Mid evil landlords shared their wealth with their servants to prevent them from starving. While this may seem close to what we recognize today, Smith never argued for this idea and actually said that it was inefficient and wasteful.
    The last appearance of the term was in the context of national security.

    • Alacastor
      Alacastor Year ago +7

      Actually, you are 100% wrong. The metaphor of an "invisible hand" referring to a force leading to promotion of society as a whole is made is Book IV, Chapter II, paragraph IX of The Wealth of Nations. It was hardly a popular concept, or even one promoted much by Smith, but you are spreading blatant misinformation here.

  • A Nobbit
    A Nobbit 3 years ago +10

    Who's watching this after Brexit?

  • Matt Carroll
    Matt Carroll 3 years ago

    You totally skipped talking about the supply of money in the Philips Curve section.

    • Alex Turlais
      Alex Turlais 2 years ago

      Matt Carroll they only had a short amount of time

  • zagyex
    zagyex 3 years ago

    3:45 as if exporting goods doesnt use up resources... the 10 largest cargo ships use up more fuel than all passenger cars in the world.

    • Marcus Pacheco
      Marcus Pacheco 3 years ago +2

      The problem with nuclear power is melt downs, they don't occur because of fault lines so much as how we build a reactor. You see we build a reactor to work the way it does on submarine even if it's not surrounded by an infinite supply of sea water. This is because it's cheap and proven efficient and an admiral convinced everyone it was the right way to do it. However, in the 1950s some egg heads New Mexico figured out this could lead to something they called China syndrome if the reactor could not maintain it's supply of cold water. This is a meltdown. So the devised a reactor that could run on a closed loop of water, these reactors contained a failsafe where by if the reactor's water pump stoped pumping water steam pressure would push out the control rods and stop the reaction. Basicaly that type of reactor would be melt down proof even if no one was there to shut it down.... Why we don't build them like this beats me. Oh and it solves none of the problems presented here. Also the op is completely wrong about shipping as people pay for the shipping, fuel, ect which creates jobs so on so forth. Remember whenever you spend you send money somewhere else, it doesn't vanish. Its a total wash.

    • Bayflingers
      Bayflingers 3 years ago

      Nuclear power would solve all of this. But everyone is terrified of nuclear power because dumbshit power-plant builders decide to put up sites on tectonic fault lines (Japan etc.) which are detroyed by earthquakes causing everyone to go back to fossil fuels by default.

  • Velvet-licious Jones
    Velvet-licious Jones 3 years ago

    humorous yet educational

  • arslonga vitabrevis
    arslonga vitabrevis 3 years ago +24

    Ha Ha. Humans are Not rationally motivated. They are emotionally motivated per brain chemistry and structure.

    • MrBrainneeded
      MrBrainneeded 2 years ago

      In my opinion the theory of a Homo oeconomicus is on of the biggest mistakes in economy. How could the success of apple otherwise be explained??? :D And wtf is the invisible hand? A substitution for everything they cant explain? Seriously am I the only one who thinks economics is one of the biggest frauds on humanity? Is a certain relation between supply and demand the only incontrovertible insight the made throughout the past centuries? Seems more like a religion to believe in than a academic discipline...

    • Dorian sapiens
      Dorian sapiens 3 years ago

      +MMMIK13 It's plain to see he (statistically) is exactly the type. His user name and profile image practically scream it.

    • Daniel Se
      Daniel Se 3 years ago +1

      +Make America Great Again
      Acting like they are mutually exclusive. You do strike a deep point though.
      It's a peculiar thing to dispute. And a very tricky topic.
      Hegel used to state that emotion has it's own rationale.
      (I'll make a populist move for you "scientifically oriented" people : ) A guy receives pleasure from a hourglass figure, symmetry and voluptuous assets *while* (not "because" in the metaphysical sense) those features are meaningfully associated with reproduction. And it's easy to see why from a Darwinist perspective.
      There you have it: pleasure, rationality (function/result orientation), and meaning in a single topic.
      Taken in a larger scale, there really is no ground for a distinction.
      Scale here being the key component. If one isolates a particular phenomena (e.g spending), it might not make sense, nay, flat out be counterproductive. If you scale the same activity up, you get an economical golden era.
      Distinction arise when one grapples to parts. Be particularly keen on what your mind is doing when favoring a "beginning" framework. Because at that spot it's manufacturing it.

    • No Cucks In Kekistan
      No Cucks In Kekistan 3 years ago +1

      @MMMIK13 It's scientific fact that brain chemistry is based on what our brains tell us i the most rational thing.

    • ITR
      ITR 3 years ago +1

      +Make America Great Again Believing in free will is one thing, but denying scientific fact? Really?

  • Snuffles
    Snuffles 4 years ago

    A crocodile hunter from New Zealand? That'd be a boring job unless you were in a zoo... don't you mean Australia?

  • joesr31
    joesr31 4 years ago +1

    Can anyone explain what he meant in the Comparative advantage section where the limitations are that the people would rather move to where the money is, how does that spoil the logic of comparative advantage? please help thanks!

    • My username is so obnoxiously long and there is absolutely nothing you can do about the matter
    • man in glasses
      man in glasses 3 years ago

      It doesn't. It is just an added corollary. If you want to see the full results of adding labor to the theory of comparative advantage, see Paul Krugman's "New Trade Theory" a summary of the work in international economics which won him the nobel prize

    • arslonga vitabrevis
      arslonga vitabrevis 3 years ago

      +natasha The people move to follow the money and this invalidates Ricardo's theory, when the people move too according to this presentation. But I went and looked up flaws to Comparative Advantage and did not see this listed. In fact it listed labor mismatch as a flaw and labor is not easily moved.

    • joesr31
      joesr31 4 years ago +1

      @Serious Ted i got that part, is just that the limitations of the theory they stated that nowadays the money move instead

  • Occam's Stubble
    Occam's Stubble 4 years ago

    You left out an important aspect of Keynes' theory: Governments need to bank money in good times and use the banked money to goose the economy in bad times. The problem we're seeing today is that government is trying to goose the economy with borrowed money and it isn't working.

    • Bayflingers
      Bayflingers 3 years ago

      Well he did mention that. But I agree that today in good times we need to be banking that money to pay off this debt. We in the USA can blame Bush for spending so much money on something that does nothing for the economy and now that we are deep in debt we cannot afford to save but we still need to anyway and are only spending more (poor Obama). The libertarian party is the only way my friend... STOP THE WARS.

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago +1

      He also said that inflation isn't real

  • fupasack2
    fupasack2 4 years ago +23

    keynes is a bitch

    • Mr. JustAGuyWithALightsaber
      Mr. JustAGuyWithALightsaber 2 years ago

      Rojo No it didn't. Roosevelt's Keynesian policies are exactly what CAUSED the great depression in the first place. Had the Roosevelt administration been lassiez-faire, the recession would've ended a lot sooner. It lasted for so long because of the Keynesian policies.

    • historymaniavideos
      historymaniavideos 3 years ago

      While Keynesian policy *may* have helped stem the slide during the Great Depression, it was the huge industrial push during World War II that brought the USA out of the Depression. When the war ended, labor's surplus of expendable income in the post-war years (which they could not spend during the war, as the war economy had limited consumer goods) facilitated spending on consumer goods. Add the Baby Boom and the effects of the G.I. Bill, and it the economy was primed to grow.

    • Rojo
      Rojo 3 years ago

      @ka da Thanks man! You seem like a cool dude too :)

    • Rojo
      Rojo 3 years ago

      @ka da I understand you, and in some aspects, also agree with you. Keynesians policies seems like a waste of money, and some times they are, but I think that Keynesian theory was distorted by some politicians. I don't stand for keynes, but their policies seem to work from time to time.

    • Rojo
      Rojo 3 years ago +5

      Keynes and Roosevelt helped to restore the economy after the great Depression, which it was caused by marshall and the Neoclassical school.
      Thanks to Keynesian policies the world experienced the largest growth period called: the golden age (1950-1973)

  • Abeer Al-Bulushi
    Abeer Al-Bulushi 4 years ago

    great video

  • David Wright
    David Wright 4 years ago

    I would ignore the Philips curve. If you are increasing government spending or the money supply correctly, you should not have significant inflation (or devaluation) anyway.
    The paradox of thrift is the idea that in our modern economy, there is no big warehouse to 'save' our output. A farmer can save his apples for later. But when I save and buy a part of a business, I am hoping that business will continue to earn profits today - that people will spend and buy it's products. I don't want everyone to start saving. If that happens, all the demand for a firm's products will fall, and I will be out of luck.
    Otherwise, I find your cartoons a bit simplistic and perhaps misleading. Why mention Keynes, for example? The Philips curve?

    • David Wright
      David Wright 3 years ago

      Actually, the apple thing works because it is all real. That is, the paradox of thrift can happen in a barter economy. In the typical (ne3o-classical) case, it is assumed that money is neutral in the long run as prices adjust to the quantity of money.

    • j0hnc00
      j0hnc00 3 years ago

      Ahh I see there are so many nuances to this, sure if you save your money under a mattress then truly output will fail. Under the condition that such money is not being lend thus stagnating. Also it does aid fractional reserve banking's money multiplier.
      I don't know if the apple comparison works perfectly but it opens its own valid can of worms that complicates understanding.
      Above all the money multiplier effect when someone keeps their money in the bank without spending it, does work with the paradox of thrift...

    • David Wright
      David Wright 3 years ago +1

      The classical theory use to hold that if everyone saves for a rainy day, then future output will increase.
      This would only be true if were like farmers, saving corn in the summer to eat in the winter.
      But, in a modern economy, there is no overall saving. Every time I save, I hope that someone else will spend on the investment I own or create with my savings.
      Thus, if everyone in the economy actually started saving, output will fall.

    • j0hnc00
      j0hnc00 3 years ago

      on the paradox of thrift, what are you talking about?

  • Pinecone Malone
    Pinecone Malone 4 years ago +2

    Is that David Mitchell?

  • James Waltz
    James Waltz 4 years ago

    Interesting videos, rather enjoyable and informative, even if obviously biased. I would like to offer one point of contention: the explanation of "the invisible hand" is anachronistic. It is not representative of Adam Smith's use of the term, but how it was used by later economists. Adam Smith only uses the term in "The Wealth of Nations" to describe the benefits of spending within the domestic economy rather than foreign ones.

    • Bayflingers
      Bayflingers 3 years ago

      Not sure that the video expressed it in this way. Seemed to not mention intra or inter-national spending and just spending in general. Seems to me the invisible hand says no government spending at all though....

    • Normacly
      Normacly 4 years ago

      @James Waltz It is wise to invest for a country to invest in its domestic economy, but there is a thing as too much. Take China as a example. The Chinese government basically funding domestic construction and giving direct invest into supposedly private businesses. From the outside, it look like they have no problem with unemployment, debts, and other economic issues experienced by the Western nations. In reality, most of the newly constructed buildings stood empty for years, most workers earn pennies on dollars, and the debt was pretty much hidden in artificially lowering the Chinese Yuan. Two months ago, the Chinese stock market finally experienced a crisis as the state spending could no longer support the economy growth. It was likely the Chinese economy was going to fail like the US did in 1929, but the Chinese government only avoid it by threatening to imprison anyone who attempted to sell their stocks.

  • Anneliese Heasman
    Anneliese Heasman 4 years ago +5

    omg it's David Mitchell LOL

    • Mystogan Edolas
      Mystogan Edolas 4 years ago +1

      Stop objectifying here you sexist!

    • splendidoyster1
      splendidoyster1 4 years ago

      +Mystogan Edolas Don't be a neckbeard. She's pretty. Be nice.

    • Mystogan Edolas
      Mystogan Edolas 4 years ago

      +Anneliese Heasman OMG it's a girl traped under a massive comb over! :O

  • TheDrB0B
    TheDrB0B 4 years ago +2

    Wow, I'm studying for my economy final tomorrow. And I have to say, no other subject had managed to make me so frustrated as this one.

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      That's why I loved ap micro.

  • The House of Jokes
    The House of Jokes 4 years ago

    Your video seems to be very first-class. I will come again to view some more of them real soon.

  • 420blazeurmom acrossmaptomahawk

    I am the dankest economist there ever did be, i will save your monies if you give me the dankest me-me

    • 420blazeurmom acrossmaptomahawk
      420blazeurmom acrossmaptomahawk 4 years ago


      Yes sir, there is a high demand for pepe's memes but not enough supply.

    • Ataraxia
      Ataraxia 4 years ago

      @420blazeurmom acrossmaptomahawk ayy pepe are you learning economics to get into the pepe exchange market?

  • Louis Evan
    Louis Evan 4 years ago

    Anyone who actually knows graphs and economics please reply. ;)
    HAHAHAH. Willing to trade fun and puns for explanations and help. :*

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      +Fikunayo Iluyomade now you see this in the aggregate supply curve shown before Keynes went insane and said there's no inflation. Just wanted to point that out

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      +Fikunayo Iluyomade GUNS AND BUTTER

    • Louis Evan
      Louis Evan 4 years ago

      @Mystogan Edolas Will do. :p

    • Mystogan Edolas
      Mystogan Edolas 4 years ago +1

      +Louis Evan Watch this 30ish series to see just how insane the Stock exchange can be. ;)

    • Louis Evan
      Louis Evan 4 years ago

      @Fikunayo Iluyomade Thank you thank you thank you, it's all coming back to me.
      I am following you on Google+ just in case I have another question. :3

  • james moylan
    james moylan 4 years ago

    missed out from this theory is as a country does well its currency goes up its exports do badly and then it does badly so it s currency does badly sometimes it tries even to come to the aid of a falling currency and loses billions of pounds,key word the economy needs stability,why all the speculating on currency then?to the tune of 1500,trillion us dollars per year.at present.it seems to be going up from billions per day in the twentieth century to 2 trillion 2002 per day,2008 approx. 4 trillion per day and in 2014 5 trillion per day.when speculating on currencies is volatility."any large movement of currency detrimental to the world economy should be outlawed Bretton woods 1944.this statement signed by 44 nations probably including a us president I believe puts the contracts made by governments to its workers as more important than those too supporting a volatile economic system where large movements of currency are causing detriment to the world economy and thus all mankind.especially thanks to all those who participated in the possibility of the implementation of Bretton woods whether at the conference or on the battle field of world war 2.

    • james moylan
      james moylan 4 years ago

      @james moylan apologies probably signed by a us president .us constitution I believe also says something about the us government being able to control its and other currency values,i think maynard Keynes said its better to have one currency it is we should instigate Bretton woods get rid of currency dealing for a few days and see what happens banks would have to grow and money flow back into the productive sector giving us more bankers more jobs and more bonuses.a bankers bonus of 2 million for a year can be earnt in a second on the currency dealing industry.thanks Harold Wilson for the open university but not for promoting smoking with that awful pipe.

  • Grace Kim
    Grace Kim 4 years ago


  • DraculaSWBF2
    DraculaSWBF2 4 years ago

    If people payed for airline flights only upon satisfactory completion of services, the industry would be much more customer friendly.

    • Attila the Fun
      Attila the Fun 4 years ago

      @Kelrik93 Problem is that any cutomer can claim to have high standards and say that the flight service was unsatisfactory (especially if Weather causes delays which is not the flight's fault).

  • Anastasia Melachrinos
    Anastasia Melachrinos 4 years ago

    SO PERFECT ! *.* *.*

  • Ymous Anon
    Ymous Anon 4 years ago

    cartoons on the invisible hand

  • Ymous Anon
    Ymous Anon 4 years ago

    "There, there it is again ---- the invisible hand of the market place giving us the finger"

  • Economics
    Economics 4 years ago +6

    Very interesting video, great job

  • Tin Yeung
    Tin Yeung 4 years ago +1

    the comments are LONGGGGGGGG

  • WmTyndale
    WmTyndale 4 years ago +13

    We have never had free markets. We have had constant manipulation, government
    intervention and monopolistic/predatory behaviour of large corporations.

  • No Cucks In Kekistan
    No Cucks In Kekistan 4 years ago +2

    I now am a civilian economist.

  • LattiMonstaaa
    LattiMonstaaa 4 years ago

    3:16 :DD

  • Shelly Tan
    Shelly Tan 4 years ago

    i still don't get it, what is rational choice in economics...?

    • Jake Weightman
      Jake Weightman 3 years ago

      sounds like rational choice to me

    • Jake Weightman
      Jake Weightman 3 years ago

      +Dan cOhen "Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as it's produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain" -Adam Smith, the Theory of Moral Sentiments

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      +Jake Weightman also rational choice Therom was not smith's it was some guy at uchicago

    • Jake Weightman
      Jake Weightman 3 years ago


    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      +Jake Weightman I summerized that in a line

  • W M
    W M 5 years ago

    This is a very entertaining and informative, and--while obviously slightly right-wing, video--its also meant to be something to push the viewer to look into the smarter literature. Good vid for what it is!

    • Dan cOhen
      Dan cOhen 3 years ago

      It's not economics by nature is right wing aside from keynes but watever lol

  • Sam
    Sam 5 years ago