26 Apr 2010

You are welcome to link to, download, save or distribute our audio/video files electronically. Find out more about our open access licence.

Comment on this video

Add a comment

Name:

Comment:

Can't read the security key? Click here to get a new key

We welcome your comments. Review our comments policy.

• Adeolu Alao - 14 Aug 2010 8:42pm

  The Solution to the Crises of Capitalism can only be found when we fully understand the real cause of the crises. Most of the reasons most experts are giving as the cause are really in a sense symptoms of capitalism. The real cause of the crisis of capitalism can be found in some inherent flaws in our monetary system. visit www.themoneysyndrome.co.uk to find out more about this flaws.

• C Wit >>> !! A QUESTION !! <<< - 05 Aug 2010 12:07pm

  I have more of a question, than a comment, and if anyone is able to answer it I'd be grateful. I'm not so good on the old economics... So, in the lecture Harvey talks about the difficulty of sustaining a base-rate of 2-3% growth, and suggests that there is a natural limit to this sort of compound growth (around 17mins+ into lecture), which has led to the creation of 'ficticious markets'. He then gives a spatial analogy (at around 19.20mins), where he talks of the possibilities for expansion when production was concentrated in "manchester, birmingham and a few other hotspots" as opposed to our now globalised production. He says: "physically, this starts to look horrendous". But, surely this isn't simply about geographical space. My question is, is this barrier to increased production not generated more by the Capitalist relations of production (partic. the need for profit), rather than any inherent or natural limit? Just looking around, I see that there is plenty of unemployment, plenty of jobs to do - not enough doctors, dentists, teachers; infrastructure to be built and replaced and improved. I thought one of the contradictions of Capitalism was that it doesn't tend to maximise production? If anyone who can shed some light on these confusions, I'd be grateful! :D

• Artur Barrera - 02 Jul 2010 9:58pm

  Very good. I have this for you Democracy and capitalism http://knol.google.com/k/artur-landerzon-barrera-garcia/democracy-and-capitalism/ahpk7a5l7a4r/69# Best regards

• Critical Thinking - 14 Jun 2010 5:50pm

  KLV, your reference to "government" being at fault fails to take into consideration "who is government"? Who writes our laws? The PACS and lobbyists for the financial industry have far more "power" than the people. They initiate the laws they want to see put in place, they facilitate the process, and "they" are our law makers, our "government". Money has always ruled government, not the poor man. You cannot separate them from "government" as if they were a separate, powerless, industry subject to the laws when in fact they influence and write the laws.

• Pinko Commie - 02 Jun 2010 11:06pm

  Nikola Radakovic makes a too-common and totally ineffectual bourgeois argument in bringing up the topic of 'human nature.' Communism is, first of all, not remotely Utopian. Even the beginning student of Marx should be familiar with his polemics against the Utopians. As for so-called human nature, it lags material relations rather than leading them. In the 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is what I personally consider the utimate 'one liner' from the Old Man: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." From this same website, a bit of science that punches holes in the notion of a fixed 'human nature:' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

• Nikola Radakovic - 02 Jun 2010 5:30pm

  Very clear explanation. Marx said long time ago, " capitalism will grow until its self-destruction" . Many people know to express analysis; however, no one has exhibited any profound solution yet. Communism is not a solution since it is too perfect for the human nature. It is a kind of utopia and all utopias are prone to misuse, just as religion.

• rasheed - 31 May 2010 12:25pm

  hello. your video lectures are fairly good. however, i would like to see the videos categorized rather than unsorted in the future. so long!

• KLV - 30 May 2010 2:52am

  Wall Street had very little to do with this crisis and it had very little to do with free market Capitalism. The government had everything to do with the Financial Crisis. This was about the government creating systemic risk by concentrating risk trough government conformity because of regulation and then send everyone over the cliff. This was about Government subsidy to the housing market through the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then you had Regulators enforcing regulations which was about social policy rather than financial policy. Banks were encourage to give out loans to people who were not credit worthy. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the government behest, kept giving the banks more money to give out more bad loans. Then Fannie and Freddie turn around and gave this crap to Wall Street to securitize, where upon the Government mandated ratings agency blessed most of it with AAA and investment grade ratings. Fannie was also misrepresenting many mortgages which were subprime as prime (since 1993). The banks where encouraged to invest in it because of regulation, as CMO's required less capital than did individual mortgages or bonds but why worry, because they were rated as AAA. Then you had Fannie also making the secondary market by buying up a great deal of the CMO's, given the market the illusion of liquidity. Liquidity gave the market the illusion of less risk, so greater value. Trying to blame this on Wall Street is like saying the tail wags the dog.

• Jeff Mowatt - 28 May 2010 11:08am

  A system which is just and human has to serve people rather than debt based on abstract numbers. An ethical argument for inclusive capitalism is that people cannot be considered disposable was presented in a 1996 paper: http://www.p-ced.com/1/about /background/ A synopsis of that paper was published online in 1997: http://www.p-ced.com/1/about/history/

• Steffan Aquarone - 11 May 2010 5:48pm

  Excellent talk. A tiny bit of translation, perhaps some Al Gore graphs, and this would be concise and accessible enough to enjoy momentous public engagement. Harvey has a dig at his academic colleagues for not spending enough time actually doing something about the problem. I will take this opportunity to have a dig at the anti-capitalists, many of whom just don’t like the capitalist system because of what they see as its institutionalisation of greed and ‘selfish’ human nature. But with these opinions they too are stuck with the old text book that can no longer account for what’s happening. And next to the business people: capitalism will fall because it will eat itself, not because a bunch of cardigan-wearing hippies (myself included) hold a protest and overthrow it. When this happens, what are the entrepreneurs going to do? You people with imagination and drive… with families to feed, aspirations to live up to, and immense intelligence, education and talent. What will you do when the system collapses and the financiers go out of business? Growth forever is not possible. Harvey says “the legitimacy of neoliberal ideology is in question and nobody knows what to put in its place.” For any academic this is a rallying call. But for entrepreneurs with the skills to make things happen there is an equally important, specific call that I wish to make on behalf of Harvey: now is the time to adapt your long-term strategy to increase “social control over the production and utilization of the surplus” i.e. protect and isolate yourselves from the power of the financial markets to govern what you do, take the lion’s share of your profits before you do, and dictate whether or not your customers can afford to buy your products. Why not start by trying to produce something of genuine value? Now that’s a toughie.

 

Quote me on that
Thomas Neumark says: Perhaps the point is to both interpret and change the world
The organisers are coming
Ben Toombs says: Will the promise of thousands of community organisers make a difference on the ground?
Is Osborne a closet Rawlsian?
Sam McLean says: Osborne tells us that fairness is the first principle of the coalition’s economic policy. For Rawls, justice and fairness amount to the same thing.
Happiness is an original iPhone app
Jamie Young says: that Mappiness mirrors the RSA's Civic Health Audit.