Ruchir Sharma — What Went Wrong with Capitalism? | Prof G Conversations

In my humble opinion lobbying is assisting in destroying the American dream. The numbers themselves far outweigh who we have in congress. Roughly 12,000 lobbyists total are going to get their agenda across, and I would venture a guess that maybe 1/10th of those are of the common citizen’s interest

Not sure I understand why an overabundance of tech sector lobbyists (which I agree are too many) is more pernicious than a overabundance of ANY sector of lobbyists. We are certainly not over-regulating business; we are under-regulating business in a meaningful manner. We have a wad of elderly, wholly ineffective legislators paired with a load of uneducated, child-like partisan politicians who are entirely unable to function as a governing body.

Overlooked: Prioritizing profit/efficiency maximization has led to the destruction of system redundancies which provide safety paths against failure and a larger number of income opportunities for citizens who face becoming an underclass without them.

I like the pixelated Mona Lisa.

He says overregulation leads to pro-incumbency and pro-big business to the detriment of the startup. That's true. But why is that happening? The reality is that the democratic systems we have constructed hold a contradiction. Government regulates business for many reasons but the most important one being to make a fair and level playing field for competition. Business relies on that and plays by the rules to succeed by giving a good or service that adds value to people's lives with a return in profit. Overtime, the businesses that are most successful start to realize that lobbying becomes a greater source of future return than anything else. Politicians goals are mainly to get elected and stay in office. Businesses lobbying government and help fund their campaigns while the politicians give them an unfair advantage in the form of new regulations. The contradiction is that the profit motive leads to distorting the level playing field. What I have just described is crony capitalism, and there is nothing in our democratic capitalist systems that can stop it. If what I am saying is at all intriguing then you all should check out Michael Munger at Duke University.

Not one word about raising taxes on the top 1%

I think one of the key ingredients relating to the dissatisfaction of many folks in the economic system is the lack of participation in the formation of wealth. The top 1% have accumulated much of the gains. Proper progressive taxation and reinvestment in infrastructure, education and health care will change the sentiment!

The premise that the neoliberal era has been qualified by over regulation is laughable at its face. Tepid GDP growth since the GFC (the Silent Depression) has more to do with stagnant wages, unchecked monopolies and a massive upward transfer of wealth than a lack of "productivity" of American workers, who, aided by technology, are considerably more productive than they were decades ago but don't have the wages to show for it.

Historically, his argument is bunk. The government was much more active in the 1950s and 60s, and productivity growth was much higher than today.

Sharma is on point regarding issue of Gov intervention and low productivity as key issues in AUS. Current Gov policies are steadily eroding opportunity for anyone looking to start a business or company. Min. wage is now $24.10. Largest no. of company liquidations in 10yrs, building industry collapsing while desperate need for housing, energy costs unsustainable, 30+ companies delisting from ASX and majority of jobs created this year from sectors directly off Gov subsidied sectors like aged care and health. Australians are happy to contribute to better overall society until their standard of living is impacted, socialism works when someone else pays for it.

The problem is us, citizens. We want everything, all the services that government can provide. And we don't want to pay taxes to pay for it. It's called greed. So the problem is not capitalism, it is democracy and the fact that politicians who want to be elected are keen to respond to that greed and do provide services and don't press for taxes, and thus we run up large debts.

"Two" many incumbencies? I'm reminded of a song from my youth by a group called the Cult. It went something like "he's gone crazy trying to tame the American horse..." I loved the imagery as a teen of unbridled opportunity--as an adult that wild horse feels like trampling governments in need of taming. Here's to hoping the American horse can both retain its powerful inspiring presence (people, innovation, aspiration to serve humanity) and to do so without crushing the struggles at the genesis of invention.

We shouldn’t wait for thousands to die before we regulate either. Bhopal anyone? Unregulated AI? Yeah good luck with that.

The whole capitalistic idea was very short sighted. China has proven how it can be easily undermined by state subsidies, they have been very successful in insourcing entire industries. Not to mention, Capitalism doesn't pay much heed to environmental destruction or basic decent human moral justifications!

I think most Americans are clueless about what life is like outside of America. Making a living abroad is so much harder than in the US. Yes, the US has its problems, and life here used to be a lot easier than it is now, but it is still better than all the countries in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, and most Asian countries.

One of the first stats Sharma mentions is 3,000 new regulations each year. How many of them are on new industries that didn't previously exist? We have a growing economy and new industries are created all the time so of course there will be new regulations.

The volume of regulatory rules is less telling than what they do. Complaining about the number of regulatory rules without assessing their efficacy or span of influence is a pointless, and based on his statements, bordering on intentionally disingenuous, especially where you consider "cost of doing business: is added to to keep bad behavior from occurring. You could make an argument for simplification of a lot of regulatory measures (e.g make all fines intentionally punitive based on revenue volumes such that 'cost of doing business' becomes 'cost of losing the farm', break up 'too big to fail' institutions, and put bad actors in federal prison) and put real teeth in them, and I suspect things will clean up pretty quickly.

Why is this guy's interview just 28 mins? Usually the interviews go on for much longer

Good to listen to two of my icons talk. Topic and Talk was amazingly interesting.

Can you imagine the exploitative nature of our economy and society if government did not regulate the commons. The notion that regulations in general should be curtailed to enhance growth focuses too narrowly on economic growth over protecting the wellbeing of our society. I believe we need common sense regulations even if that slows growth because humans tend to do stupid shit.