An economy is a collection of production and consumption processes that are all working towards solving the central economic problem. The problem is that we only have access to a finite amount of resources, but the potential for human consumption of goods and services is pretty much limitless. This is the foundation of economics. Every study, every paper, every theory, economic policy or experiment is ultimately an attempt to find a solution to a problem that bites very nature has no solution. Economics is considered a social science, and although some other scientists from more rigorous fields don't always welcome it into their little club, it still follows the same processes to explore the world around us.
And as with science or anything that is extremely complex for that matter, there are disagreements between practitioners at all levels of academia and throughout the entire history of the subject. The economic schools of thought are very broad ways that economists are clumped into basic groups.
Now the first thing to know about these schools of thought is that they agree with each other on most issues. In the same way that two physicists will obviously agree with one another that an object at rest will remain at rest, but might disagree about string theory, two economists will obviously agree that there are opportunity costs for every unit of production, but they might disagree on long-term implications of consumption taxes.
But the reason you are so much more likely to hear about disagreements in economics rather than physics are threefold. One, the foundation of economics is an unanswerable question, so there is a certain element of philosophy and morality in this academic pursuit, no matter how much economists attempt to sterilise it with mathematics and statistics. Two, economies are really hard to experiment on. If there is some radical new theory about effective taxation, the only real way to see if it will work is to get that tax law passed in a country and study the results. If the experiment doesn't work, then well you just destroyed a nation. This difficulty and testing also means that a lot of fringe ideas are hard to disprove in the same way that they would be in a chemistry lab. And three, economics is something that we all know. All feel day in and day out.
The economy impacts our financial situations, our governments, retirements, environments, crime rates and basically anything else that is going to make news headlines. As with anything that people are invested in, they form opinions about it. And those opinions that help buy everyone from Nobel laureate career economists to that crazy guy advocating for a seed based economy. If this contention wasn't enough, there is one other issue that makes these schools of thought difficult to deal with.
And that is that there is no strong borders between them. There are plenty of economists that agree with some principles of one school of thought and disagree wildly with some other areas, which is actually a great thing. No researcher in any field should feel aligned to a certain way of thinking. But for now, to try and make sense of this world, we're going to look at three major schools, classical, Austrian and Keynesian. To show the differences between these schools, we're going to look at the way they suggest solving the central economic problem in key areas.
What they suggest the role of government is? What do they think the role of an individual is? What do they propose doing during an economic crisis? And finally, what it is they argue is the key to delivering a wealthier, happier economy.
The video you're watching right now would not have been possible if it wasn't for our amazing sponsor, A-Corns. An investment app that automatically rounds up your credit and debit card purchases to the nearest whole dollar, and then auto-invest the spare change for you into a diversified portfolio. Sign up now by going to acorns.com slash EE, or click the link in the video description below, and acorns will deposit $5 into your account to help you get started. That's acorns.com slash EE.
Now, economies have always been a thing. Before people even knew what they were doing, they were attempting to satisfy their desires with the limited resources they had available to them. This went on for an extremely long time, and great empires rose and lived and died, or while harboring economies that they didn't think too specifically study. Everybody from Aristotle to Jesus presented an answer to the question, but nobody had yet thought to ask what the question was. Ah, yeah, can I have how to satisfy unlimited demands with limited resources for 1000 Alex?
This all turned around though, in the 18th century, with a man called Adam Smith, who gave birth to economics and formed the foundation of what is now known as the classical school.
The classical school of economics, as the name would suggest, was the first incarnation of economics as a separate academic pursuit, distinct from finance, government and philosophy.
正如其名称所示,古典经济学派是经济学最初的体现,它与金融、政府和哲学分立开来,成为独立的学术追求。
The early practitioners of economics, namely Adam Smith, started writing and studying about how the world was operating to increase the wealth of nations.
早期的经济学家,即亚当·斯密等人,开始撰写和研究如何使国家财富增加的运作方式。
They found that the world at that time was ruled by a theory that went on to be known as mechanicalism, which could realistically be its own economic school of thought, had it not been so fundamentally flawed.
This system relied on nations just desperately trying to hoard as much gold as they could, by either exporting more than they imported, mining more of it within their borders or their colonies, or by plundering it through hostile conflict.
Now we have explored mechanicalism and Adam Smith before on this channel, so if you want more insight on that, go and watch those videos.
在这个频道上,我们之前已经探讨了机械主义和亚当·斯密,所以如果你想进一步了解,可以去观看那些视频。
But the big takeaway here is that mechanicalism was realistically just fine for most nations throughout history.
这里的主要结论是,机械论在历史上大多数国家来说实际上是可以接受的。
These nations were extremely basic, and their economic success primarily revolved around the strength of their harvest and the given year, and later turned into how many colonies they could claim.
这些国家非常基本,它们的经济成功主要围绕着当年收成的强度,后来转变成能够索取多少殖民地。
More or less, it was a zero sum game. If someone or some country was getting richer, it was because someone else or some other nation was getting poorer, and mechanicalism perfectly mirrored this reality.
Having a perfectly run fiscal and monetary policy would not have meant very much to the overall prosperity of these types of basic nations.
在这些基本国家中,拥有完美的财政和货币政策并不会对整体繁荣产生太大影响。
It would have been like putting nitrous oxide on a horse-drawn carriage. It wasn't going to do anything, and it would probably just make everyone very confused with its needless complexity.
这就像在马车上加上笑气一样,没有任何作用,反而会因不必要的复杂性让所有人感到困惑。
This was all starting to change though, when Adam Smith was putting pen to paper to write the world of nations. The first steam powered factories had sprung into existence, and for the first time ever, wealth was not being grown or mined, it was being created on mass.
Which was a chance for all people to become wealthier. No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
It is but equity besides that they, who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves, tolerably well-fed, clothed and lodged. Now this sounds like some comming nonsense, but what Smith was trying to say here is that there is an optimal distribution of wealth creation for all members of society.
The reason for this was not some virtuous quest to feed the poor, but rather it was to develop markets and divide labour.
这并不是为了做些什么高尚的事情去喂养穷人,而是为了发展市场和分工。
To show the importance of this, Smith used the example of a pin, a small, sharp, pokey metal stick, which sounds like an extremely simple product, but if a single worker was to wake up in the morning and dedicate themselves entirely to making one single pin, they probably wouldn't be able to do it because they would need to mine the materials, refine the steel, forge it and sharpen it just to make one pin.
Of course, if all of these tasks were done by separate workers, then they could just focus on their individual role and producing pins would become a lot easier, so much so that there would be an abundance of pins that they could then share around between all of them and everyone would have more for having contributed to this process.
Now this example of one person making a pin sounds pretty silly to us, but for a long time, this was effectively how economies operated.
现在,对我们来说,这个制作别针的例子听起来非常愚蠢,但很长一段时间以来,这实际上是经济运作的方式。
Local villagers would produce pretty much everything they needed and even individual households would be more or less self-sufficient.
当地村民会自给自足地生产他们所需要的几乎所有东西,甚至个别家庭也能自给自足。
The reason why people did this is they didn't have any real alternative. Village markets were basic at best and most peasant workers didn't even receive an income as you or I might know it today, but by moving into factories and earning a cash wage, individuals now have the ability to make purchases which gave the entire economy the ability to specialize.
The Manuel Kant, a legendary philosopher of all people, may have said at best in his 1785 book, The Groundwork of Metaphysics and Morals, where he quoted that all crafts, trades and arts have profited from the division of labour.
For when each worker sticks to one particular kind of work that needs to be handled differently from all others, he can do it better and more easily than one person who does everything.
So with this new understanding of how to build a better world, these were the prescriptions of these early philosophers and financiers turned economists. Markets should be free, because the more that people are allowed to trade freely with one another, the more they can specialise and count on others to specialise to deliver all of the goods that they may need. Markets should also do the same thing, stop trying to hoard all the gold and instead take note of who does what well, once this is known, trade amongst other nations to increase overall wealth. Production is the most important part of an economy and great efforts should be made to making this more efficient so that more wealth can be created from turning raw materials into complex products. Government intervention into free markets should be limited exclusively to making sure that contracts are upheld and fraud is not allowed to take place and of individuals.
Classical economics assumes that everybody buying and selling and working is a perfectly rational individual and will always make the most logical decision possible to forward their own selfish interests. More or less, classical economics argues that we could all work together to make the world a better place by being extremely selfish. I guess Gordon Gecko was probably a classical economist. Now these theories worked very well and when applied to the age of industries, they were the guiding force behind the development of jobs, companies and markets as we know them today, but these ideas weren't perfect. And now that the foundation was set, the great thinkers from around the world got stuck in on how to improve it.
The first to really shake up this new way of thinking were a collection of economists from Vienna who went on to form the Austrian school. The Austrian school shares a lot of similarities with classical economics and most of the economists that have now gone on to define this particular school of thought didn't even know that they were forming one in the same way that Adam Smith probably didn't even know he was creating the discipline of economics.
Rather, these early academics were trying to fix up some loose ends of classical economics primarily by realizing that an economy wasn't some amorphous blob of production, but rather, it was a collection of individuals. With this, these scholars started adding in more allowances for how individuals acted and specifically how they valued things. Karl Manger was the father of the Austrian school of economics and is credited with contributing to the theory of marginal utility alongside his student Friedrich von Weisser.
The theory of marginal utility was an extremely important contribution to economics as a whole. It argued that goods provide a utility, but the utility is decreased for every extra unit of good that there is. For example, the extra utility someone gets from having one kettle, as opposed to zero kettle is pretty big. Suddenly, they can boil water and make tea or coffee where they wouldn't have otherwise been able to in the past without their kettle. Something from one kettle to two kettle also has some benefits. You can now boil more water at any given time, and if one breaks down, you have a spare there ready to go for redundancy, ready tea and coffee making duties. But three kettle, four kettle, twenty kettle, there is only so much tea and coffee a household really needs. And eventually, these items start taking up so much space that people want less of them, meaning that at extreme levels, an item can have a negative marginal utility value to a consumer.
This ran contrary to the classical school of economics which simply advocated for making as much stuff as possible, and then letting the free market decide where that stuff went. Now again, this might sound obvious to us now, but you have to remember two important things. The first was that this theory made huge contributions towards solving the central economic problem. Sure, they still had unlimited desires and only limited resources in which to fulfill those desires, but they added the asterisks that actually some specific desires can be over-satisfied, so an economy must avoid these at all costs where there is more left over to satisfy other desires that haven't yet been met.
The second was that this was the first inkling of an economic theory adapting to a world of genuine sustained growth. For the 1800s, the idea that anybody could have too much of something was pretty bizarre, but with factories all across Europe working day and night to produce all manner of everything, the decision that everybody was making was starting to shift from, can I afford this to, would I rather have this or that?
This deeper understanding in a world that was becoming more and more plentiful eventually culminated in the subjective theory of value, this theory argues that an item is not worth the sum of the materials and labour that go into making it, but rather it is a function of how important it is.
For example, a worker could spend their entire life digging the deepest hole in the ground the world has ever seen, but that hole is going to have less actual value than one that is dug three feet deep and hit a solid gold nugget. Or as it relates to industry, a factory could build a car out of titanium, and sure, it would probably be a better car than one made out of steel, but it would take ten times the man hours and ten times the cost of materials to make that same car, and it might only be 20% lighter and stronger.
Now since people are not going to pay $300,000 for a titanium addition Toyota Camry, these types of subjectively inferior goods don't get made. Who is at the decides that these goods don't get made? Rational consumers. So suddenly, the Austrian School of Economics added a second role for the free market. Not only was it a medium of exchange that let people specialize and produce more, it also decided what it is that would be produced and what it is that would not.
Suddenly, the most important thing in the world was not how much you could manufacture, but how carefully you could decide what to manufacture. Consumers were no longer units of labour. No no. Consumers were now king.
Austrian economics is today seen by most conventional economists as a very fringe ideology for a few reasons. The first real reason is because as we will see soon, consumers can be really dumb and irrational. It's no good to just give them free reign and hope for the best. And secondly, it is very controversial because it relies very heavily on conjecture, rather than rigorous mathematics or statistics.
This makes a lot of their theories non-fulsifiable, which in plain English means impossible to prove wrong, which sounds great. But in reality, it just means that because there are no rigorous models drawn or prescription set, it's very hard to say that this outcome here proves something contrary to your theory.
Now because economics is a science, it is extremely important that all theories have a robust framework for being tested. You write a hypothesis, you conduct an experiment, measure the results and then record them. If you can't do that, then it's not science. For this reason, people like Paul Krugman have noted that Austrian economics is more a branch of philosophy rather than economics.
Ouch. Outside of academics, the Austrian school remains really popular in part because of its simple logical nature and in part because it tends to support free market principles, in part because it just does away with a lot of the modelling and mathematics that can make economics boring, and in part because it contributed a lot to our modern understanding of how the world works.
Just because modern academic economists snob this school and its pundits does not mean that its contributions were any less important. Today, things like marginal utility, consumer choice and opportunity cost are the first things that students will learn in their introductory economics classes. But there are still ways to improve upon this and turn these understandings and insights into a workable framework for how to run a nation. Outside of let people do what they do, which is where John Maynard Keynes came in.
If a regular person has heard of any economist it would be Keynes. He is touted as the most influential economist of the 20th century and has today defined the way that almost all governments around the world manage their economic affairs. These contributions were plentiful and too extensive to explore in a single video, but one theory that was of particular importance during his lifetime was the introduction of countercyclical fiscal policy.
Since the rollout of classical economics and the wealth of nations, economies have become many, many times more complex. Factories, markets, advanced financial systems, consumer debt, public corporations were all now commonplace, and the ebbs and flows of national prosperity were no longer determined by the harvest, but rather by the business cycle.
Around the early 1800s, economies started experiencing ups and downs that could no longer be explained exclusively by outside forces, but rather by the sentiment of the people within the nation. Since consumers were now the centre of modern economies, their feelings impacted the economy as much, if not more so, than real forces like natural disasters, wars or plagues. This again shows that this school of economic thought was the product of its time.
Kane started writing his most widely recognised work, the general theory of employment interest and money during the Great Depression. Now, these types of ups and downs could be very unsettling and could impact the health of an economy in the long term. For example, who would want to invest in a company if they knew a devastating recession was going to come about every 10 years, which would probably send that business bankrupt? Well, nobody, but businesses need funding to continue to grow and contribute to the economy.
The solution was to try and smooth out the business cycle by artificially influencing the spending of consumers. Nations would do this through fiscal policy, which called for taxing people more and spending less government money during economic booms and then taxing less and spending more during an economic downturn. Fire taxation effectively forces people into having less money, which means they can't go quite as crazy with their spending and taking on of debt, making the good times not quite as crazy, conspicuous and gatsby-esque. On the flip side, when that tax is lowered and the government starts spending lots and lots of money, well, suddenly you have a whole lot of extra money in your pocket that you can go out and spend to make the economy not as terrible during a recession.
Payns' plan was not to completely remove the business cycle, but to make it go from looking like this to like this. The benefits of doing this are kind of hard to see. Sure, the bad times are not as bad, but the good times are not as good. So what gives? Well, the argument is that by making both of these less severe, the economy was more consistent and people could plan for long-term growth rather than just surviving the next catastrophic downturn. The Austrian school hated this idea because it was tampering with the free market, which would limit efficiency. These disagreements often saw canes at odds with his Austrian contemporary Friedrich Hayak, culminating in some fantastic debates and cringe-inducing rap battles, which you should definitely go and watch after this.
Now, you can see canes in economics in practice pretty much everywhere today. In response to the economic fallout of the coronavirus, governments around the world have dropped their taxes and rolled out massive government stimulus packages, all in an attempt to make the downturn a little less severe. The one critique that most modern economists give this practice is that governments are very quick to roll out canesian fiscal stimulus during a downturn, but normally forget about higher taxation and lower spending during the good times.
Economics is a very diverse study that is founded on an unanswerable question. By its very nature, it is going to cause some disagreements, conflicting ideologies, yes, even some controversy. Now this is not that much different from any other scientific pursuit. If you ask any group of scientists about a new theory in their respective fields, they are all going to have very different opinions on it. It's just that the opinions of economists garner a lot more attention because in many ways it is us who is being experimented on.
These three schools of economic thought, classical, Austrian and Canesian agree on far more than they disagree on, but as with any competing ideologies, they are defined by their differences. Now, so far as we have seen, these have been more of an evolution on one another rather than a revolution. Now a revolution segues us nicely into the next video in this series. Marxism first lays a fair capitalism, but for now at least, remember that amongst all of these disagreements, economists are still working towards a common goal, solving the central economic problem.
They agree on far more than they disagree on, and one thing that everybody can agree on is the importance of investing in your future. That's because there are a few things in life that are scarier than reaching retirement and having to worry about having enough. Making matters worse, getting started with investing can be intimidating due to arcane words like ETFs, TDFs, smart beta, passive and active management, value-verse growth, volatility and momentum strategies to list just a few.
Fortunately, you have a friend in the investment business, one that we trust our money here with at economics explained, and that friend is Acorns. Acorns is your all-in-one financial services app that makes investing as easy as spending.
Every time you use your debit or credit card, Acorns will automatically round up your purchase to the nearest dollar and set aside the spare change for you into a diversified portfolio. And naturally you might be thinking to yourself, well, rounding up a couple of cents here and there isn't going to amount to anything meaningful, right?
Well, not so fast. Consider this. The average Acorns user invests more than $30 a month through roundups, which if you extrapolate equates to around $360 per year.
Now, let's assume that you didn't start investing at age 11 like Warren Buffett, but instead you were 25 years old at the time of watching this video and you're finally ready to commit to becoming a long-term investor. By setting aside just $30 a month into a diversified portfolio, which for this hypothetical example grows at 7% per year, you'd have a whopping $79,406.91 by the time you reach retirement at age 65.
That's extremely impressive for money that you probably won't even realise is missing. You again said that rounding up coins would not amount to much. Here's something even more mind-blowing. You can accelerate the wonders of compound interest by using a tool like Acorns automatic recurring contributions feature.
By investing just an extra $5 a day into this hypothetical portfolio, which is easily doable by foregoing your daily Starbucks venti-mocker whatever, you'd have a grand total of $476,441 by the time you retire at age 65.
If you're thinking now, well that's all great Mr. Economics explained, but I'm not 25 years old and I don't have 40 years to invest. Let this video now remind you of that ancient Chinese proverb. The best time to plan a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
So up to date at acorns.com slash EE and acorns will deposit $5 into your portfolio to help you get started. That's acorns.com slash EE. The link is on screen now and in the video description below. Thanks for watching guys. Bye.