the_dunk_tank

The video is just dumb. She mentions Marx, and fails to even understand that the whole academic concept of Capitalism actually derives from his work and instead acts like Capitalism is just a basic term for an economic system that uses an exchange medium.

She's good with physics, but holy shit does this make her look bad. She needs to actually read something about this topic before opening her mouth.

The whole video is just capitalism == money and buying a banana with money is easier than buying it with the products of your labor. Which again just comes off as incredibly uninformed because that whole argument is addressed and picked apart in the first chapter of Capital.

"Capitalism is good actually!" I scream at a homeless cancer sufferer living in a tent because the medical system took all their money.

This is like the fifth hot take of hers. Sabine Hossenfelder, you have lost subscriber

Any other recommendations for science news roundups?

I've literally never ever met a person who vehemently opposed Marx and thought he was an idiot... that actually ever read Marx. I still remember when one person said things like "oh he was homeless, oh he cheated on his wife, he couldn't provide for his daughters, why would you root for someone like that?" but... why would that matter?

furthermore I know of someone who was a genuine full on nazi for more than a decade I think, and it all started falling apart for them when they actually genuinely read Marx, they had just never ever done it, only other people critiquing him, not what he actually said

Of course liberals are terrible at understanding and engaging with Marxism. They don't need to be good at it, because they're hegemonic and can forcibly suppress it through means ranging from social ostracism all the way to mass murder. The video isn't a good-faith attempt to analyze and critique economic systems, it's social signaling: "Hey everyone, I'm on the Good Team!"

A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any individual, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

been thinkin bout him lately

A German Nazi? No way

alright, i'm going to make this a proper dunk and try to watch the video. My prediction is "capitalism made the iphone" and "communism killed 1,000,000,0000,00000000" will take center stage, but she is a scientist, so maybe the rationalized mysticism of Friedman and Pinker will pop up.

• Weird dunk on Greta Thunberg. Okay I guess we're goin full boomer in this one.

• Right off the bat we're explaining money with the barter myth. It's of course only natural that people, friends even, would require a trade of equal value to give their friend something. If you would simply give your friend a banana without expecting immediate payment, you're probably not even human. Starting a countdown now to how long before any real historical account of economic activity shows up.

• "...the US dollar would collapse -- so don't do it"

• "Many economists" have argued that money is the most efficient way to distribute resources, but the only economist she names is Adam Smith, and she doesn't actually say what his arguments were. There's no obvious reason why it would be efficient, or what efficiency even means, which is a much harder question than "what is money?" although I suspect that the intended audience here is children.

• Glances off the problem of overproduction but can't actually recognize it. So far all our imaginary characters have been capitalists buying and selling commodities which accrue magically. Also running a clock for how long until labor is explicitly mentioned.

• Puts the beginning of capitalism "with the industrial revolution, 150 years ago." I know this is the grade school account, but it's a ridiculous oversimplification that only arises because liberals identify capitalism with technological advancement so strongly.

• Her big example here is the story of the discovery of penicillin but she doesn't even really make clear how capitalism enabled it, except to point out that capitalists owned the pill factories? Why exactly does the technology of mass production necessitate that someone profit off of it? The University of Oxford isn't a capitalist institution! It's over a thousand years old!

• Marx was apparently the first critic of capitalism, and there was "an element of truth to his fears... but that's another story." If your full-throated defense of capitalism has to simply ignore its most famous detractor, then you're barely even trying!

• Woah big Western Lib moment out of nowhere: capitalism is good because of progress. places without capitalism like North Korea, Cuba, and Laos are places "you don't want to live." No explanation about why this is or how that happened, but the way it's said sounds like a threat.

• Lol I'm jackin myself off with this "invisible hand" fuck you

• Microeconomics works fine because it's won nobel prizes. Counting that as an oblique Friedman mention.

• Global warming is happening because people don't pay enough attention to (certain) economists. Why do you think that is Sabine? Do you think it's sometimes not profitable to pay attention to economists?

• It's bizarre that the central account of capitalism here is that it works, but only with sufficient regulation, yet she gives zero thought to how capital can purchase political power, that this has happened immediately and overwhelmingly in every new liberal "democracy," and that attempts to legally restrict capital have been laughably ineffective.

• Cap and trade. Abloo abloo ablooo bloo. Good fucking luck. This was the real point of the video, the defense of capitalism is really half-assed and the first 10 minutes of the video are just clickbait.

At least she's getting torn apart in the comments. Good responses there for once.

'Hard' science nerd doesn't understand classical economics, philosophy and social sciences because they are definitely too easy to actually read the primary documents about, more at eleven.

Didn't this lady say terf shit

The lesson here is to just never watch Youtubers

Fur dich

well if they were going to actually debunk Marx they would have to read Marx which they are afraid to do

She used an example of socialism to describe the success of capitalism. The initial penicillin trials were funded by government and charitable sources, not private capital.

Though I follow her for science realted stuff , this video was poorly researched and badly made !!!

You can’t “debunk” Marxism by skimming the Wikipedia page. You can’t expound on your infantile “critique” from a position of total ignorance.

Every time a liberal “debunks” Marxism it is, without fail, not a single exception, the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago. A lot of “Marx didn’t consider”s that he’s written entire essays on. They can’t come up with literally anything new, spewing the same shit over and over again like a broken record.

Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?

It worked for Dr Professor Lobster Esquire

Oh god how I hate most of scientific dissemination community

the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago

when was liberalism invented? It is a form of outdated political-economic science older than many countries lol

Woman is a crank. She strongly supports the theory of super-determinism. Not surprised she likes capitalism. She has developed a unique ability to ignore reality.

If you not into physics: super determinism is a very childish theory. It's unfalsifiable and flies in the face of all our evidence.