Fun Video Organisation of Economic Activities The Centrally Planned Economy

Adriene: Hi I'm Adriene Hill.
Mr. Clifford: And I'm Mr. Clifford and welcome
to Crash Course Economics.
Adriene: Today we're going to focus on macroeconomics
and talk about economic systems and the nations
that really like them. Wink, wink.
Mr. Clifford: "Economic systems and the nations that
really like them. Wink, wink." What does that even mean?
Adriene: I'm trying to come up with a spicy
title for today's show. OK, try this one on.
how about "economic systems and the nations
that are 'attracted' to them?"
Mr. Clifford: No. No.
Adriene: Or when economic systems and nations
"hook up."
Mr. Clifford: I don't even know what to say.
Stan, roll the intro.
[Theme Music]
Adriene: So to pick up where we left off,
we all have wants. Food, cell phones, a good
education, a $10,000 gold Apple watch, but
like the Rolling Stones tell us, you can't
always get what you want. We don't have an
infinite amount of resources like raw materials,
workers, and time, so we have to make choices.
Speaking of, eugh, who likes this? I'm gonna
go change shirts. I'm gonna make another choice.
So this shirt, it's way better, right? Anyway,
we as a social order have to figure out three
things. Number one: what to produce, number
two: how to produce it, and number three:
who gets it. Answer these three questions
and you've got an economic system!
There's a ton of backstory here about the
history and evolution of economic thought;
we'll get to that in a future video. In today's
video, we're gonna chat about the world today.
Let's take a look at two different economic
systems: market economies and planned economies.
Mr. Clifford: It all comes down to who owns
and controls the factors of production. These
are the major inputs required to produce stuff
and Karl Marx classified them as land, labor,
and capital. He even wrote a book about it,
Das Kapital.
In a planned economy, the government controls
the factors of production, and it's easy to
assume that's the same thing as communism
or socialism but that's not quite right. According
to Karl Marx, "The theory of communism may
be summed up in the single sentence: abolition
of private property." So true Communism is
a classless society.
When I say classless, I'm talking about a
social order where everyone owns the factors
of production, and output is distributed equally.
Kind of like China, and Cuba and the former
Soviet Union, except not at all. In practice,
no country has ever been truly communist.
There's a lot of countries that are socialist.
Often, socialism has both private property
and some public ownership and control of industry.
The goal is to meet specific collective objectives
and to provide free and easy access to things like education and healthcare.
In both communism and socialism, there is
economic planning, and the government, usually
in the form of some bureaucratic agency, helps decide
what to produce, how to produce it, and who gets it.
Now if an economy is completely controlled
by the government, down to the number of shoes
that should be produced, that's called a command
economy.
Adriene: On the other side of the spectrum,
we have free market economies. In free market
or capitalist economies, individuals own the factors
of production, and the government keeps its nose
out of the stuff and adopts a laissez faire or hands-off
approach to production, commerce, and trade.
In free market economies, businesses make
things like cars, not to do good for mankind
but because they want to make a profit. Since
consumers, that's me and you, get to choose
which car we want, car producers need to make
a car with the right features at the right
price. Economists call this the invisible
hand. Oooooohhhh.
If consumers prefer one company's car, that
business will make more profit and have an
incentive to produce more cars. Car companies
that don't offer the cars people want will
disappear. Maybe you've heard of the DeLorean?
It was a cool looking car, but not a car that
many people wanted to buy. Apparently it was
expensive, underpowered, and poorly-made.
And it didn't actually travel through time.
Anyway, this concept applies to all other
markets, like cell phones or shoes. Scarce
resources will go to the most desired use,
and they'll be used efficiently, more or less.
After all, if a business is wasteful and inefficient
or makes something that no one wants to buy,
then some other business will make a similar
product that's either better or cheaper or
both. If there's no consumer demand for a
product, resources won't be wasted producing it.
We often take markets for granted, but look
at the alternative. Assume instead that a
government agency was in charge of deciding
exactly which types of cars and cell phones
and shoes to make. Do you think they could
quickly respond to changes in tastes and preferences?
If there was only one government monopoly producing
cars, do you think they'd be produced efficiently?
Mr. Clifford: So the invisible hand of the
free market is the idea that individuals and
businesses meet society's needs when they
seek their own self-interest. Competitive
markets with profit-seeking businesses will
have an incentive to produce high-quality
products as efficiently as possible. In the
words of Adam Smith, "It's not from the benevolence
of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that
we expect our dinner, but from their regard
to their own interest." Now, it looks like
the free market's perfect and we don't even
need a government, but that's not quite right.
There's a bunch of things the government must
do, because free markets won't.
First, is maintain the rule of law. We need
laws and police and contracts and courts to
keep everything orderly. Second, we need public
goods and services, like roads and bridges
and education and defense, because goods can't
get to consumers if bridges are falling down,
and consumers can't make good choices if they're
not educated, and no one really cares about
buying the new iPhone if there's a bomb dropping
on your head. Third, the government sometimes
needs to step in when markets get things wrong,
but what does that even mean?
Adriene: Well, let's go back to producing
cars. The free market produces what we consumers
want to buy, and when we buy, we're thinking
about what a car looks like. If it's the color
we want, maybe if it's safe, what it costs.
Most of us aren't worried about air pollution.
We don't think much about who made our car,
what they were paid, what the conditions at
the factory were like; that's when government
steps in to regulate production. In a free
market economy like the United States, you
might think that the government doesn't tell
car producers what types of cars to produce
and how to produce them, except that it does.
Cars need to meet strict emissions and safety
standards, and there are laws dictating how
much manufacturers can pollute and how workers
should be treated, and here's the big takeaway:
modern economies are neither completely free
market nor planned. There's a spectrum of
government involvement. For example, on one
end we have North Korea. They have a command
economy where production is entirely controlled
by the government. On the other end, we have
countries like New Zealand; they have private
property, few taxes, and few regulations.
In the middle, we have the rest of the world.
So most modern economies are actually mixed
economies with both free markets and government
intervention.
Mr. Clifford: And a great way to explain a
mixed economy is by looking at something called
"the circular flow model." Let's go to the
Thought Bubble. A modern economy is made up
of households, which are individuals like
you and me, and businesses. Businesses sell
goods and services to households in the product
market -- that's anywhere goods and services
are bought and sold. The households need to
pay for those goods and services, but where
do they get the money? The households earn
the money by selling the resources, like labor,
to businesses. Now, this is done in the resource
market. The businesses use the money they
earn from selling products in the product
market to pay for resources in the resource
market, and households use the money they earn in the
resource market to buy products in the product market.
But there's another key player in the economy:
the government. The government also buys products
and resources. For example, they'll buy cars
from businesses and hire government employees
like policemen to drive them. The government
pays for public goods like roads and bridges
and public services like firefighters and
teachers. They also provide transfer payments
to individuals in poverty and subsidies to
businesses to produce things like fuel efficient
cars. But where does the government get the
money?
Well, they get some of it from taxing households
and businesses and they get some of it from
borrowing, but we'll talk about that later.
So basically, that's it. That's the circular
flow of products, resources, and money, and
the interactions between businesses, individuals,
and the government. Now, it gets more complex
when you add in international trade and the
financial sector, but for now, the simplified circular
flow shows how the modern economy works.
Adriene: Thanks, Thought Bubble. We've established
that economies differ based on the amount
of government involvement, but it's important
to keep in mind that economies can change.
Over time, Denmark and Canada have adopted
more elements of a planned economy, like universal
healthcare. China, on the other hand, has
added more free market elements to its economy
and now has less government ownership and
control of production, so communist China
actually has a socialist market economy. But
which type of economy is better and how much
should the government get involved?
It's hard to find support for command economies
outside North Korea, and may some nostalgic
Cubans and Russians. Those who support socialism
would point out Denmark's high standards of
living and low income inequality, but free
market enthusiasts might point out China's
massive economic growth and growing middle
class after backing away from central planning.
Ultimately, the optimal amount of government
involvement depends on your personal values.
For example, what, if anything, do you think
the government should do to help people in
poverty? Do you think it's up to each individual
to provide for themselves, come what may,
or do you think the government should step
in as a safety net and help pay for food and
healthcare? What if the person made choices
that got them in financial trouble, like gambling
or made them sick, like smoking? Should society
help then? Well, economists aren't really
good at answering these types of questions.
Sorry.
It's not that they're heartless. It's just
they don't operate in the realm of feelings.
In the words of economist Thomas Sowell, "There
are no solutions, only trade-offs." Sure,
it would be great if we could end poverty
or provide healthcare for everyone, but we're
gonna have to give something up in order to
do it. Forcing car producers to meet emissions
and safety regulations will increase production
costs and likely increase the price of cars,
but it also reduces pollution and fossil fuel
consumption, which will hopefully improve
public health and save money in the long run.
There is always an opportunity cost, and deciding
if it's worth it--well, that's up to you and
your elected officials and a bunch of lobbyists.
Deng Xiaoping transformed China from a country
with debilitating poverty and famine to the
economic powerhouse it is today. Regarding
this debate, he said, "It doesn't matter whether
a cat is black or white, if it catches mice,
it's a good cat." Which makes me think about
that green shirt, that was a good shirt. I'll
be right back.
Mr. Clifford: So let's wrap this thing up.
In practice, almost all countries are somewhere
between the extremes of a command economy
and a completely free market economy. That's
because mixed economies seem best at handling
the circular flow of goods, money, and resources.
But the debate over free markets and government
control will never end.
Adriene: Well, actually, it will end, when
humanity ends, because microscopic organisms
don't divide themselves into factions based
on economic theory, but anyway, that's why
it's vital for you to be informed about the
merits and the limits of economic systems
and be willing to support solutions that get
the job done, as opposed to getting stuck
in one ideology. Economic theories and models
can seem really great in the abstract, but
when they're kicked out into the real world
and actually have to govern the affairs of
billions of people, it turns out that some
flexibility is a very important thing.
Mr. Clifford: Thanks for watching; we'll see
you next week.
Adriene: Crash Course is made with the help
of all these nice people who definitely appreciate
a spicy title, wink, wink. And if you wanna
help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever,
please consider subscribing over at Patreon.
Patreon is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to pay whatever you want monthly
and make Crash Course exist. Thanks for watching
and don't forget to be irrationally exuberant.