Re:"23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism"의 동영상 Dictation(0:00~22:31)입니다.

[terrysim0401]

안녕하세요~~,"Terry"입니다.

"11월16일(화)"에 다룰 주제에 있는 동영상의 Dictation입니다.

처음엔 31분 정도의 양을 다하려 했지만,내용도 넘 많고(지금 22분 가량도 11페이지에 달함ㅠㅠㅠㅠ),

  어제 딸과 외출해 시간도 없고,저도 제부분을 공부하고,준비해야해서,

  그냥 "장하준교수"의 세미나 내용만 올립니다.

다시 한번 들어보고 틀린 부분을 교정하고 싶지만 Dictation을 넘 많이 해 그만 하고 싶어 

  그냥 처음한 그대로 올립니다.

잘 안들리는 부분도 있어 blank도 있고,세미나라서 이분도 문법에 맞지 않은 말씀도 좀 있어

  제가 말씀하신 내용과 좀 다르게 고친 부분도 있습니다.

참고하셔서 보시길 부탁드립니다.

틀린 부분도 많이 있을테니 많은 리플 부탁드려요....

많은 도움이 되시길ㅋㅋㅋ....

근데 이 많은 양을 언제 다 타이핑을 할지........-_-:;

All right.

Thank you,Mathew...thank you,Larry for the very kind introduction.

Yes...as you can see,this book is with Will probably about this title.  

Definitely the strangest cover from Macomic(?) books in history.

Don't ask me about the cover.

It's all the publisher's doing.

So,ask Will.

My editor is over there.

I have nothing to say about that.

Asking for the title,you may say that one may like or dislike capitalism.

But,is there really anything more to know about it?

I say that there are lots of things that you thought you knew about capitalism.

At best partial truth and at worst downright myth,so you actually need to know a lot of things about capitalism

  in order to understand how it really works and now it can be made better.

That's not the easy part about the title.

But,why 23 things?

Some people thought that I'm the fan of Michael Jordan,the legendary American basketball player

  whose backnumber is apparently 23.

(이 부분에서 "I'm the fan~"은 원래"our fan~"하고 말씀하셨지만,그럼 문장이 주어,동사도 없이 이상하게

 끝나버려서 제가  말씀하신 의도가 상하지 않는 한도에서 고쳤습니다.)          

I don't watch basketball.

Some people thought that this is based on some strange numerology where all the world are

  significant events are related to the number23 apparently that set out this book novel,the series

  of novel called "Illnminator",

I've never heard of that.

Well,essentially it's a random number.

The working title was actually "20 Things;They don't tell you about capitalism."

But,one day Iwas talking to my                    agent Ivan Macay(?) who unfortunately

  can not be here today.

I still remember the conversation that we were sitting in the                             

  at Paddington station having our coffee.

And then,we were talking about the title and we looked at one point each other and said

  "20 Things....It's a little boring,isn't it?"

I said "Yeh,that's true.I could easily write about a dozen more things,

  but that would make the book too long."

So,why not start at 25?

25 is obvious,I don't like even numbers.

21...well,it's too close to 20.

So,why not 23?

So,the title was born.

Well,it's a little bit                     .

But,that in a way kind of sums up the spirit which the book was wtitten by  my American

  publisher "Bloom Green(?)" describes it as a light-hearted book with a serious purpose.

So, that's this title while quite random,but actually has some meaning to it.

You'll find many of the things in the book difficult to swallow,maybe not necessary all 23 of them

   for all of you,but surficial number of them to make most of you uncomfortable.

Well,yes...

These are "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" from doctor Sue's Captain the Head.

1.So,"Thing 1" says there's no such thing as a free market.

  This,you might think,is really strange because you may not like the free market,but you know

    one when you see....but is there really the case?

  For example,in the 19th century when the social reformers were trying to bring legislation

    to British parliament regulating and partly banning child labor,

    the huge off-road among the free market supporters.

  And believe me.

  This regulation was incredibly                 primitive.

  So,they banned factory-work for children up to the age of 9.

  Between 10 and 16,children could work but only up to 12 hours a day.

  Yes,they are really going soft on kids,ha???

  And this was applied only to the cotton-factories which were considered particulary

    harmful for workers' health.

  Even then,free market supporters said "No,this is absolutely outrageous.

  This is undermining this sanctity of the ideal of freedom of the contract which is

     the foundation of the free market.These children want to work.

  These people want to employ them.What is the problem?"

  You know,today even the most modern supporters of free market would not endure

     this kind of idea.

  And this example is quite powerfully illustrated that the light-beauty,freedom of the market,

    is in the eyes of beholder.

  So,if you believe that the children should have the childhood,have education,

    shouldn't have to work.

  Then of course,you'll think nothing of having regulation on child labor.

   If you didn't believe that like those 19thcentury's British free-market supportors or many

     capitalistic developing countries,today you say that actually trying to regulate child labor

     is infringement  on the working of free market.

  Actually,the very definition of free market is political.

  The free market's economy likes to tell you that you know,politics should be kept away from

     economics because it will keep interfering with the market-nationality.

  It will make inefficiency.

  Actually,the very definition of the boundaries of market is who can participate,what can be sold

    and bought,and how they can be sold and bought.

  These are all politically  determined.

  When the free market economy says that we are scientists and those are the people

    who want to intervene in the market,they are politically minded kind of people.

  They are not actually telling the truth.

  The truth is that free market position is as political as any other position.

2."Thing 2" says the company should not be run in the interest of the owners.

   Once again,a quite real proposition is on the face of it.

   Well,I say these because these days companies are owned by floating shareholders

     who do not really have any commitment in the long term of the future of companies.

  So,they demand the maximum on top(?) of short term profit and the maximum proportion

     of top(?) that to be distributed as a dividance(?).

   (발음은 분명 "dividance"로 들리는데,이런 단어가 없네요ㅠㅠㅠ.....)

  Some American economist studied that it's a calculation and argued that if General Motors

    didn't engage in this famous share-buy back,namely the company's buying

    the own share-stock to prop up share-prices to please the shareholders,

    it could have actually paid off older debts that made it go bankrupt back in 2008.

  Anway,these floating shareholders are demanding short-term profit,the highest possible rate

    of dividance(?)  and of course this is harm to the long-term future of the company.

  Because the easiest way for companies to make a profit is not to invest,especially the things

    that have lomg-term returns like machinery,research&development,and worker's training.

  But,do they care?

  No,the owners...so called "owners" do not really care because they can always

    go to another company.

  The company goes into decline.

  So, actually running the company in the interest of the legal owners in not actually

    good for the company itself.

  Anyway,basically I have 23 of these kinds of things.

  The things sound quite absurd or count intuitive(?) at least,but if you read it through,

    you will realize that actually this has some important arguement there.    

  Just another example.....

  Yes,I mean...I don't think I have time to go through it.

  Basically,in this example I'm not asking you've being told all the time that the markets

    reward people justly,so whatever happens in the market is not only efficient but fair.

  But,is that really true?

  For example,in this reading I talked about two bus drivers.

  One Indian guy called "Ram",he is the fiction I charactered,but who drives a bus in New Delhi.

  Another guy called "Sven" who drives a bus in Stockholm.

  Sven was guessed paid the 50 times higher than what Ram was guessed paid.

  But,is it because Sven is driving the 50 times better than Ram is?

  I don't know whether we can actually measure the quality of driving in that kind of way.

  But,even if we can,is it really true?

  And I argue that if anything Ram will be a more skillful driver because Ram has to drive the road like this,

    where's...what Sven faces is this. 

  Basically,Sven can get paid as he expresses(?).

  He just knows how to drive the straight street.

  (이 문장은 이 분이 말씀하시는 의도와 더 잘 들어맞게 제가 좀 더 살을 붙였네요ㅋㅋ...) 

  Ram has to dodge the cow,dodge the rickshaw,dodge the bicycles carrying

    3 meter-high stack with crates you name it.

   (이 문장도 뒷부분은 제가 조금 손봤네요ㅋ.) 

   And then,I explain that this is mainly about immigration control and so on.

   I wouldn't tell you more,I mean,you have to read this.

   I'm not going to give you all the preview.

   There are more things.

 3.So,"Thing 19" sa ys despite the fall of communism,we are still living in planned economy.

    Yes,we are.

 4."Thing 4";The washing machine has changed the world more than the internet has.

 5."Thing 13";Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of the richer.

    Yes,I mean...you know...the slogan-dream that changed new labor-period was

      that we first have to meet rich people stinking(?) rich. 

   So,that some money will flow down,actually this doesn't happen.

   And there are good reasons and I explain the reasons in this thing. 

6."Thing 22";Financial markets need to become less not more efficient.

7."Thing 20";Equalityof opportunity may not be fair.

   I recently had an article in the Guardian couple of days ago on this issue.

   If you are interested,you can read it.

8."Thing 16";We are not smart enough to leave things to the market.

9. "Thing 23";Good economic policy does not require good economists.

    That will make me very popular                   .

    But,I'm already beyond the fail...I don't really care.

10.And "Thing 15";People in poor countries are more enterpreneurial than people in rich countries.

   You know,typically we say that people in poor countries,they are lazy,they are not enterprising,

      and that's why they are poor.

   No,actually the reality is opposite.

   Anyway,I cannot go into the details today.

   Oh,sorry.

   That's it for later.

   When I say these things,some of you may think that I'm the anti-capitalist.

   That would be actually wrong.

   To paraphrase Winston Churchil,I think that the capitalism is the worst economic system

     except for all the others.

    I mean it has a lot of problems,but in my view it's still the best economic system

       that human has invented.

   But,the problem is that over the last 3 decades we have lived on the very particular form

     of capitalism,that is free market capitalism which has served very poorly.

  The point is that there are many different ways to run capitalism.

  It's not just American style-capitalism that is viable.

  I mean there are many different forms;the Japanese form,the Chinese form,the Swedish form,

     the German form,and the French form.

   But,over the last 30 years we have been told that there's only one form of capitalism that works

   ;That is the Anglo-American style free market capitalism.

  Over the last 3 decades this formof capitalism has produced very disappointing results.

 I'm not just talking about the financial crisis that we are going through today.

 Even before the crisis,there was plenty od evidence that things were not going well.

 Of course,we have been told by all this free market googles(?) that things are going                 

  well with the advent of post-industrial knowledge economy,the demise of business cycles,

  the arrival of Goldilocks economy,the great moderation,the taming of inflation,and the revolution

  in the telecomunication and transportation technologies.

 So,you are dull into thinking that we are probably living in the best of all possible worlds,

  but actually even before the crisis the things are not going well.

 I mean,let's take the case of economic growth.

 The free market's advocates tell us that free market capitalism is best at creating wealth

  even if it may create inequality.  

 Even many critics of free market capitalism agree with this assumption

  although they would say "However the high inequality produces morally unacceptable."

 But,the truth is that free market capitalism has been actually very bad at generating growth.

 You know,in 1960's and 70's which are free market economies like to describe as the period of

  disaster that was created by excessive government regulation and punitive taxation for the rich.

 During that period,world economies were growing at about 3% per a year in the for-capital terms.

 Over the last 30 years the world economy grew at about half that rates.

 So,this assumption that you know,this system may be harsh,may create the outcome

  that some people might find morally unacceptable,but it's the most efficient system

  in terms of creating wealth.

 This is completely wrong.

 The world economy has actually dramatically slow down in over the last 3 decades

  of free market capitalism.

 And even that low rate would not have been achieved by except for countries like China

  and India which while  20 extends(?),it's by no means following this free market model.

 And reasons where the free market model has been the most diligently applied like

  South(?) Africa or Latin America have seen basically very little growth.

 For another example,let's take the case of inflation.

 Free market's advocates tell us that low inflation is prerequisite for economic growth

  because it generates a stable involvement that investors require.  

Well,I mean...logic itself is not difficult to accept,but at least in the rich country

  we have achieved price-stability in the last 2 decades.

But,the overall economic stability is actually increased as we had have much more frequent

  financial crisis and much higher job-insecurity during this period.

So,unless you define economic stability pure in terms of price-stability,the world has become more

  unstable not less unstable through this anti-inflationary free market policies.

And in many countries attempts to bring inflation down to the very low level has reduced investment

  and growth by cutting demands and making business-loans overly expensive.

Free market orthodoxy has told the poor countries that they need free trade and free market policies 

  in order to develop their economies.

It has said that these are policies that all rich countries with the possible exceptional Japan use

  in order to get where they are today and how Ecuador or Guinea-Bissau think

  that they can do otherwise.

Whatever inside(?) argue in my new book and in greater detail in my previous book "Bad Samaritans",

  we should also endorse by Larry incidentally,but the previous pulisher found very amusing that I got

   accord from Martin Wolf and Noam Chomsky to put those two on the cover. 

As I show in this book starting from the 18th century's Britan through to the late 19th century's U.S,

  Germay,and Sweden down to the late 20th century's France,Finland,Japan,and South Korea,

  virtually all of today's rich countries became rich through the use of trade-protection,

  government-subsidies,and regulations rathe than free trade and free market policies.  

I could go on and on with these kinds of things,but basically in the book I destroy many of the kinds

  of key-myth are in the free market ideology and try to make things in the way that they really are.

And in trying to explain these and other things,I try my best to dispel the wide spread perception

  that economics are too complicated for lonely communism.

I say open in my lecture and also in the book that 95% of economics-common sense deliverately

  make it complicated while even the remaining 5% can be explained in its essence...if not...

  in all technical details if you really try.

So truth in this book,I want to equip my readers with fundamental economic reasoning and

  some basic,but misunderstaning facts about capitalism.

So, they can better exercise what I call "Active Economic Citizenship" and demand right horses

  of action from their policy-makers,political repersentatives,and business leaders.

I'll leave you with that,finally with thanks to Yuna,my daughter who helped with picture collection

  and  to Jin-Gyu for his appearance in"Thing 9" and help with powerpoint-preparation.

If you want to find out more about me,there (I am)!

You can e-mail me if you want,although I cannot promise that I will reply immediately.

I'll repond to all of my e-mails eventually,it would take a few months.

But,I"ll do.

So,please take a look at the book and tell me what you think.

Thank you~~.       

[step]

볼때마다 느끼는 바지만 정말 존경스럽네요.... 게을러 터진 난 이제서야 보고 앉았는데....

[terrysim0401]

ㅋㅋㅋ별 말씀을요~~~^^.근데 뉘신지???

[논둑길맨발로]

Teddy Bear, you have done a great job. Expect all members' active Participations in taking care of teddy's work.

[terrysim0401]

에드윈!!저를 자꾸 테디베어라고 놀리심 저 삐질꺼에용!!!

[논둑길맨발로]

1. Macomic(?) books --economic books
2. I'm the fan of Michael Jordan---I was a fan of
3.the huge off-road ---there were huge up-roars
4.would not endure this kind of idea--endorse
5.on top(?) -want / dividance(?)--- dividend(주식 배당금)
6.That will make me very popular (among my collegues)
7. economic system that human has invented--humanity
8. things are going (seemingly ?) well
9.while 20 extends(?)---while liberalized to some extent

훈수는 뜨기 쉽다 그러나 오리지널은 역시 위대하다.