Market share is a crucial metric used to measure a firm’s position in the market relative to its competitors. It does not directly correlate with a company’s economic value, and firms should prioritize factors such as profitability, innovation, and operational efficiency. Understanding the difference between a business’s economic value and market value is essential for assessing its worth. Market share analysis can offer insight into a business’s growth trajectory and current and future sustainability, providing strategic decisions that can give a competitive edge.
Market share is calculated by dividing a company’s total revenues by the total sales of the whole industry during a specific period of time. A growing market share can translate into greater profitability due to economies of scale, while a shrinking share can have the opposite effect. Gains or losses in market share can have significant impacts on a company’s stock performance, depending on industry conditions. Evidence from the PIMS study strongly supports the proposition that market share is positively related to the rate of return on investment earned by a business.
A study of market share is useful because it provides insight into entry and exit dynamics and industry stability. However, market share does not include profitability, as it does not tell us anything about a company’s profits. Instead, it is the percentage of the total revenue or sales made by one firm. The market share of a company illustrates its size relative to the rest of the industry it operates in and its competitive positioning at present.
In conclusion, market share is a key metric for assessing a company’s competitive position and performance in its industry. It helps businesses understand their growth trajectory, current and future sustainability, and the impact of economies of scale on profitability. However, it is important to note that market share does not directly correlate with a company’s economic value.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Market Share—a Key to Profitability | Evidence from the PIMS study strongly supports the proposition that market share is positively related to the rate of return on investment earned by a business. | hbr.org |
| How does market share affect a company’s stock … | Gains or losses in market share can have significant impacts on a company’s stock performance, depending on industry conditions. | investopedia.com |
| Market Share – Formula, Calculate, Impact, Examples | An increase in a company’s market share can allow the company to operate on a greater scale and increase profitability. It also helps the company develop a cost … | corporatefinanceinstitute.com |
📹 What is economic value, and who creates it? Mariana Mazzucato
Where does wealth come from, who creates it and what destroys it? In this deep dive into global economics, Mariana Mazzucato …
What Is Market Share?
Market share represents the portion or percentage of a market captured by a company or organization, indicating its sales relative to the total industry sales. It is calculated by dividing a company’s sales during a specified period by the overall sales in that industry, resulting in a percentage that reflects the company's revenue or sales within a given market segment. This metric serves as a key performance indicator for assessing a company's standing concerning competitors, aiding in the formulation of marketing strategies and competitive analysis.
A company’s market share signifies its size in relation to competitors, revealing customer preferences and sales capacity. Higher market shares typically correlate with increased sales and profitability. Comprehensive understanding of market share involves recognizing its significance in measuring total sales potential, facilitating economic assessments, and guiding strategic decisions. It can also offer insights into a company's performance over time and its competitiveness in the market. Ultimately, market share is crucial for businesses aiming to enhance their growth, negotiate better terms, and establish themselves as leaders within their respective industries.
How Do You Determine Economic Value?
Understanding economic value is crucial for assessing the worth of goods and services based on individual preferences and trade-offs. The economic value of a good, like an apple, reflects the benefit derived from its use, typically evaluated by the maximum price a person is willing to pay. Business valuation seeks to determine a company's economic value by forecasting financials, adjusting for growth, costs, taxes, and working capital. Economic value added (EVA), or economic profit, further quantifies a company's financial performance by calculating net operating profit minus a finance charge, which considers the cost of capital.
This metric allows a company to assess the true value it generates from its investments. Economic value not only aids in pricing strategies, helping to discover reference and differentiation values, but also assists in project evaluation through methods like Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return. Ultimately, economic value merges individual preferences with market dynamics, representing the utility and worth assigned to goods and services, thus guiding better investment decisions and resource allocation. Understanding and calculating economic value are essential in maximizing returns and informing strategic business choices.
What Does A Company'S Market Share Indicate?
Market share represents a company's sales relative to the overall market sales, reflecting its competitiveness within an industry. It is calculated by dividing a company's total sales over a specific time by the entire industry's sales for the same duration. This percentage indicates how much of the market a company controls and is a crucial metric for assessing its strength and position against competitors. A higher market share suggests greater demand for the company's products or services, typically leading to increased revenues and profits.
Additionally, if the market expands while a company's share remains steady, it implies that the company is growing its revenues proportionally with the market. Market share analysis is vital for investors as it reveals whether a company is thriving, stagnating, or declining, often depending on the industry's maturity. Essentially, market share serves as an indicator of a company's dominance and its overall performance in the market. It encompasses various dimensions, including overall share, revenue share, and unit share, providing insights into a company's competitive standing.
By understanding market share, investors can better evaluate a business's growth potential and market position, recognizing the correlation between market share increases and typically higher profit margins, reduced marketing costs, and a better purchase-to-sales ratio.
What Does Market Share Indicate?
Market share is the percentage of total sales within an industry attributable to a specific company. This metric is expressed as a percentage and helps gauge a company's relative size compared to competitors. It is calculated by dividing the company’s sales by the total sales in the industry over a designated timeframe.
Market share can reflect both volume (unit share) and revenue, denoting a company’s share of business activity in relation to industry totals. It serves as an indicator of a company's competitive strength and position. A higher market share often correlates with increased profitability due to economies of scale and provides leverage in pricing strategies and brand perception enhancement.
Additionally, market share analysis can facilitate strategic planning, aiding in decisions concerning market entry and product development. Overall, it measures how effectively a company captures sales within its industry, showcasing consumer preferences.
In essence, market share reveals the dynamics of a company's success against competitors, illustrating its sales strength and significance in the market context. The insights gained can drive strategies for growth and marketing approaches. Understanding market share is crucial for evaluating a business's performance and strategizing for future competitiveness.
Is Market Share A Good Indicator?
Market share is a critical metric that signifies a company's size relative to its competition, reflecting its dominance and performance in a specific market. It is determined by sales revenue, not profits, making it an essential indicator for competitive benchmarking, strategic planning, and identifying industry leaders. An increase in market share typically suggests success, while a decrease may indicate challenges. Although market share serves as a useful intermediate measure of a company's performance and potential future success, relying solely on it can be misleading.
Critics highlight that market share uses historical data and may not capture the full scope of a company’s health or competitive position. Despite its limitations, market share remains valuable due to its correlation with profitability, particularly through economies of scale. However, excessive focus on market share can lead to complacency, hindering innovation and quality. Therefore, it is crucial for managers to utilize market share alongside other key performance indicators (KPIs) to gain a comprehensive understanding of their marketing strategies and overall business health. Ultimately, while market share is an important indicator of competitiveness and growth potential, it should be interpreted within a broader context to effectively gauge a company's performance.
How Is The Value Of A Firm Calculated?
La valeur marchande d'une entreprise est calculée comme la somme de la valeur des titres en circulation, comprenant les actions ordinaires, les actions privilégiées et la dette. Cette mesure est établie en comparant la valeur marchande du capital (équité) avec sa valeur ajustée. La valorisation d'une entreprise, également appelée valeur d'entreprise (EV), représente ce que vaut une entreprise à un moment donné et correspond au montant nécessaire pour acquérir cette entité.
Un calculateur de valorisation aide à estimer la valeur d'une entreprise en multipliant le SDE par le multiple de marché moyen de son secteur. La valorisation révèle la valeur monétaire de l'entreprise, déterminée par ses actifs, passifs, bénéfices et potentiel futur. Les calculs se basent sur des mesures comme EBITDA. Les méthodes de valorisation incluent la prise en compte de la performance financière, des actifs, des passifs et du potentiel de croissance.
La méthode de valorisation se concentre sur les flux de trésorerie d'exploitation, après déduction des dépenses en capital, avant paiements d'intérêts. La valeur d'entreprise est obtenue en combinant la dette d'une société avec les capitaux propres, puis en soustrayant la trésorerie non utilisée. Les outils de valorisation diffèrent selon les méthodes, incluant la capitalisation boursière et les multiplicateurs de bénéfices.
What Does Share Market Value Mean?
Market value refers to the current price at which shares or bonds are traded on a stock exchange. It indicates the total value of a company’s outstanding shares, commonly known as market capitalization, calculated by multiplying the current share price by the number of shares outstanding. This metric helps identify whether a company’s shares are over- or undervalued compared to their fair value, guiding traders and investors in buying and selling decisions.
Market value reflects what asset buyers are willing to pay and sellers are willing to accept in a competitive marketplace. In the stock market context, it represents the worth of a company's stock based on the total value of its outstanding shares. Market value is dynamically influenced by market forces, fluctuating frequently during trading hours.
Alternatively, it is important to distinguish between market value and book value – while the former is based on market perception and trading prices, the latter is derived from the company's balance sheet. When evaluating a company's worth, the market value is derived from the current stock price and the number of outstanding shares.
In summary, market value or market capitalization is the consensus among market participants regarding the worth of an asset or company in the financial market, demonstrating the price at which securities can be bought or sold in an open marketplace.
What Is The Economic Value Of A Shareholder?
Shareholder value, or shareholder value maximization, is a concept in business emphasizing the goal of enhancing the wealth of shareholders through dividends and stock price appreciation. It reflects the value that equity owners derive from a corporation, which stems from management's capability to boost sales, earnings, and free cash flow. Shareholder value can be quantified through Shareholder Value Added (SVA), which assesses operating profits beyond funding costs, and Economic Value Added (EVA), a metric that evaluates profits after deducting the company’s cost of capital.
Increasing shareholder value occurs when a company achieves a return on invested capital (ROIC) exceeding its weighted average cost of capital (WACC). This financial metric is essential for investors as it indicates the returns generated from stock ownership. The concept posits that true shareholder value creation integrates both art and science, needing insights derived from various dimensions of knowledge. Despite its prominence, the shareholder value theory has faced critique for being financially, economically, socially, and morally flawed.
Ultimately, shareholder value serves as a measure of a firm’s investment worth, as demonstrated through metrics like return on equity (ROE), guiding assessment of a company’s success in generating returns for its shareholders.
How Is Market Share Calculated?
Market share is determined by dividing a company’s sales by the total sales of the industry during the same timeframe, representing the percentage of total industry sales accounted for by the company. It indicates the relative size of a company compared to competitors. Commonly, the formula to calculate market share is:
Market Share = Company’s Revenue (Sales) / Total Market Revenue (Sales)
This provides insight into a company’s performance within its industry, aiding in strategic business decisions. Understanding market share helps companies assess their competitive position and identify growth opportunities.
To calculate market share, a company’s total sales should be divided by the industry's total sales, followed by multiplying the result by 100 to convert it to a percentage. This measure can be applied to different time periods, typically on an annual or quarterly basis, and may vary by region.
Market share is crucial for evaluating company health and competitive standing, allowing businesses to adapt based on performance relative to peers. By analyzing market share, organizations can uncover trends and patterns, guiding effective decision-making for future growth and market strategies. Each company aims to increase its market share to enhance profitability and market influence.
What Determines The Market Value Of A Firm?
Business valuation is influenced by multiple factors such as total assets, total liabilities, current and projected earnings, and the quality of the business idea and market potential. The market value of a firm is typically established through investor assessments, including price-to-sales, price-to-earnings, and enterprise value-to-EBITDA ratios, with greater valuations leading to a higher market value. Market capitalization, representing the total value of all outstanding shares, also reflects a company's market value.
Future cash flow projections discounted to present value are another method for assessing value. Corporate managers should understand market valuations to make informed decisions. Common valuation approaches include the Market Technique, which utilizes comparable company data, and assessing the Seller’s Discretionary Earnings (SDE) multiplied by industry averages. Market value is essentially the price of an asset as agreed upon by buyers and sellers.
Various methods exist for calculating market value, including stock price analysis and sales multiples. Understanding market value is crucial, as it influences decisions related to sales, ownership, taxation, and legal matters. It is primarily determined by market participants and can be approximated through analyzing comparable companies, market capitalization, and industry-wide metrics. Ultimately, establishing true value often involves soliciting bids from qualified buyers.
📹 Stock Markets and Economic Data (Correlation)
Traders and investors should understand the relationship between the stock market and economic data. Many are baffled when …
This is so spot on! The financial sector does provide value through making investment liquid, which absolutely increases the amount of investment that the private sector is willing to risk on future production. BUT creating the conditions for liquid investments should never be confused with creating actual output. The financial sector should be viewed as the lubrication system that allows the economic engine to function more efficiently, but to count “gains” in that sector in GDP is to double count the actual output created by the investment it facilitated, AND (maybe worse) overly reward the shifting of production profits away from workers.
I studied economics at Uni, and I kid you not, they had us learn about the Laffer curve as if it were empirical reality. Meanwhile, Laffer first came up with it by scribbling it on a napkin to argue against tax increases during a meeting with government officials, and the idea has never been borne out by the evidence. All this to say: our understanding of economics is a lot less science-based than people like to think, and it’s high time we rethink the way we organize our economies across the world.
Wow seriously taken by surprise here. What a fantastic presentation of a much needed idea! Truly impressed by her clarity and preparation. Her point is well explained and benefits from forgoing personal anecdotes and opinions. Historical context really grounds the idea and keeps the presentation from slipping into the hypothetical or idealistic. Conclusions and applications are left for the audience to reflect on. I often wonder how we as a society could possibly change the global economic direction in order to give more value to practices that have social capital, and incentivize global well being rather than just profit. Fascinating, succinct and thought provoking. Bravo. Thank you.
This is a mission oriented public policy that had its climax in the 50s and 60s – the man on the moon. Mariana Mazzucato is a high level scholar. She is many things, a mother, a chef de cuisine, married to a Italian filmmaker. But also a innovation economist, schumpeterian, evolutionary, Keynesian with a perspective on social history of technology and economics. So, the Entrepreneurial State is relevant for spurring innovation
In reference to the comments made about pharmaceuticals and prices at @14:40. The same can be said to when a medication/”product” is no longer profitable and then is abruptly discontinued and the population is left without said medication/”product”. This is currently taking place in several countries. This to me clearly highlights the end of the tall tale that unregulated free markets will meet depends. There must be governmental requirements that meet the needs of the people before the profits of corporations.
This is my biggest frustration about economics. They have absolutely no idea what value, wealth and money represent. All of these things in one way or another represent work, the work put into something (value) the potential work that can be done with something (wealth) or the ability to direct work (money). Ask a physicist what work is and they will tell you work is the result you get when you use energy to make something change (something you absolutely must do to provide any service or build any product) and energy is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Thus value, wealth and money are representations of energy. The problem is this. The laws of thermodynamics means that every time energy is used a vast majority degrades, most energy is lost as heat (the ability to get more work out of the energy put in is efficiency or productivity as an economist would say) Only a small amount is embodied in the product (or person providing a service) such that more useful energy can be further extracted. The problem is the energy degrades but money does not. So you end up with mountains of money accumulating in the hands of a few who are looking for productive ways to direct energy. But out economies have been stagnating for years because the mass of people that want money and can direct it to producing things of value (i.e. need work or energy embodied in them) don’t have the money. So the money just sloshes around in the FIRE sector not actually directing energy at all but instead accumulating.
Hi, thank you for this article! That stimulates a discussion. Something I see different. * Value is not a thing and cannot be produced Economics is about economic value and this is related to exchange. A production-related value, as it should arise according to the classical interpretation of the Labour theory of value, would not have a high value. Because if everything that is produced is to have value, including all the things that cannot be sold, then much “of value” would have no meaning for society. Value cannot be produced at all. * Value is a social relationship and not a singularity Such is formed between people and only works between people. Only possible reference points for value relationships are produced. In other words, value is related to things, activities (concerts), ideas (literature, patents), but only if the properties of the things, ideas, etc. produced seem good enough for an exchange. * Value has an objective component and subjective ones Value is related to the work results and usually has to include the expenses. As a social relationship, value must have an objective dimension – it must go beyond the ideal ideas of an individual. And it must have subjective elements because it is linked to people. The objective part of the value is the joint value of the supplier and the buyer. This is reflected in the sales price and often deviates from the expected value, which is expressed by the offer price. The objective part of value becomes effective between the exchange partners on the social level – in the sales contract, when paying taxes, etc.
Value and prices are not the same, however, as economists, we tend to use prices as a proxy to value because other variables are tougher to measure. As we move towards a digital world, I really wonder how the value will be redefined. If we stop to think for a moment, maybe we can get an answer. I know Erik Brynjolfsson is working on redefining GDP with the inclusion of digital value. That will change the future as we know it!
Specific public talk! very good by the way! Mazzucato has very beautiful ideas, seriously, but thinking about value in this time is a dead end. is not going anywhere. Some way this idea can be explained by mainstream thinking! In fact, the Nobel prize in economics this year explain this thing with a very “simple” maintrain framework!. Economics is about people, non-about theories, do not forget that!. 😉
From what the Dr is saying, it seems that there are CEOs out their whose contracts link their pay to the share price of the companies they run. So what do they do, instead of investing the profits they simply buy back the companies shares and collect a big bonus. They are risking the long term health of a company for short term gain.
How our financial systems work is comparative to how a physical therapist works on its clients. The tending is for maintence and repairs. They do accounting for losses that occur and little to invest in operations and innovation that put an end to loss in certain sectors that uphold the fabric of devloped international relations which keep us safe from one guy with a button to big booms. Anyway, my venture in business in various ways needs a reprise and not just a rest. Alot of unneccessary factors exist and they so clearly are being used in this way to shroud itself whilst they rake in the income generated from atrocious acts.
She’s an excellent thinker which is why I’m so surprised she fails to see her own presentation answers the question. She glossed right over it. We no longer need to wonder who/what creates value anymore than we need to wonder who/what creates the Sun’s movement across the sky. Both the physiocrats and classicists thought labor was the source/cause of value; the physiocrats believed it was farm labor and the classicists believed it was industrial labor, just as she said. Land is useless until labor to grows something, raw materials are useless until labor fashions them into something. But what we now know is that “utility” is the source of value, which is to say the degree to which someone wants a thing regardless of the labor that went into it. And we know this just as surely as we know the source/cause of the Sun’s movement across the sky is the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Value is not created by the person who makes a widget, but by the person(s) who wants that widget. Very few people want the dirt in your back yard, but lots of people want the gold in your back yard, if there is any, even if the labor to extract both is a simple scoop with a hand shovel. And the level of value, called the price, is determined by the number of people who want that widget (demand) divided by the number of those widgets available (supply). The “out of whack” proportion of Finance financing finance instead of financing the production of goods and services is simply a function of “utility”, the source of value.
The physiocrats and the classical economists like Ricardo were the ones who were the most prominent advocate of value aggregation. The French liberal school made a considerable dent in this shaky edifice (Cantillon, among others). But it wasn’t until the marginal revolution swept in that the edifice was built anew on firmer ground. Subjectivism was an attempt at rescuing, not gutting, economics (though short-lived, as shows the current state of the discipline). She makes a fairy tale of economic history predigested and fit for consumption by gullible crowds. It’s almost as if she wants to prove Smith’s point about professors.
Money is a social lubricant without value when we lose faith in it… it’s why we don’t buy houses with tulip bulbs anymore, or groceries with pukka shells. Silo’d away in coffers so deep they cannot be spent only makes money more dear for those actually using it. Our profit-centric just-in-time inventory society is fragile, and brittle, and lacks resilience.
Extraordinary woman. Wish I’d had her for micro & macroeconomics. I would love to hear her thoughts and solutions on what she does nott talk about – the corruption endemic in FIRE, the IMF & world governments, and what really has been happening presently with population and migration control, the grab for nat resources, and the private sector move to take over govts and the rush to gain control over resources outside of earth. Productivity no longer exists in our lexicon. Our politicians and media do nothing and are being paid millions to keep the status quo while we are kept entertained by bread and circuses. What’s really going on?
Before you jump in on ‘values’, be aware the total US and global debt is 425% and 411% of GDP, thus all ‘values’ are highly inflated. As debt privatized, 85% of debt is spent on purchasing assets like shares and stocks, redistributed to the top 10%, in the US owners of 93% of all stocks, 79% or $77 trillion of all wealth. Again: if you call this capital values, labor is consequently valued much less! US average hourly wage 2018 was $22.70. Also recall, 162 million Americans work, but their real (!) income and wealth hardly increased since 1970! In fact, every one in two Dollars in the US economy is redistributed to the top 10% thanks to Financialization. 🤓
Her insights is quiet dead-on! Moving money around cannot generate wealth after all. The whole society got too much of the energy caught up into the financial system; and gradually, bewilderedly, people even forgot these kind of easy money can never ever become the propel forces that are required to take the humanity forward…..
How much is that dollar in your pocket worth today? I bet that’s a question you’ve all been asking yourselves but what exactly is a dollar bill? A promissory note a scarp of colored paper with no intrinsic value of it’s own, that’s all. However this piece of paper can be exchanged for goods to the value of one dollar, agreed? Wrong wrong wrong. This bill has been signed by Andy Warhol making it a pop art original. What if I tell you that as a Warhol original this piece of paper can be taken to an an art gallery and exchanged this time for a different piece of paper, a check this time which can be exchanged for several thousand pieces of paper like the first one? Excited? But take a closer look it’s a crude forgery. I can almost hear your hearts sinking as the stars in your eyes go out, but wait! What if I told you that this Warhol original was forged by none other than Pablo Picasso? Just how much do you think this piece of paper is worth now? Brotherhood of Dada economic policies ‘R us. —–Mr. Nobody, Doom Patrol #51 written by Grant Morrison.
This is an interesting talk overall, but I think that she is wrong equating subjective value with prices. Within the Marginalist tradition they where different things. The prices are the phenomenal form of the underlying value, what matters is that the value of the things is subjective to each actor and that the price arises from those subjective valuations. There is a confusion here between looking at how we measure the economy and what that means regarding the subjective theory of value. Because one can certainly critique GDP and other measures and leave subjective value untouched.
Value = Price? A hard bargaining business person wanted to purchase something. Did that something have value? The hard bargaining business person obviously imputed that what was wanted had value because that person wanted it. That wanting was conclusive evidence of value at least in the mind of the hard bargaining business person. What price did the business person wish to pay? In the seemingly never-ending haggling over price that ensued, the price the hard bargaining business person wished to pay was negative. The ideal price to pay was a a negative price. The would-be buyer, namely the hard bargaining business person argued extenuating circumstance and other bits of haggling strategy that indicating the acceptable price meant the would be vendor would actually pay the the hard bargainer to take ownership of the object of haggling. The hard bargaining business person proves aver and over again that anything that person wants has value but it also comes at a negative price. There is clearly no connection between value and price.
Why we are not using animals as a transport Now we developed cars and more in this fields than why we as still using Labour in most of parts As we are not developed enough just because we connect our Labour employment just like animals gets food same we are giving them wages instead this mind set should be change we are humans So we have definitely have mind so we use just want to make every one utilized mind and be speacilized in effective manner as we know Time precious thing is the valuable time so, just develop technology that can be regulated by that skilled Labour so that utilization was done most productive way machine don’t have feeling or emotional so we don’t want to make machine those have feeling just make them able to work what human can do with there mind have create more productive need for nation every one matter for country
It is obvious to me that we need to lean towards left-thinking politics on a global level. But right-extremism is been rising these years… We urgently need this change and while years pass by and climate change gets worse the solution will be more evident and harder to implement than ever. Climate change is the obvious danger of the selfish capitalist system we’ve been living on. And I actually think if people did work in their emotional intelligence, neoliberalism could be the better system for society. But the percentage of “I only care for myself and my people” mindstate is too big. And everything tends to chaos, it just cant work.
The answer…the simple Occam’s razor answer? “Skin in the game”. Just change the damn laws that put skin…REAL skin, back in the game – FOR EVERYONE. Wanna see behavior change?…REAL behavior change? Put skin-in-the-game back in our courts…REAL skin in the game. Then watch’em run from old, “bad” behavior like cockroaches when the lights come on…
1441 years ago in Arabia, Arabs put a new meaning for economic MOHAMMAD and Islam teach them how to think like heart and body. When muslims leave Makkah their original city and emigrate to madinah YATHRIP city in the north, the prophet Muhammad ordered them to share their own lands, houses, money and food to the amount “half ” as brothers and sisters. Then after the start to increase QUR’AN orders that they put 20% of their money and fortune in an organization established by MOHAMMAD. That organization called the house of money. The 20% go to that heart and the prophet pumps it to the people: poor, needy, …..and bankrupt. As you see economy like water cycle or respiratory system and blood vessels. Humans should understand that when they give they take for the benefit of their self and others
Wrong facts again. The great depression did not start in 1929 . The stock market crash occurred then and was almost fully over within a year. Unemployment was falling until the government intervened and created the greater recession then prolonged depression including Smoot Hawley tariffs and then confiscation of people’s wealth by devaluing people’s savings by re determining the value of their currency by charging people more dollars to get back their gold. It depreciated the value of the dollar by 41%. Susbequently the unemployment rate rose to nearly double what it had been in early 1930 and stayed in the teens for almost all of the next ten years.
So 12 years after the last big financial crisis the economist are sofar to say that they do not now know how to define value. Maybe they should take a sociology class. She is well spoken and has a good grasp on the topic it seems. Yet i have not really heared any real suggestions for changes to the economic system. That her opinion she gives us, that value is not just price is similar to the sayings that “money is not everything, that money can’t buy happiness,…” Meanwhile many of the restrictions to regulate the financial markets have been taken back and we are heading for the next bubble. The value creation of this talk seems rather low, more like a reminder “hey folks there was something which maybe important, but we do not really know or haven’t the power to change it” Also while she talks of people loosing their homes, why is she smiling there? Seems in bad taste. I don’t want her to cry then about the loss and some big emotional show of empathy, but a neutral rational delivery. After all economists claim to be scientists. I also would not mind a joke now and then, just not the point where that science failed us all and millions of people had to suffer the consequnces. A little humility would suit her well there.
The economic model is quite relevant to the new vision introduced by Klaus Schwab almost 50 years ago, is exact from 2019 is exactly what this Harvard is citing its motivation a refreshment of the Davos Manifesto in 2020: all its stakeholders in shared and sustained value creation Value is defined in a very special way. not material, commodity, value money wealth, this abstruse notion of value or wealth that includes leisure time, relationship quality, beauty of nature and all other kind of abstract that come in under well-being economies and ecological accounting (you own nothing but you are happy) The Corruption of Stakeholder Capitalism.
Talk as empty as the standard TED talk. “Bring you back to..” – standard TED-speak. She is sexist when saying “if you marry your baby sitter…”” What a disgraceful person makes such examples in 2022? At 12 min she has lost all the audience. I am now listening at 1.75x because she is so dull and unfocused. Key message is that GDP is not a perfect way to measure the economy.
How about reduce administration by 80%? How about asking law enforcers to actually apply the law? How about reviewing the law, because in the last 40 years, most law was dictated by corruption, by greed? Climate crisis was not provoked by regular people, we are not too many. It was provoked by a few greedy * with a lot of power. If we get rid of those, the planet is saved. Who does most of the pollution, who artificially altered the weather for their benefit, who allowed all that to happen? Who created illnesses and allowed spreading, who allows throwing good food out, so that they could raise the price, instead of using it, thus not needing even more? Who allowed and approved pesticides and medicine that are now poisoning the water? Why should these people be protected and the people that keep you alive be killed? That is a stupid thinking pattern, even your students could have told you that, when they were 5. Be brave and say the things that need to be said, not the things that kill millions, but protects only your family and those that pay you. That is not how you save the planet. The truth is not what somebody says, is what is proved in reality. Until proven, the words are speculations, hypothesis, not formal conclusions.
There are two economic crises in Arabia 1400 years ago. The second ruler after prophet Muhammad died was OMAR BIN AL KHATAB. He faces very serious problems of hunger in Arabia so he decided to take money and fortune from rich people and spend it on the poor and hungry until the day he notices that is not enough to solve the problem then he start to send letters to other countries to help him save humanity At that time Egypt was very rich country so the ruler AMROU BN AASSI start to send part of Egypt money to Arabia and that solution helps to save life and people. Another OMAR BIN ABDULLAZIZ face a big problem when he becomes a ruler for Arabia.
The economic model, I dare saying neoliberal communism and is quite relevant to the new vision introduced by Klaus Schwab almost 50 years ago, is exact from 2019 is exactly what this Harvard is citing its motivation a refreshment of the Davos Manifesto in 2020: all its stakeholders in shared and sustained value creation Value is defined in a very special way. not material, commodity, value money wealth, this abstruse notion of value or wealth that includes leisure time, relationship quality, beauty of nature and all other kind of abstract that come in under well-being economies and ecological accounting (you own nothing but you are happy) The Corruption of Stakeholder Capitalism.
The fallacies in this presentation that show the presenter does Not have a real understand the economics of wealth production :- 1. Her statement at 9:30 “if you pollute yo will help the economy “. This is Wrong on several counts bcause it assumes producing something nobody wants is satisfying an economic demand that is desirable and in demand which is just wrong. the other thing wrong with it is assuming cleaning up will produce more wealth which is plainly stupid since it only achieves a destruction of what the poli ution caused in the first palce. No net gain there to the economy and the philosophy behind her argument is destruction creates wealth which is just stupidity. Again she argues at 11:15 against her own graph when she says “in case I haven’t explained this properly that red line is showing just how much quicker financial intermediation as a whole was growing”. No that is Wrong since the red line on her graph does not grow significantly until governments expanded the money supply with deficits. It then accelerated when governments massively increase money expansion in response to the GFC. Her argument that from the 80’s on financial institutions were ‘financing finance’ ignores the facts on her graph which show virtually no diversion between 1970 and 2000 ! How could someone be so foolish to show a graph that contradict what she says. She also displays and incorrect understanding of what is value and who pays for what when she substitutes an argument about the prices of drugs in which she seems to think illustrates that market forces should not determine value when she has put forward No other way that prices can accurately be determined.
Marxism in some ways is right, but americans get fear, when economy is about marxism. They thing marxism is equal to revolution and communism….Because goverment taught to americans to think it just on this way. Use value and exchange value said Marx. Societies aren’t just a markets, but US sees the world like a big market.
Wow, this is farcical. Subjective value theory dates back to at least the School of Salamanca (de Vitoria, Navarrus, de Covarrubias y Leiva, de Molina, et. al.) and to not mention Menger or the Austrians concerning the Marginal Revolution is either grossly negligent or deviously manipulative. This gal is true believer in the religion of the state and the ability of a central planner to manipulate and cajole our way to utopia. Keynes would be proud. This is rubbish.
🤔 Brasil y Colombia no pueden ser ejemplo a seguir en materia de desarrollo económico para México la próxima generación. Los rostros de sus formas específicas de pobreza, que se han trasminado o dispersado o “compartido” hacia el resto del continente los últimos años, indican o bien su “maquillaje” (por aquello de las favelas de colores) o bien, el “todo vale” de la guerrilla y la extracción ilegal de renta. La ruta mexicana ideal estaria planteadose como “suigeneris” (no a través de una nueva “ortodoxia”), vistos los casos de éxito la última generacion y por la gran diversidad que prevalece. Requiere consensos internos y a nivel de bloque hemisférico. Más allá de un conjunto de esloganes sensacionalistas. Para evitar la violencia de los choques y traumas económicos, que en el caso de México, fueron brutales el último quinquenio (bajo la asesoría de personas como Corbin). Casi un millón de muertos y desaparecid@s😞🕯️ Sin demeritar desde luego la propuesta de aumentar exponencialmente la inversión en educación e innovacion que se requiere en México con urgencia, sobre todo desde el ámbito privado y de lo social (puesto que la educación pública está afectada por el patronazgo y el renacido vicio del “pensamiento único”), así como también habría que incentivar el necesario y saludable intercambio de ideas con otros actores. Cómo es el caso con la dra. Mazzucato. Lamentablemente no se abrieron los comentarios en los vídeos de su reciente visita a la UNAM. Por eso utilizo este espacio.
Yeah! Let’s charge taxes to short term investments. Let’s force enterprises to reinvest and magically innovation will happen!. Is she living in the 50s, that she knows that all the apps we use in our cell phones, are innovations facilitated through financing? Maybe the iphone was financed by air, or it was private equity or investment bankers behind? I cannot believe that this so call economist charges more than USD50k for lying to people.
This is so typical of those that point at “wealth inequality” as a problem. It is false-framing. If the financial sector creates $1 trillion of additional value, over some period of time, that is not at the expense of some other part of the economy. If in the name of “equality,” you go after that value, you will destroy value not only in the financial sector but in other sectors adjacent to the financial sector. For example, if you try to confiscate the wealth of commercial banks, it will tighten commercial lending, thus decreasing capital investment for things such as airplanes, factories, trucks, etc.
The fact that monopoly (such as patents on pharmaceuticals) let prices skyrocket freely is a bad things. If you ever played M.U.L.E. you would know how bad it is when you are the only owner of a particular kind of things (such as food or energy) and you set its price damn high and others (who need that thing to survive) starve to death and then the colony is basically over. P.S. I’m distracted by her beautiful legs xD Cheap expedient to keep the eyes of the audience centered.
I get very uncomfortable when people talk about steering the economy. It’s a fool’s errand to believe economies can be managed indefinitely. Everything will find an equilibrium if left alone. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Not set by anyone. The current state of EVs is the perfect example. Not enough people believe the value is there but we are increasingly being “steered” into accepting them when they are obviously inferior to the current options.
Marxist assessment says human labour (physical and mental) creates value. Capitalism is the seizure of some of this by the owners of the businesses. Capitalism tends towards reducing profits (mechanisation reducing the labour input), centralisation (the rise of mega corporations) and evolution into financial capitalism (making profits out of money trading rather than production of saleable goods and services). Financialistion isnt just a fluke it is the default path of capitalism. It doesnt have to be but thats where it goes if we dont take collective action. David Graeber revealed the majority of non productive (in a real sense) jobs (his bullshit jobs work). Lockdown proved this (societies didnt collapse when more than half workers were not working). So we could have a society of half time workers without losing either incomes or necessary production. But that doesnt happen because we dont stop owners creating jobs that simply maintain their privileges (the bullshit jobs support the property rights of the owners). Its not the economy that maintains this. Its politics, we could reinvent our relationships with each other to free ourselves from the mental chains of financialisation and from bullshit work. Which is exactly what The Communist Manifesto is about. Maybe by its 200th anniversary we will be working tgether to make it happen?
Marx had a big problem. Value is subjective. Therefore it is very hard to objectively control society and economic activity. Marxists are always trying to find an objective way to measure value. But it can not be done. Are you going to tell me I should not value my favorite kind of sandwich? My clothing style? As for clothing, her dress is red. That’s the color of international socialism. Let’s have the Austrian response to this article. It only shows one side. The left-wing one.
Did those people die or become homeless, the stores closing did they find jobs, etc. This all worries me. God help us ! Bad leaders care only of one pockets not care of people & they were trusting the ones running this country & sheeple not knowing to or how invest or take care of their stuff or tome for it, but being stolen from on all sides & slaves & take care of their 401k or invest, etc. Lady you could have worn a nice dress. Get a better style. For speaking you should have worn better or a belt at least so gave an hour glass female figure. For that should have worn a burlap potato sack. Omg. Not being mean or nasty. I just care & you are rich or have money, a good middle class positio, love your hairstyle, so you could look so much better of outfit style. You don’t have to be so girly or gorgeous hot bombshell bit still. You remind me of a celeb actress. Test your self on article 1st. Wear your very best with a right type belt or different ones that fit or match, style, color, & widths, etc.