Want to know more about studying at Oxford University? Watch this short film to hear tutors and students talk about this undergraduate degree. For more infor…

All new episode! Click to share: http://ctt.ec/nkeEB Visit the all new http://econstories.tv In this episode of EconPop, Andrew discusses the Emmy award-winn…

32 Responses to “Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University”

  • jonny slaytack:

    this guy is like mini Bo-Jo

  • Jasmine5555441:

    Are History, Maths, Biology And Chemistry ok subjects for the course?

  • Robert Waters:

    EconPop – The Economics of House of Cards: http://youtu.be/xkjrsDiQcRk

  • David Williams:

    When public officials get elected they have the same desire for self
    preservation like the rest of us, just on a bigger scale.

  • mbravo00:

    politicians are not people.

  • neptunesdreams:

    Even if governments WEREN’T corrupt, they spend taxpayers’ money in very
    inefficient ways, make-work projects, etc. An Unconditional Basic Income
    (UBI) is much simpler and more efficient. Switzerland is leading the pack
    by holding a referendum on the idea of a UBI. If it passes, every Swiss
    citizen will soon receive an Unconditional Basic Income. A UBI would
    require MUCH LESS government control. It could be run by one computer that
    deposits money into everyone’s bank account automatically. EVERYONE gets
    it, both rich and poor. It is an adequate amount of basic income that gets
    automatically deposited into everyone’s bank account every month (roughly
    the equivalent of a US $10 per hour job). It retains human dignity because
    it is the same amount to everyone, rich or poor, working or not. The
    simplicity of the idea is its beauty. It would eliminate the “nanny state”
    because there would be NO MEANS TESTING – so no bureaucracy.

    How do you pay for it? Simple. A Financial Transaction Tax, which is a tiny
    percentage taken off every stock market transaction. Take the money and
    secure it BEFORE it is gambled away. In this system, employers won’t have
    to pay for social services through taxes, so they won’t raise prices and
    lay people off. In fact, a UBI would create MORE jobs because there would
    be more people buying products. Business would increase. Instant
    stimulation WITHOUT government intervention! I’m considering renaming the
    Unconditional Basic Income to the ‘GUARANTEED CONSUMER DEMAND’.

    Many corporations were saved from bankruptcy when the banks were bailed out
    by the people. They essentially received corporate welfare. Yet now that
    they are making money again, they don’t share it. They hoard it. $21
    trillion is missing from the global economy because it is hoarded in
    off-shore tax havens for multinational corporations. We can see that these
    corporations ARE NOT creating jobs. Therefore, the world needs an
    Unconditional Basic Income.

    You want to make governments smaller, eliminate poverty and debt and
    increase liberty with one simple change? You want to make SURE your pension
    won’t be gambled away by stock market speculators? Then institute an
    Unconditional Basic Income.

    And a UBI would not cause inflation. Inflation is caused when businesses
    raise prices of goods due to increasing costs of inputs and wages. But if
    people don’t NEED high wages (because their income is assisted by the UBI)
    then wages could remain stable and people would be less resistant to
    working for the lower wage jobs (because they just need a top-up). Some
    jobs would have to increase wages, but those would only be the highly
    objectionable jobs with dangerous working conditions. So the supply of
    products would remain the same or increase and demand for those products
    would increase slightly at first, then stabilize. It’s only a basic income
    after all, not luxury spending we’re talking about here. The high income
    people’s UBI would be returned in taxes. So this fear mongering about a UBI
    causing inflation is seriously hyperinflated!

    Why EVERYONE, both left and right, is not jumping on this idea right now is
    beyond me. I think it’s just that people are afraid of big changes – even
    highly beneficial changes like a UBI. In the words of the late, great
    Martin Luther King, “I am now convinced that the simplest approach will
    prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it
    directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”

    Politicians won’t do it until there is a massive grassroots demand for it.
    I have a playlist on my YouTube channel about the Unconditional Basic
    Income. Check it out and get on board. Let’s get this UBI thing to go

  • JD b:

    #HouseOfCards AND economics? Great stuff, and can reach outside our bubble
    do to cultural significance.

  • Aaron Reichert:

    I thought that was Weird Al for a second, I should watch this.

  • John S:

    Do you guys from Econ Stories happen to be from GMU? 

  • MikeyCreation:

    #HOUSEOFCARDS #BestShow 

  • gingerninjer15:

    YES I love this show :D 

  • John Bowery:

    Except that every now and then politicians display completely anomalous
    behavior, like John McCain who stood as the lone dissenting Republican vote
    in the U.S. Senate defeating a Republican-sponsored Immigration bill that
    was popular with 80% of American voters. His approval rating dropped to the
    single digits among Republicans. But then, “magically”, in 2008 he became
    the darling of the GOP establishment and captured the presidential
    nomination. All is forgiven.

    But then Bush proposes the TARP bailouts, this time very UNpopular with
    main street America and especially with conservatives and independents. So
    does McCain take the easy way out and differentiate himself from Obama? No,
    he links arms with his Democratic opponent, infuriates his base and goes
    down to defeat in a very tight race. But it was “only” the most important
    election of his career.

    Either McCain is the most principled politician in history, or he was
    compelled by a hidden agenda

    Anybody who thinks that pork barrel politics and just getting re-elected
    explain ALL political behavior just isn’t paying attention.

  • NoName NoFame:

    the system is designed to destroy the country :( 

  • Chip Oclassen:
  • Chip Oclassen:
  • Mark Duddridge:

    Nice touch, with the nod to the original HoC, there… :) 

  • justin corwin:

    Again, a good show until all the credibility gets sucked out by the
    ridiculous puppet segment that adds nothing to the video.

  • Evan Kant:

    The first prize for hypocricy in explaining the malice of the contemporary
    state of affairs in economics undoubtedly goes to Mr. Andrew Heaton.
    Indeed, in a time when the upper classes are practicaly exempted from
    taxation, the focus remains on the government. What you should be worried
    about is not whether the US government subsidizes areas that boost demand
    and employment for Americans but the vast volume of capital that remains
    untaxed flowing from tax heavens to the Wall Street fuelling
    financialization. Your show is irrelevant and you preach bad economics.

  • gedalia3:

    While this is all true, it was the specific intent of the founders that
    members of the House DO fight for their districts. Political “small ball”
    as it were.
    The greater danger was the change of the Senate to popular election.
    Senators were supposed to regard the larger constituency, i.e. the entire
    State they represented, and it’s place in the larger Union. And of course,
    the President was supposed to represent the collective “will of the people”
    all exerting equal, but different powers, essentially “balancing” out the
    needs of the whole with that of the more local. This is what we have

  • Walter Clark:

    The problem with the libertarian view of “public choice” theory is that if
    men were gods, it would work. That is not what Hayek teachers. Even if God
    was in charge of a central authority, His decisions would still have to be
    carried out by a bureaucracy with permission to threaten the use of force.
    And those decisions would have the additional constraint of being singular.
    It is important to note that to take advantage of the Hayekian idea of
    distributed knowledge, the actors -even flawed ones- must be able to be
    independent in action. Being independent changes the rules while the game
    is in play. For a God to beat that he would have to also be unconstrained
    by causality and by merely causing something to happen, he can’t do that.

  • Patricia Ortigoza:

    pretty gooood!!!! 

  • selimword25:

    Show is great, I light up whenever I see it in my subscriptions!

  • Aaron Hoffman:

    “[Politicians are] just in it for raw unbridled power like Senator
    Palpatine in Star Wars. And chilling as that thought is, it’s also
    predicated on the idea that politicians, well-intentioned or evil, are all
    competent, which is a big leap of faith” 5:10

  • Ethan Glover:

    The endings are kind of pointless. Real guests or no guests.

  • Karl-Henrik Smith:


  • Rainier Nanquil:


  • breath@implacable.comedy” rel=”nofollow”>.…


  • otis:

    stops@turnpike.exchanges” rel=”nofollow”>.…


  • ken:

    morality@ancel.horrifying” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó….

  • honey@payments.conceive” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó….

Leave a Reply