The Two Big Economics Lies You Still Believe | Economics Explained

Video quality	The size	Download

Information The Two Big Economics Lies You Still Believe | Economics Explained

Title	:	The Two Big Economics Lies You Still Believe \| Economics Explained
Lasting	:	13.49
Date of publication	:
Views	:	793 rb

As an philosopher student I understant all that correletion is not causality etc But outside the scale of pop-economics, many economist understand little bit about also philosophical social studies and sociology Creating frame work for human activities creates patterns of activities, frame work creates specific kind of culture, way of being and at least emotionally give reason for being This is very simplified description how societies work But it might help to understand that there is often more than just one way to travel for exampel, and it is just matter of coincidence (in a bigger scale of things ("transcendental" view of things)) what method is chosen So I think that logically it is on a basic level quite clear that if you build infrastructure mostly for cars, people will drive more than use trams and metros It is just matter of habits and familiarity, because people will always conform almost to any of viable circumstancesbrbrBut over all nice and interesting videos! Thank you
Comment from : Johan V

I mean I love trains and bikes but I don't live in a city designed for that The types of cities that benefit from that are high density mixed use areas and most cities in America just aren't built for that
Comment from : jacob lester

😂😂😂😂
Comment from : Bogarth De La Fuente

If you make less roads you get less congestion… If you stop feeding the hungry pretty soon there are gonna be less hungry people If your foot hurts just cut off your leg and your foot won’t hurt anymore
Comment from : Dan4Logic

God the amount of people who criticized one point of the video without watching the rest and realizing there criticism was also addressed and/or stated is astounding
Comment from : Myles

Atlanta is the demo, for me, that adding another lane DOES NOT solve traffic capacity problems The city while it was expanding was not ALSO trying to effectively improve public transportation
Comment from : A Taylor

I am one of the morons that just cant grasp how Economics work Funny Story; In college i struggled so much in my required Eco classes Meanwhile My wife already had a Bachelor's in economics When i asked her for help she said i was too dumb to understand lol Thanks for this Video, actually helped me get it 100 more when my wife tried to explain it to the point of her walking away in frustration!
Comment from : q3aryoko

The big problem is people including you do not fully pay the cost if highways the argument fails there to start with It will go into ststr of disrepair
Comment from : Dhanesh kP

Sorry, EE I don’t think urban planning is within your area of expertise Just stick with the economics
Comment from : GuruGuru Mawaru

Screw all of you!!! I'm off to make it in the belt buckle business!!! 💰💰💰
Comment from : Björn Sigurðsson

The thing you leave out in the induced demand has nothing to do with cars and highways, it has to do with where housing is built If we continue to add highway lanes on the outskirts of cities we are promoting the building of Ponzi Scheme suburbia These new developments cripple the local economy and suck all economic prospects out of a region By building hub based public transportation we are promoting the building of medium density neighborhoods that have a positive return on the economy No one builds a huge suburban development out in a bunch of dirt roads an hour outside the city center, they build them next to the shinny new 8 lane highways The issue isn't cars, it's housing Cars are just the pedestrian death machines we have to deal with because of poor infrastructure
Comment from : Ian Flint

With decent roads and public transportation system almost everyone will choose to drive a car
Comment from : Daniel1979

there is one huge misunderstanding that all those experts often fall in when comparing public transport and private transport The figures are chucked in the equation as the bus would be always full from when it exits the depot till when it returns to it the truth is buses travel empty most of their journeys, making them not so good as they are believed to
Comment from : Max Rocker

Topology wins over lane count at each intersection, Cities Skylines players know what I mean 😊 I don't think at a national macroeconomic level it can be simplified to a linear demand and supply curve, there are practically diseconomies of scale everywhere once you change some of the nodes But it could be an interesting video idea - traffic networks and their interactions with the economy
Comment from : MatterExplorer Jonathan

Great Video! Maybe make a video on potential investments in this current market that would fetch substantial profit, been coming across articles on bloomberg, business insider etc about folks raking in $200K averagely in 6weeks using some sophisticated strategy and I'd love to know how
Comment from : kenny thompson

As if the measly gas tax in the US even comes close to paying for our roads Urbanists don’t want every road destroyed, we just don’t want our cities destroyed by inefficient and ineffective roads
Comment from : mediumdamage

weak car minded individual love ur vids tho
Comment from : xXMasticatorXx

12:32 💯 correct That’s why you should never listen to Keynesians, monetarist or communists Classical economics or with other words the Austrian school gets it
Comment from : Abdullah Makki

10:17 Keynesian dumb economics does not understands the concept that you described called opportunity cost That’s what you get with central planning mate
Comment from : Abdullah Makki

This video sucks
Comment from : Superskrub 420

It goes to show that much of what conservatives know about Economics is bunk
Comment from : DAngelo 136

What a horribly biased and misinformed video Not sure if it was intentional but nearly everything is either just straight up wrong or so poorly explained it might as well be wrongbrbrAlso, kinda makes it hard to take any of your opinions seriously when you have a disclaimer saying "I don't care about facts and reason, cars gud" Good for you to at least admit your opinions are worthless though
Comment from : FaultyMuse

Just one more lane bro
Comment from : lol960

We absolutely should sacrifice our environment, health, and wealth so you can do car karaoke
Comment from : Pontifex Crocdylus

You missed the economic ripple effect around developments near transit hubs And you missed the cost of taxes paid toward road repair and maintenance I don’t care if you like driving, I still want transit Driving sucks and it wastes time and money simultaneously
Comment from : Matt K

It's fine to love you car, so long as there is good investment in walkablity, bikeblity, and mass transit You will still benefit because you will not be competing for road with them
Comment from : TheAtheistPaladin

Driving itself has enormous externalities to the society that are not accounted for in the price of owning a car and driving itbrTherefore this is not simply a problem of a personal choicebrThere is only one way to address externalities – some form of government interventionbrI believe that the issue is more global than presented in the video
Comment from : Pavlo Koliadenko

Bicycles are a pedestrian hazard How can a car be cheaper than a tram or bus? Even a taxi is cheaper than owning a car
Comment from : Christopher Ellis

I find it funny you mention your bad experiences with being crammed into a train car, but never point out how much getting caught in traffic sucks or how many close calls you’ve had on the highwaybrbrIt seems to be a common theme that one or two bad experiences with public transit makes people not want to use it, but a lifetime of traffic and near accidents does nothing to dissuade someone from driving a metal box at lethal speeds every day
Comment from : Ford Rollhaus

He doesn’t understand that by getting other viable options to driving traffic decrease and benefits him
Comment from : Beppson

I love your videos for the info but have to disagree on this one - Amsterdam reduced number of car traffic roads in the 80s and managed to reduce traffic greatly - this proves the theory right If the public transport is better/easier than car, people will choose to use it
Comment from : Goran Saćer

There are situations where adding roads does make things work Look up "Braess's paradox" Adding a path that pushes more cars though a congestion point can end up making things slower for everyone
Comment from : Russell Hltn

Planned obsolescence does not exist and durable consumer goods do not depreciate
Comment from : psikeyhackr

More highway lanes means more housing developments farther out because the longer commutes get easier Don't need any 'maths' to see that; yes, governments are lagging demand as they build more, wider freeways, but more, wider freeways also lead to generally easier commutes, which leads to people buying houses farther away from their jobs Go the other way, make it more difficult to commute---if a bridge, X wouldn't have been built over a river, how many employees of Mega Employer Y (with facilities on one side of the river) would live on the opposite side of the river from Mega Employer Y? Only way to get across is a 100 mi trip to the only bridge over the river, or a ferry How many employees are willing to do those kinds of commutes? 1? 5? How many would do the commute if Bridge X would have been built? Probably close to 100 That new bridge would open up all kinds of developments on the other side of the river Adding more lanes to that bridge would just make it easier to commute progressively longer distances
Comment from : Scott Prost-Domasky

Speak for yourself 🤓🖕
Comment from : First Last

Ironic that he said it ironically that he’s everything wrong with the world
Comment from : SigFigNewton

the segment regarding economies of scale around 5:00 also works in reverse and people use it for false arguments as wellbrMy favorite example of this is the oil and gas industry where some people are expecting the entire gas supply chain to collapse at a certain point when it gets expensive cause there are too many EVsbrwhile the reality is as long as the demand is high enough to max out a single refinery in an area the cost per unit will not change much at all, only when demand drops below that we can expect the prices to start rising but thats gonna be a few decades
Comment from : Pixel

Ohhh god 8:14
Comment from : Ethan Queen

Induced Demand showed we need more options for transport, not directly to remove car lanes brbrNo pragmatic advocate said to stop building lanes or roads, just to pay more attention when planning to do so because too many of them will induce demand for car ownership by bmoving/b demand from other forms of transportationbrbrThe nuance you are leaving out is that public transport fits more people in than cars will ever do, and that car ownership and population increases all over the world because cars are affordable and the second-hand market is simply just increasing year by yearbr brIf we are building for the increasing demand of car ownership driven by population and wage increases (happening all over the world), aren't we setting the infrastructure for the future one as well, that will create the traffic required to build more lanes? because the population and wages kept increasing driving people to buy cars because they outnumber and block buses regularly in traffic?
Comment from : Dan

Its always interesting to watch lightweights attacking much better economists because they don't like the answer But it is a little pitiful
Comment from : Kevin MacIntyre

This video is pretty embarrassing Alan Fisher tears Economics Explained a new one in his response video I don't think this channel has any credibility left by nowbrbrIt is also apparent that Economic Explained has "borrowed" ideas from Elon Musk without doing some critical thinking for themselves
Comment from : el

This is literally the best explanation of diseconomies of scale I have ever seen
Comment from : Steve Davenport

These arguments about cars and public transport are entirely missing the point The only comparison to make is the relative cost/benefit between different transport options, including walking, cycling, busses, trains, cars, etcbrbrAnd the biggest factor involved with all of that is city design The reason Americans and Australians drive so much is because they live in sprawling, low-density, car-centric cities that render other transport options not only inconvenient, but impracticalbrbrNobody wants to spend an hour on the bus But the only reason you'd have to is because your city was designed for cars
Comment from : R M

Based I will never give up driving a stick shift directly from my front door to wherever I want with minimal effort and maximum comfort
Comment from : The Lusogerman

8:44 Ahah, I love you guys, so, play nice with each other, please ;-)br12:44 "More roads won't create more congestion, unless they are designed very poorly" As an engineer and with all the studies that come with it, I have to disagree We could discuss it, but the best is to test your theory with a simulation like "City Skylines" and play with it to see if more roads always equal to less traffic, but spoiler alert: more often than not, this statement is just not true And before you ask, yes this "game" is used in schools as teaching material, because his algorithms are close enough to reality
Comment from : Thomas Godart

How do you know what we believe?
Comment from : Jordan Chandler

He is talking too fast
Comment from : Karthik Ravi

None of these theories take into account the fact that drivers prefer new smooth pavement, even going out of their way to avoid bad broken roads
Comment from : MagneticMike Morris

Even if you spend trillions and trillions on public transportbrbrThat only removes some trafficbrbrBusinesses still have vans deliveringbrFood trucks for super marketsbrDump trucksbrConcert trucksbrMany other trucks for constructionbrStill need amazon trucks going everywherebrFood deliveries like uber eatsbrGarbage trucksbrMoving trucksbrbrAnd still people will want the privacy of their own vehicle
Comment from : BeH Cherry

Only very densely populated areas can have public transportation
Comment from : BeH Cherry

I had pretty high trust in the content of the channel until I finally catched up on this video While induced demand is indeed often misunderstood, roughly half points given in the video were either wrong or misleading Beside, the context of the first study mentioning it has been eluded completely and none of the other studies have been mentioning Finally, externalities such as housing prices have been let ignored brbrAll that makes me question what I've been watching in the past from EE :(
Comment from : Transfixit

The point of induced demand is that it's a long term phenomenon and therefore much of the new demand is actually new from the perspective of the real world You can't really claim that the billions of dollars of development that spring up around new highways is just "old" transportation demand being moved around That is new demand, in all the ways that matter in the real worldbrbrThe short term route switching that you bring up is not what people are talking about with induced demand They are talking about new transportation demand caused over a few years by people moving further away from destinations like work and they are talking about new driving demand by people who end up paying the sunk costs of car ownership There's also a forced shift away from other modes caused by things like road widening due to the disconnects they create in pedestrian routes and the pollution and displeasure they cause for other transportation modesbrbrAt best, you present a strawman of the induced demand argument, which is evident from your choice to focus on some old dusty study instead of modern research
Comment from : Riley Nicholson

Schrödingers Cat Playing With A Tesseract

Half the economics and financial industries are filled with (psychotic) liesbrbrPeople are so entrenched in propaganda and hype some of them actually believe it 😂😂😂
Comment from : Schrödingers Cat Playing With A Tesseract

This video deserves a thumbs up I was just asking chatGPT about this and it confirmed your explanation prior to watching it
Comment from : Michal Prozac

Induced demand sounds like a fancy term for supply side economics
Comment from : Matt

Whoo man, this one really riled up the commies I can hear the simultaneously sarcastic and crazed calls for "1 more lane!" from here
Comment from : Quintarus1794

Banger video Also, switching the scope of "economy of scale" from industry to company, large companies have their special kinds of problems that lead to diminuishing returns Everyone who has worked in big corporations has experienced this - bad allocation of staff, equipment, money, also office politics, lack of oversight, enclaves, etc And the largest corportations of all are, of course, governments
Comment from : DF

7:00
Comment from : Thirst

You don't live your car You love getting to places safely and fast You are conditioned to think that you love your car With efficient reliable transportation and a bit of relevant education you will change your mind
Comment from : Allysson Soares

Why were you not my economics teacher in highschool? God damned fantastic explanation of concepts, that even my 7 yo daughter would understand Your videos are pure gold man! Awesome!
Comment from : Andrei Iorgulescu

I love my e-bike and I take it for some extra long rides around Melbourne on the weekends, but for daily commuting it just wont do my trip to work is 22km and most of it is on some beautiful bike trails, but the last 20 is through an industrial area on a big road full of massive trucks zooming past me, you can literally feel the hate as they overtake me closer and closer LOLbrThat last stretch is enough to make me take the car every day
Comment from : SP

Graphs without units should die! stop using them for arguments pleaseee
Comment from : Javier Wagner

You don't seem to understand why China is building more transport networks It is not aimed at driving the costs lower (and thus sell mroe of it; that is the perspective of a capitalist investor) but to help enable the plethora of OTHER economic activities that could not take off because of the lack of transportation or bottlenecks due to that lack Thus China's infrastructure is aimed at developing the rest of the economy, not necessarily making the cost of a particular piece of it less costly There is a fundamental difference between a capitalist investment and a development investment But of course, there is a limit to what can be gained by increasing public infrastructure -- diseconomies of scale do appear at some point, as you rightly point out
Comment from : Rifat Afeef

The main problem with increasing highway size, is the city already has limited capacity, so more cars fill up the capacity So it turns into a queue and not just a transport mechanism
Comment from : tutacat

Considering EE fetishizes his own car and his history of being a lapdog for oligarchs, if it's coming from him, I'm skeptical
Comment from : John B

U forgot about "trickle-down theory"
Comment from : Adithya Sampath

uuuu Adam vs EE drama 🤣
Comment from : GryfitHD

This video is such a big bullsh*t it is honestly incredible how stupid it is
Comment from : UpdateDotExe

Sorry, but this video is relatively poor compared to many of your others
Comment from : Sam Musson

Very funny all if society doing this analogy as in ohysics if sonewhat erroneous deducing to render a overly 1d view
Comment from : Supa Matta

Another episode of Misinformation Spread!
Comment from : PerikleZ87

The cost of highways and interconnections is so high, that it will be never enough Highways can destroy the city, but still be jammed
Comment from : Raymond Remarkable Agenda

I like my car Honestly even if public transport was faster than using my car, I'd probably still use my car
Comment from : Xexin Kansichi

Jeepers, as a semi-regular viewer you, albeit your 'Big Disclaimer' - others have covered the issues in bringing public transport infrastructure like this as an example of induced demand and another angle here too, from a planning perspective, is 'the options' - many drive cars because the infrastructure in those cities and even the cities, sprawl lay-out, are largely ONLY centred around automobile transport, so they lack the alternative options, let alone any convenient ones I have come across that study and yeah, making car travel more expensive, toll roads etc is part of the solution to incentivising alternative choices more, as too alleviating congestion in the cities (In-concert with having more convenient metro passenger rail access and service levels) As a fellow Aussie, you can appreciate we suffer a bit from that problem too, but the worst is the US That lay-out and lack of good public transport for a long time some of those areas, informs a culture, familiarity with the car, for some good but others bad, where they turn nose up at passenger rail sometimes, because mostly, they haven't grown up with it, not enculturated to it, though as the services are extended and improved, the younger people in those regions exposed to those greater options than those older were, their perspectives can change or be more open to 'shared transport' options, be it ride sharing or public transport So that's where isolation informs, re-inforces an attachment to that one mode of transport The inverse can happen with inner-city folks, used to train, public transport and walking, who move to isolated country communities where to access most things, driving and driving long distances, is a necessity - it' can be a less than welcome adjustment Getting a lil off topic too, but structurally and other ways, planners are seeking to dissuade demand for 'driving' into the CBD, closing more inner city roads and making CBDs more pedestrian friendly/only, to reinvigorate parts of the city, bring life back Cars have their place, but 'Demand' for more attraction and quality of life, as too needs/demand to in-fill and build up the population who live around the CBD, aswell as those transport nodes - more, if they have the choice, would prefer to be in pedestrian friendly surrounds, where most things in walking distance and such places less dangerous and polluted aswell - More Urban rather than suburban living essentially, like the giant circle turning back to how people were living the Urban life before the age of the automobile There is still a place for highways and lanes, just aslong as residents have viable, good service public, especially rail, options within 5km or so of where they live and really, that's how a 'City' should be, not a series of houses or rooftops too far but by car from any passenger rail, but, denser city and transport node dwellings with life and vibrancy and very convenient public transport Cars should be for the country and semi-rural where those kinds of services don't/can't exist
Comment from : CellarDoorAU

I had no idea where you were going with this, based on the title Very good video, and very well explained, as always!brIt's amusing how the comments get all hung up about the transportation issue, rather than the economic concept of induced demand that it was supposed to illustrate After all, this is Economics Explained, not Wendover ;-)
Comment from : NorthAtlantic

Cars are good for living in the country side, but they’re just an inferior form of transport for most purposes in any kind of built up area If you’ve every lived in a place like Tokyo, you get to see how much better things are when your portfolio of transportation options makes owning a care feel pointless
Comment from : DeftPol

One major misconception I see constantly from the Left is that rich people are not doing anything with their money, stash it away in banks and investments, so they are hurting the economy Savings and investments are still part of the economy, just affecting it in different ways It fuels innovation and makes borrowing money cheaper But many people are shortsighted and think people have to constantly be consuming things and experiences in order to drive up the economy
Comment from : cc

I guess everyone should just work at home and use food delivery services
Comment from : Mark Weller

8:12 is my home exit in Dallas! 😄
Comment from : Michael Lamb

Anyone who thinks capitalism is a meritocracy really hasn't been paying attention
Comment from : Nick Taylor

Shout out for using the San Diego Trolley Orange line at the end of the Video
Comment from : Doug C

Mate I’m going to assume you’re experiences of smelly public transport were in Australia? We have terrible pt dude It’s a terrible yardstick to measure by
Comment from : Mikey Likey

6:23 Again the wrong map of India? You pigs never learn do you?
Comment from : Abhishek Soni

I think you got variable and mixed costs a bit mixed up!
Comment from : Henrik Krieger

Infra doesn't need to make a profit
Comment from : liang longlong

Many forget (or conveniently ignore) the fact that lots in Economics is just theory Many are directly influenced by ideology instead of facts and unbiased long-term data analysis Trickle Down Economics is a classic example of that Another common mistake is corporations stating "Maximize Shareholder Value" as part of their mission statement Decisions to maximize shareholder value work well in short-term benefiting C-level managers (bonuses) and speculators but do not necessary guarantee the best decisions for a long-term health/profitability/sustainability of the corporation are being taken
Comment from : corujariousa

each follow Christ words and spirit of eternal life in kingdom of heaven, substantive free will nature for God(s) central authority republican leadership
Comment from : James Ruscheinski

How about the relation of population increase? Yes reliable, and more frequency of public transit is important If public transit is easier As you say people will take transit
Comment from : leftcoaster67

The idea of induced demand makes no sense brbrIt says that no matter how many lanes you add, that will only motivate people to drive more, and congest the roads brbrIf that were true, there would be no city without horrible congestion brbrIf you look at a city like Philadelphia, it has very little congestion, compared to other cities brbrThat’s because it actually has enough roads and bridges for cars to drive on
Comment from : Tim Dugan

Author of this video unable to imagine himself in public transport is a perfect example of induced demand, specifically long term effects of it He and oh so many of his compatriots lived in a place without supply of quality mass transit causing their demand to drop to zero If we are honest with ourselves induced demand is just a fancy name for high demand elasticity We need a fancy name to draw the attention to the problem Problem being that in markets with significant negative externalities (driving private cars, for example) regulators should not try to increase supply
Comment from : muxecoid