Thank you Mises Institute for enlightening my economic journey in grad school. May the light of this tradition enlighten the minds of more students and professors in Asia. Greetings from Singapore. 😊
I was failing micro & macro at first, until I read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. I promptly started getting the highest marks seen in that college in years. It was not because I understood the crap they were teaching. It was because all of a sudden, I actually understood economics! They did not realize the extent of my heresy. They hired me to run their economics resource center and be the 'official' tutor. I corrupted hundreds. ;-)
The best point about socialism and the Soviet Union specifically is they produced the most shoes in the world yet people still didn't have shoes. They didn't have the shoes they wanted.
@@kaykizzil wow so either you are new to TH-cam or you don't understand. The Soviets said they produced the most shows yet with out the free market that didn't matter. The people couldn't get the shoes or even shoes they wanted.
Austrians say Keynesians are wrong, and vice-versa...they can argue all day, and while Austrians are right, the average person doesn't have the time or the specialized knowledge to figure that out by comparing theory... or does theory really translate to morality. But a simple show of hands, will show you that almost every person already believes that they should control their own money-- which not surprisingly, is the Austrian method, while Keynesians say "Father government knows best." That's how political science beats economics via common sense morality: i.e. "thou shalt not steal."
dragknuckle That's just it: nobody understands just how fucking serious the problem is... but I look on the bright side, like with the Titanic: i.e. it took a huge disaster to wake people up to the danger, and so that incident, while tragic, actually saved lives. I have no false hope that this "Obama-nation" will have similar positive results, but let's face it: the economy was bound for collapse ever since the federal government began killing and imprisoning anyone who separated their home-states from its abusive dictators run amuck; so it was only a matter of time, and Obama is our equivalent of the Titanic.
Except in America we're still battling Keynesians left and right... Also, I'm 17, go to school 35 hours a week and work my two part time jobs for a combined 25 hours.. So I have a 60 hour week plus homework because I do dual credit and AP classes and I have friends who do the same and I know many more who are not my friends who do the same and I love to learn about the economy and political sciences. The only day I have free in my week is Sunday, and most of Sunday is church and cleaning in my house. Anyone can learn things about the economy and about politics if they try, I mean you could watch 2 1 hour talks on TH-cam on different days on Keynesian economics and on Hayek's economics and make a decision based on history that they can also learn on places as accessible on TH-cam. That, or go read a book. Read a book on Keynes over a few months and then on me on Hayek for a few months and then read up on our history. Anyone who decides to get involved can learn these things easily.
This is what I get for studying austrian economics before learning [in detail] any other school of economics. Now every time I hear anything about keynesian economics I want to scream. Bravo.
10 years past after... An Indonesian who never has interest in Economic studies, come to very much obliged the Mises Institute for sharring their videos, ideas and thougts. Gin, PS: As a token of gratitute, may I add, about Keynesian versus Free Market... --- In the Tao Te Ching, written more than 2,000 years before Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” Lao Tzu instructed the sage‐ruler to adopt the principle of noninterference as the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity: “Take no action and the people of themselves are transformed … Engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” He recognized that “the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” Corruption stems not from freedom but from freedom’s being overly constrained by government. Like water, the market is resilient and will seek its natural course - a course that will be smoother the wider the path the market can take and the firmer the institutional banks that contain it. ---
The recession was officially over by June of 2009. By that time we had spent less than 8% of the stimulus package. For anyone to say that the stimulus prevented another great depression is sidesplittingly uproarious.
Only noticed it for this video. He was definitely inspired by him. Though all of his more recent talks (last few years at least) I don't hear that. Maybe he noticed and didn't want to sound like a direct copy of Rothbard.
I love these videos. The growth in the Austrian school of thought has been getting lots of traction recently. I have personally gone from one extreme to another. Thanks Tom, great as usual. In the long run we're all dead-Yours truly, Keynes
Keynesian policies stroke the egos of politicians and regulators who believe they do good because they do something. Voters also want politicians to be seen to "do something". Sadly, it takes intelligence and self control to do "nothing", to let events run their course. How many people actually have intelligence and self control?
@utubehayter - That's what I've been saying the whole time really. I was stating that by consenting to their employment, marginal productivity (the difference between the value of the service they provide, and amount they're paid) is not theft. Marginal productivity is part of a legitimate business model, as is profit.
Another great lecture by Thomas Woods. I like the slogan: "Keynes must die so the economy can live." In the end, if America would just re-discover its small government, free market & level playing field Capitalistic roots, it will do good again. Sadly under both big government, Progressive GOP & Democratic leaders, we are still headed in the wrong direction & towards a fiscal collapse.
@@rohansingh-wt7hi Worse than I thought! We are self destructing, the crown of world leadership has passed to China & the US paper dollar is headed for extinction.
Fear can also be an encouragement. If I'm minding my own business and someone is acting like they want to do harm to me, I might do harm first to ensure my survival. Same for nations. Situations are all unique: what is the level of agression, private and public, what weapons are involved, what are the stakes for losing, the same of acting in error, and so on.
Fantastic. Loved it. I look forward to the day when this strain of thought is called American, instead of Austrian. Seriously, aren't they socialists now?!
Almost done listening to it now. Very good information. Not that I ever supported Greenspan but truthful information always has higher value when it's difficult to come by.
How would Austrians counter the post-WWII argument I've heard, which is that the only reason the U.S. economy was so robust after the war is that the U.S. was the sole superpower left standing in the Western world while everyone else had been bombed to the stone age? Therefore, the U.S., largely undamaged during the war, could export its products to all those countries that needed to rebuild.
Why is there a need to counter such point, the point Keynesians, progressives and liberals alike make is that since top marginal tax rates were at 90 percent, then that's what caused the period of economic growth. While it's true that tax rates were so high, very few payed such rates, and that money went to pay the war debt. Spending levels went down after ww2, not up. It was also a period were regulation levels were down, which is what Austrians advocate.
+fountainhead So, the fact that millions were killed and $trillions (2015 dollars) of wealth was destroyed is a good thing? US Economic growth from 1946 to 1963 occurred because the government shrank, taxes shrank, workers showed up in huge numbers (former soldiers), interest rates dropped (government ran a surplus), and yes, the much of the world was rebuilding. However, US was not the only country that didn't get destroyed during the war. Check out what happened to Argentina - once one of the strongest economies around and the strongest in South America. It's economy died because of the government.
+Josue Barboza There is a need to counter such a point, because many people are convinced by arguments like these that Keynes wasn't wrong. It's not just about being right, it's about convincing people of your theories as well.
+fountainhead If I understand your point correctly it is this: How can you be sure that decreased government spending and regulation were the main cause of the post-war boom if there were also other factors, like global hegemony and lack of competition, that might have contributed? My answer is as follows: 1. The main point is not that these things caused the boom, but that they DIDN'T cause an enormous depression and huge unemployment, as the Keynesians predicted. 2. Being able to export products is not beneficial on its own, it would be more beneficial to consume these products domestically. Why being able to export is normally beneficial, is the fact that you can focus production on products in which you have a comparative advantage and import things that another country produces relatively more efficient. Comparative advantage is often misunderstood, so I'll post a short explanation here, just in case: www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/law-comparative-advantage.asp). In one sentence: It's all relative. 3. The reason why foreign aid and loans to the EU, which financed the export you're talking about were beneficial is that it was an investment that created more global wealth, which in the long run is better for everybody (although these benefits are rarely evenly distributed and there are always some temporary losers). They were investing in the EU economy, not because that profited the US in the short run, but because that profited EVERYBODY in the long run.
@ytgv3fc7 - The purpose of a company is NEVER to take all they can from the workers. Ever. Thus, there is ALWAYS an incentive to keep the labor force happy. Always. The purpose of a company is ALWAYS to make a profit. Abusing your labor force severely compromises that ability. You're just assuming the conditions needed for your caviot to exist, actually exist.
The best adaption to Austrian economic theory to the real world is offered by Prof. Fred Foldvary (San Jose State University). What I find most insightful in Professor Foldvary's analyses is his understanding of property markets as a fundamental driver of what we think of as "business cycles." He finds his inspiration from a number of classical political economists, in particular, Henry George. Among the mistakes made by Keynes was his assertion that land markets were no longer important to economic growth or how wealth is distributed. He followed the long list of neoclassical economists in this assertion. Fred Foldvary reminds us that land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) do not respond to the price mechanism as does labor and actual capital goods. Thus, he aligns with Henry George in calling for the public collection of the rent of land. As a libertarian, Professor Foldvary argues the case for distribution of most of this fund to citizens as an income supplement or dividend. Real democracy can be relied upon to determine at the community level what portion of the rent fund ought to be used to pay for desired public goods and services and what portion ought to be distributed.
Jason Shults I am glad my comments were of some value to you. I would not go so far as to say the economics I took in college were worthless, but they certainly did not contribute to a sound understanding of what causes business cycles or has lead to the concentration of income and wealth plaguing the world's societies.
Edward Dodson To say that land does not respond to price mechanisms is beyond laughable. All assets must obey supply and demand. I suspect his position is being misrepresented, because I can scarcely believe someone would claim such a thing. Wanting to redistribute land income is some communist BS. That would totally disrupt the land market. Its a disaster waiting to happen. It’s Keynesian type thinking as Woods says in the video - thinking in terms of aggregates rather than the micro. The last thing we need is more taxes. As for what leads to concentrated wealth, that’s easy: physics. Physics goes by the exponential distribution. The masses of animals, masses of stars, volumes of land masses, usage of words in a language - everything goes by this. Wealth would inevitably be concentrated. Physics despises equality, outside of equal and opposite reaction. What matters is merit and mobility. The freer the market, the greater the meritocracy and the higher the mobility. The highest inequality is also found in socialist countries - not that inequality matters at all. Suffering matters. Inequality is nothing.
The lower the interest rate, especially when the inflation rate is higher than the real rate means that anyone taking a loan was essentially borrowing for free. It also distorts the true cost of future projects by making unprofitable ones into good ventures, incentivizes people to borrow across the board, from main street to wall street, and harms savings. There's no stronger incentive to borrow than when you're being paid to do it.
> All we need is an information network... You still haven't read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" if you continue to make this same sad argument. There already is an efficient communications system for the allocation of scarce resources: Prices.
I was practicing guitar while watching this when I heard this at 20:27 : "No toilet paper...is this a good trade-off for going to the gulag?" I had to put my guitar away and pause the video so I could laugh for a good minute.
By ensuring living space is available, and is covered, and by ensuring food is available and is covered, and nothing extra, the worst is averted and those who can work can be given every opportunity to work, and to learn to work better and smarter if one is able.
There are multiple reasons for lacking productivity: physical or mental disability, refusal to work, inability to learn to work BETTER yet still be productive enough to survive, and so on. I can really only see a logical result of starvation, that is not unfair, to a person who is too lazy to get/make their own food. Life has always expected we do such things. It's entirely different NOW if that person is denied only because you STOLE the food first.
I'm no banking expert but I think that sounds like a real plan. With real disclosure from private banks, and with real competition, there's real choice and real freedom. I think you have a winning plan. And honestly, if people are cautious enough and help out those who need it individually, even without a hint of socialism, it just might work. Long term.
#1 incentive: can't argue on that. If you pay more of anything to do something, that is where the incentive will go. #2 calculation: measurement using machines and communication (using same) indicates where real needs and resources are better than pricing. Even today's markets admit as much by including volume and capitalization and resource estimates of oil, gold, uranium, and so on. Pricing is insufficient. #3 central planner: not required, since a decentralized network beats it easily
interest rates have EVERYTHING to do with finance. EVERYTHING. Everything we price in the derivatives markets, every project undertaken by an investment firm, any forecast done by the corporate finance dept at any company uses the interest rates to determine if future projects will generate value.
People can debate who predicted what and when. But it seems to me that the matter of central planning's inability to accurately set prices, set interest rates, or pick the right investments proves what the Austrians are saying.
I was also very clear about "division of labour" in multiple time frames: in a single time frame it can make PLENTY of sense to divide, specialize and work quickly; in a longer-term time-frame a person who uses multiple "unrelated" skills in a new job that requires them all, or who can mobilize his/her labour elsewhere or smaller distances/costs to keep working, is better utility / survival.
1. Wage growth is far behind productivity growth, and with cost of living increases the bottom half has been hard hit. 2. The income gap exists for both types of income. 3. Social mobility in the US is the lowest it has ever been.
@ytgv3fc7 - "The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result." EXACTLY! Consent renders this NOT theft by definition. Your theory falls apart here. Marginal Productivity cannot be theft by your own definition, as the worker consents to its existence by NOT striking. LOGIC FAIL!
@ytgv3fc7 - Marginal productivity is what empowers the Capitalist system. It's important as it aids savings and investment. There is going to be a gap between the value of the service you provide and the your compensation. However, in the Communist state, you are not guaranteed compensation. You have no ability for redress against government, but in the system set forth by most states, you have protection against force, fraud, and coercion from corporations.
> I'm smarter than you and already proved it. Thank you. Belly laughs like this are great exercise, and a wonderful counterbalance to the sadness of insomnia. Thank you, also, for at least trying to read an actual book on the subject, even if I don't expect you got past the first paragraph if your earlier comments are any indication. I appreciate that you tried. That's far more than most people ever do, when they are already convinced they're right.
Bias does not make someone wrong. Woods may seem biased because he has a strong position, but his position is based upon facts not opinion. It is people who pretend they are not biased who end up lying.
So when I say "ensuring space is available" what I'm saying is it is RIGHT NOW available to many of us and if we fight back against the capitalists we can keep it that way. If we lose the fight we will have to pay a lot more for imported food and even local food, and not have as much choice. What I propose is avoiding the loss of it. It's not gone yet. Not where I am.
To be more clear: the mining act in Canada that allows this does not in any way say who DOES own the rights, simply that you do not own them for having a residence on top of the minerals, oil, metals, etc. that are beneath you.
In 1946 you have to keep in mind that we were exporting stuff to most of the world for rebuilding , since our industrial base was still in fantastic shape .
Can't remember if I responded to this or not. One way I can think of is that when you simply increase the money supply and give it to people, you're not actually giving them more wealth, just more paper. You're not really give me three more apples, you're just cutting my one apple into four pieces. Basically, people who should actually be saving money are now spending it because they think they just became richer.
The alternative is to have private gains and socialized losses. This will only encourage companies to act recklessly and in a manner that is harmful to almost everyone but themselves. If there were actual risks this kind of behaviour would quickly diminish.
Some variations of genetic programming actually only simulate biological evolution, and act strictly in machines; some do not actually physically control robots or labs but simply write output programs, instructions, plans, blue-prints, for a machine later to be told to use, or a person/team. But it works, and very well, enough to compete with humans for making NEW patents.
@ytgv3fc7 We're living through the greatest period of prosperity in the entirety of human history, with lifespans just having tripled from 25-30 years to 80-90 years. Clean water wasn't scarce in hunter-gatherer societies because there were ~1000 times fewer people and they were only able to live in a handful of places; they couldn't engage in agriculture because they had no expectation of being able to keep what they produce(aka socialism). They died like flies in famines and disease.
Most sensible people would call that "regulation". As in laws to regulate activities, put people in jail, extract fines, and so on. But as soon as the government is involved the hyper-capitalists will call it regulation and government interference with the free market. It's been quoted here quite often in this article's comment-list.
> contract law IS regulation. Your error is in not understanding coercion. A contract is voluntarily agreed to, otherwise there would be no contract. A regulation is IMPOSED, at gunpoint, upon people who never agreed to it. That's why tax rates change and you have no recourse. You can't "unsubscribe". If your credit card company changes its contract terms, you can refuse the terms and void the contract without any penalty what so ever. Coercion. It makes all the difference.
@ParapaDrifter critical to community survival and I know not to make the wrong choice on that. Winter roads: well this is a severe problem. We've got different changes in density/size with different temps, shifting soil and salt damage. I have continually looked at how roads can be improved while not sacrificing ability to USE them in the heavy winter (salt?). This is actually a very difficult problem.
ad 1. thats no problem at all because productivity growth mostly results in falling prices. And the increase in the costs of living are 100% due to government induced inflation and taxing.
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. It is a preposterous notion.” - Dr. Peter Mansfield
Low interest rates encourage riskier investments. The metaphor of a sports team is often used to explain. You pick the 8 best players available to you for your team, rejecting the less able players. If you are then allowed to pick 2 more players, you have to choose form ones you rejected before. The more players you are allowed to pick, the less qualified the new picks will be.
It is noteworthy to mention that no one in America is old enough to have experienced true "free market capitalism". We have all been raised in a quasi-socialist and Keynesian economy. Our economy has been going to hell since the government first interjected itself. The government’s involvement made America a corporatocracy by spawning the self-serving relationships between government, big industry and special interests.
@Salvysahagun Also, Jefferson spoke out against tariffs and taxes--and told the American people to keep away from both-- but when it came to paying off Hamilton's gross national debt he was forced to make a compromise. He might have enacted a temporary tariff but he eliminated every single direct federal tax and vowed America will never again see another federal tax collector at his door. obviously he broke his promise...
@ParapaDrifter That qualifier changes everything, thank you. We need a lot less bureaucrats and a lot more useful people keeping everyone else useful who asks for a hand-out or hand-up, so we can make more accurate choices about why / how this is helpful. I understand why giving money to a homeless person with a mental problem will NEVER be returned to me and I have a choice to do that or not. I understand why ensuring my fire dept is not broke is definitely (more)
Wall Street got drunk because the Fed provided all the booze. Hey, if I am guaranteed all my loss and I get all the cheap money I want, I would take all the high-risk short term profits I want.
I don't agree that every boom is artificial. It's just the human nature to rush to a seemingly most profitable activity. But it's absolutely true, that market has to correct that with a crash.
also the quality of state ownership is just one part of socialism and doesn't need to exist. Even if there is no government and therefore no government ownership (and this is much better) there can be decentralized control and ownership so long as it is collective. The collective part you got right. That's about it.
All news articles describing all economic activity for all history is a source agreeing with my statements. PERIOD. All of them are my sources. ALL OF THEM.
Highly unlikely they will change. It isn't a matter of getting the right people into office but in educating enough people that it becomes politically profitable for the wrong people in office to do the right thing. :) Credit to Milton Friedman because I paraphrased him there.
So the same happens with investing and interest rates. Low rates encourage more people to invest more money. Instead of choosing just the safest investments, people choose a larger number of investments, many of which will be riskier than what they would invest in if they had less money to invest. And of course the lower rates mean the payoff is bigger, making risk that much more attractive.
SaulOhio, it’s Government that lowers interest rate by the amount of money they print and put into the economy. Government also affects how risky banks are willing to be by federally insuring loans. This is what caused the housing bubble. If you remove the government backed loans, and government injection of cash into banks, then lest risky higher interest loans would only be possible. Which goes against Keynesian principles.
within a system, it doesnt matter what the direction or flow of money is, your average will always be your average. doesnt matter whether it is (50+50+50)/3=50 or (25+75+50)/3=50 or any which way for (a1+a2+a3)=150 where in the previous equation a1=25, a2=75, a3=50. the only way average income will go up is if you increase the sum of a1::a3. And when all your money comes from a printing press, that means the GDP directly tells us inflation. GDP per capita is no indicator of a "good economy".
In Canada, for example, we have a very deadly situation that doesn't exist in the USA. In America you can be threatened or bribed but there's a legal process to fight an attempt to directly get what's on or under your land, like oil, gold or uranium. In Canada you have no such legal righst. NONE. A company walks in, claims, and boots you out. Period.
@Slipknotyk06 "The product that a worker creates is not the property of that worker" It is during production. The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result. "Without that gap, the Capitalist system cannot generate profit, and therefor collapses" Actually profit-incentive in this way is what collapses the system. Avoiding loss is not the same as making profit. Loss is bad, profit is also bad not takes longer.
(continued) also, prices don't all go up equally. Certain prices may go up, others may go down, and others may stay the same. So even relative prices change (prices in relation to other prices). from wikipedia: "If rr is assumed to be constant, rn must rise when πe rises. Fisher Effect: The one for one adjustment of the nominal interest rate to the expected inflation rate." Again, this is my guess here - Austrians would probably say that this stuff is incorrect.
I'm not - you just have to "memorize,pass,forget" and what is real knowledge will be there still - knowledge is the only asset nobody can steal from you.
WEB: In July '96, a 915 ft. spiral of 151 circles appeared in full view of the busy A303 road, opposite England's ancient monument Stonehenge, Wiltshire, within a 45 min. period one Sunday afternoon. A pilot, gamekeeper & guard confirmed it hadn't been there before 5.30 p.m. - yet shortly after 6 p.m., the massive formation was being spotted by passing tourists. Much smaller man-made designs have taken several hrs. to complete. This also disproves the myth that all crop circles appear by night.
Tom Woods is a Genius and Bolnoy, The Statement you made about the European Union is laughable. This is why us Austrians and those that believe in self determination and sovereignty reject the idea of a single currency. Those nations would be far more prosperous and free without the dictates of the European Union. I would encourage the flight and migration of every country especially Greece, Italy and Spain to leave the European Union and craft sound monetary policy and see prosperity return.
centralized means of production is not socialism in and of itself. It is not required. Central banking is capitalist, not socialist, and is a means of production of all trade costs by supply-control of money. NOT SOCIALISM.
> in California and even in Detroit? No. What is your source? > rampant cut-taxes With tax cuts, people would keep more of what they earn and have more wealth. Products cost less because businesses don't have to charge higher prices to pay their own taxes, so earning is even more powerful. About 87% of all prices goes to pay taxes and regulations.
Being collective yet distributed would also be socialism: groups of working, sharing individuals, groups of groups and overlap between groups, with no central control. At some fundamental level, without introducing profiteering, the actual pattern resembles that of investment with dividends. With a critical difference: capitalism will favour profiteering but also will favour massive wealth ratios.
Lending for the purpose of investing IS making a bet. People do borrow in order to invest. Banks borrow in order to lend, and every loan is a bet. All of this is regulated by interest rates. If the central banks didn't try to regulate, the interest rates, which would be dependent on saving, would do the regulating.
Unfortunately no. You will get a sort of certificate you can use in Resumes and scholar credentials but the mises institute is more of a honorary place for Austrian scholars. You will learn more about Austrian economics more than anywhere else on their website and at the institute but it does serve more as a base/think tank than a school. You can get your degree of economics anywhere and still be a self proclaimed Austrian economist and collaborate in their network
I've been looking at other articles, noting the messages I haven't replied to yet. Most of what I'm looking at is the under-pinning of inflation, money supply, gold, stocks, commodities. Sorry I was busy. It's on the list... back in a bit
It's looking like every ship-builder's works are in vain these days, just sell the excess off for scrap, not enough goods to ship. Being multi-skilled means less time unemployed and more quality work at a given job. Higher business efficiency means having less people do more types of work, not just more QUANTITY of work. That's one REAL efficiency gain in capitalism that doesn't come from THEFT from others or from profiteering-prices.
> Central planning is not required Good sir, I realize I sound like a broken record here, but you're not paying attention. Central planning is the hallmark of socialism. If there is not a free market, with prices set dynamically by the myriad actors each striving for the greatest efficiency in meeting their wants with the available resources, what you get is a command that "10 tons of nails will be made this month". > and how to beat it? Then do so and out-perform the market. Be the first.
All we need is an information network, and we certainly have one, to relay where resources are, where they are needed, and to choose to move them. We can measure all the alternate routes/methods and costs in real physical terms like joules, litres/barrels oil, time, momentum, without resorting to "dollars" or credit or intangibles. Because now we have COMPUTERS. Starting to sink in?
> People don't "produce because they want to" in reality. Exactly. They do so only by force, or by self interest. Self interest, working through the positive reinforcement of private property and profits, means that the most greedy and "motivated" individuals make the most money by doing the most good for the greatest number of people. It is only the corruption of power, coercion, GOVERNMENT, which allows profits to be made through harming people.
Hyperspecialization has been the norm for more than 20 years in North America. No straw, no slaw, just the facts. I'm going to be pissed but I'll fight with youtube for 20 minutes to let it digest another URL. I hate that filter.
It is nice to see there are some other libertarians that care about national security. Just because that haven't pulled off anything really big yet, does not mean it is not in the works. I am not downgrading 911 like skunkballs, but it is small compared to what could happen.
@Salvysahagun Jefferson was a believer in free-trade, he even wrote that Jean-Baptise Say, the founder of supply-side economics, was the smartest man he's ever read. yes, he was suspicious of Hamilton's privately owned bank he was trying to establish, believing Hamilton's desire to establish the bank was to gain riches for his pals, but that was before Mises, and a common misconception of financial institutions at the time. Good one... everybody was super wealthy and free under medieval society.
Likewise, pedantry and convoluted arguments do not imply correctedness nor truthfulness. Quite often false premises are enshrouded in complicated verbiage in order to make them "seem" truthful.
incentive - a focus - just because work is necessary does not mean incentive will be paid. Being critically needed also may be its own incentive. Counter-incentives may be required to compensate for a first mistake in allocating payments. So the solution is not 100% in capitalism, it is just an attempt. Not a bad one.
@dcyates legally they can and MUST pay the property taxes if you don't. They'll just kick you out on the way to that process since the original deal is that you pay them so it can all be paid. If something needs fixing normally they WILL pay to do it to resell it once you're kicked out: this time around there's too little demand, too many homes needing that repair. I think you'll have LOTS Of luck getting them to pay for this stuff but only after they kick you out for good.
"in the system we came from everyone was too poor to even afford to a can of soda." If you can find materials and have the knowledge, you can MAKE things and trade them without money. In groups you can be more efficient. This doesn't even require a government, certainly not socialism or capitalism. Ask yourself the real reason why this did not happen.
Thank you Mises Institute for enlightening my economic journey in grad school. May the light of this tradition enlighten the minds of more students and professors in Asia. Greetings from Singapore. 😊
I was failing micro & macro at first, until I read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. I promptly started getting the highest marks seen in that college in years. It was not because I understood the crap they were teaching. It was because all of a sudden, I actually understood economics! They did not realize the extent of my heresy. They hired me to run their economics resource center and be the 'official' tutor. I corrupted hundreds. ;-)
The best point about socialism and the Soviet Union specifically is they produced the most shoes in the world yet people still didn't have shoes. They didn't have the shoes they wanted.
Dumbest reply I've ever seen on TH-cam
@@kaykizzil wow so either you are new to TH-cam or you don't understand.
The Soviets said they produced the most shows yet with out the free market that didn't matter. The people couldn't get the shoes or even shoes they wanted.
@@Tigerfire75 Commie cunts are nothing but mere trolls, they won't understand these facts coz they always live in the state of denial.
"Keynes must die so the economy may live."
Hahahahaha I love it.
Austrians say Keynesians are wrong, and vice-versa...they can argue all day, and while Austrians are right, the average person doesn't have the time or the specialized knowledge to figure that out by comparing theory... or does theory really translate to morality.
But a simple show of hands, will show you that almost every person already believes that they should control their own money-- which not surprisingly, is the Austrian method, while Keynesians say "Father government knows best."
That's how political science beats economics via common sense morality: i.e. "thou shalt not steal."
I called Obama a Keynesian and was accused of being a "birther."
Ken Burns
You can't make a comment like that without some explanation. How are Obama's economic policies not rooted in Keynesian interventionism?
Ken Burns I understand now.
dragknuckle That's just it: nobody understands just how fucking serious the problem is... but I look on the bright side, like with the Titanic: i.e. it took a huge disaster to wake people up to the danger, and so that incident, while tragic, actually saved lives.
I have no false hope that this "Obama-nation" will have similar positive results, but let's face it: the economy was bound for collapse ever since the federal government began killing and imprisoning anyone who separated their home-states from its abusive dictators run amuck; so it was only a matter of time, and Obama is our equivalent of the Titanic.
Except in America we're still battling Keynesians left and right... Also, I'm 17, go to school 35 hours a week and work my two part time jobs for a combined 25 hours.. So I have a 60 hour week plus homework because I do dual credit and AP classes and I have friends who do the same and I know many more who are not my friends who do the same and I love to learn about the economy and political sciences. The only day I have free in my week is Sunday, and most of Sunday is church and cleaning in my house. Anyone can learn things about the economy and about politics if they try, I mean you could watch 2 1 hour talks on TH-cam on different days on Keynesian economics and on Hayek's economics and make a decision based on history that they can also learn on places as accessible on TH-cam. That, or go read a book. Read a book on Keynes over a few months and then on me on Hayek for a few months and then read up on our history. Anyone who decides to get involved can learn these things easily.
This is what I get for studying austrian economics before learning [in detail] any other school of economics. Now every time I hear anything about keynesian economics I want to scream.
Bravo.
I’m a nobody who listens to several economic lectures. Mises is my favourite. Love from Australia 🇦🇺
Yoooo that’s me
10 years past after...
An Indonesian who never has interest in Economic studies, come to very much obliged the Mises Institute for sharring their videos, ideas and thougts.
Gin,
PS:
As a token of gratitute, may I add, about Keynesian versus Free Market...
---
In the Tao Te Ching, written more than 2,000 years before Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” Lao Tzu instructed the sage‐ruler to adopt the principle of noninterference as the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity: “Take no action and the people of themselves are transformed … Engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” He recognized that “the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” Corruption stems not from freedom but from freedom’s being overly constrained by government. Like water, the market is resilient and will seek its natural course - a course that will be smoother the wider the path the market can take and the firmer the institutional banks that contain it.
---
Funny how all you Keynesians respond by saying "well it would have been worse" because you know that Keynesianism has no credibility.
All of their hypothetical criticism is nothing but a mere explanation of the status quo!
The recession was officially over by June of 2009. By that time we had spent less than 8% of the stimulus package. For anyone to say that the stimulus prevented another great depression is sidesplittingly uproarious.
He sounds so similar to Rothbard it's kinda scary... Or encouraging... Both?
Only noticed it for this video. He was definitely inspired by him. Though all of his more recent talks (last few years at least) I don't hear that. Maybe he noticed and didn't want to sound like a direct copy of Rothbard.
I love these videos. The growth in the Austrian school of thought has been getting lots of traction recently. I have personally gone from one extreme to another. Thanks Tom, great as usual.
In the long run we're all dead-Yours truly, Keynes
Tom Woods is a funny and entertaining guy. Which is easy when your material comes from Keyensians.
Keynesian policies stroke the egos of politicians and regulators who believe they do good because they do something.
Voters also want politicians to be seen to "do something".
Sadly, it takes intelligence and self control to do "nothing", to let events run their course.
How many people actually have intelligence and self control?
@utubehayter - That's what I've been saying the whole time really. I was stating that by consenting to their employment, marginal productivity (the difference between the value of the service they provide, and amount they're paid) is not theft. Marginal productivity is part of a legitimate business model, as is profit.
Another great lecture by Thomas Woods.
I like the slogan: "Keynes must die so the economy can live."
In the end, if America would just re-discover its small government, free market & level playing field Capitalistic roots, it will do good again. Sadly under both big government, Progressive GOP & Democratic leaders, we are still headed in the wrong direction & towards a fiscal collapse.
Ethercruiser1 trump
Well said, where do you stand now 8 years later ?
@@rohansingh-wt7hi Worse than I thought! We are self destructing, the crown of world leadership has passed to China & the US paper dollar is headed for extinction.
"You cannot invade the United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
--Admiral Yamamoto
Fear can also be an encouragement. If I'm minding my own business and someone is acting like they want to do harm to me, I might do harm first to ensure my survival. Same for nations. Situations are all unique: what is the level of agression, private and public, what weapons are involved, what are the stakes for losing, the same of acting in error, and so on.
Fantastic. Loved it. I look forward to the day when this strain of thought is called American, instead of Austrian. Seriously, aren't they socialists now?!
Almost done listening to it now. Very good information. Not that I ever supported Greenspan but truthful information always has higher value when it's difficult to come by.
How would Austrians counter the post-WWII argument I've heard, which is that the only reason the U.S. economy was so robust after the war is that the U.S. was the sole superpower left standing in the Western world while everyone else had been bombed to the stone age? Therefore, the U.S., largely undamaged during the war, could export its products to all those countries that needed to rebuild.
Why is there a need to counter such point, the point Keynesians, progressives and liberals alike make is that since top marginal tax rates were at 90 percent, then that's what caused the period of economic growth.
While it's true that tax rates were so high, very few payed such rates, and that money went to pay the war debt.
Spending levels went down after ww2, not up.
It was also a period were regulation levels were down, which is what Austrians advocate.
+fountainhead So, the fact that millions were killed and $trillions (2015 dollars) of wealth was destroyed is a good thing?
US Economic growth from 1946 to 1963 occurred because the government shrank, taxes shrank, workers showed up in huge numbers (former soldiers), interest rates dropped (government ran a surplus), and yes, the much of the world was rebuilding.
However, US was not the only country that didn't get destroyed during the war. Check out what happened to Argentina - once one of the strongest economies around and the strongest in South America. It's economy died because of the government.
+Josue Barboza There is a need to counter such a point, because many people are convinced by arguments like these that Keynes wasn't wrong. It's not just about being right, it's about convincing people of your theories as well.
+fountainhead If I understand your point correctly it is this: How can you be sure that decreased government spending and regulation were the main cause of the post-war boom if there were also other factors, like global hegemony and lack of competition, that might have contributed?
My answer is as follows:
1. The main point is not that these things caused the boom, but that they DIDN'T cause an enormous depression and huge unemployment, as the Keynesians predicted.
2. Being able to export products is not beneficial on its own, it would be more beneficial to consume these products domestically. Why being able to export is normally beneficial, is the fact that you can focus production on products in which you have a comparative advantage and import things that another country produces relatively more efficient.
Comparative advantage is often misunderstood, so I'll post a short explanation here, just in case: www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/law-comparative-advantage.asp). In one sentence: It's all relative.
3. The reason why foreign aid and loans to the EU, which financed the export you're talking about were beneficial is that it was an investment that created more global wealth, which in the long run is better for everybody (although these benefits are rarely evenly distributed and there are always some temporary losers). They were investing in the EU economy, not because that profited the US in the short run, but because that profited EVERYBODY in the long run.
Anyone whose argument begins "the only reason" is wrong from the start.
@ytgv3fc7 - The purpose of a company is NEVER to take all they can from the workers. Ever. Thus, there is ALWAYS an incentive to keep the labor force happy. Always.
The purpose of a company is ALWAYS to make a profit. Abusing your labor force severely compromises that ability. You're just assuming the conditions needed for your caviot to exist, actually exist.
The best adaption to Austrian economic theory to the real world is offered by Prof. Fred Foldvary (San Jose State University). What I find most insightful in Professor Foldvary's analyses is his understanding of property markets as a fundamental driver of what we think of as "business cycles." He finds his inspiration from a number of classical political economists, in particular, Henry George. Among the mistakes made by Keynes was his assertion that land markets were no longer important to economic growth or how wealth is distributed. He followed the long list of neoclassical economists in this assertion. Fred Foldvary reminds us that land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) do not respond to the price mechanism as does labor and actual capital goods. Thus, he aligns with Henry George in calling for the public collection of the rent of land. As a libertarian, Professor Foldvary argues the case for distribution of most of this fund to citizens as an income supplement or dividend. Real democracy can be relied upon to determine at the community level what portion of the rent fund ought to be used to pay for desired public goods and services and what portion ought to be distributed.
Jason Shults I am glad my comments were of some value to you. I would not go so far as to say the economics I took in college were worthless, but they certainly did not contribute to a sound understanding of what causes business cycles or has lead to the concentration of income and wealth plaguing the world's societies.
+Edward Dodson If only we could reach a "real democracy"...
Interesting points, though.
Edward Dodson
To say that land does not respond to price mechanisms is beyond laughable. All assets must obey supply and demand. I suspect his position is being misrepresented, because I can scarcely believe someone would claim such a thing.
Wanting to redistribute land income is some communist BS. That would totally disrupt the land market. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
It’s Keynesian type thinking as Woods says in the video - thinking in terms of aggregates rather than the micro.
The last thing we need is more taxes.
As for what leads to concentrated wealth, that’s easy: physics. Physics goes by the exponential distribution.
The masses of animals, masses of stars, volumes of land masses, usage of words in a language - everything goes by this. Wealth would inevitably be concentrated. Physics despises equality, outside of equal and opposite reaction.
What matters is merit and mobility. The freer the market, the greater the meritocracy and the higher the mobility.
The highest inequality is also found in socialist countries - not that inequality matters at all. Suffering matters. Inequality is nothing.
The lower the interest rate, especially when the inflation rate is higher than the real rate means that anyone taking a loan was essentially borrowing for free. It also distorts the true cost of future projects by making unprofitable ones into good ventures, incentivizes people to borrow across the board, from main street to wall street, and harms savings. There's no stronger incentive to borrow than when you're being paid to do it.
> All we need is an information network...
You still haven't read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" if you continue to make this same sad argument.
There already is an efficient communications system for the allocation of scarce resources: Prices.
I was practicing guitar while watching this when I heard this at 20:27 :
"No toilet paper...is this a good trade-off for going to the gulag?"
I had to put my guitar away and pause the video so I could laugh for a good minute.
The politicians will never change. We must replace them.
By ensuring living space is available, and is covered, and by ensuring food is available and is covered, and nothing extra, the worst is averted and those who can work can be given every opportunity to work, and to learn to work better and smarter if one is able.
There are multiple reasons for lacking productivity: physical or mental disability, refusal to work, inability to learn to work BETTER yet still be productive enough to survive, and so on. I can really only see a logical result of starvation, that is not unfair, to a person who is too lazy to get/make their own food. Life has always expected we do such things. It's entirely different NOW if that person is denied only because you STOLE the food first.
I'm no banking expert but I think that sounds like a real plan. With real disclosure from private banks, and with real competition, there's real choice and real freedom. I think you have a winning plan. And honestly, if people are cautious enough and help out those who need it individually, even without a hint of socialism, it just might work. Long term.
#1 incentive: can't argue on that. If you pay more of anything to do something, that is where the incentive will go.
#2 calculation: measurement using machines and communication (using same) indicates where real needs and resources are better than pricing. Even today's markets admit as much by including volume and capitalization and resource estimates of oil, gold, uranium, and so on. Pricing is insufficient.
#3 central planner: not required, since a decentralized network beats it easily
I find it funny how, on a video debunking Keynesianism, the liberals commenting decide to discuss Marxism.
interest rates have EVERYTHING to do with finance. EVERYTHING. Everything we price in the derivatives markets, every project undertaken by an investment firm, any forecast done by the corporate finance dept at any company uses the interest rates to determine if future projects will generate value.
People can debate who predicted what and when. But it seems to me that the matter of central planning's inability to accurately set prices, set interest rates, or pick the right investments proves what the Austrians are saying.
I was also very clear about "division of labour" in multiple time frames: in a single time frame it can make PLENTY of sense to divide, specialize and work quickly; in a longer-term time-frame a person who uses multiple "unrelated" skills in a new job that requires them all, or who can mobilize his/her labour elsewhere or smaller distances/costs to keep working, is better utility / survival.
It makes me feel good to know Tom woods has 4 kids!! lil bit of hope for the future!
1. Wage growth is far behind productivity growth, and with cost of living increases the bottom half has been hard hit.
2. The income gap exists for both types of income.
3. Social mobility in the US is the lowest it has ever been.
@ytgv3fc7 - "The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result." EXACTLY! Consent renders this NOT theft by definition. Your theory falls apart here. Marginal Productivity cannot be theft by your own definition, as the worker consents to its existence by NOT striking. LOGIC FAIL!
@ytgv3fc7 - Marginal productivity is what empowers the Capitalist system. It's important as it aids savings and investment.
There is going to be a gap between the value of the service you provide and the your compensation. However, in the Communist state, you are not guaranteed compensation. You have no ability for redress against government, but in the system set forth by most states, you have protection against force, fraud, and coercion from corporations.
> I'm smarter than you and already proved it.
Thank you. Belly laughs like this are great exercise, and a wonderful counterbalance to the sadness of insomnia.
Thank you, also, for at least trying to read an actual book on the subject, even if I don't expect you got past the first paragraph if your earlier comments are any indication.
I appreciate that you tried. That's far more than most people ever do, when they are already convinced they're right.
Thomas Woods is awesome. Probably the easiest Austrian to listen to.
Bias does not make someone wrong.
Woods may seem biased because he has a strong position, but his position is based upon facts not opinion.
It is people who pretend they are not biased who end up lying.
my father was a realtor and he warned the other realtors the housing market was ready to collapse. Leave it to say, he was hushed up and so he quit.
So when I say "ensuring space is available" what I'm saying is it is RIGHT NOW available to many of us and if we fight back against the capitalists we can keep it that way. If we lose the fight we will have to pay a lot more for imported food and even local food, and not have as much choice. What I propose is avoiding the loss of it. It's not gone yet. Not where I am.
Very well put response.
To be more clear: the mining act in Canada that allows this does not in any way say who DOES own the rights, simply that you do not own them for having a residence on top of the minerals, oil, metals, etc. that are beneath you.
In 1946 you have to keep in mind that we were exporting stuff to most of the world for rebuilding , since our industrial base was still in fantastic shape .
Can't remember if I responded to this or not. One way I can think of is that when you simply increase the money supply and give it to people, you're not actually giving them more wealth, just more paper. You're not really give me three more apples, you're just cutting my one apple into four pieces. Basically, people who should actually be saving money are now spending it because they think they just became richer.
The alternative is to have private gains and socialized losses. This will only encourage companies to act recklessly and in a manner that is harmful to almost everyone but themselves. If there were actual risks this kind of behaviour would quickly diminish.
Very enjoyable and invigorating video! I will share with many friends. Thank You
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, Fo' Sure :)
Some variations of genetic programming actually only simulate biological evolution, and act strictly in machines; some do not actually physically control robots or labs but simply write output programs, instructions, plans, blue-prints, for a machine later to be told to use, or a person/team. But it works, and very well, enough to compete with humans for making NEW patents.
@ytgv3fc7 We're living through the greatest period of prosperity in the entirety of human history, with lifespans just having tripled from 25-30 years to 80-90 years.
Clean water wasn't scarce in hunter-gatherer societies because there were ~1000 times fewer people and they were only able to live in a handful of places; they couldn't engage in agriculture because they had no expectation of being able to keep what they produce(aka socialism). They died like flies in famines and disease.
Most sensible people would call that "regulation". As in laws to regulate activities, put people in jail, extract fines, and so on. But as soon as the government is involved the hyper-capitalists will call it regulation and government interference with the free market. It's been quoted here quite often in this article's comment-list.
It's sad that there is only 37,552 views on April 29th 2012 when this video was posted more then 2 years ago.
> contract law IS regulation.
Your error is in not understanding coercion.
A contract is voluntarily agreed to, otherwise there would be no contract.
A regulation is IMPOSED, at gunpoint, upon people who never agreed to it. That's why tax rates change and you have no recourse. You can't "unsubscribe".
If your credit card company changes its contract terms, you can refuse the terms and void the contract without any penalty what so ever.
Coercion. It makes all the difference.
Best LvMI speaker! :)
@ParapaDrifter critical to community survival and I know not to make the wrong choice on that. Winter roads: well this is a severe problem. We've got different changes in density/size with different temps, shifting soil and salt damage. I have continually looked at how roads can be improved while not sacrificing ability to USE them in the heavy winter (salt?). This is actually a very difficult problem.
ad 1.
thats no problem at all because productivity growth mostly results in falling prices. And the increase in the costs of living are 100% due to government induced inflation and taxing.
Loving the colors on that tie.
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. It is a preposterous notion.” - Dr. Peter Mansfield
Low interest rates encourage riskier investments.
The metaphor of a sports team is often used to explain. You pick the 8 best players available to you for your team, rejecting the less able players. If you are then allowed to pick 2 more players, you have to choose form ones you rejected before. The more players you are allowed to pick, the less qualified the new picks will be.
SaulOhio, what are you talking about?
The draft is coming up, and I don’t see how this even makes any sense at all?
It is noteworthy to mention that no one in America is old enough to have experienced true "free market capitalism". We have all been raised in a quasi-socialist and Keynesian economy. Our economy has been going to hell since the government first interjected itself. The government’s involvement made America a corporatocracy by spawning the self-serving relationships between government, big industry and special interests.
@Salvysahagun Also, Jefferson spoke out against tariffs and taxes--and told the American people to keep away from both-- but when it came to paying off Hamilton's gross national debt he was forced to make a compromise. He might have enacted a temporary tariff but he eliminated every single direct federal tax and vowed America will never again see another federal tax collector at his door. obviously he broke his promise...
Very interesting. Thank god for tom woods.
It's takes the Government to make something as useful like paper and make it utterly worthless.
@ParapaDrifter That qualifier changes everything, thank you. We need a lot less bureaucrats and a lot more useful people keeping everyone else useful who asks for a hand-out or hand-up, so we can make more accurate choices about why / how this is helpful. I understand why giving money to a homeless person with a mental problem will NEVER be returned to me and I have a choice to do that or not. I understand why ensuring my fire dept is not broke is definitely (more)
Wall Street got drunk because the Fed provided all the booze. Hey, if I am guaranteed all my loss and I get all the cheap money I want, I would take all the high-risk short term profits I want.
I don't agree that every boom is artificial. It's just the human nature to rush to a seemingly most profitable activity. But it's absolutely true, that market has to correct that with a crash.
also the quality of state ownership is just one part of socialism and doesn't need to exist. Even if there is no government and therefore no government ownership (and this is much better) there can be decentralized control and ownership so long as it is collective. The collective part you got right. That's about it.
All news articles describing all economic activity for all history is a source agreeing with my statements. PERIOD. All of them are my sources. ALL OF THEM.
Highly unlikely they will change. It isn't a matter of getting the right people into office but in educating enough people that it becomes politically profitable for the wrong people in office to do the right thing. :) Credit to Milton Friedman because I paraphrased him there.
So the same happens with investing and interest rates. Low rates encourage more people to invest more money. Instead of choosing just the safest investments, people choose a larger number of investments, many of which will be riskier than what they would invest in if they had less money to invest.
And of course the lower rates mean the payoff is bigger, making risk that much more attractive.
SaulOhio, it’s Government that lowers interest rate by the amount of money they print and put into the economy. Government also affects how risky banks are willing to be by federally insuring loans. This is what caused the housing bubble.
If you remove the government backed loans, and government injection of cash into banks, then lest risky higher interest loans would only be possible. Which goes against Keynesian principles.
within a system, it doesnt matter what the direction or flow of money is, your average will always be your average. doesnt matter whether it is (50+50+50)/3=50 or (25+75+50)/3=50 or any which way for (a1+a2+a3)=150 where in the previous equation a1=25, a2=75, a3=50. the only way average income will go up is if you increase the sum of a1::a3. And when all your money comes from a printing press, that means the GDP directly tells us inflation. GDP per capita is no indicator of a "good economy".
In Canada, for example, we have a very deadly situation that doesn't exist in the USA. In America you can be threatened or bribed but there's a legal process to fight an attempt to directly get what's on or under your land, like oil, gold or uranium. In Canada you have no such legal righst. NONE. A company walks in, claims, and boots you out. Period.
As Tom said in his speech, I too am embarrassed that I held some of the views I once held.
@Slipknotyk06 "The product that a worker creates is not the property of that worker"
It is during production. The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result.
"Without that gap, the Capitalist system cannot generate profit, and therefor collapses"
Actually profit-incentive in this way is what collapses the system. Avoiding loss is not the same as making profit. Loss is bad, profit is also bad not takes longer.
(continued)
also, prices don't all go up equally. Certain prices may go up, others may go down, and others may stay the same. So even relative prices change (prices in relation to other prices).
from wikipedia:
"If rr is assumed to be constant, rn must rise when πe rises. Fisher Effect: The one for one adjustment of the nominal interest rate to the expected inflation rate."
Again, this is my guess here - Austrians would probably say that this stuff is incorrect.
I'm not - you just have to "memorize,pass,forget" and what is real knowledge will be there still - knowledge is the only asset nobody can steal from you.
WEB: In July '96, a 915 ft. spiral of 151 circles appeared in full view of the busy A303 road, opposite England's ancient monument Stonehenge, Wiltshire, within a 45 min. period one Sunday afternoon. A pilot, gamekeeper & guard confirmed it hadn't been there before 5.30 p.m. - yet shortly after 6 p.m., the massive formation was being spotted by passing tourists. Much smaller man-made designs have taken several hrs. to complete. This also disproves the myth that all crop circles appear by night.
@iksandrr Wow, excellent rebutal to the points made in this video.
Tom Woods is a Genius and Bolnoy, The Statement you made about the European Union is laughable. This is why us Austrians and those that believe in self determination and sovereignty reject the idea of a single currency. Those nations would be far more prosperous and free without the dictates of the European Union. I would encourage the flight and migration of every country especially Greece, Italy and Spain to leave the European Union and craft sound monetary policy and see prosperity return.
centralized means of production is not socialism in and of itself. It is not required. Central banking is capitalist, not socialist, and is a means of production of all trade costs by supply-control of money. NOT SOCIALISM.
You can always count on Woods to provide a great show.
Very entertaining and informative, although very biased.
This, of course, is not actually an argument but a list of unsupported claims.
> in California and even in Detroit?
No.
What is your source?
> rampant cut-taxes
With tax cuts, people would keep more of what they earn and have more wealth. Products cost less because businesses don't have to charge higher prices to pay their own taxes, so earning is even more powerful.
About 87% of all prices goes to pay taxes and regulations.
Being collective yet distributed would also be socialism: groups of working, sharing individuals, groups of groups and overlap between groups, with no central control. At some fundamental level, without introducing profiteering, the actual pattern resembles that of investment with dividends. With a critical difference: capitalism will favour profiteering but also will favour massive wealth ratios.
Lending for the purpose of investing IS making a bet. People do borrow in order to invest. Banks borrow in order to lend, and every loan is a bet. All of this is regulated by interest rates.
If the central banks didn't try to regulate, the interest rates, which would be dependent on saving, would do the regulating.
SaulOhio , the federal reserve sells bonds as a loan, then gives it to banks to loan.
I don’t think you have a full grasp on what you are implying.
Unfortunately no. You will get a sort of certificate you can use in Resumes and scholar credentials but the mises institute is more of a honorary place for Austrian scholars. You will learn more about Austrian economics more than anywhere else on their website and at the institute but it does serve more as a base/think tank than a school. You can get your degree of economics anywhere and still be a self proclaimed Austrian economist and collaborate in their network
I've been looking at other articles, noting the messages I haven't replied to yet. Most of what I'm looking at is the under-pinning of inflation, money supply, gold, stocks, commodities. Sorry I was busy. It's on the list... back in a bit
It's looking like every ship-builder's works are in vain these days, just sell the excess off for scrap, not enough goods to ship. Being multi-skilled means less time unemployed and more quality work at a given job. Higher business efficiency means having less people do more types of work, not just more QUANTITY of work. That's one REAL efficiency gain in capitalism that doesn't come from THEFT from others or from profiteering-prices.
> Central planning is not required
Good sir, I realize I sound like a broken record here, but you're not paying attention.
Central planning is the hallmark of socialism. If there is not a free market, with prices set dynamically by the myriad actors each striving for the greatest efficiency in meeting their wants with the available resources, what you get is a command that "10 tons of nails will be made this month".
> and how to beat it?
Then do so and out-perform the market. Be the first.
All we need is an information network, and we certainly have one, to relay where resources are, where they are needed, and to choose to move them. We can measure all the alternate routes/methods and costs in real physical terms like joules, litres/barrels oil, time, momentum, without resorting to "dollars" or credit or intangibles. Because now we have COMPUTERS. Starting to sink in?
> People don't "produce because they want to" in reality.
Exactly. They do so only by force, or by self interest.
Self interest, working through the positive reinforcement of private property and profits, means that the most greedy and "motivated" individuals make the most money by doing the most good for the greatest number of people.
It is only the corruption of power, coercion, GOVERNMENT, which allows profits to be made through harming people.
Hyperspecialization has been the norm for more than 20 years in North America. No straw, no slaw, just the facts. I'm going to be pissed but I'll fight with youtube for 20 minutes to let it digest another URL. I hate that filter.
It is nice to see there are some other libertarians that care about national security. Just because that haven't pulled off anything really big yet, does not mean it is not in the works. I am not downgrading 911 like skunkballs, but it is small compared to what could happen.
@Salvysahagun Jefferson was a believer in free-trade, he even wrote that Jean-Baptise Say, the founder of supply-side economics, was the smartest man he's ever read. yes, he was suspicious of Hamilton's privately owned bank he was trying to establish, believing Hamilton's desire to establish the bank was to gain riches for his pals, but that was before Mises, and a common misconception of financial institutions at the time. Good one... everybody was super wealthy and free under medieval society.
Likewise, pedantry and convoluted arguments do not imply correctedness nor truthfulness. Quite often false premises are enshrouded in complicated verbiage in order to make them "seem" truthful.
incentive - a focus - just because work is necessary does not mean incentive will be paid. Being critically needed also may be its own incentive. Counter-incentives may be required to compensate for a first mistake in allocating payments. So the solution is not 100% in capitalism, it is just an attempt. Not a bad one.
@dcyates legally they can and MUST pay the property taxes if you don't. They'll just kick you out on the way to that process since the original deal is that you pay them so it can all be paid. If something needs fixing normally they WILL pay to do it to resell it once you're kicked out: this time around there's too little demand, too many homes needing that repair. I think you'll have LOTS Of luck getting them to pay for this stuff but only after they kick you out for good.
"in the system we came from everyone was too poor to even afford to a can of soda."
If you can find materials and have the knowledge, you can MAKE things and trade them without money. In groups you can be more efficient. This doesn't even require a government, certainly not socialism or capitalism. Ask yourself the real reason why this did not happen.