I did this and found credit expansion in every single listed recession/depression. It made a believer out of me. The Keynesian explanation was of some type of 'economic shock' that caused the recession felt like drawing bulls-eyes around arrows. Austrians for the win.
tom woods is like a kind of medication. when i hear him speak, it feels like sitting in the sun. it feels very nice, warm and friendly. some people go to a solarium to cure their apathy, i listen to tom woods podacasts every day. and after doing that, every time i get so excited at the prospect that, "wait a minute... maybe this country can be saved after all?"
In addition, most others at the Mises Institute do have degrees in economics (many have PhDs), and they are the ones who asked Tom Woods to give this talk. They are certainly willing to vouch for his knowledge of economics. In fact, I've heard Bob Murphy (PhD in economics) say that sometimes he "forgets" that Tom Woods is a historian, not just an economist.
Actually Norway isn't burning out their gas or wealth!! Norway is still World's most Richest Nation as they don't invest in Grandios Projects, but keep most money in a Long Term Wealth Fund!!! You might think of Sweden, and you're around 50% correct👋
That the Federal Reserve System is an obvious failure is revealed by the continuous loss of purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes issued. I do agree that historians have a good deal to tell us about the origins of cycles of boom and bust. One historian I learned a good deal from was Jackson Turner Main, who wrote a groundbreaking study of wealth and income inequality during the era of the founding fathers. What Main understood clearly is that the system of banking and credit exacerbated but did not cause these cycles. The cycles of boom and bust are caused by a combination of land monopoly and land speculation. From the moment Europeans arrived in North America, the land monopoly game started. The size of the continent made this difficult until the mid-19th century. In a great irony of history, the resistance of the tribal societies to encroachment on territory they controlled contributed to the rise in land values along the Atlantic coast and to the great personal fortunes of the landed families. As the tribes were pushed back, colonial leaders formed companies to engage in "western" land speculations. None was more successful in these speculations than George Washington. Speculation in land always stimulates a frenzy of activity. When credit is cheap and readily obtainable the frenzy is all the more furious. Every land speculator fully expects that before payment is due to the lender, that the deed obtained will be transferred to someone else at a huge profit. And, the purchaser of the deed likely expects the experience, and so on, until the speculation-driven price rising can no longer be sustained by the real economy. One of the best describes of how these dynamics occur is found in the 1931 book by historian Frederick Lewis Allen, titled "Only Yesterday." Read what Allen provides regarding and credit-fueled land booms of the 1920s and how each crashed. We hear about the Florida land boom and crash, but the same thing occurred in cities and in the agricultural sector. Austrians need to spend more time examining land markets. At least one Austrian economics professor, Fred Foldvary, has done this and has taken advantage of the insights of Henry George to provide a synthesis of Austrian and George's theory of business cycles.
Mr. Woods is an outstanding speaker. I love economics but some are just so mundane and just too many facts. He has a way of drawing listeners in getting them to think. Would love to attend one of his lectures someday!
Type this in to the youtube search bar and watch the first video. "feeseminars austrian theory of the business cycle". This video helped me learn about the Austrian business cycle theory.
I have never listened to anything by Prof. Woods and thought I could have done something better with my time. I am VERY glad someone is doing the legwork on 19th century recessions, the myths are everywhere.
William Jackson Barry was a lecturer and author here in New Zealand in the 19th century. He lived through the depression of 1874 to 1991; or 1870 to 1896 in the Otago goldfields. He recorded extreme deprivation which he suffered himself. This does not reflect conditions in the USA of course, but is indicative..
I am about to begin watching this, but first I must say - I have wanted to hear someone like Tom Woods address this topic for some time. Should be good!
Tom stated that if inflation occurs, and it gets more expensive to buy domestic goods, then people will start buying foreign goods. But, how is this possible considering that if the currency is devalued, won't foreign goods get more expensive as well?
If you close your eyes he sounds A LOT like the young Richard Dreyfus. History sure does tell a lot about people. This kind of history should be mandatory at a high school level.
This lecture is hugely important, 'cause people used to actually think that once upon a time we used to live in a free-unregulated-markets without a federal reserve setting interest rates.
To the contrary one of the most prolific Austrian Economist, Milton Friedman was for the bailout, albeit not talking specifically about this 2008 bailout. However, Friedman advocated that the bailouts needed to happened period. Didn't matter if it was gov't or private sector bailout. In fact Ben, fed chair, told Friedman that he would take his advice and make sure their was a bailout which Ben of course didn't do correctly.
@dankfr33music The problem with govt. funding is that universities set the tuition high enough to capture all of the subsidies. If tuition prices remained at current levels, there would be no butts in the seats. What would happen? The same think that happens when retailers can't move product; college prices would have to drop. Unis would then have to cut back on administrative costs and other things that have nothing to do with educating the student. It's a racket.
Instead of the reserve banking, why don't banks instead have a policy of delaying deposits in exchange for interest collected by loaning out the money from those deposits. This would keep banks from loaning out more than they can pay back.
Actually Newt Gingrich was also a proponent of mandated healthcare at one time before running for president. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't cut anything from the actual budget. It cuts from proposed increases. It goes like this(and this is a hypothetical example). If your budget is automatically raised $100 a year, and you say that you'll cut $30 from that, you're still increasing the budget by $70 and that's how the Paul Ryan plan works.
And just because I may not have been personally affected by the Patriot act doesn't mean that it's not a big issue. It sets a precedent that the government is watching over everyone. That is a huge deal! Small limited governments don't have that power. Especially if part of the constitution guarantees due process
It's just supply & demand. When savings are high, money available to loan is plentiful, so interest rates go down since there are more "sellers" of money than "buyers." The sellers will keep lowering the price (rate) to attract buyers. But if savings are low, money to loan is scarce, and so the buyers will have to compete with other buyers and bid up the price in order to get a loan of that scarce capital.
If you can't meet your creditor's obligations, then you should be forced to liquidate your assets to try & make them whole - even if at a haircut. This rule should apply to everyone, including lending intermediaries; banks. Banks shouldn't be able to lend out deposits without said depositor's explicit permission, notated in a 'terms of use' type of contractual arrangement or other verifiable permission granting mediums. These two basic rules that are integral to property rights, along with the absence of infinite liquidity provided by CB & govt bailouts, would eliminate fractional reserve activity, or at the very least force banks to hold near full reserve ratios for on-demand deposits.
I'm in college now. I'm a history major ironically. My point is, is that just because you don't have a formal education in something, that doesn't mean that you can't be well educated in that subject. Does one have to go to school and become a certified mechanic in order to know how to fix cars? The only fallacy was in your comprehension of what I was saying.
It is not just a "piece of paper" it is years of studying and having its ideas destroyed by teachers and learning from it. Obviously, some individuals will complete a degree and not gain better understandings but there are the exceptions. Furthermore, there are no truths in History, only better arguments and I did not hear many in Dr. Woods’ speech. Because of that, he sounds to me more like an ideologue than a history professor. It is too bad because he seems like a brilliant man.
“You know, a dry cleaner can’t say to you when you come to pick up your pant; look your pants are really cool and I’ve been wearing them for like a week. So, you know, come back in like four or five weeks and maybe I’ll give them back to you. No one’s allowed to operate like that. You’d have to close your doors, you’d be sued,whatever. But instead, there’s a special privilege granted to banks.” -God bless Tom Woods.
an institution might be bad, but that is why we have state education boards to meet min qualifications in getting a degree. So, even if you have a bad institution you will still have required to master certain ideas and concepts.
“It’s not my responsibility as president to uphold the constitutional law handed down by the Supreme Court. It’s my responsibility to uphold the constitution. Which is a different thing.”
Yes, but there are some who were actually decent at multiple sports like Dion Sanders. The big difference is, is that Jordan's teammates probably aren't talking about how great of a baseball player jordan was. In this case, Tom Woods is likely speaking in front of Several economist including Walter Block who holds a PhD from Columbia, Peter Klein who got his PhD in economics from Berkley, Thomas Dilorenzo who got his from Virginia Tech an Hans-Hermann Hoppe from Goethe University Frankfurt
Most Republicans dismiss the Austrian school and maybe some pay it a little bit of lip service like Rick Perry but that doesn't mean that he subscribes to it's views. There are numerous videos of mainstream economists calling Austrian economists crazy for calling out the housing bubble and for saying gold is a much better investment. Right after that the housing market collapsed and gold prices doubled. Paul Krugman calls out Austrians all the time in his blog but won't agree to a debate.
@pbfrank13 Na, I say immortal. That is actually Carl Menger, then von Mises, then Rothbard, and now Woods. Don't be surprised if your kid, someday comes to you and says, Hey pop. I was at a lecture and this professor did a great impresson of Tom Woods.
The point being, is that Woods is well respected as not only a historian, but as a lecturer on economics. He even studied under Rothbard who is one of the most well respected of all Austrian economist. So he's not teaching a class, he's just lecturing. I don't think he would even claim to be qualified to teach economics and if you asked him, he'd likely refer you to Walter Block
They say a lot about that and they aren't necessarily as big of government when it comes to domestic issues but to say that they are pro small government because of that is naive. They voted to give the federal government control over education and expand medicare. Like I said before, they voted for bailouts and the stimlus package. They talk a big talk but their actions are different and anything they cut will would add to the overseas spending. And then there are issues like the Patriot Act
323 comments 1k 👍 if all those people Shared on FB and Twitter the ideas would spread quicker especially amount the the young. We are weather we like it or not in a battle for the minds and hearts of our fellow citizens.
I had a feeling you were confused. Milton Friedman wasn't an Austrian economist. He belongs to the Chicago school along with Thomas Sowell. Their beliefs line up with the Austrians on some issues but vary greatly on others. Chicago school is not an opponents of the Federal Reserve. In fact, Friedman has said that the Fed didn't do enough in the Great Depression. You won't hear that in the Austrian school. More Republicans fall somewhere between Freidman and Keynes
i would never disagree that the Democrats are for bigger government, however, my point is, is that Republicans are not for small government. Even that 30% is a massive number. I know that Dems want to spend more on social programs although Repbs do to at times but the Dems don't want to slash military either. But spending isn't the only thing to consider when talking about size of government. You should also talk about intrusion
The end result between the two parties is the same. The Republicans may just take a bit longer to get there but in reality, probably not since they are more willing to spend more money overseas. Big government is big government. Republicans are only relatively smaller on domestic issues. But they both favor the use of central banking and printing and borrowing money to fund their pet projects. Neither of those things equal SMALL government regardless of what they spend money on
For one I already did point out why his analysis of 1920 was wrong when I first brought it up with the other person. But, of course you're the 4th or 5th person to come along and not read what I wrote anyway. And, second, regression analysis and econometrics already shows through various studies like Fisher-Peters that "a sustained increase in government spending has a robust positive effect on private employment"
Well, Woods' views seem consistent with economist Robert P. Murphy who holds a PhD from NYU. And no, I don't take what anyone says for granted. Everything anyone says should be scrutinized. Now, if you disagree with the Austrian schools conclusions on the issues, that's fine you are free to do so. But my point is, is that he's lecturing in front of PhDs who he likely learned from and what he's saying is consistent with the Austrian school's theories.
I don't disagree that every Republican wasn't for appealing Obamacare, but that is not to say that the Repubs running aren't for government run healthcare. Romney passed a nearly identical bill in his state and publicly stated that he thinks that Obama should use that as a blueprint for the nation. He only started saying different when he decided to run for Pres and he needed to win over the base that was against it. His slogan was "Repeal and Replace" Did you catch that? REPLACE!
Is the Fisher-Peters study you refere to this one? "Using Stock Returns to Identify Government Spending Shocks" by Jonas D.M. Fisher and Ryan Peters (both of Fed Reserve Bank of Chicago), published September 16, 2009. Are there any other studies you could point me to? Thanks
That piece of paper tells everybody that you know more than 80% of the material for that subject. While people without that piece of paper might have read everything on the subject, but we have no idea if they understand 10%, 50%, or 90%. That is difference in the piece of paper. Now if a person is to pass every test that a student takes then you can give credibility to them even if they legally don't have that "piece of paper"
If you are well studied then your opinion is valuable. Just because Woods doesn't have a degree, that doesn't mean that he isn't as well versed as someone who does have one. Consider this, if you are in college working on your degree and you finish your thesis are you any less well versed on that subject at that moment than you are at the moment you get your degree handed to you? Of course not. And woods isn't teaching a class, just giving a lecture and probably in front on actual economists!
Teunis how do u FRL gold coins? i can understand doing it with receipt for gold because as only a very small number of people tkae out their deposists at the same time so the goldsmiths of the 1600s(the bankers) realised they could lend out more receipts then what they had in reserve, you wouldn;t be able to do that with physical gold
It does not say that at all...what it says is that you performed well enough on your tests, covering material the school felt was important for you to know, for them to sign that piece of paper for you. It does not say anything whatsoever about how well you know a "subject"...it only says that at some point you knew some subset of the subject well enough to cough it up on a test. I know plenty of CS majors that had far worse understanding of the subject than I...an electrical engineering major
Fractional Reserve Banking will always exist, also in free markets. Yes, there will be gold (perhaps) but there will still bee Fractional Reserve Banking.
Teunis Dokter Indeed. FRB has basically always been around. The Roman Republic had it. It’s probably much older than that. FRB isn’t bad, it’s a good idea. I think Woods is being to dogmatic to the ideas of ABCT here. If FRB is to be undone, it should be by the free market - by consumers choosing full reserve banks. It shouldn’t have anything to do with government. Edit: I will also add, in a free market consumers would choose the better system for themselves. I am assuming a fractional reserve bank would have higher profits than a full reserve bank. This would mean they could offer higher rates on their deposits, and better customer service. So the free market is best for consumers. I would think if anyone knew this, it would be Woods. I’m surprised to hear he would advocate against fractional reserve banking.
The fact is, big government is big government whether it's focus is primarily on domestic or on foreign policy or if they balance it equally. All of it goes against the Austrian school which is libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic in it's ideology and that includes all spending foreign and domestic
No, incorrect techinally Friedman belongs to mulitple schools of thought. He was one of the founders of monetarism, and he contritubed to Austrian School, and was and advocate of Chicago School. However, Chicago school and Austrian have a lot of similar models and methods and Austrians often regarded Friedman as one of their own.
First off, I'm not referring to spending when I talk about the Patriot Act. I'm simply talking about the size and scope of government. Second I know that their are some Republicans who talk about privatizing SS. But really, you've seen Austrian econs say that the bailouts were necessary? I'd like you to provide proof because that goes against everything they believe in and I've watched a ton of videos from Mises and I've not seen one! I think you've got them mixed up somewhere
No, I'm not confusing two separate issues, I've acknowledged that they are different issues. Big government is big government. Are you saying that war is inexpensive compared to say, Obamacare so therefore Republicans=small government? I'm confused about what you're trying to say. But I am clear about what I mean.
@moonbaby625 - It was created by the government, has regulatory powers, and has a monopoly on printing money. The only thing that makes it private is that it is not accountable.
You have to understand that most Austrians, at least modern ones, are anarcho capitalists meaning that they are anarchists. How can they call for government intervention while at the same time calling to end the state? That doesn't make any sense at all! And even ones who are minarchists are still against government intervention in the market. The only difference between the two is that minarchists view government as a necessary evil and that a little taxation is needed for some services
He didn't write a book on the depression of 1920. Where did you get that? There are a lot of economists who have looked at the Depression of 1920. In the history and economics textbooks this episode is given little attention. The reason is obvious. The response to that depression and all preceding depressions was different than the one where the govt. positions itself as the great saviour. Keynesians can't account for why that depression was so short. They'd rather ignore it.
Economics is economics. Some Austrians are minarchists. Others are anarchists. Economics is value-free. Either you can refute the ideas presented by force of reason or you can't. Calling Mises Insitutute "conservative" is not a refutation. They aren't conservative in any modern sense of the word.
In that case, I suggest that you focus your arguments on why you believe 1) His analysis of 1920 is wrong; and 2) Economic data points away from Mises models Tom Woods' education is far less important than these two points.
@moonbaby625 - Why doesn't congress have control of it's activities? It exercises power enumerated to the congress by the constitution. We don't need a central bank. Thank your brother for CAUSING the current financial crisis, with both of his employers.
I didn't ignore what you said, I even acknowledged it. You can try and make the argument that Republicans are for a relatively smaller government than Democrats, At least domestically, but in reality, it's still not SMALL government. It's still bloated and overreaching in just about every way. Just because they say are for less collectivist programs than they Democrats, doesn't mean they're small government That was the whole purpose behind what I was saying in the first place
@SovereignStatesman I think his participation in the Ron Paul campaign for president shows that he understands that states' rights is an important issue.
That Rothbard impression was underappreciated
"They built canals where there was no commerce, cities with no people to inhabit, roads where no traveler wished to penetrate" Loved this quote
joana you know something, you really make curious comments sometimes :)
So pretty much China?
I can watch hours of this guy. So informative and thought provoking while being interesting and down to earth. Awesome Tom Woods, you are appreciated!
Jefferson-one of the few true defenders of individual freedom.
Swagato Barman Roy Jefferson and Madison
I did this and found credit expansion in every single listed recession/depression. It made a believer out of me. The Keynesian explanation was of some type of 'economic shock' that caused the recession felt like drawing bulls-eyes around arrows. Austrians for the win.
tom woods is like a kind of medication. when i hear him speak, it feels like sitting in the sun. it feels very nice, warm and friendly. some people go to a solarium to cure their apathy, i listen to tom woods podacasts every day. and after doing that, every time i get so excited at the prospect that, "wait a minute... maybe this country can be saved after all?"
thomas jefferson was arguably the most advanced fot his time
Right, he's the guy who invented baseball.
Fot?
Great video. Not everyone can understand the concepts. But that's why were in this shape. The idea that deflation is bad is just ridiculous.
Jacob Engle Deflation is always bad when your monetary system is based on debt and mass fraud.
Falling prices from deficient money/credit supply relative to demand is bad. Falling prices based on productivity is good.
In addition, most others at the Mises Institute do have degrees in economics (many have PhDs), and they are the ones who asked Tom Woods to give this talk. They are certainly willing to vouch for his knowledge of economics.
In fact, I've heard Bob Murphy (PhD in economics) say that sometimes he "forgets" that Tom Woods is a historian, not just an economist.
Norway built their great wealth on capitalism and not going to war. They then moved to socialism and are burning through that wealth.
They also have tons of oil and a tiny population. Nice combination if you can get it.
Actually Norway isn't burning out their gas or wealth!!
Norway is still World's most Richest Nation as they don't invest in Grandios Projects, but keep most money in a Long Term Wealth Fund!!! You might think of Sweden, and you're around 50% correct👋
That the Federal Reserve System is an obvious failure is revealed by the continuous loss of purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes issued.
I do agree that historians have a good deal to tell us about the origins of cycles of boom and bust. One historian I learned a good deal from was Jackson Turner Main, who wrote a groundbreaking study of wealth and income inequality during the era of the founding fathers. What Main understood clearly is that the system of banking and credit exacerbated but did not cause these cycles. The cycles of boom and bust are caused by a combination of land monopoly and land speculation. From the moment Europeans arrived in North America, the land monopoly game started. The size of the continent made this difficult until the mid-19th century. In a great irony of history, the resistance of the tribal societies to encroachment on territory they controlled contributed to the rise in land values along the Atlantic coast and to the great personal fortunes of the landed families. As the tribes were pushed back, colonial leaders formed companies to engage in "western" land speculations. None was more successful in these speculations than George Washington.
Speculation in land always stimulates a frenzy of activity. When credit is cheap and readily obtainable the frenzy is all the more furious. Every land speculator fully expects that before payment is due to the lender, that the deed obtained will be transferred to someone else at a huge profit. And, the purchaser of the deed likely expects the experience, and so on, until the speculation-driven price rising can no longer be sustained by the real economy.
One of the best describes of how these dynamics occur is found in the 1931 book by historian Frederick Lewis Allen, titled "Only Yesterday." Read what Allen provides regarding and credit-fueled land booms of the 1920s and how each crashed. We hear about the Florida land boom and crash, but the same thing occurred in cities and in the agricultural sector.
Austrians need to spend more time examining land markets. At least one Austrian economics professor, Fred Foldvary, has done this and has taken advantage of the insights of Henry George to provide a synthesis of Austrian and George's theory of business cycles.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Is there a particular video here on TH-cam that you recommend?
@@Pau11Wa11 Search TH-cam for lectures by Fred Foldvary. Other economists to listen to include: Mason Gaffney and Nicolaus Tideman
Mr. Woods is an outstanding speaker. I love economics but some are just so mundane and just too many facts. He has a way of drawing listeners in getting them to think. Would love to attend one of his lectures someday!
Type this in to the youtube search bar and watch the first video. "feeseminars austrian theory of the business cycle". This video helped me learn about the Austrian business cycle theory.
Tom Woods is one of the greatest libertarians alive!
Holy shit Tom's Rothbard impression is spot on
This video is criminally under-watched!
"Most economic historians treat all downturns just the same". I live it.
Excellent lecture! Bravo! This is exactly what Americans need to hear about their money, banking, and history.
11:43 That's a damn good Rothbard impression! 🤣😂😆👍👍
I have never listened to anything by Prof. Woods and thought I could have done something better with my time.
I am VERY glad someone is doing the legwork on 19th century recessions, the myths are everywhere.
Thomas Woods is a great speaker, entertaining and informative.
William Jackson Barry was a lecturer and author here in New Zealand in the 19th century. He lived through the depression of 1874 to 1991; or 1870 to 1896 in the Otago goldfields. He recorded extreme deprivation which he suffered himself. This does not reflect conditions in the USA of course, but is indicative..
haha! yeah, seriously, killer impression of Rothbard. i laughed out loud in a crowded public place when he pulled that one out.
Thank you.
I am about to begin watching this, but first I must say - I have wanted to hear someone like Tom Woods address this topic for some time. Should be good!
His rothbard impression is so perfect😂😂😂😂
11:45 is absolutely gold
love woods
Tom stated that if inflation occurs, and it gets more expensive to buy domestic goods, then people will start buying foreign goods. But, how is this possible considering that if the currency is devalued, won't foreign goods get more expensive as well?
If you close your eyes he sounds A LOT like the young Richard Dreyfus. History sure does tell a lot about people. This kind of history should be mandatory at a high school level.
This lecture is hugely important, 'cause people used to actually think that once upon a time we used to live in a free-unregulated-markets without a federal reserve setting interest rates.
I reccomend white wine with a Tom Woods lecture and a fine notepad and ballpoint pen.
Tom, you do a great Jimmy Stewart. Did you learn that at Harvard?
I love the Misses Institute
Where can i find a video in regards to the austrian view of the business cycle?
To the contrary one of the most prolific Austrian Economist, Milton Friedman was for the bailout, albeit not talking specifically about this 2008 bailout. However, Friedman advocated that the bailouts needed to happened period. Didn't matter if it was gov't or private sector bailout. In fact Ben, fed chair, told Friedman that he would take his advice and make sure their was a bailout which Ben of course didn't do correctly.
This is been a topic I have been curious about for quite a while now. Many of my questions have been answered. Thank you Tom Woods and Mises!
@dankfr33music The problem with govt. funding is that universities set the tuition high enough to capture all of the subsidies. If tuition prices remained at current levels, there would be no butts in the seats. What would happen? The same think that happens when retailers can't move product; college prices would have to drop. Unis would then have to cut back on administrative costs and other things that have nothing to do with educating the student.
It's a racket.
Instead of the reserve banking, why don't banks instead have a policy of delaying deposits in exchange for interest collected by loaning out the money from those deposits. This would keep banks from loaning out more than they can pay back.
The separation of bank & state? Yes, bring it on!!
I liked Rothbard impersonation xD
Actually Newt Gingrich was also a proponent of mandated healthcare at one time before running for president. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't cut anything from the actual budget. It cuts from proposed increases. It goes like this(and this is a hypothetical example). If your budget is automatically raised $100 a year, and you say that you'll cut $30 from that, you're still increasing the budget by $70 and that's how the Paul Ryan plan works.
And just because I may not have been personally affected by the Patriot act doesn't mean that it's not a big issue. It sets a precedent that the government is watching over everyone. That is a huge deal! Small limited governments don't have that power. Especially if part of the constitution guarantees due process
Tom Woods is so good at his Jimmy Stewart impression
Still watching Frank G Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
It's just supply & demand. When savings are high, money available to loan is plentiful, so interest rates go down since there are more "sellers" of money than "buyers." The sellers will keep lowering the price (rate) to attract buyers. But if savings are low, money to loan is scarce, and so the buyers will have to compete with other buyers and bid up the price in order to get a loan of that scarce capital.
Can you just do that Rothbard voice for your entire podcast from now on?
If you can't meet your creditor's obligations, then you should be forced to liquidate your assets to try & make them whole - even if at a haircut.
This rule should apply to everyone, including lending intermediaries; banks.
Banks shouldn't be able to lend out deposits without said depositor's explicit permission, notated in a 'terms of use' type of contractual arrangement or other verifiable permission granting mediums.
These two basic rules that are integral to property rights, along with the absence of infinite liquidity provided by CB & govt bailouts, would eliminate fractional reserve activity, or at the very least force banks to hold near full reserve ratios for on-demand deposits.
@CurtHowland TIme with Dr. Woods is time well spent indeed. :D
I'm in college now. I'm a history major ironically. My point is, is that just because you don't have a formal education in something, that doesn't mean that you can't be well educated in that subject. Does one have to go to school and become a certified mechanic in order to know how to fix cars? The only fallacy was in your comprehension of what I was saying.
Great presentation.
17:56 What is the name of the book and the french author Tom mentioned? I can't seem to find it, nor spell it out.
Antoine Destutt de Tracy
Tom Woods is a pretty good impersonator. Not only did he do a pretty good Jimmy Stewart, but also a recognizable Rothbard impression.
It is not just a "piece of paper" it is years of studying and having its ideas destroyed by teachers and learning from it. Obviously, some individuals will complete a degree and not gain better understandings but there are the exceptions. Furthermore, there are no truths in History, only better arguments and I did not hear many in Dr. Woods’ speech. Because of that, he sounds to me more like an ideologue than a history professor. It is too bad because he seems like a brilliant man.
US Unemployment was 14% in 1876; i think that the long depression was not just a statistical illusion.
“You know, a dry cleaner can’t say to you when you come to pick up your pant; look your pants are really cool and I’ve been wearing them for like a week. So, you know, come back in like four or five weeks and maybe I’ll give them back to you. No one’s allowed to operate like that. You’d have to close your doors, you’d be sued,whatever. But instead, there’s a special privilege granted to banks.”
-God bless Tom Woods.
an institution might be bad, but that is why we have state education boards to meet min qualifications in getting a degree. So, even if you have a bad institution you will still have required to master certain ideas and concepts.
“It’s not my responsibility as president to uphold the constitutional law handed down by the Supreme Court. It’s my responsibility to uphold the constitution. Which is a different thing.”
11:44 Best Rothbard impersonation ever!
Yes, but there are some who were actually decent at multiple sports like Dion Sanders. The big difference is, is that Jordan's teammates probably aren't talking about how great of a baseball player jordan was. In this case, Tom Woods is likely speaking in front of Several economist including Walter Block who holds a PhD from Columbia, Peter Klein who got his PhD in economics from Berkley, Thomas Dilorenzo who got his from Virginia Tech an Hans-Hermann Hoppe from Goethe University Frankfurt
11:44: The best Rothbard impersonation I ever heard. Great!
46:00 onward, an alternative to the current intertwined banking/government system
Most Republicans dismiss the Austrian school and maybe some pay it a little bit of lip service like Rick Perry but that doesn't mean that he subscribes to it's views. There are numerous videos of mainstream economists calling Austrian economists crazy for calling out the housing bubble and for saying gold is a much better investment. Right after that the housing market collapsed and gold prices doubled. Paul Krugman calls out Austrians all the time in his blog but won't agree to a debate.
@pbfrank13 Na, I say immortal. That is actually Carl Menger, then von Mises, then Rothbard, and now Woods. Don't be surprised if your kid, someday comes to you and says, Hey pop. I was at a lecture and this professor did a great impresson of Tom Woods.
The point being, is that Woods is well respected as not only a historian, but as a lecturer on economics. He even studied under Rothbard who is one of the most well respected of all Austrian economist. So he's not teaching a class, he's just lecturing. I don't think he would even claim to be qualified to teach economics and if you asked him, he'd likely refer you to Walter Block
They say a lot about that and they aren't necessarily as big of government when it comes to domestic issues but to say that they are pro small government because of that is naive. They voted to give the federal government control over education and expand medicare. Like I said before, they voted for bailouts and the stimlus package. They talk a big talk but their actions are different and anything they cut will would add to the overseas spending. And then there are issues like the Patriot Act
323 comments 1k 👍 if all those people Shared on FB and Twitter the ideas would spread quicker especially amount the the young. We are weather we like it or not in a battle for the minds and hearts of our fellow citizens.
I had a feeling you were confused. Milton Friedman wasn't an Austrian economist. He belongs to the Chicago school along with Thomas Sowell. Their beliefs line up with the Austrians on some issues but vary greatly on others. Chicago school is not an opponents of the Federal Reserve. In fact, Friedman has said that the Fed didn't do enough in the Great Depression. You won't hear that in the Austrian school. More Republicans fall somewhere between Freidman and Keynes
Keynes was definitely full of it. Absolutely wrong.
I’m figuring out Chicago vs Austrian now. I’m leaning heavily toward Austrian.
i would never disagree that the Democrats are for bigger government, however, my point is, is that Republicans are not for small government. Even that 30% is a massive number. I know that Dems want to spend more on social programs although Repbs do to at times but the Dems don't want to slash military either. But spending isn't the only thing to consider when talking about size of government. You should also talk about intrusion
The end result between the two parties is the same. The Republicans may just take a bit longer to get there but in reality, probably not since they are more willing to spend more money overseas. Big government is big government. Republicans are only relatively smaller on domestic issues. But they both favor the use of central banking and printing and borrowing money to fund their pet projects. Neither of those things equal SMALL government regardless of what they spend money on
For one I already did point out why his analysis of 1920 was wrong when I first brought it up with the other person. But, of course you're the 4th or 5th person to come along and not read what I wrote anyway. And, second, regression analysis and econometrics already shows through various studies like Fisher-Peters that "a sustained increase in government spending has a robust positive effect on private employment"
I wonder how would look like US of A w/o FED ?
I wonder how would look like ANY mid size country w/o Central bank in Long run ?
Well, Woods' views seem consistent with economist Robert P. Murphy who holds a PhD from NYU. And no, I don't take what anyone says for granted. Everything anyone says should be scrutinized. Now, if you disagree with the Austrian schools conclusions on the issues, that's fine you are free to do so. But my point is, is that he's lecturing in front of PhDs who he likely learned from and what he's saying is consistent with the Austrian school's theories.
When does he start talking about the topic at hand
I don't disagree that every Republican wasn't for appealing Obamacare, but that is not to say that the Repubs running aren't for government run healthcare. Romney passed a nearly identical bill in his state and publicly stated that he thinks that Obama should use that as a blueprint for the nation. He only started saying different when he decided to run for Pres and he needed to win over the base that was against it. His slogan was "Repeal and Replace" Did you catch that? REPLACE!
Is the Fisher-Peters study you refere to this one?
"Using Stock Returns to Identify Government Spending Shocks" by Jonas D.M. Fisher and Ryan Peters (both of Fed Reserve Bank of Chicago), published September 16, 2009.
Are there any other studies you could point me to?
Thanks
That piece of paper tells everybody that you know more than 80% of the material for that subject. While people without that piece of paper might have read everything on the subject, but we have no idea if they understand 10%, 50%, or 90%. That is difference in the piece of paper. Now if a person is to pass every test that a student takes then you can give credibility to them even if they legally don't have that "piece of paper"
You're assuming that universities are still doing their job.
If you are well studied then your opinion is valuable. Just because Woods doesn't have a degree, that doesn't mean that he isn't as well versed as someone who does have one. Consider this, if you are in college working on your degree and you finish your thesis are you any less well versed on that subject at that moment than you are at the moment you get your degree handed to you? Of course not. And woods isn't teaching a class, just giving a lecture and probably in front on actual economists!
Teunis how do u FRL gold coins? i can understand doing it with receipt for gold because as only a very small number of people tkae out their deposists at the same time so the goldsmiths of the 1600s(the bankers) realised they could lend out more receipts then what they had in reserve, you wouldn;t be able to do that with physical gold
It does not say that at all...what it says is that you performed well enough on your tests, covering material the school felt was important for you to know, for them to sign that piece of paper for you. It does not say anything whatsoever about how well you know a "subject"...it only says that at some point you knew some subset of the subject well enough to cough it up on a test. I know plenty of CS majors that had far worse understanding of the subject than I...an electrical engineering major
Fractional Reserve Banking will always exist, also in free markets. Yes, there will be gold (perhaps) but there will still bee Fractional Reserve Banking.
why not use the market to solve it, free banking, ala scotland before they were amalgamated and nationalised?
Teunis Dokter
Indeed. FRB has basically always been around. The Roman Republic had it. It’s probably much older than that.
FRB isn’t bad, it’s a good idea. I think Woods is being to dogmatic to the ideas of ABCT here.
If FRB is to be undone, it should be by the free market - by consumers choosing full reserve banks. It shouldn’t have anything to do with government.
Edit: I will also add, in a free market consumers would choose the better system for themselves. I am assuming a fractional reserve bank would have higher profits than a full reserve bank. This would mean they could offer higher rates on their deposits, and better customer service.
So the free market is best for consumers. I would think if anyone knew this, it would be Woods. I’m surprised to hear he would advocate against fractional reserve banking.
Whoever thought of the idea of fractional reserve banking has to easily be one of the most evil men to ever have lived.
To be fair, the Savings and Loan in "It's a Wonderful Life" was not a demand deposit institution.
@Pentazoid111 everybody makes mistakes. he set a good example in some areas, bad in others.
The fact is, big government is big government whether it's focus is primarily on domestic or on foreign policy or if they balance it equally. All of it goes against the Austrian school which is libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic in it's ideology and that includes all spending foreign and domestic
No, incorrect techinally Friedman belongs to mulitple schools of thought. He was one of the founders of monetarism, and he contritubed to Austrian School, and was and advocate of Chicago School. However, Chicago school and Austrian have a lot of similar models and methods and Austrians often regarded Friedman as one of their own.
First off, I'm not referring to spending when I talk about the Patriot Act. I'm simply talking about the size and scope of government. Second I know that their are some Republicans who talk about privatizing SS. But really, you've seen Austrian econs say that the bailouts were necessary? I'd like you to provide proof because that goes against everything they believe in and I've watched a ton of videos from Mises and I've not seen one! I think you've got them mixed up somewhere
@jasonofcompsci
It may be on audio? Look through Mises.org - MisesTV - Search Woods
@SovereignStatesman What's the link to your video?
No, I'm not confusing two separate issues, I've acknowledged that they are different issues. Big government is big government. Are you saying that war is inexpensive compared to say, Obamacare so therefore Republicans=small government? I'm confused about what you're trying to say. But I am clear about what I mean.
Wow, Thomas Woods does an good impression of Murray Rothbard.
@moonbaby625 - It was created by the government, has regulatory powers, and has a monopoly on printing money. The only thing that makes it private is that it is not accountable.
You have to understand that most Austrians, at least modern ones, are anarcho capitalists meaning that they are anarchists. How can they call for government intervention while at the same time calling to end the state? That doesn't make any sense at all! And even ones who are minarchists are still against government intervention in the market. The only difference between the two is that minarchists view government as a necessary evil and that a little taxation is needed for some services
He didn't write a book on the depression of 1920. Where did you get that?
There are a lot of economists who have looked at the Depression of 1920. In the history and economics textbooks this episode is given little attention. The reason is obvious. The response to that depression and all preceding depressions was different than the one where the govt. positions itself as the great saviour.
Keynesians can't account for why that depression was so short. They'd rather ignore it.
Economics is economics. Some Austrians are minarchists. Others are anarchists.
Economics is value-free. Either you can refute the ideas presented by force of reason or you can't.
Calling Mises Insitutute "conservative" is not a refutation. They aren't conservative in any modern sense of the word.
In that case, I suggest that you focus your arguments on why you believe
1) His analysis of 1920 is wrong; and
2) Economic data points away from Mises models
Tom Woods' education is far less important than these two points.
@moonbaby625 - Why doesn't congress have control of it's activities? It exercises power enumerated to the congress by the constitution.
We don't need a central bank.
Thank your brother for CAUSING the current financial crisis, with both of his employers.
I didn't ignore what you said, I even acknowledged it. You can try and make the argument that Republicans are for a relatively smaller government than Democrats, At least domestically, but in reality, it's still not SMALL government. It's still bloated and overreaching in just about every way. Just because they say are for less collectivist programs than they Democrats, doesn't mean they're small government That was the whole purpose behind what I was saying in the first place
@SovereignStatesman I think his participation in the Ron Paul campaign for president shows that he understands that states' rights is an important issue.
no just the greediest....now money and greed has faded to an addiction for power. now we have the most evil men who have ever lived