Dr Bob Murphy is the best. I wish he could blow up somehow and get exposure like Dave Smith or heck a Rogan or Tucker...because he's the best emissary for Austrian School. Aside from old Rothbard videos, Murphy is my favorite econ guy to listen too....The Henderson guy wasn't bad either.
Government attempts at price controls violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, '... no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of Contracts ...' (paraphrased). In other words, Americans have the right to contract amongst themselves however they/we choose without government interference. The delegated authority of government is to enforce those contracts.
Neo-liberalism is a word, that would be for people who think liberalism have failed, and now they made something new to replace it. So, something beyond liberalism. Same way neo-communists are people who think Marx failed, but they can make something out of the theory. Or neo-conservatists who think the conservatism failed, but they could take the movement and make something new. When people then use it, to describe liberalists, their is obviously something false going on. And, it is always people who think liberalism have failed, who call others ideas neo-liberalism.
How will you resolve the Big monopolies and Financiers who want an Anti Competitive market to their advantage ? How can Capitalism solve it when it led to it in first place ? 🤔
Jeff Tucker was able to figure out what coastal vs middle of country meant. If you inflate the money then everyone else gets a relative advantage in production.
This then really hurts the people domestically who produce and advantages those who handle the inflated money. The whole theory of free trade depends on the imbalance being rectified instead of continuously increasing. But we have a military preventing that from happening.
Hey Tho, Bob.... I'm going to comment before watching the pod. My opinion, neoliberalism has been evoked, not taking away from anyone's work, but to describe things we just should have done (and needed done very well) long ago. Some of these are market capitalism. And this being said, a lot of the neoliberal moniker is about people who don't actually want to impact society. It's always deprioritized. And it takes a village. It's difficult to imagine what role political rights, and policy actually play in outsized success, versus simply "having people there and doing it." Why try? Is that a good question?
I cringe every time a guest makes an argument along the lines of: do you know who was hurt the most from X policy? Blacks...and who benefited the most after X policy was repealed, Blacks..." Makes me want to support the prior policy. I never hear anyone making the argument for Whites. You know who was hurt the most from slavery in the U.S.? Poor southern Whites. Who benefited the most when slavery was abolished in the U.S.? Poor, southern Whites, who could now compete and find jobs and afford to have a family and buy a home, once state-sanctioned free labor was abolished.
Since you two seem to be stunningly confused as to the origins, nature and even existence of Neoliberalism here you go, copied directly from the Wikipedia page on Neoliberalism. Milton Friedman, wrote in his early essay "Neo-liberalism and Its Prospects" that "Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth-century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissez-faire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order", which requires limited state intervention to "police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute misery and distress."[90] By the 1970s, neoliberal thought-including Friedman's-focused almost exclusively on market liberalization and was adamant in its opposition to nearly all forms of state interference in the economy
Regardless of whatever Milton Friedman may have written, "neoliberalism" is a term used almost exclusively by Marxists. If you dispute this, you might have been unwittingly listening to a crypto-Marxist.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that Friedman essay. I still stand behind our claims that the people pushing for deregulation in the late 1970s / early 1980s didn't think they were on the vanguard of "neo-liberalism," but yeah I didn't know Friedman had written that.
@@DF-ss5ep Neoliberalism has defined modern capitalism for nearly 50 years and has no relevance to Marxism. Arguing the semantics of the term and it's intellectual history is not a useful exercise in understanding economics.
@@pictureworksdenver You know, another thing Marxists are really good at is playing dumb. This corroborates my observation, TH-cam's algorithm brought you here and it's unpleasant for all parties involved.
Deresgulating the trucking industry actually hurt the railroads at first. My father was a locomotive engineer and got laid off for several years before he was called back. Deregulating the trucking industry hurt my family and it was not a good thing.
Yeah, that’s just the nature of competition. If it’s cheaper to truck stuff than ship it over rail then people will truck stuff. Obviously the railroads had over expanded and had a regulatory moat allowing them to function less efficiently. It wasn’t a good thing for you personally but it was a good thing for the overall economy and consumers since goods move through the market more efficiently to the end user lowering costs.
@@mylescharlesworth7771 But was it really good for the economy? See the thing is that when it comes rail in the US (and I'm no rail fan boy, not a hater but not a fan boy either) you have to start asking and thinking about things that encompass more than just economics. Rail has questions about it as a national security issue because rail can do things that trucking can't do. And I say that as someone who has been in trucking for over thirty years. You need and want a spectrum of services so you can't get caught with your shorts down in a crisis.
@@kmg501 yes it is, just like you said. There are clear advantages is haul capacity of trains over trucks so it’s not like eliminating regulatory barriers for trucking would completely eliminate all rail traffic. Let’s say there was some sort of national emergency that needed us to rely on the rail network suddenly. Train companies would just ungarage engines they weren’t previously running because they were unprofitable as well as invest in the production of new engines to meet that demand. Keeping things running at 100% “just in case” is wasteful. You’re expending resources on an event that might not even happen with tech that might be outdated by the time you actually need it. It’s like forcing ford to continue to use 1/3rd of their manufacturing capacity to produce Sherman’s after WW2 “in case” Germany becomes a threat again only for the US not to need tank again til the Gulf war and the Sherman’s are now outdated by Abram’s. All you did was waste real resources, time, and money producing stuff you didn’t actually need “just in case”
Murphy, please learn to speak in full sentences. You constantly start a sentence, stop and then start again, and then start another sentence. And you constantly say "You Know". The effect on listeners is chaos in trying to decipher what the hell you are trying to say. Please watch your own videos and get some speaker training to improve your communication skills if you really want to make a real impact.
Dr Bob Murphy is the best. I wish he could blow up somehow and get exposure like Dave Smith or heck a Rogan or Tucker...because he's the best emissary for Austrian School. Aside from old Rothbard videos, Murphy is my favorite econ guy to listen too....The Henderson guy wasn't bad either.
I wish he could go on lex fridman
Government attempts at price controls violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, '... no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of Contracts ...' (paraphrased). In other words, Americans have the right to contract amongst themselves however they/we choose without government interference. The delegated authority of government is to enforce those contracts.
Neo-liberalism is the word that French statists love to use
Neo-liberalism is a word, that would be for people who think liberalism have failed, and now they made something new to replace it. So, something beyond liberalism.
Same way neo-communists are people who think Marx failed, but they can make something out of the theory.
Or neo-conservatists who think the conservatism failed, but they could take the movement and make something new.
When people then use it, to describe liberalists, their is obviously something false going on.
And, it is always people who think liberalism have failed, who call others ideas neo-liberalism.
It depends on the definition of failed. What is the goal of "Neo-Liberalism"?
Thanks, gentlemen.
You're welcome.
Thank you mister Robert P Murphy
How will you resolve the Big monopolies and Financiers who want an Anti Competitive market to their advantage ? How can Capitalism solve it when it led to it in first place ? 🤔
Neo Liberalism deindustrialised the USA 🤦
Jeff Tucker was able to figure out what coastal vs middle of country meant.
If you inflate the money then everyone else gets a relative advantage in production.
This then really hurts the people domestically who produce and advantages those who handle the inflated money.
The whole theory of free trade depends on the imbalance being rectified instead of continuously increasing. But we have a military preventing that from happening.
So I’m picking around the edges.
Ceterus paribus covers a multitude of sins.
Debt and deficit fell on deaf ears because she wanted to court WW3. And she is indifferent to towns being overrun with foreignness.
Hey Tho, Bob.... I'm going to comment before watching the pod. My opinion, neoliberalism has been evoked, not taking away from anyone's work, but to describe things we just should have done (and needed done very well) long ago.
Some of these are market capitalism. And this being said, a lot of the neoliberal moniker is about people who don't actually want to impact society.
It's always deprioritized. And it takes a village. It's difficult to imagine what role political rights, and policy actually play in outsized success, versus simply "having people there and doing it."
Why try? Is that a good question?
Of course
I cringe every time a guest makes an argument along the lines of: do you know who was hurt the most from X policy? Blacks...and who benefited the most after X policy was repealed, Blacks..." Makes me want to support the prior policy.
I never hear anyone making the argument for Whites. You know who was hurt the most from slavery in the U.S.? Poor southern Whites. Who benefited the most when slavery was abolished in the U.S.? Poor, southern Whites, who could now compete and find jobs and afford to have a family and buy a home, once state-sanctioned free labor was abolished.
Allen Mary Anderson Thomas Rodriguez Jason
Why. Are. You. Talking. Like. This?
That is just Bob's cadence.
@@jorden9821 I was referring to Tho.
Since you two seem to be stunningly confused as to the origins, nature and even existence of Neoliberalism here you go, copied directly from the Wikipedia page on Neoliberalism.
Milton Friedman, wrote in his early essay "Neo-liberalism and Its Prospects" that "Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth-century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissez-faire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order", which requires limited state intervention to "police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute misery and distress."[90] By the 1970s, neoliberal thought-including Friedman's-focused almost exclusively on market liberalization and was adamant in its opposition to nearly all forms of state interference in the economy
Regardless of whatever Milton Friedman may have written, "neoliberalism" is a term used almost exclusively by Marxists. If you dispute this, you might have been unwittingly listening to a crypto-Marxist.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that Friedman essay. I still stand behind our claims that the people pushing for deregulation in the late 1970s / early 1980s didn't think they were on the vanguard of "neo-liberalism," but yeah I didn't know Friedman had written that.
@@DF-ss5ep Neoliberalism has defined modern capitalism for nearly 50 years and has no relevance to Marxism. Arguing the semantics of the term and it's intellectual history is not a useful exercise in understanding economics.
@@BobMurphyAncap You've never read Capitalism and Freedom? Friedman references the term in it as well - published in 1962.
@@pictureworksdenver You know, another thing Marxists are really good at is playing dumb. This corroborates my observation, TH-cam's algorithm brought you here and it's unpleasant for all parties involved.
Deresgulating the trucking industry actually hurt the railroads at first. My father was a locomotive engineer and got laid off for several years before he was called back. Deregulating the trucking industry hurt my family and it was not a good thing.
Appeal to full employment, therefore regulation?
I was an airline owner, and gosh darn-it! I had to refinance my yacht after the deregulation! Deregulation bad!
Yeah, that’s just the nature of competition. If it’s cheaper to truck stuff than ship it over rail then people will truck stuff. Obviously the railroads had over expanded and had a regulatory moat allowing them to function less efficiently. It wasn’t a good thing for you personally but it was a good thing for the overall economy and consumers since goods move through the market more efficiently to the end user lowering costs.
@@mylescharlesworth7771 But was it really good for the economy? See the thing is that when it comes rail in the US (and I'm no rail fan boy, not a hater but not a fan boy either) you have to start asking and thinking about things that encompass more than just economics. Rail has questions about it as a national security issue because rail can do things that trucking can't do. And I say that as someone who has been in trucking for over thirty years. You need and want a spectrum of services so you can't get caught with your shorts down in a crisis.
@@kmg501 yes it is, just like you said. There are clear advantages is haul capacity of trains over trucks so it’s not like eliminating regulatory barriers for trucking would completely eliminate all rail traffic. Let’s say there was some sort of national emergency that needed us to rely on the rail network suddenly. Train companies would just ungarage engines they weren’t previously running because they were unprofitable as well as invest in the production of new engines to meet that demand.
Keeping things running at 100% “just in case” is wasteful. You’re expending resources on an event that might not even happen with tech that might be outdated by the time you actually need it. It’s like forcing ford to continue to use 1/3rd of their manufacturing capacity to produce Sherman’s after WW2 “in case” Germany becomes a threat again only for the US not to need tank again til the Gulf war and the Sherman’s are now outdated by Abram’s. All you did was waste real resources, time, and money producing stuff you didn’t actually need “just in case”
Murphy, please learn to speak in full sentences. You constantly start a sentence, stop and then start again, and then start another sentence. And you constantly say "You Know". The effect on listeners is chaos in trying to decipher what the hell you are trying to say. Please watch your own videos and get some speaker training to improve your communication skills if you really want to make a real impact.
Learn to listen to it please.. is this the only thing you have to say about someone so insightful?
@@svenva Seems like constructive feedback to me. 🤷 Why would there be a need to say more?
@@Michael-vf2mw You're right, i guess it's the intonation of how i read it that put me off, but I do understand the point made
@@svenva 👍
3:31 naming