@@jack633 Austrian economics is more of a philosophical theory than economics. Case in point, it's dismissal of mathematics. It focuses on what "should" rather that on what "is". This becomes clear by its use of cherry picking statistical outliers like those in this video. Mises is just another concept tool to help dilute public discord, cast doubt , and divide populations into individuals so the significantly smaller upper class populations can effectively suppress. When populations collectively become aware of there their actually rulers, it sparks revolutions. The upper class cannot allow this. Hence the exploitation of the poorly educated that think this is real economics. Austrian Philosophy is about as academic as Karl Marx and communism, purely theoretical.
@@kaseyderaad9459 what statistical outliers are used in this video? Can you please be more specific? When people usually explain to me what they mean, they say using more aggregate data or more general data. If that is your opinion as well, I would object to it as the main point of proper analysis is to see what are the constituent elements or the main contributing factors to the data presented. It would be, of course, beneficial to know the proportion of their contribution. So for example, in this video, it would be good to know what is the relative importance of car deaths in the overall life expectancy statistics and how it changes the outcomes if it is excluded from the life expectancy comparisons overall. But would you say that his presentation is more disingenuous than the presentation of the overall statistic to support biases and opinions of some arguing against private health care if that statistic does not give its due to the relative importance of the contributing elements? Secondly, the Austrian economics started as economics and is still economic theory which is influenced by both classical economic tradition, marginal revolution or Wicksell and got more thorough foundations in Mises and Rothbard. But you may be right that nowadays, it is oriented more towards ethics, philosophy and law. However, we should not forget that it is only a later development when Rothbard or Hoppe tried to give ethical foundation to there theory. For me, Austrians are currently the only ones that are trying to connect social science in one unified theory that would bring consistency to any of our debates.
Yeah? I don't see it. If "we the people" owned and controlled the health care system we could educate ourselves, sans the profit motive, on how to prevent the leading causes of death. Reference TH-cam video, "Uprooting the leading causes of Death" by Dr Michael Greger. I choose Greger's option and save the cost and agony of a heart bypass.
@@lepidoptera9337 No he isn't. The problem with health care in US is 50% paid by gov along with crony capitalism between gov and pharma and equipment co's primarily plus state-granted monopolies. All these crush free market forces and more of the same only makes it worse. An actual free market would produce something better than we or any European country has.
It's unfortunate the live birth reporting isn't consistent. I think other factors shoulda be looked If you're already taking into account those differences. For instance the US has a 32% cesarean rate compared to Sweden's 16%. If infant mortality is almost 70% more likely during cesarean that will skew numbers in an important way imo
The biggest issue I have with discussing this topic is with those that jump to their desired conclusion of "healthcare for all" and then try to work backwards instead of working up to it. They start with the result they want without ever trying to build a system that can actually support the weight of their goal. The issue is further compounded when you throw "free" into the mix. If anyone breaks popular dogma and says healthcare is not a right (which it is not) that person is instantly accused of not believing in healthcare which is completely false. Both sides wish for everyone to have the best care possible, but I take a strong stance when I say that only one side understands the reality of the issue and how this is not actually possible with respect to issues of rights property and scarcity which are so conveniently abandoned when healthcare comes up and then brought up in pieces when it suits a different argument. For anyone still reading, healthcare is not a right. It cannot be a right. Rights cannot be what you require of others. Healthcare unless it is what you do to your own body, is a service. A service which is someone's time and labor you believe you have a right to then means that the other person who has to provide it has no right to refuse you, negotiate with you or request compensation. To believe in a right to someone's labor is an outright approval of slavery. In a scenario where there are no doctors, that means that someone somewhere would have to become a doctor to fulfill your "right" which sacrifices their rights for yours. It's not logical and its not consistent.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, the argument I hear in response to this is "you have the fourth amendment right to a lawyer, how is that not the right to someone else's services?"
@@kunallobo4136 in my mind, it means everyone has the natural right to PURSUE goods and services (legal, medical, etc). It is against the constitution to DENY someone the pursuit of goods and services. This is the difference, imo.
44:08 as a German I can attest to these unbelievably long waiting times for specialists being true. Especially on the countryside where I'm from and not that many specialists are available, waiting times can be a pain.
"unfortunately sometimes lost"?? That's a nice way to put it. My wife and I are on two different plans from the same AETNA company and we get get the two sides of the same company to even freakin' talk to each other. I broke my wrist and my wife's covers their part while I have to call and explain it to my own plan. (Again, same insurance company). They nickel and dime you on copays hoping you'll just choose not to deal with the hassle of it all. These companies are corrupt and getting worse. To make them mandatory is killing what is left of the American Middle Class and it's a fucking tragedy. The only thing worse is how uninformed and uneducated the voters are in this country. We praised President Obama for the ACA, OMFG!!! Yet another financial disaster in a history of federal disasters that's put us an estimated $220 Billion in the shitter and we the people get to pay for it. When does accountability come back? Maybe we'll get to see the bought and paid politicians and lobbyists hang together in front of the White House.
Insurance companies hate competing interests, and they pay politicians to keep things the way they are. So government is the problem. We now have socialists telling us that capitalism is the problem. It’s government. So these young socialists want to fix a government made problem with....more government?
Well put Richard and you sadly have seen the dark underbelly of the beast. Stay healthy and keep shining a light on the mess. Insurance can be a good thing, but the profit motive has been skewed into something Machiavelli would recoil from.
I have seen better videos. I would like to add my 2 cents though. I have had experience with a two tier system and am an advocate of this for several reasons. For those who do not know of this concept I will try to briefly explain it. It is running both a public and private system at the same time in the same place. If you can pay for premium treatment then you can have it. If you can't , then you wait in line and still get treated. (and If you like your house, you can keep your house, no really).
Austrian economics is more of a philosophical theory than economics. Case in point, it's dismissal of mathematics. It focuses on what "should" rather that on what "is". This becomes clear by its use of cherry picking statistical outliers like those in this video. Mises is just another concept tool to help dilute public discord, cast doubt , and divide populations into individuals so the significantly smaller upper class populations can effectively suppress. When populations collectively become aware of there their actually rulers, it sparks revolutions. The upper class cannot allow this. Hence the exploitation of the poorly educated that think this is real economics. Austrian Philosophy is about as academic as Karl Marx and communism, purely theoretical.
"It focuses on what "should" rather than what "is"." With respect my man, that's an incredibly bizarre statement. Austrian econ uses the action axiom as it's base, which depending on how you view it can either be seen as 1) a priori true or 2) empirically true, but so obviously so that it's not even in the same realm as other empirical observations. It uses a logically undeniably truth of the real world that MUST be true as its base, and then derives other things that logically MUST be true that follow from it. How on earth is a that a description of something that is more philosophical than real?
I don't agree with Austrian Economics completely, but I see the merits, just as I do with Keynesianism. In every field you have theory and experiment. Personally, I prefer Bohm-Bawerk to Mises and I think the Austrians credit the wrong person for the contributions.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
The whole world should see this video.
The solution is so incredibly simple and people don't see it.
thats how i feel about austrian economics
@@jack633 Austrian economics is more of a philosophical theory than economics. Case in point, it's dismissal of mathematics. It focuses on what "should" rather that on what "is". This becomes clear by its use of cherry picking statistical outliers like those in this video.
Mises is just another concept tool to help dilute public discord, cast doubt , and divide populations into individuals so the significantly smaller upper class populations can effectively suppress. When populations collectively become aware of there their actually rulers, it sparks revolutions. The upper class cannot allow this. Hence the exploitation of the poorly educated that think this is real economics. Austrian Philosophy is about as academic as Karl Marx and communism, purely theoretical.
@@kaseyderaad9459 what statistical outliers are used in this video? Can you please be more specific?
When people usually explain to me what they mean, they say using more aggregate data or more general data. If that is your opinion as well, I would object to it as the main point of proper analysis is to see what are the constituent elements or the main contributing factors to the data presented. It would be, of course, beneficial to know the proportion of their contribution. So for example, in this video, it would be good to know what is the relative importance of car deaths in the overall life expectancy statistics and how it changes the outcomes if it is excluded from the life expectancy comparisons overall. But would you say that his presentation is more disingenuous than the presentation of the overall statistic to support biases and opinions of some arguing against private health care if that statistic does not give its due to the relative importance of the contributing elements?
Secondly, the Austrian economics started as economics and is still economic theory which is influenced by both classical economic tradition, marginal revolution or Wicksell and got more thorough foundations in Mises and Rothbard. But you may be right that nowadays, it is oriented more towards ethics, philosophy and law. However, we should not forget that it is only a later development when Rothbard or Hoppe tried to give ethical foundation to there theory. For me, Austrians are currently the only ones that are trying to connect social science in one unified theory that would bring consistency to any of our debates.
@@janadamovic5145, I'll watch the lecture again and respond. I can't remember my point. Haha
Yeah? I don't see it. If "we the people" owned and controlled the health care system we could educate ourselves, sans the profit motive, on how to prevent the leading causes of death. Reference TH-cam video, "Uprooting the leading causes of Death" by Dr Michael Greger. I choose Greger's option and save the cost and agony of a heart bypass.
Huzzah, I'm first! Thank you, Mises Institute. For everything. You and Count Basie are all I need to be happy...
Mises lecturers in general need to work on public speaking skills. This gentleman has great ideas, excruciating delivery.
@@lepidoptera9337 No he isn't. The problem with health care in US is 50% paid by gov along with crony capitalism between gov and pharma and equipment co's primarily plus state-granted monopolies. All these crush free market forces and more of the same only makes it worse. An actual free market would produce something better than we or any European country has.
@@lepidoptera9337 They are not lies. You been sold a bill of goods.
It's unfortunate the live birth reporting isn't consistent. I think other factors shoulda be looked If you're already taking into account those differences. For instance the US has a 32% cesarean rate compared to Sweden's 16%. If infant mortality is almost 70% more likely during cesarean that will skew numbers in an important way imo
Good point
nice
The biggest issue I have with discussing this topic is with those that jump to their desired conclusion of "healthcare for all" and then try to work backwards instead of working up to it. They start with the result they want without ever trying to build a system that can actually support the weight of their goal. The issue is further compounded when you throw "free" into the mix.
If anyone breaks popular dogma and says healthcare is not a right (which it is not) that person is instantly accused of not believing in healthcare which is completely false. Both sides wish for everyone to have the best care possible, but I take a strong stance when I say that only one side understands the reality of the issue and how this is not actually possible with respect to issues of rights property and scarcity which are so conveniently abandoned when healthcare comes up and then brought up in pieces when it suits a different argument.
For anyone still reading, healthcare is not a right. It cannot be a right. Rights cannot be what you require of others. Healthcare unless it is what you do to your own body, is a service. A service which is someone's time and labor you believe you have a right to then means that the other person who has to provide it has no right to refuse you, negotiate with you or request compensation. To believe in a right to someone's labor is an outright approval of slavery. In a scenario where there are no doctors, that means that someone somewhere would have to become a doctor to fulfill your "right" which sacrifices their rights for yours. It's not logical and its not consistent.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, the argument I hear in response to this is "you have the fourth amendment right to a lawyer, how is that not the right to someone else's services?"
You mean like destroying our power plants right now........ to be replaced someday with solar ? Which will not work. Duh.
Usual philosophical stuff to justify no health care for folks who have no money to even enter a free market system
@@SandfordSmythe The only one here talking about wanting no healthcare for people appears to be you.
@@kunallobo4136 in my mind, it means everyone has the natural right to PURSUE goods and services (legal, medical, etc). It is against the constitution to DENY someone the pursuit of goods and services. This is the difference, imo.
44:08 as a German I can attest to these unbelievably long waiting times for specialists being true. Especially on the countryside where I'm from and not that many specialists are available, waiting times can be a pain.
Sparse content, slowly delivered. Hmmm. As an Objectivist, I'm disapointed. Step it up, Mises guys!
I have yet to find a slam dunk video on this topic. The book Primal Prescription has a lot of good info, but there's not a great talk about it IMO
@@awarenessrevolutionpodcast2220Been 5 years since your comment - have you found anything yet (a slum dunk)?
"unfortunately sometimes lost"?? That's a nice way to put it. My wife and I are on two different plans from the same AETNA company and we get get the two sides of the same company to even freakin' talk to each other. I broke my wrist and my wife's covers their part while I have to call and explain it to my own plan. (Again, same insurance company). They nickel and dime you on copays hoping you'll just choose not to deal with the hassle of it all. These companies are corrupt and getting worse. To make them mandatory is killing what is left of the American Middle Class and it's a fucking tragedy. The only thing worse is how uninformed and uneducated the voters are in this country. We praised President Obama for the ACA, OMFG!!! Yet another financial disaster in a history of federal disasters that's put us an estimated $220 Billion in the shitter and we the people get to pay for it. When does accountability come back? Maybe we'll get to see the bought and paid politicians and lobbyists hang together in front of the White House.
What bothers me is people forget the past
Insurance companies hate competing interests, and they pay politicians to keep things the way they are. So government is the problem. We now have socialists telling us that capitalism is the problem. It’s government. So these young socialists want to fix a government made problem with....more government?
Well put Richard and you sadly have seen the dark underbelly of the beast. Stay healthy and keep shining a light on the mess.
Insurance can be a good thing, but the profit motive has been skewed into something Machiavelli would recoil from.
I have seen better videos. I would like to add my 2 cents though. I have had experience with a two tier system and am an advocate of this for several reasons. For those who do not know of this concept I will try to briefly explain it. It is running both a public and private system at the same time in the same place. If you can pay for premium treatment then you can have it. If you can't , then you wait in line and still get treated. (and If you like your house, you can keep your house, no really).
The brilliant Dr TDT was able to take an exciting subject our own self interest, our individual freedom, and make it boring, tedious, and pedantic.
14:55 part of that may be to do with driving on the wrong side of the road...
Hephaestus so you want us to be on the left, no thanks. Have to say we are on the right road.
It's a small world ;)
America also has higher risks of infant mortality because they circumcise.
bro only cares about old people and babies.
Dude, I'd rather "we the people" own and offer health care rather than a corporation whose primary goal is profit.
you're so delusional.
lol name a single thing 'we the people' own.
Austrian economics is more of a philosophical theory than economics. Case in point, it's dismissal of mathematics. It focuses on what "should" rather that on what "is". This becomes clear by its use of cherry picking statistical outliers like those in this video.
Mises is just another concept tool to help dilute public discord, cast doubt , and divide populations into individuals so the significantly smaller upper class populations can effectively suppress. When populations collectively become aware of there their actually rulers, it sparks revolutions. The upper class cannot allow this. Hence the exploitation of the poorly educated that think this is real economics. Austrian Philosophy is about as academic as Karl Marx and communism, purely theoretical.
"It focuses on what "should" rather than what "is"."
With respect my man, that's an incredibly bizarre statement. Austrian econ uses the action axiom as it's base, which depending on how you view it can either be seen as 1) a priori true or 2) empirically true, but so obviously so that it's not even in the same realm as other empirical observations. It uses a logically undeniably truth of the real world that MUST be true as its base, and then derives other things that logically MUST be true that follow from it.
How on earth is a that a description of something that is more philosophical than real?
Ok boomer
I don't agree with Austrian Economics completely, but I see the merits, just as I do with Keynesianism. In every field you have theory and experiment. Personally, I prefer Bohm-Bawerk to Mises and I think the Austrians credit the wrong person for the contributions.