Sorry to be offtopic but does someone know of a way to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot the login password. I appreciate any tricks you can give me
@Landon Raylan Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process atm. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
I've seen Tom Woods lectures as far back as 2004. It's amazing how much he's changed. His ideology is the same but he's more confident in speaking and uses more banter.
He is a gifted speaker and believe you me it no easy task....I love the way he breaks down complex academic theories into simpler chunks....good job Tom!
DOCTOR TOM hits it out of the park again. VIVA MISES. What a week of brain food, huh? Thanks to all the great minds of the Mises Institute. I'm signing my estate over to the MI in my will.
There is one sense in which the word "war" is magic: it gives people an acceptable excuse. Before when people toiled and starved they would be angry and ask "why is this happening to me?" But during the war the same people, often even poorer than before, would say "well, there is a war, and I don't want to be invaded by the Japanese, so I better pipe down and endure." This is one reason why states are so eager to go to war.
I grew up on a ranch and farm. We all worked. It was the best part of my long life. We all turned out great. Engineer Attorney Accountant Teacher. All of us have operated our own businesses that our children worked in. Most of our children turned out very well. The grandchildren, most ok after they reached mid 20s to 30 and their parents stopped supporting them. Going hungry does wonders for character and dignity
I was pleasantly surprised recently with a RUclips video which presented an excellent introduction of the Austrian school, then the Chicago school, as examples of free market advocates. And then, when he was doing his summing up, he said, "I wish the Austrians would use actual economic data for historical analysis, but they don't." Nothing he'd said lead me to believe he had not read ANYTHING by the Austrians, until then.
@@obviouslykaleb7998 The maker of the video Curt is referring to made a common mistake about the Austrian school. Austrians will use actual economic data for historical analysis, when appropriate. But Austrians say that the economic data by itself doesn't 'prove' anything--you have to have an economic theory that the data is illustrating. I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well. This article may help: mises.org/wire/do-austrians-really-reject-empirical-evidence
Very good point by Tom when he mentions 'arbitrary boundaries'. People's emotions are engaged and they are hooked by telling them that othesr are evil and they are the good whose ideas are superior to others who live on the other side of this arbitrary boudary we call borders.
Is Uber's existence (and lack of profitability!) a symptom of a low interest rate world? Will the word "uber" become a common noun in the English language, euphemistically referring to a hyped up company that is in reality a low interest rate induced misallocation of resources.
It obvious that during WW2 the standard of living in the US fell dramatically despite the massive increase in worker participation of the population that was left in the US when up to 13 million people were located overseas to address war issues. Inflation increased in so that it was close to 30% during that period. ( Executive Order 9328, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 8, 1943, which was implemented in an effort to control wartime inflation. The order froze prices nationwide on anything that could affect the cost of living (which was effectively everything). It also prohibited wage increases and employment changes except in special circumstances.) When FDR's wage and price freezes were introduced it did nothing but lower living standards.
genuine question, would it be better to have a job with inflation or to have protections on inflation and let unemployment go unregulated? like which would be more important to control, inflation or unemployment?
depends more important for whom, if your income comes directly or indirectly from labour, you are employed or run a small business where most of your customers' income comes from labour, then unemployment and underemployment is the most important thing to control because your livelihood is bound to the disposable income of the median family, if your income comes from financial speculation, then inflation impacts on your profits while the increasing need for credit to keep up with the quality of life will increase it.
The 2008 housing market bubble was predominantly created by FM&FM buying off all kinds of loans from first-line lenders which subsequently brought about the creation of many subprime loans (because GSEs, FM&FM were picking them right off their hands as soon as they issued them - creating an artificial "risk-free" environment).
That would imply pension and client deposit account funds etc would be auctioned off to cover the losses that the bank did on real estate speculation in the event of bankruptcy. Absurd beyond belief.
Definition of 'contractionary': Causing or relating to the contraction of a country's economy. ‘he imposed a contractionary fiscal policy in the form of a tax surcharge’ ‘the contractionary effects of higher interest rates’ Definition of 'fiscal': 1.Relating to government revenue, especially taxes. ‘monetary and fiscal policy’ 1.1North American Relating to financial matters. ‘the domestic fiscal crisis’ 1.2North American Used to denote a fiscal year. ‘the budget deficit for fiscal 1996’ noun archaic A legal or treasury official in some countries. ‘As early as 1711, an Oberfiscal was appointed aided by a staff of fiscals who had to be secret appointments as they had the task of checking the honesty and integrity of government officials.’ Origin Mid 16th century from French, or from Latin fiscalis, from fiscus ‘purse, treasury’ (see fisc).
Heaps of my favorite Korean Television programs are anti-tax avoidance, pro-inheritance tax, pro-wealth tax, etcetera? Does anybody else here watch K-dramas/Korean movies and notices this running theme thingo? [See: Special Labor Inspector, Squad 38, or any K-Drama with the Corrupt CEO trope thingo] The only K-drama with a possible CEO seems to be the one's where the CEO is a lead acto(/r)tress].
in 1921, the Fed was able to lower interest rates and cool inflation, just as Reagan did in the 80s; in both cases it was based on the policy of the Federal Reserve. The FED increased interest rates and caused the recssion in 1922 and in 80s under Reagan and then undid it by lowering interest rates in both cases. Harding's Fed was very active and so was Reagan's. But in 1929, the interest rates were already lowered to the lower bound. Read Friedman and Schwarz.
I’ve seen Fried insects sold openly in the street markets of Bangkok and in country areas . In Vietnam people buy rats imported from Cambodia . The recent Cambodian floods caused a shortage of rat meat and hunger in Vietnam
When the Education Acts introduced compulsory education in the UK during the 1890 the long 6 week summer school holiday was fixed to enable children to work bringing in the harvest . This was not thought of as oppression but a necessary exemption for their families to survive .
The purpose of the FED has morphed over the years. It now has a stupid and irreconcilable 'dual mandate'. Its sole original purpose was to prevent bank runs. Our economy would improve dramatically if we went back to its original mandate. We simply need a free market in money.
I'm looking forward to getting to the part of my course where we cover the Austrian school. But from what I know so far, the point that distribution from billionaires to everyone else leaves everyone with just an extra chicken leg while billionaires leave the country overlooks basic macroeconomic principle that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications. Secondly, redistribution is a key way of creating more equal societies. It's not clear how, without any intervention, societies will be more equal. And more equal societies, we know, grow faster. So by overlooking these two simple and well established points Mr woods' case appears to be exactly that. A case, rather than a measured assessment of all facts
Improvement of the economy takes more than simply spending more. So poor people spending all of their income doesn't *really* do much to help the economy, because the goods and services need to be produced before they can buy them with their money. Of course, with redistribution of money, or better yet, monetary inflation by a central bank like the Fed, the poor can pay more money for already existing goods and services (price inflation), but that's clearly not going to help the poor or the economy in general. And I'm assuming that you don't hate the poor, but actually want to help them, right? What's really needed to improve the economy is capital accumulation and investment to increase production and productivity. Increased production means more stuff for people to buy, and increased productivity means increased wages so that workers *have* more money to spend. How do you accumulate capital to reinvest it? By people who defer their present consumption for later, i.e. savings. That's what people with more income do, they save and invest money that they aren't spending now, and businesses borrow that money and use it to increase production and productivity. So if you redistribute money from the wealthy to the poor, you're actually hurting the economy by limiting production, productivity, and workers' wages. We're *all* poorer, not richer, with redistribution, even the poor people. Your second point is a little more murky. What exactly do you mean by a "more equal society"? A society where incomes are more equal? Where rights are more equal? Where the distribution of goods are more equal? There are many ways of looking at equality, and it's not clear which way you are referring to. Furthermore, how do we "know" more equal societies grow faster? Do you have references or links to data that shows that? I can't address your second point until I understand it.
@@macsnafu Thanks for your response. I appreciate you trying to reason through what I said but the conclusion of your reasoning is not supported by evidence. So somewhere along the line your reasoning is not correct. Perhaps I was being a bit brief and the terms I was using have specific meanings, but suffice to say there is a large body of research on taxation, inequality, drivers of economic growth and output fluctuations and a quick google search using these terms would answer some of your questions better than I could. But on inequality, here you go: "(IMF) Research indicates that increased inequality can erode social cohesion, lead to political polarization, and ultimately lower economic growth." www.imf.org/external/np/fad/inequality/ I.e. contrary to your claim, the evidence shows less inequality makes people better off. Note this says nothing about the morality of it. Personally, I'd rather give some of my money away so a guy doesn't starve or a mother can immunise her child or a guy on the streets can have a beer. And thankfully governments recognise that having a society which looks after indigents, sick people, old people and so on is probably a better basis than an Ayn Randian society. But hey, you can also reduce inequality so the economy can grow faster.
@@gazesalso645 Hey, thanks for the link. It looks like the IMF was focused on economic inequality, but I'll need to read it over to get a better understanding of what they're saying. However, I don't see where you countered my argument that more spending per se doesn't improve the economy. And I'm sure I don't see how reducing economic inequality in itself necessarily improves the economy. Last, I'm not sure why you threw it in, but I think you fail to fully understand how the government works. Would you say that someone who first broke your leg, but then gave you a crutch is 'helping' you? Yes, the government provides quite a bit of welfare in various ways. But there are two important points. One is the traditional anti-welfare arguments that a) you're stealing money from productive people to redistribute it to unproductive people, thus limiting the productive capacity and charity of the economy, and b) you're not really helping people if you simply give them the means to survive another day. As the saying goes, "Give a man fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." What they really need is the opportunity and means to support themselves, something government welfare rarely provides. The second point is all the regulations and policies that limit those opportunitities and means in the first place. Taxation, licensing, protective tariffs, minimum wage laws, government-granted monopolies, and more all help to limit jobs and job opportunities, increase unemployment, limit wages and wage increases, and make it harder for people to support themselves and their families. Thus, government is helping to *create* economic inequality and many of the needy people who can only survive with government welfare. In all fairness, some people are truly unable to care for themselves and would need support from other people regardless of the government's policies, but the government is making things worse, not better. I'm not sure why you specifically said "Ayn Randian" society, instead of Objectivist or libertarian society. But if such a society isn't *creating* inequality and helpless, needy people, I don't see how that's not a better basis than our current society.
@@macsnafu On your point "spending per se doesn't improve the economy". Well, that's not what I said. What I said is "that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications (by billionaires)". Here's the economics of it: More money in the hands of poor people is associated with higher levels of economic output (GDP) because the less money you have, the more of it you tend to spend because you have less discretionary spend. Compare this to people with more money who tend to save more and spend more of it on speculative applications. Like say derivatives.. Why does spending matter? Because *GDP is spending* By households, firms (investment) government and foreigners (net exports). If everyone saved, there would be no consumption. Think about the opposite. If you consume on credit, you are dissaving. Is that bad for the level of economic output? I'm not really debating this with you. It's basic economics and you can refer to Nobel prize winner Joseph Stieglitz's very accessible books on this. On your claim that goods need to be produced first before they can be consumed appears to be you reasoning things through. While this is admirable and makes sense thinking about individual firms, I'm not sure why you would want to reinvent a square wheel when you could just pick up a first year textbook. Firms respond to their stock of inventory. We might as well be talking about which came first - the chicken or the egg. It doesn't matter once you've got chickens. On anti-welfare arguments that "you're stealing money from productive people to redistribute it to unproductive people, thus limiting the productive capacity and charity of the economy". This is crucial point to your argument against reducing inequality. Except I said nothing about welfare which is but one application of government expenditure. But since you've raised it, I'll ignore the well established benefit of government expenditure on public goods such as roads, defense, education, research, public health etc. and address this point you wish to focus on. As I've mentioned earlier, poor people because they spend proportionally more of their income, do more for economic output. And money used to meet basic food requirement is probably more productive than just about anything else you could care to think of. Once you are meeting your basic needs you can think about being creative, innovative, an entrepreneur or whatever. Welfare allows you to do this. So to be clear, your claim that redistribution is shifting resources from more productive uses to less productive is wrong. Which is why the IMF data shows inequality harms growth. This leads to addressing your second point that welfare creates dependency. Well, it doesn't have to. It depends on how you structure it. The Progressa programme in Mexico is a famous example where welfare was tied to things like getting children immunised and keeping them in school etc. which benefits everyone. You can think of it like an investment. Not really much more to say on that. You can check James Heckman for why investments in early childhood development generate more money than is spent. So instead of welfare only, you could have welfare with teaching somehow to fish... And on regulation. Well, you can over regulate for sure. And some regulation is bad, agreed. But the need for some regulation is hard to argue against. I don't want lead in paint, cocaine in my coca cola, roads without speed limits, just anyone owning a gun, misleading advertising, BPA in my soda bottles, nuclear proliferation etc. Saying there are problems with regulation and therefore we shouldn't have government (if i understand you correctly) is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Economists spend a lot of time thinking about unintended consequences of regulation. And again, this is basic and not controversial stuff so I'm not debating this with you. On your claim that governments create inequality through regulation, I'm not sure what you evidence is for this claim. I could at least understand the claim that without regulation one could have higher levels of economic output. But saying that not having regulation would lead to both higher output and less inequality? This is central to your argument but at best its reductionist at worst its hopelessly ill-informed wrong. Think for a moment about regulation of pollution. Or what happened when glass-steagall was repealed. I think what you also need to consider is the problem of regulatory capture. That is, corporations influencing government in ways that benefit them. So for example, government granted monopolies don't come from nowhere. Take for example the health care industry in America. It has the most expensive health care system in the world. Is this the fault of government? Well, yes. It is precisely the outcomes we would expect with the policies in place. But now ask yourself does government on it's own want this or is it that government is acting in the interest of a certain group as opposed to the public interest. Well, lobbying exists for a reason. And this brings me to my point on this: government at least is supposed to act in the public interest. Corporations act in the interest of shareholders only (or at least they're supposed to). If you take away government do you think companies would act in a more socially responsible way or in a less socially responsible way? If companies weren't required to not pollute would they? If companies weren't required to not use bribes to win contacts would they? Well, we know the answer. All one has to do is look at how companies behave in countries where these regulations don't exist. Try Shell in Nigeria, Zara in Bangladesh, BAE in South Africa, Cambridge Analytica in America and so on and so forth. So I've addressed some of your key points. One can make a strong argument for a smaller government, or considered regulation, or certain types of welfare. But making a case for no government, no regulation or no redistribution of wealth is much harder and deserves its place as a fringe idea. It appears to me people work backwards from their beliefs and then try and find evidence for it. My starting point is that my success has had a lot to do with my hard work. But it also has a lot to do with the support that I've had from others and also a great deal of luck, starting with birth. I could've been born in a place where being a child soldier was a real risk. Thus, Ayn Rand's novels for me have no bearing on the world we live in. Even as works of fiction they are hardly plausible nevermind using it as a basis on which to structure society. I'm going to have a stab it and say that your starting point is that you don't want lazy people mooching off your hard work. I'm sympathetic to the observation that governments have problems. It's like Richard Wolff remarked about the revival of "socialism" - it's just a response to the problems in society rather than a real understanding of socialism. And so I think it is with anarchocapitalism. It's a response to the problems in society. But even basic exploration of its principles show that it will quickly run into problems like who pays for things that are non rival and non exclusionary in consumption. You don't have to be trained in economics to see problems in society. But to select among the different ways in which we can organise production one should surely understand why things are the way they are before just rejecting them? If you're gonna argue against redistribution of wealth, it helps to know what economists know about this and why it's done. Surely? If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to engage. I'd be interested to hear how a laissez faire society would address issues poverty, marginalised people, people who, without support would starve. How would we deal with the under production of public goods by markets? Who would produce non rival non exclusionary goods? . As is it, there is tremendous concentration of wealth and hence power. How do you see this being prevented without government? How would a system deal with the losers not just incentivise winners?
@@gazesalso645 Woof, that's a long comment. I don't know if I can be concise in my response. "What I said is "that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications (by billionaires)". What's the difference here between "improve the economy" or "better for the economy"? And are you assuming that billionaires invest only in high-risk, speculative ventures? Yes, it's clear that poorer people consume their income as fast as they get it, with little or no income saved. That's why they live paycheck-to-paycheck. But is that really better for the economy than saving some of your income? I'm not talking about billionaires, but about anyone, at any income level. Savings are absolutely necessary to improve the economy, because deferring consumption is the only way to divert existing resources towards capital investment, so that production and productivity are increased. That's pretty basic economics. People who save some portion of their income, regardless of how much their income is are allowing for this capital accumulation and investment to occur. The wealthy may indeed engage in high-risk speculations that in themselves don't really do much for the economy. But much of the money they don't spend is stored in much safer, more standard investment vehicles that the financial institutions loan out to businesses for business improvements and expansion. In other words, much of their money is being used, just like anybody else's savings, to improve the economy via capital accumulation and investment. And since wealthier people have more savings than poorer people, it seems clear to me that this is doing more to improve the economy than simply spending all your money. "If everyone saved, there would be no consumption" Well sure, but who's going to not consume at all? You save what's left over after you've satisfied your needs and desires. Nobody starves themselves to death just to have savings. It's a question of how much you can afford to save. Wealthier people can obviously afford to save more, and thus are doing more to increase the wealth of the economy, which ends up helping everybody, rich and poor alike. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a flawed and dubious metric of the 'health' of the economy. Instead of trying to explain here, allow me to provide a few links explaining its flaws. You can read them at your leisure. mises.org/wire/gdp-growth-not-same-thing-real-economic-growth mises.org/wire/how-gdp-measures-help-create-illusion-money-pumping-grows-economy mises.org/library/how-gdp-metrics-distort-our-view-economy mises.org/library/gdp-tool-politics-not-economics There are more, but that should be more than enough to consider here. As for regulation and welfare, allow me to respond to those comments in a second post, so this one doesn't get too long.
Fixed tax rate and interest rate??? 10% taxes 5% interest… fixed. Never adjusted up or down. Steep. Hefty. Indeed but it would improve everything. Along with dissolving public services for private services/industries. This promotes competition, business and economic growth. Thus improving quality of life and pockets of individuals who work for in these private services/industries. No longer ‘pay to play’ but you put in money and do the work yourselves (roads/policing/education) to achieve a better society through hard work, dedication to your communities and responsibility!
No serious economicst would make a comparison between the result of two phenomenons like Japanese and American, exclusively based on policies adopted, as the sole deciding factor.
@vahidfarsi812 You actually can, with Japan having little in the form of natural resources and the US having a multitude of natural resources and the US historically having more capital than Japan ever did. Japan's economic growth in the latter half of the 20th century is miraculous, being in spite of natural resources and worse, animosity from its Asian neighbors due to several war crimes back in World War 2 their nationalists continue to deny.
"I wasn't a commie or anything like that" If you aren't a capitalist, you're a commie. It's just a question of to what degree you're a commie. The moment you accept the primacy of government in the marketplace, you have crossed the threshold.
Commenters never comment on the natural operation of the market, and their relationship to the starvation monopolists. There are many ways to look at things. Draw your own conclusions, but dont blame the beast systems you partake in regularly.
I can . To not be part of this system is in fact to become beast like at the whim of power and guns . There are no monopolists without the state . There is no starvation anything . The only starvation we have to fear are people who view the free and open exchange between consenting adults as evil . The market isn’t evil . The market just allows man the freedom to exchange. Are you against free exchange ? Am I the beast for demanding freedom or are you for opposing it?
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
Is it just me or does this guy have the sort nervous smiley demeanor of a used car salesman who is being paid to tell you it's an excellent car when he knows you will probably be back and in a couple of weeks to complain about the worn out clutch plate?
Both the Austrian School and the Keynesian School are wrong. Both the Austrian School and the Keynesian School assume that the economy WILL always go through boom and bust cycles. Both schools assume that the economy will always "get sick." They only disagree on how the economy should be healed. Banks control the money supply through printing and Fractional Reserve Banking loans and when they Increase the money supply, inflation occurs. The dollar has lost 97% of its value since 1913. When the loans cannot be paid back, the money supply contracts, people lose their money and recessions and depressions occur. It is all about the money supply and debt. Banks make money by making loans thus they are motivated to increase the money supply with the Fractional Reserve Banking System . The Constitution says that only the government can coin money. Our Founding Fathers knew that the money supply needed to be controlled. The Constitution prohibits states from "coining" money but in the 18th century there was a loophole. States chartered banks and allowed them to print money and the Supreme Court gave it a thumbs up. But it is a conflict of interest between banks and the government. Banks want profits and the government wants stable prices. Keep the money supply constant and boom (inflation) and bust (deflation) cycles cannot happen. The Great Depression of 1929 and The Great Recession of 2008 are prime examples as was The Great Depression of 1893, but all American recessions and depressions were caused by a collapse in debt. Totally eliminate the Fractional Reserve banking system. All economic projects instead should be financed with equity or with time deposit loans (CDs). Then as the economy expands and the supply of goods and services increases, prices for goods and services will naturally fall which increases real wages. Peter de Luca: Sound Money Economist and Professor
It’s posts like this that make me want to be an economist. Well put. But if I might give my two uneducated cents, it seems like the Austrian model would disavow the banks’ printing money given that banks are private corporations and printing money is effectively giving money. Again, I’m not educated on the matter. I’m just blowing a few RUclips videos out my @$$. But I think I may parade around your proposal, it’s a really good one.
Keeping money constant causes deflation over time. Same dollars chasing more goods due to population growth. Real issue is no one can control money supply. Fed cannot even define money anymore. Overseas banks can issue debt denominated in dollars and the Fed can do nothing to stop it.
Menger, Mises et. al. were very respectable at their time, yes. But nowadays Austrian Economics is simply a whole lot of story telling, that’s not enough, Ladies and gentlemen! Some more , please! I’m more on the conventional side.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Tom has an extraordinary gift to convey esoteric libertarian topics in a compellingly simple and humorous way.
Sorry to be offtopic but does someone know of a way to log back into an instagram account??
I was dumb forgot the login password. I appreciate any tricks you can give me
@Landon Raylan Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Landon Raylan It did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thanks so much, you saved my account !
@Cesar Yael no problem :)
One of my favorite speakers.
magnus4g63 very articulated speaker. Pacing is perfect too
Agreed :)
Jeg er helt enig Magnus! Han er dygtig 👍
"I'm a little creeped out at how many people have watched every RUclips video I've ever made." I'm one of those people.
Clarence Peterson Likewise. I watched Tom grow through the Ron Paul era.
I've seen Tom Woods lectures as far back as 2004. It's amazing how much he's changed. His ideology is the same but he's more confident in speaking and uses more banter.
Clarence Peterson Absolutely. He has the skill of breaking down tough academic material and redeliver it to the masses in brilliant form.
Ha ha! I just discovered him a month or so ago and my objective is to watch as many of his videos as I can.
I think I have seen them all too, as well as ALL Contra Krugman and Tom Woods Show episodes.
He is a gifted speaker and believe you me it no easy task....I love the way he breaks down complex academic theories into simpler chunks....good job Tom!
I haven't seen all of them but I've watched all the ones with titles that interested me.
DOCTOR TOM hits it out of the park again. VIVA MISES. What a week of brain food, huh? Thanks to all the great minds of the Mises Institute. I'm signing my estate over to the MI in my will.
There is one sense in which the word "war" is magic: it gives people an acceptable excuse. Before when people toiled and starved they would be angry and ask "why is this happening to me?" But during the war the same people, often even poorer than before, would say "well, there is a war, and I don't want to be invaded by the Japanese, so I better pipe down and endure." This is one reason why states are so eager to go to war.
Yes, this, we can see this happening in real time in Russia and Ukraine.
For this entire video, 80% of my attention was focused on hoping he would get those shirt sleeves back inside his jacket sleeves.
get rekt
It's called fashion
Tom Woods for president! I'd like to see him debate more.
It's simple: War DESTROYS men & things; Peace & Prosperity are just the opposite!
I would like to see a q and a afterwards.
I grew up on a ranch and farm. We all worked. It was the best part of my long life. We all turned out great. Engineer Attorney Accountant Teacher. All of us have operated our own businesses that our children worked in. Most of our children turned out very well. The grandchildren, most ok after they reached mid 20s to 30 and their parents stopped supporting them. Going hungry does wonders for character and dignity
I was pleasantly surprised recently with a RUclips video which presented an excellent introduction of the Austrian school, then the Chicago school, as examples of free market advocates. And then, when he was doing his summing up, he said, "I wish the Austrians would use actual economic data for historical analysis, but they don't."
Nothing he'd said lead me to believe he had not read ANYTHING by the Austrians, until then.
This comment is confusing, would you mind explaining it?
@@obviouslykaleb7998 The maker of the video Curt is referring to made a common mistake about the Austrian school. Austrians will use actual economic data for historical analysis, when appropriate. But Austrians say that the economic data by itself doesn't 'prove' anything--you have to have an economic theory that the data is illustrating. I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well. This article may help:
mises.org/wire/do-austrians-really-reject-empirical-evidence
I love Tom Woods!
Very good point by Tom when he mentions 'arbitrary boundaries'. People's emotions are engaged and they are hooked by telling them that othesr are evil and they are the good whose ideas are superior to others who live on the other side of this arbitrary boudary we call borders.
Is Uber's existence (and lack of profitability!) a symptom of a low interest rate world? Will the word "uber" become a common noun in the English language, euphemistically referring to a hyped up company that is in reality a low interest rate induced misallocation of resources.
It obvious that during WW2 the standard of living in the US fell dramatically despite the massive increase in worker participation of the population that was left in the US when up to 13 million people were located overseas to address war issues. Inflation increased in so that it was close to 30% during that period. ( Executive Order 9328, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 8, 1943, which was implemented in an effort to control wartime inflation.
The order froze prices nationwide on anything that could affect the cost of living (which was effectively everything). It also prohibited wage increases and employment changes except in special circumstances.)
When FDR's wage and price freezes were introduced it did nothing but lower living standards.
genuine question, would it be better to have a job with inflation or to have protections on inflation and let unemployment go unregulated? like which would be more important to control, inflation or unemployment?
depends more important for whom, if your income comes directly or indirectly from labour, you are employed or run a small business where most of your customers' income comes from labour, then unemployment and underemployment is the most important thing to control because your livelihood is bound to the disposable income of the median family, if your income comes from financial speculation, then inflation impacts on your profits while the increasing need for credit to keep up with the quality of life will increase it.
The 2008 housing market bubble was predominantly created by FM&FM buying off all kinds of loans from first-line lenders which subsequently brought about the creation of many subprime loans (because GSEs, FM&FM were picking them right off their hands as soon as they issued them - creating an artificial "risk-free" environment).
If you have an FDIC, you need to have a Glass-Steagall also. If you abolish the FDIC, you can get rid of Glass-Steagall.
That would imply pension and client deposit account funds etc would be auctioned off to cover the losses that the bank did on real estate speculation in the event of bankruptcy. Absurd beyond belief.
Definition of 'contractionary':
Causing or relating to the contraction of a country's economy.
‘he imposed a contractionary fiscal policy in the form of a tax surcharge’
‘the contractionary effects of higher interest rates’
Definition of 'fiscal':
1.Relating to government revenue, especially taxes.
‘monetary and fiscal policy’
1.1North American Relating to financial matters.
‘the domestic fiscal crisis’
1.2North American Used to denote a fiscal year.
‘the budget deficit for fiscal 1996’
noun
archaic
A legal or treasury official in some countries.
‘As early as 1711, an Oberfiscal was appointed aided by a staff of fiscals who had to be secret appointments as they had the task of checking the honesty and integrity of government officials.’
Origin
Mid 16th century from French, or from Latin fiscalis, from fiscus ‘purse, treasury’ (see fisc).
The housing boom and bust by Thomas Sowell
Heaps of my favorite Korean Television programs are anti-tax avoidance, pro-inheritance tax, pro-wealth tax, etcetera? Does anybody else here watch K-dramas/Korean movies and notices this running theme thingo?
[See: Special Labor Inspector, Squad 38, or any K-Drama with the Corrupt CEO trope thingo] The only K-drama with a possible CEO seems to be the one's where the CEO is a lead acto(/r)tress].
@@imccc The internet is amazing! All the niches assemble! Damn! Thanks "MikeC"!
this random comment is epic
in 1921, the Fed was able to lower interest rates and cool inflation, just as Reagan did in the 80s; in both cases it was based on the policy of the Federal Reserve. The FED increased interest rates and caused the recssion in 1922 and in 80s under Reagan and then undid it by lowering interest rates in both cases. Harding's Fed was very active and so was Reagan's. But in 1929, the interest rates were already lowered to the lower bound. Read Friedman and Schwarz.
I’ve seen Fried insects sold openly in the street markets of Bangkok and in country areas . In Vietnam people buy rats imported from Cambodia . The recent Cambodian floods caused a shortage of rat meat and hunger in Vietnam
When the Education Acts introduced compulsory education in the UK during the 1890 the long 6 week summer school holiday was fixed to enable children to work bringing in the harvest . This was not thought of as oppression but a necessary exemption for their families to survive .
The purpose of the FED has morphed over the years. It now has a stupid and irreconcilable 'dual mandate'. Its sole original purpose was to prevent bank runs. Our economy would improve dramatically if we went back to its original mandate. We simply need a free market in money.
Tom in Puerto Rico
The fed should be abolished, and bank runs were a healthy check on fraudulent fractional reserve banking.
I'm looking forward to getting to the part of my course where we cover the Austrian school. But from what I know so far, the point that distribution from billionaires to everyone else leaves everyone with just an extra chicken leg while billionaires leave the country overlooks basic macroeconomic principle that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications.
Secondly, redistribution is a key way of creating more equal societies. It's not clear how, without any intervention, societies will be more equal. And more equal societies, we know, grow faster.
So by overlooking these two simple and well established points Mr woods' case appears to be exactly that. A case, rather than a measured assessment of all facts
Improvement of the economy takes more than simply spending more. So poor people spending all of their income doesn't *really* do much to help the economy, because the goods and services need to be produced before they can buy them with their money. Of course, with redistribution of money, or better yet, monetary inflation by a central bank like the Fed, the poor can pay more money for already existing goods and services (price inflation), but that's clearly not going to help the poor or the economy in general. And I'm assuming that you don't hate the poor, but actually want to help them, right?
What's really needed to improve the economy is capital accumulation and investment to increase production and productivity. Increased production means more stuff for people to buy, and increased productivity means increased wages so that workers *have* more money to spend.
How do you accumulate capital to reinvest it? By people who defer their present consumption for later, i.e. savings. That's what people with more income do, they save and invest money that they aren't spending now, and businesses borrow that money and use it to increase production and productivity. So if you redistribute money from the wealthy to the poor, you're actually hurting the economy by limiting production, productivity, and workers' wages. We're *all* poorer, not richer, with redistribution, even the poor people.
Your second point is a little more murky. What exactly do you mean by a "more equal society"? A society where incomes are more equal? Where rights are more equal? Where the distribution of goods are more equal? There are many ways of looking at equality, and it's not clear which way you are referring to.
Furthermore, how do we "know" more equal societies grow faster? Do you have references or links to data that shows that? I can't address your second point until I understand it.
@@macsnafu Thanks for your response. I appreciate you trying to reason through what I said but the conclusion of your reasoning is not supported by evidence. So somewhere along the line your reasoning is not correct.
Perhaps I was being a bit brief and the terms I was using have specific meanings, but suffice to say there is a large body of research on taxation, inequality, drivers of economic growth and output fluctuations and a quick google search using these terms would answer some of your questions better than I could.
But on inequality, here you go:
"(IMF) Research indicates that increased inequality can erode social cohesion, lead to political polarization, and ultimately lower economic growth."
www.imf.org/external/np/fad/inequality/
I.e. contrary to your claim, the evidence shows less inequality makes people better off.
Note this says nothing about the morality of it. Personally, I'd rather give some of my money away so a guy doesn't starve or a mother can immunise her child or a guy on the streets can have a beer. And thankfully governments recognise that having a society which looks after indigents, sick people, old people and so on is probably a better basis than an Ayn Randian society. But hey, you can also reduce inequality so the economy can grow faster.
@@gazesalso645 Hey, thanks for the link. It looks like the IMF was focused on economic inequality, but I'll need to read it over to get a better understanding of what they're saying. However, I don't see where you countered my argument that more spending per se doesn't improve the economy. And I'm sure I don't see how reducing economic inequality in itself necessarily improves the economy.
Last, I'm not sure why you threw it in, but I think you fail to fully understand how the government works. Would you say that someone who first broke your leg, but then gave you a crutch is 'helping' you? Yes, the government provides quite a bit of welfare in various ways. But there are two important points. One is the traditional anti-welfare arguments that a) you're stealing money from productive people to redistribute it to unproductive people, thus limiting the productive capacity and charity of the economy, and b) you're not really helping people if you simply give them the means to survive another day. As the saying goes, "Give a man fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." What they really need is the opportunity and means to support themselves, something government welfare rarely provides.
The second point is all the regulations and policies that limit those opportunitities and means in the first place. Taxation, licensing, protective tariffs, minimum wage laws, government-granted monopolies, and more all help to limit jobs and job opportunities, increase unemployment, limit wages and wage increases, and make it harder for people to support themselves and their families. Thus, government is helping to *create* economic inequality and many of the needy people who can only survive with government welfare. In all fairness, some people are truly unable to care for themselves and would need support from other people regardless of the government's policies, but the government is making things worse, not better.
I'm not sure why you specifically said "Ayn Randian" society, instead of Objectivist or libertarian society. But if such a society isn't *creating* inequality and helpless, needy people, I don't see how that's not a better basis than our current society.
@@macsnafu On your point "spending per se doesn't improve the economy". Well, that's not what I said. What I said is "that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications (by billionaires)".
Here's the economics of it: More money in the hands of poor people is associated with higher levels of economic output (GDP) because the less money you have, the more of it you tend to spend because you have less discretionary spend. Compare this to people with more money who tend to save more and spend more of it on speculative applications. Like say derivatives.. Why does spending matter? Because *GDP is spending* By households, firms (investment) government and foreigners (net exports). If everyone saved, there would be no consumption. Think about the opposite. If you consume on credit, you are dissaving. Is that bad for the level of economic output? I'm not really debating this with you. It's basic economics and you can refer to Nobel prize winner Joseph Stieglitz's very accessible books on this.
On your claim that goods need to be produced first before they can be consumed appears to be you reasoning things through. While this is admirable and makes sense thinking about individual firms, I'm not sure why you would want to reinvent a square wheel when you could just pick up a first year textbook. Firms respond to their stock of inventory. We might as well be talking about which came first - the chicken or the egg. It doesn't matter once you've got chickens.
On anti-welfare arguments that "you're stealing money from productive people to redistribute it to unproductive people, thus limiting the productive capacity and charity of the economy". This is crucial point to your argument against reducing inequality. Except I said nothing about welfare which is but one application of government expenditure.
But since you've raised it, I'll ignore the well established benefit of government expenditure on public goods such as roads, defense, education, research, public health etc. and address this point you wish to focus on. As I've mentioned earlier, poor people because they spend proportionally more of their income, do more for economic output. And money used to meet basic food requirement is probably more productive than just about anything else you could care to think of. Once you are meeting your basic needs you can think about being creative, innovative, an entrepreneur or whatever. Welfare allows you to do this. So to be clear, your claim that redistribution is shifting resources from more productive uses to less productive is wrong. Which is why the IMF data shows inequality harms growth. This leads to addressing your second point that welfare creates dependency. Well, it doesn't have to. It depends on how you structure it. The Progressa programme in Mexico is a famous example where welfare was tied to things like getting children immunised and keeping them in school etc. which benefits everyone. You can think of it like an investment. Not really much more to say on that. You can check James Heckman for why investments in early childhood development generate more money than is spent. So instead of welfare only, you could have welfare with teaching somehow to fish...
And on regulation. Well, you can over regulate for sure. And some regulation is bad, agreed. But the need for some regulation is hard to argue against. I don't want lead in paint, cocaine in my coca cola, roads without speed limits, just anyone owning a gun, misleading advertising, BPA in my soda bottles, nuclear proliferation etc. Saying there are problems with regulation and therefore we shouldn't have government (if i understand you correctly) is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Economists spend a lot of time thinking about unintended consequences of regulation. And again, this is basic and not controversial stuff so I'm not debating this with you. On your claim that governments create inequality through regulation, I'm not sure what you evidence is for this claim. I could at least understand the claim that without regulation one could have higher levels of economic output. But saying that not having regulation would lead to both higher output and less inequality? This is central to your argument but at best its reductionist at worst its hopelessly ill-informed wrong. Think for a moment about regulation of pollution. Or what happened when glass-steagall was repealed.
I think what you also need to consider is the problem of regulatory capture. That is, corporations influencing government in ways that benefit them. So for example, government granted monopolies don't come from nowhere. Take for example the health care industry in America. It has the most expensive health care system in the world. Is this the fault of government? Well, yes. It is precisely the outcomes we would expect with the policies in place. But now ask yourself does government on it's own want this or is it that government is acting in the interest of a certain group as opposed to the public interest. Well, lobbying exists for a reason. And this brings me to my point on this: government at least is supposed to act in the public interest. Corporations act in the interest of shareholders only (or at least they're supposed to). If you take away government do you think companies would act in a more socially responsible way or in a less socially responsible way? If companies weren't required to not pollute would they? If companies weren't required to not use bribes to win contacts would they? Well, we know the answer. All one has to do is look at how companies behave in countries where these regulations don't exist. Try Shell in Nigeria, Zara in Bangladesh, BAE in South Africa, Cambridge Analytica in America and so on and so forth.
So I've addressed some of your key points. One can make a strong argument for a smaller government, or considered regulation, or certain types of welfare. But making a case for no government, no regulation or no redistribution of wealth is much harder and deserves its place as a fringe idea.
It appears to me people work backwards from their beliefs and then try and find evidence for it. My starting point is that my success has had a lot to do with my hard work. But it also has a lot to do with the support that I've had from others and also a great deal of luck, starting with birth. I could've been born in a place where being a child soldier was a real risk. Thus, Ayn Rand's novels for me have no bearing on the world we live in. Even as works of fiction they are hardly plausible nevermind using it as a basis on which to structure society.
I'm going to have a stab it and say that your starting point is that you don't want lazy people mooching off your hard work. I'm sympathetic to the observation that governments have problems. It's like Richard Wolff remarked about the revival of "socialism" - it's just a response to the problems in society rather than a real understanding of socialism. And so I think it is with anarchocapitalism. It's a response to the problems in society. But even basic exploration of its principles show that it will quickly run into problems like who pays for things that are non rival and non exclusionary in consumption. You don't have to be trained in economics to see problems in society. But to select among the different ways in which we can organise production one should surely understand why things are the way they are before just rejecting them? If you're gonna argue against redistribution of wealth, it helps to know what economists know about this and why it's done. Surely?
If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to engage. I'd be interested to hear how a laissez faire society would address issues poverty, marginalised people, people who, without support would starve. How would we deal with the under production of public goods by markets? Who would produce non rival non exclusionary goods? . As is it, there is tremendous concentration of wealth and hence power. How do you see this being prevented without government? How would a system deal with the losers not just incentivise winners?
@@gazesalso645 Woof, that's a long comment. I don't know if I can be concise in my response.
"What I said is "that poorer people consume more of their income which is better for the economy than more speculative applications (by billionaires)".
What's the difference here between "improve the economy" or "better for the economy"? And are you assuming that billionaires invest only in high-risk, speculative ventures? Yes, it's clear that poorer people consume their income as fast as they get it, with little or no income saved. That's why they live paycheck-to-paycheck. But is that really better for the economy than saving some of your income? I'm not talking about billionaires, but about anyone, at any income level.
Savings are absolutely necessary to improve the economy, because deferring consumption is the only way to divert existing resources towards capital investment, so that production and productivity are increased. That's pretty basic economics. People who save some portion of their income, regardless of how much their income is are allowing for this capital accumulation and investment to occur. The wealthy may indeed engage in high-risk speculations that in themselves don't really do much for the economy. But much of the money they don't spend is stored in much safer, more standard investment vehicles that the financial institutions loan out to businesses for business improvements and expansion. In other words, much of their money is being used, just like anybody else's savings, to improve the economy via capital accumulation and investment. And since wealthier people have more savings than poorer people, it seems clear to me that this is doing more to improve the economy than simply spending all your money.
"If everyone saved, there would be no consumption"
Well sure, but who's going to not consume at all? You save what's left over after you've satisfied your needs and desires. Nobody starves themselves to death just to have savings. It's a question of how much you can afford to save. Wealthier people can obviously afford to save more, and thus are doing more to increase the wealth of the economy, which ends up helping everybody, rich and poor alike.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a flawed and dubious metric of the 'health' of the economy. Instead of trying to explain here, allow me to provide a few links explaining its flaws. You can read them at your leisure.
mises.org/wire/gdp-growth-not-same-thing-real-economic-growth
mises.org/wire/how-gdp-measures-help-create-illusion-money-pumping-grows-economy
mises.org/library/how-gdp-metrics-distort-our-view-economy
mises.org/library/gdp-tool-politics-not-economics
There are more, but that should be more than enough to consider here.
As for regulation and welfare, allow me to respond to those comments in a second post, so this one doesn't get too long.
Watched ✅
Fixed tax rate and interest rate??? 10% taxes 5% interest… fixed. Never adjusted up or down. Steep. Hefty. Indeed but it would improve everything. Along with dissolving public services for private services/industries. This promotes competition, business and economic growth. Thus improving quality of life and pockets of individuals who work for in these private services/industries. No longer ‘pay to play’ but you put in money and do the work yourselves (roads/policing/education) to achieve a better society through hard work, dedication to your communities and responsibility!
No serious economicst would make a comparison between the result of two phenomenons like Japanese and American, exclusively based on policies adopted, as the sole deciding factor.
@vahidfarsi812 You actually can, with Japan having little in the form of natural resources and the US having a multitude of natural resources and the US historically having more capital than Japan ever did. Japan's economic growth in the latter half of the 20th century is miraculous, being in spite of natural resources and worse, animosity from its Asian neighbors due to several war crimes back in World War 2 their nationalists continue to deny.
"I wasn't a commie or anything like that"
If you aren't a capitalist, you're a commie. It's just a question of to what degree you're a commie. The moment you accept the primacy of government in the marketplace, you have crossed the threshold.
I appreciate Tom Woods dry humor.
He gave people hope he didn’t give them the thing they were hoping for but he gave them the hope 😂
FDR gave them fast economic growth.
Under Roosevelt, the economy grew 9.3% per year.
I appreciated that reference to Origen there.
And no, the Origenist anathemas were a fabrication by the emperor.
11:04 lets just ignore calvin Coolidge. The BEST and MOST laissez-faire president EVER 😂
Tell me exactly what's wrong with Keynesian economics???
taxation is theft.
Fiat is fraud
Spend and pretend.
Hocus and pocus.
Look at these photographs *shrugs suggestively* ROFL.
Tom looks a bit like Humpty Dumpty with hair, still I love his talks and I’m a huge fan of his works.
I believe it was 16,000,000 conscripted into the USA armed forces.
Commenters never comment on the natural operation of the market, and their relationship to the starvation monopolists. There are many ways to look at things. Draw your own conclusions, but dont blame the beast systems you partake in regularly.
I can . To not be part of this system is in fact to become beast like at the whim of power and guns . There are no monopolists without the state . There is no starvation anything . The only starvation we have to fear are people who view the free and open exchange between consenting adults as evil . The market isn’t evil . The market just allows man the freedom to exchange. Are you against free exchange ? Am I the beast for demanding freedom or are you for opposing it?
Man what are these parents thinking?
i have discovered the nature of money that would provoke the gold and cryptocurrencies market crash. If you buy put options on gold and with your influence make my theory on money known provoking the gold market crash you would become rich. Being everything else the same a country with no gold is wealthier than a country with gold that protects the mineral inside a vault. Being everything else the same imagine a country with a baker, a fishmonger and a singer with no gold and another with a baker, a fishmonger and a guard to protect gold inside a vault. Which one lives better? Which one is wealthier? The country with no gold is wealthier because the baker and fishmonger get entertained by the singer for their money but the country with gold have to work to pay the guard to protect a mineral that offers no wellbeing or wealth because is useless inside a vault. An analogy would be an innocent kid after saving his pocket money buys a bicycle and his father tells him that he can store the bicycle in a garage unused to sell it in the future, but the rent of the garage would cost him some of his pocket money or he can use and enjoy the bicycle. Which option would the kid choose? There is not benefit in buying to sell because no value is added. Do you understand? The gold becomes wealth when is used, sparing the cost of protection. Because gold is increasingly more expensive to dig out as there is less underground and is increasingly cheaper as there is more on offer overground there would be a point when nobody would be mining the mineral. How much cost the taxpayers to protect gold? Cryptocurrencies are a number but money is transferable debt, a number and a name. Who would sell last?
🇺🇸
Warren Harding, one of the best ignorers in history!
"Iscal Stimulus-fay? ;-)
Is it just me or does this guy have the sort nervous smiley demeanor of a used car salesman who is being paid to tell you it's an excellent car when he knows you will probably be back and in a couple of weeks to complain about the worn out clutch plate?
Both the Austrian School and the Keynesian School are wrong. Both the Austrian School and the Keynesian School assume that the economy WILL always go through boom and bust cycles. Both schools assume that the economy will always "get sick." They only disagree on how the economy should be healed. Banks control the money supply through printing and Fractional Reserve Banking loans and when they Increase the money supply, inflation occurs. The dollar has lost 97% of its value since 1913. When the loans cannot be paid back, the money supply contracts, people lose their money and recessions and depressions occur. It is all about the money supply and debt. Banks make money by making loans thus they are motivated to increase the money supply with the Fractional Reserve Banking System . The Constitution says that only the government can coin money. Our Founding Fathers knew that the money supply needed to be controlled. The Constitution prohibits states from "coining" money but in the 18th century there was a loophole. States chartered banks and allowed them to print money and the Supreme Court gave it a thumbs up. But it is a conflict of interest between banks and the government. Banks want profits and the government wants stable prices. Keep the money supply constant and boom (inflation) and bust (deflation) cycles cannot happen. The Great Depression of 1929 and The Great Recession of 2008 are prime examples as was The Great Depression of 1893, but all American recessions and depressions were caused by a collapse in debt. Totally eliminate the Fractional Reserve banking system. All economic projects instead should be financed with equity or with time deposit loans (CDs). Then as the economy expands and the supply of goods and services increases, prices for goods and services will naturally fall which increases real wages.
Peter de Luca: Sound Money Economist and Professor
It’s posts like this that make me want to be an economist. Well put.
But if I might give my two uneducated cents, it seems like the Austrian model would disavow the banks’ printing money given that banks are private corporations and printing money is effectively giving money.
Again, I’m not educated on the matter. I’m just blowing a few RUclips videos out my @$$.
But I think I may parade around your proposal, it’s a really good one.
I think the Austrian school of economics is with you railing against the Fed. Tom Woods certainly has many podcasts about it.
Keeping money constant causes deflation over time. Same dollars chasing more goods due to population growth. Real issue is no one can control money supply. Fed cannot even define money anymore. Overseas banks can issue debt denominated in dollars and the Fed can do nothing to stop it.
Socialism and ostrasism, synonims.
Jesus this guy needs to lose some weight. Though I’m a BIG fan.
Scientology vs conventional wisdom
STOP PRETENDING THE ROTHBARDIAN WING IS THE ONLY AND DEFINING WING OF AE!!!!!
Thatcher followed Hayek and Friedman and ruined Britain and destroyed the industrial base of Britain.
Menger, Mises et. al. were very respectable at their time, yes. But nowadays Austrian Economics is simply a whole lot of story telling, that’s not enough, Ladies and gentlemen! Some more , please! I’m more on the conventional side.