I was failing micro & macro at first, until I read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. I promptly started getting the highest marks seen in that college in years. It was not because I understood the crap they were teaching. It was because all of a sudden, I actually understood economics! They did not realize the extent of my heresy. They hired me to run their economics resource center and be the 'official' tutor. I corrupted hundreds. ;-)
The best point about socialism and the Soviet Union specifically is they produced the most shoes in the world yet people still didn't have shoes. They didn't have the shoes they wanted.
@@kaykizzil wow so either you are new to RUclips or you don't understand. The Soviets said they produced the most shows yet with out the free market that didn't matter. The people couldn't get the shoes or even shoes they wanted.
Thank you Mises Institute for enlightening my economic journey in grad school. May the light of this tradition enlighten the minds of more students and professors in Asia. Greetings from Singapore. 😊
Austrians say Keynesians are wrong, and vice-versa...they can argue all day, and while Austrians are right, the average person doesn't have the time or the specialized knowledge to figure that out by comparing theory... or does theory really translate to morality. But a simple show of hands, will show you that almost every person already believes that they should control their own money-- which not surprisingly, is the Austrian method, while Keynesians say "Father government knows best." That's how political science beats economics via common sense morality: i.e. "thou shalt not steal."
dragknuckle That's just it: nobody understands just how fucking serious the problem is... but I look on the bright side, like with the Titanic: i.e. it took a huge disaster to wake people up to the danger, and so that incident, while tragic, actually saved lives. I have no false hope that this "Obama-nation" will have similar positive results, but let's face it: the economy was bound for collapse ever since the federal government began killing and imprisoning anyone who separated their home-states from its abusive dictators run amuck; so it was only a matter of time, and Obama is our equivalent of the Titanic.
Except in America we're still battling Keynesians left and right... Also, I'm 17, go to school 35 hours a week and work my two part time jobs for a combined 25 hours.. So I have a 60 hour week plus homework because I do dual credit and AP classes and I have friends who do the same and I know many more who are not my friends who do the same and I love to learn about the economy and political sciences. The only day I have free in my week is Sunday, and most of Sunday is church and cleaning in my house. Anyone can learn things about the economy and about politics if they try, I mean you could watch 2 1 hour talks on RUclips on different days on Keynesian economics and on Hayek's economics and make a decision based on history that they can also learn on places as accessible on RUclips. That, or go read a book. Read a book on Keynes over a few months and then on me on Hayek for a few months and then read up on our history. Anyone who decides to get involved can learn these things easily.
This is what I get for studying austrian economics before learning [in detail] any other school of economics. Now every time I hear anything about keynesian economics I want to scream. Bravo.
10 years past after... An Indonesian who never has interest in Economic studies, come to very much obliged the Mises Institute for sharring their videos, ideas and thougts. Gin, PS: As a token of gratitute, may I add, about Keynesian versus Free Market... --- In the Tao Te Ching, written more than 2,000 years before Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” Lao Tzu instructed the sage‐ruler to adopt the principle of noninterference as the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity: “Take no action and the people of themselves are transformed … Engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” He recognized that “the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” Corruption stems not from freedom but from freedom’s being overly constrained by government. Like water, the market is resilient and will seek its natural course - a course that will be smoother the wider the path the market can take and the firmer the institutional banks that contain it. ---
The recession was officially over by June of 2009. By that time we had spent less than 8% of the stimulus package. For anyone to say that the stimulus prevented another great depression is sidesplittingly uproarious.
Only noticed it for this video. He was definitely inspired by him. Though all of his more recent talks (last few years at least) I don't hear that. Maybe he noticed and didn't want to sound like a direct copy of Rothbard.
I love these videos. The growth in the Austrian school of thought has been getting lots of traction recently. I have personally gone from one extreme to another. Thanks Tom, great as usual. In the long run we're all dead-Yours truly, Keynes
Another great lecture by Thomas Woods. I like the slogan: "Keynes must die so the economy can live." In the end, if America would just re-discover its small government, free market & level playing field Capitalistic roots, it will do good again. Sadly under both big government, Progressive GOP & Democratic leaders, we are still headed in the wrong direction & towards a fiscal collapse.
@@rohansingh-wt7hi Worse than I thought! We are self destructing, the crown of world leadership has passed to China & the US paper dollar is headed for extinction.
Keynesian policies stroke the egos of politicians and regulators who believe they do good because they do something. Voters also want politicians to be seen to "do something". Sadly, it takes intelligence and self control to do "nothing", to let events run their course. How many people actually have intelligence and self control?
@utubehayter - That's what I've been saying the whole time really. I was stating that by consenting to their employment, marginal productivity (the difference between the value of the service they provide, and amount they're paid) is not theft. Marginal productivity is part of a legitimate business model, as is profit.
Fear can also be an encouragement. If I'm minding my own business and someone is acting like they want to do harm to me, I might do harm first to ensure my survival. Same for nations. Situations are all unique: what is the level of agression, private and public, what weapons are involved, what are the stakes for losing, the same of acting in error, and so on.
How would Austrians counter the post-WWII argument I've heard, which is that the only reason the U.S. economy was so robust after the war is that the U.S. was the sole superpower left standing in the Western world while everyone else had been bombed to the stone age? Therefore, the U.S., largely undamaged during the war, could export its products to all those countries that needed to rebuild.
Why is there a need to counter such point, the point Keynesians, progressives and liberals alike make is that since top marginal tax rates were at 90 percent, then that's what caused the period of economic growth. While it's true that tax rates were so high, very few payed such rates, and that money went to pay the war debt. Spending levels went down after ww2, not up. It was also a period were regulation levels were down, which is what Austrians advocate.
+fountainhead So, the fact that millions were killed and $trillions (2015 dollars) of wealth was destroyed is a good thing? US Economic growth from 1946 to 1963 occurred because the government shrank, taxes shrank, workers showed up in huge numbers (former soldiers), interest rates dropped (government ran a surplus), and yes, the much of the world was rebuilding. However, US was not the only country that didn't get destroyed during the war. Check out what happened to Argentina - once one of the strongest economies around and the strongest in South America. It's economy died because of the government.
+Josue Barboza There is a need to counter such a point, because many people are convinced by arguments like these that Keynes wasn't wrong. It's not just about being right, it's about convincing people of your theories as well.
+fountainhead If I understand your point correctly it is this: How can you be sure that decreased government spending and regulation were the main cause of the post-war boom if there were also other factors, like global hegemony and lack of competition, that might have contributed? My answer is as follows: 1. The main point is not that these things caused the boom, but that they DIDN'T cause an enormous depression and huge unemployment, as the Keynesians predicted. 2. Being able to export products is not beneficial on its own, it would be more beneficial to consume these products domestically. Why being able to export is normally beneficial, is the fact that you can focus production on products in which you have a comparative advantage and import things that another country produces relatively more efficient. Comparative advantage is often misunderstood, so I'll post a short explanation here, just in case: www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/law-comparative-advantage.asp). In one sentence: It's all relative. 3. The reason why foreign aid and loans to the EU, which financed the export you're talking about were beneficial is that it was an investment that created more global wealth, which in the long run is better for everybody (although these benefits are rarely evenly distributed and there are always some temporary losers). They were investing in the EU economy, not because that profited the US in the short run, but because that profited EVERYBODY in the long run.
I was practicing guitar while watching this when I heard this at 20:27 : "No toilet paper...is this a good trade-off for going to the gulag?" I had to put my guitar away and pause the video so I could laugh for a good minute.
Fantastic. Loved it. I look forward to the day when this strain of thought is called American, instead of Austrian. Seriously, aren't they socialists now?!
The best adaption to Austrian economic theory to the real world is offered by Prof. Fred Foldvary (San Jose State University). What I find most insightful in Professor Foldvary's analyses is his understanding of property markets as a fundamental driver of what we think of as "business cycles." He finds his inspiration from a number of classical political economists, in particular, Henry George. Among the mistakes made by Keynes was his assertion that land markets were no longer important to economic growth or how wealth is distributed. He followed the long list of neoclassical economists in this assertion. Fred Foldvary reminds us that land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) do not respond to the price mechanism as does labor and actual capital goods. Thus, he aligns with Henry George in calling for the public collection of the rent of land. As a libertarian, Professor Foldvary argues the case for distribution of most of this fund to citizens as an income supplement or dividend. Real democracy can be relied upon to determine at the community level what portion of the rent fund ought to be used to pay for desired public goods and services and what portion ought to be distributed.
Jason Shults I am glad my comments were of some value to you. I would not go so far as to say the economics I took in college were worthless, but they certainly did not contribute to a sound understanding of what causes business cycles or has lead to the concentration of income and wealth plaguing the world's societies.
Edward Dodson To say that land does not respond to price mechanisms is beyond laughable. All assets must obey supply and demand. I suspect his position is being misrepresented, because I can scarcely believe someone would claim such a thing. Wanting to redistribute land income is some communist BS. That would totally disrupt the land market. Its a disaster waiting to happen. It’s Keynesian type thinking as Woods says in the video - thinking in terms of aggregates rather than the micro. The last thing we need is more taxes. As for what leads to concentrated wealth, that’s easy: physics. Physics goes by the exponential distribution. The masses of animals, masses of stars, volumes of land masses, usage of words in a language - everything goes by this. Wealth would inevitably be concentrated. Physics despises equality, outside of equal and opposite reaction. What matters is merit and mobility. The freer the market, the greater the meritocracy and the higher the mobility. The highest inequality is also found in socialist countries - not that inequality matters at all. Suffering matters. Inequality is nothing.
> All we need is an information network... You still haven't read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" if you continue to make this same sad argument. There already is an efficient communications system for the allocation of scarce resources: Prices.
Almost done listening to it now. Very good information. Not that I ever supported Greenspan but truthful information always has higher value when it's difficult to come by.
By ensuring living space is available, and is covered, and by ensuring food is available and is covered, and nothing extra, the worst is averted and those who can work can be given every opportunity to work, and to learn to work better and smarter if one is able.
@ytgv3fc7 - Marginal productivity is what empowers the Capitalist system. It's important as it aids savings and investment. There is going to be a gap between the value of the service you provide and the your compensation. However, in the Communist state, you are not guaranteed compensation. You have no ability for redress against government, but in the system set forth by most states, you have protection against force, fraud, and coercion from corporations.
@ytgv3fc7 - The purpose of a company is NEVER to take all they can from the workers. Ever. Thus, there is ALWAYS an incentive to keep the labor force happy. Always. The purpose of a company is ALWAYS to make a profit. Abusing your labor force severely compromises that ability. You're just assuming the conditions needed for your caviot to exist, actually exist.
@wintereis57 - What is going to lead to reckless investment? Is it the repeal of a regulation that has nothing to do with investment, or the assurance of the government that if you fail, you will be bailed out. What would make a tight rope walker take more chances, rules against recklessness, or the addition of a net?
The lower the interest rate, especially when the inflation rate is higher than the real rate means that anyone taking a loan was essentially borrowing for free. It also distorts the true cost of future projects by making unprofitable ones into good ventures, incentivizes people to borrow across the board, from main street to wall street, and harms savings. There's no stronger incentive to borrow than when you're being paid to do it.
I was also very clear about "division of labour" in multiple time frames: in a single time frame it can make PLENTY of sense to divide, specialize and work quickly; in a longer-term time-frame a person who uses multiple "unrelated" skills in a new job that requires them all, or who can mobilize his/her labour elsewhere or smaller distances/costs to keep working, is better utility / survival.
Likewise, pedantry and convoluted arguments do not imply correctedness nor truthfulness. Quite often false premises are enshrouded in complicated verbiage in order to make them "seem" truthful.
Wall Street got drunk because the Fed provided all the booze. Hey, if I am guaranteed all my loss and I get all the cheap money I want, I would take all the high-risk short term profits I want.
@wintereis57 You think this laws in any way would have curbed the financial speculatory bubble? Why? As with the crash in 29 the problem was an extensive credit expansion which fuels an unsustainable investment trajectory where because of abritrary price setting of interest rates you both have increasing consumption and investment at the same time, the problem being that there are simply not enough physical resources in the conomy to fulfill these projects. This is text-book ABCT.
@ytgv3fc7 We're living through the greatest period of prosperity in the entirety of human history, with lifespans just having tripled from 25-30 years to 80-90 years. Clean water wasn't scarce in hunter-gatherer societies because there were ~1000 times fewer people and they were only able to live in a handful of places; they couldn't engage in agriculture because they had no expectation of being able to keep what they produce(aka socialism). They died like flies in famines and disease.
There are multiple reasons for lacking productivity: physical or mental disability, refusal to work, inability to learn to work BETTER yet still be productive enough to survive, and so on. I can really only see a logical result of starvation, that is not unfair, to a person who is too lazy to get/make their own food. Life has always expected we do such things. It's entirely different NOW if that person is denied only because you STOLE the food first.
@Salvysahagun the railroad system went belly up after the government took it over. and what's your point about the Louisiana Purchase? the fact Jefferson bought it off France over concerns of Spain or France blocking trade into New Orleans? we had just gained sovereignty to allow some other power to take us over, considering what a hotbed Europe was at the time.
How about imposing a maximum tax? That is to say, no person shall be taxed more than $1 000 000. The figure could be debated, but conceptually, there should be a limit to how much money one person should have to pay the government.
How about getting rid of income tax all together? The US's (and other countries') income tax laws makes all citizens potential criminals (if they don't adhere to the tax laws exactly) and costs $billions in enforcement that is completely, utterly, and absolutely unproductive waste of scarce resources. Instead, the governments should consider two taxes. The first is a consumption tax (VAT, sales tax, or whatever) that is then voluntary since a person has the right to decline consuming most things (except for minimum necessities). The disadvantage of a consumption tax is it reduces consumption, but the advantage is it encourages investment, so the net result is positive for the economy (much to the disagreement of Keynesian views). The second tax could be an employee tax - similar to social security and unemployment taxes. This would be a tax paid by companies on wages paid. It could also be (like social security) shared by both the employer and employee. Since companies must already pay various employee taxes, there would be little increase burden on compliance by the companies while eliminating about 80% of the IRS. Some may say that these taxes would be regressive in that they put a burden on the low-income side of the income curve. First off, all taxes are regressive since they put a burden on the productive side of the economy. Second, it is entirely possible to put graduated tax rates - say no tax on the first $500 per week income, lower rates on the next $1,000 per week normal tax rate on the next $4,000 per week, and higher rates above that salary. In fact, this would encourage companies to hire low-income employees since they have to pay less taxes for those employees. Also, people could be free to get as much employment as they want, since they do not get tax penalties for additional wages (additional wages push them into higher brackets and reduce the benefits of the additional wages). These are not perfect solutions, and these will require significant study, but I can easily and confidently say that the current income tax system does not work, is inefficient, forces bad behaviors (spending instead of savings, for example) and does not pay for the government's expenses.
I agree that there should be a limit. Or, more importantly, a limit as to how much the government can spend. If companies are paying directly an employee tax, than it becomes a little difficult to track (companies would need to know how much other companies paid for you, and that could be an invasion of privacy). However, something similar to social security where a tax payer can get money back if they have two or more jobs during the year. Still, the first step is to remove individual taxation power from the government, and then use that reduction in power to reduce governmental spending.
Skip Reith I like your way of thinking, mostly. I would prefer a system that left the private citizen out of the Federal and State paper work loop. My thinking: 1) A retail consumer tax collected at the state level and distributed to the national, county and city governments with a portion held back by the state. All but a couple of states have the necessary machinery in place. There would be no tax on services, consumable item (food, medicine, soda pop...), or used items from any source. 2) A modest residential property tax collected by the counties and shared with state and city governments. 3) There would remain the usual court fees, property transfer fees, registration fees and etc.. 4) As per the constitution there would remain maintenance level import/export taxes in the 2-5% range. 5) No tax of any kind on incomes or capital gains. 6) No SS, MC taxes, no unemployment taxes.
Ed Waggoner Sr. Taxes are compulsory, though, regardless of what form they come in. Your example still begs the question of how the government has the authority to take money from people and threaten violence against them if they refuse to comply.
People can debate who predicted what and when. But it seems to me that the matter of central planning's inability to accurately set prices, set interest rates, or pick the right investments proves what the Austrians are saying.
@ytgv3fc7 - "The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result." EXACTLY! Consent renders this NOT theft by definition. Your theory falls apart here. Marginal Productivity cannot be theft by your own definition, as the worker consents to its existence by NOT striking. LOGIC FAIL!
like I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Fisher hypothesiss. Furthermore, increasing the money supply through the central bank lowers interest rates. The rates only go back up after the money is loaned out, spent, and prices begin the rise. Anyways, I was just making a guess here because I haven't read the Austrian perspective on the Fisher hypothesis.
within a system, it doesnt matter what the direction or flow of money is, your average will always be your average. doesnt matter whether it is (50+50+50)/3=50 or (25+75+50)/3=50 or any which way for (a1+a2+a3)=150 where in the previous equation a1=25, a2=75, a3=50. the only way average income will go up is if you increase the sum of a1::a3. And when all your money comes from a printing press, that means the GDP directly tells us inflation. GDP per capita is no indicator of a "good economy".
@wintereis57 - Disparity between incomes of the rich and poor doesn't cause depressions. It has always to some extent existed, so why aren't we ALWAYS in a depression. Add to that the fact that even after the recovery from depressions, we still have a disparity in income gap. It doesn't go away, and yet things get better. So if it's the cause, and it doesn't always happen, and it's still there during the recovery, can it really be a cause?
Can't remember if I responded to this or not. One way I can think of is that when you simply increase the money supply and give it to people, you're not actually giving them more wealth, just more paper. You're not really give me three more apples, you're just cutting my one apple into four pieces. Basically, people who should actually be saving money are now spending it because they think they just became richer.
interest rates have EVERYTHING to do with finance. EVERYTHING. Everything we price in the derivatives markets, every project undertaken by an investment firm, any forecast done by the corporate finance dept at any company uses the interest rates to determine if future projects will generate value.
@ParapaDrifter critical to community survival and I know not to make the wrong choice on that. Winter roads: well this is a severe problem. We've got different changes in density/size with different temps, shifting soil and salt damage. I have continually looked at how roads can be improved while not sacrificing ability to USE them in the heavy winter (salt?). This is actually a very difficult problem.
#1 incentive: can't argue on that. If you pay more of anything to do something, that is where the incentive will go. #2 calculation: measurement using machines and communication (using same) indicates where real needs and resources are better than pricing. Even today's markets admit as much by including volume and capitalization and resource estimates of oil, gold, uranium, and so on. Pricing is insufficient. #3 central planner: not required, since a decentralized network beats it easily
To be more clear: the mining act in Canada that allows this does not in any way say who DOES own the rights, simply that you do not own them for having a residence on top of the minerals, oil, metals, etc. that are beneath you.
I'm no banking expert but I think that sounds like a real plan. With real disclosure from private banks, and with real competition, there's real choice and real freedom. I think you have a winning plan. And honestly, if people are cautious enough and help out those who need it individually, even without a hint of socialism, it just might work. Long term.
@Salvysahagun you mean how they shifted the bracket so nobody paid that high? or how they added a shitload of tax writeoffs and business expenses so the rich only paid an average of 30% of their taxes? that's what's called a nominal tax cut. the gilded age: who mentioned tariffs? but if we wanna talk tariffs, explain why tariffs levied against the confederacy hurt the northern states causing South Carolina to consider nullifying tariffs, which they were prevented from through threat of force.
ad 1. thats no problem at all because productivity growth mostly results in falling prices. And the increase in the costs of living are 100% due to government induced inflation and taxing.
assertion of 4 items: Southern Ontario's economic expansion and electrical grid is a direct result of international trade used to steal the lives, health and food (by killing the land and water) of West Virginians who are not protected by the miners, working for them, on their PRIVATE property (and being shot at is bad too). Your explanation?
1. Wage growth is far behind productivity growth, and with cost of living increases the bottom half has been hard hit. 2. The income gap exists for both types of income. 3. Social mobility in the US is the lowest it has ever been.
Most sensible people would call that "regulation". As in laws to regulate activities, put people in jail, extract fines, and so on. But as soon as the government is involved the hyper-capitalists will call it regulation and government interference with the free market. It's been quoted here quite often in this article's comment-list.
Unfortunately no. You will get a sort of certificate you can use in Resumes and scholar credentials but the mises institute is more of a honorary place for Austrian scholars. You will learn more about Austrian economics more than anywhere else on their website and at the institute but it does serve more as a base/think tank than a school. You can get your degree of economics anywhere and still be a self proclaimed Austrian economist and collaborate in their network
In Canada, for example, we have a very deadly situation that doesn't exist in the USA. In America you can be threatened or bribed but there's a legal process to fight an attempt to directly get what's on or under your land, like oil, gold or uranium. In Canada you have no such legal righst. NONE. A company walks in, claims, and boots you out. Period.
ah, good point about the aspartame. No, I won't disagree with you on that, you definitely got information right. So with no regulation, wouldn't we have that problem about aspartame and A LOT MORE? If you think we'd have less I'd like to know reasons why I should be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced if there are good reasons.
20:15 I have vague recollection that farmers were (secretly) making their own fuel for tractors and farm machines in the 80s, so this part isn't entirely true. Toilet paper remark - spot on.
> Open source would only work with virtual property, PERIOD. OpenSource only works on that which can be infinitely reproduced, such as designs, software code, etc. Law, for instance, has always operated in the "OpenSource" model. Laws, legal decisions, etc, are all openly published and are utilized and built upon freely and constantly by lawyers, legislators and judges. Yet who is going to say that lawyers don't get paid? Or architects?
I've been looking at other articles, noting the messages I haven't replied to yet. Most of what I'm looking at is the under-pinning of inflation, money supply, gold, stocks, commodities. Sorry I was busy. It's on the list... back in a bit
@Salvysahagun Also, Jefferson spoke out against tariffs and taxes--and told the American people to keep away from both-- but when it came to paying off Hamilton's gross national debt he was forced to make a compromise. He might have enacted a temporary tariff but he eliminated every single direct federal tax and vowed America will never again see another federal tax collector at his door. obviously he broke his promise...
@Salvysahagun wrong decade... that was the 70s. the 50s was marked by prosperity by ending the war and downsizing the scope of the New Deal, like eliminating the price-setting National Recovery Act and lowering taxes for the rich. so much for which theory? the entire gilded age was marked by low money supply and high productivity which caused massive deflation and wages to rise nominally. the panic and striking was the lack of knowledge of inflation and deflation.
well, there's an interesting argument, and I think something in the technology world is about to give you and I no certain answer. It's called a Fab machine. It means taking quite a few basic materials and 3-D printing them. So it's the resource-cost for those materials, the machine, perhaps a time-trade off if you can build it from parts, rather than higher cost to buy it finished, with open-source of course. The line's about to be blurred. I can't say you're wrong, you might be right. But...
All we need is an information network, and we certainly have one, to relay where resources are, where they are needed, and to choose to move them. We can measure all the alternate routes/methods and costs in real physical terms like joules, litres/barrels oil, time, momentum, without resorting to "dollars" or credit or intangibles. Because now we have COMPUTERS. Starting to sink in?
@Salvysahagun first answer me, did u imply before that you're an advocate of the gold standard? and how does speculation cause inflation? and why is deflation bad?
That makes no sense. The problem is they're not firewalled due to removal of Glass-Steagall and it's very obvious what happens. No deposit insurance = no use for a bank at all. Any lack of assurance my money is safe in the bank and I don't need one.
(continued) also, prices don't all go up equally. Certain prices may go up, others may go down, and others may stay the same. So even relative prices change (prices in relation to other prices). from wikipedia: "If rr is assumed to be constant, rn must rise when πe rises. Fisher Effect: The one for one adjustment of the nominal interest rate to the expected inflation rate." Again, this is my guess here - Austrians would probably say that this stuff is incorrect.
Some variations of genetic programming actually only simulate biological evolution, and act strictly in machines; some do not actually physically control robots or labs but simply write output programs, instructions, plans, blue-prints, for a machine later to be told to use, or a person/team. But it works, and very well, enough to compete with humans for making NEW patents.
The alternative is to have private gains and socialized losses. This will only encourage companies to act recklessly and in a manner that is harmful to almost everyone but themselves. If there were actual risks this kind of behaviour would quickly diminish.
In 1946 you have to keep in mind that we were exporting stuff to most of the world for rebuilding , since our industrial base was still in fantastic shape .
ok I read some older posts of yours to try to figure out what your angle was.. I agree that Civil War 2 will be more of a change than Ron Paul becoming president, but don't get me wrong, I would like to see RP win too.
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. It is a preposterous notion.” - Dr. Peter Mansfield
@wintereis57 I'm talking about any measure of regulations, and I don't know a measure in which they have gone down since the 70s. I say it again, if Glass-Steagall was even relevant then the problems would have occured in the banking sector before they did so in the investment banks. That is what it pertains to. There is no real conflict of interest beteween investment banks and banks. What it has to do with is the FDIC. As long as the FDIC exists I don't support the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
@razerfish what you call "free exchange" is not what I call "free exchange". If the ownership initially of each, any or all property or assets is disputed then free exchange CAN NOT EXIST AND IS A FRAUD.
so when I brought up that open-source is higher quality than paid-for closed-source software, is always $0 and therefore propagates higher quality without a pricing mechanism, your response must have been a draft you lost somewhere, because I haven't found it yet.
@synestheticmonotony if, however, someone wanted to insert something into any trading system of real inventory, something in place of gold which had no use at all but was equally rare, it wouldn't fly. It may have value to almost no one or to no one at all because of having no use. It is for this reason gold is not setting a price - it is merely another item of another inventory, already counted and able to be shown globally to all interested parties the real quantity.
I'm not too sure about the malinvestment part yet, lots of the Austrian economists link the housing bubble to the inflation of the currency/lowering of interest rates, etc. I look at the situation like this: There isn't really a difference between taxing people and redistributing or printing money and distributing. So sure, the people who get the money are going to benefit and be able to expand but everyone else is going to have a little less money to spend or invest with.
@clawtheunconquered Central banking not National banking Central banking promotes speculation. which depletes the value of your currency. National banking promotes production, Production increases the value of your currency. Therefore the inflation is countered. Thou it should not be excessive. The crash of 1893 was caused by Railroad speculation because of over subsidies. Which is why I believe Hayek and Mises Business cycle is crucial thing for government to understand.
So when I say "ensuring space is available" what I'm saying is it is RIGHT NOW available to many of us and if we fight back against the capitalists we can keep it that way. If we lose the fight we will have to pay a lot more for imported food and even local food, and not have as much choice. What I propose is avoiding the loss of it. It's not gone yet. Not where I am.
@Pglarsen not really. I just link together related videos, articles, and collect groups of bookmarks in the high-priority order and then look at them all in a row. It minimizes the time it takes to process the data. For those that I anticipate no response or that I will make no comment they go into another stream/collection. If I can't get useful information from writing a comment, I typically won't. But it's also tempting to tell off blatant idiots.
> contract law IS regulation. Your error is in not understanding coercion. A contract is voluntarily agreed to, otherwise there would be no contract. A regulation is IMPOSED, at gunpoint, upon people who never agreed to it. That's why tax rates change and you have no recourse. You can't "unsubscribe". If your credit card company changes its contract terms, you can refuse the terms and void the contract without any penalty what so ever. Coercion. It makes all the difference.
Low interest rates encourage riskier investments. The metaphor of a sports team is often used to explain. You pick the 8 best players available to you for your team, rejecting the less able players. If you are then allowed to pick 2 more players, you have to choose form ones you rejected before. The more players you are allowed to pick, the less qualified the new picks will be.
I didn't phrase that very well, it's not that I believe they don't care about national security. I just think they may be a bit optimistic about other countries leaving us alone, just because we keep are paws to ourselves, so to speak. That said, I do think we should try as much as possible to stay out of other countries. I do not think the President should ever state what he will not do, fear can be the best deterrent.
"Each govt. is unable to print money when they have to." Yes, but ECB can decide to print. It's similar to the American states not having a printing press while the federal government does. If you look at the EU member states like that, it's not that much different that here. I don't know why you picked the EU as a success. I mean, have you noticed what is going on over there. The EU project, ECB, and paper currency are failing there, too. It's your ideology that is bankrupt.
So the same happens with investing and interest rates. Low rates encourage more people to invest more money. Instead of choosing just the safest investments, people choose a larger number of investments, many of which will be riskier than what they would invest in if they had less money to invest. And of course the lower rates mean the payoff is bigger, making risk that much more attractive.
SaulOhio, it’s Government that lowers interest rate by the amount of money they print and put into the economy. Government also affects how risky banks are willing to be by federally insuring loans. This is what caused the housing bubble. If you remove the government backed loans, and government injection of cash into banks, then lest risky higher interest loans would only be possible. Which goes against Keynesian principles.
But lower interest rates increase the number of people making bets, and the number of bets being made. The choices of what to bet on necessarily have to be poorer risks.
SaulOhio , only a loan for business funding is a “bet”. When you buy a car, it a house to own, that’s not a “bet”. Buying a house to flip, is a business, there fore a “bet”.
Lending for the purpose of investing IS making a bet. People do borrow in order to invest. Banks borrow in order to lend, and every loan is a bet. All of this is regulated by interest rates. If the central banks didn't try to regulate, the interest rates, which would be dependent on saving, would do the regulating.
> And yes, I read the economic calculation. So, since you've taken the time to check out one of the sources I've provided, can you provide any sources for your conviction of the workability of pure Communism that I may not have already read?
I was failing micro & macro at first, until I read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. I promptly started getting the highest marks seen in that college in years. It was not because I understood the crap they were teaching. It was because all of a sudden, I actually understood economics! They did not realize the extent of my heresy. They hired me to run their economics resource center and be the 'official' tutor. I corrupted hundreds. ;-)
"Keynes must die so the economy may live."
Hahahahaha I love it.
The best point about socialism and the Soviet Union specifically is they produced the most shoes in the world yet people still didn't have shoes. They didn't have the shoes they wanted.
Dumbest reply I've ever seen on RUclips
@@kaykizzil wow so either you are new to RUclips or you don't understand.
The Soviets said they produced the most shows yet with out the free market that didn't matter. The people couldn't get the shoes or even shoes they wanted.
@@Tigerfire75 Commie cunts are nothing but mere trolls, they won't understand these facts coz they always live in the state of denial.
Thank you Mises Institute for enlightening my economic journey in grad school. May the light of this tradition enlighten the minds of more students and professors in Asia. Greetings from Singapore. 😊
Austrians say Keynesians are wrong, and vice-versa...they can argue all day, and while Austrians are right, the average person doesn't have the time or the specialized knowledge to figure that out by comparing theory... or does theory really translate to morality.
But a simple show of hands, will show you that almost every person already believes that they should control their own money-- which not surprisingly, is the Austrian method, while Keynesians say "Father government knows best."
That's how political science beats economics via common sense morality: i.e. "thou shalt not steal."
I called Obama a Keynesian and was accused of being a "birther."
Ken Burns
You can't make a comment like that without some explanation. How are Obama's economic policies not rooted in Keynesian interventionism?
Ken Burns I understand now.
dragknuckle That's just it: nobody understands just how fucking serious the problem is... but I look on the bright side, like with the Titanic: i.e. it took a huge disaster to wake people up to the danger, and so that incident, while tragic, actually saved lives.
I have no false hope that this "Obama-nation" will have similar positive results, but let's face it: the economy was bound for collapse ever since the federal government began killing and imprisoning anyone who separated their home-states from its abusive dictators run amuck; so it was only a matter of time, and Obama is our equivalent of the Titanic.
Except in America we're still battling Keynesians left and right... Also, I'm 17, go to school 35 hours a week and work my two part time jobs for a combined 25 hours.. So I have a 60 hour week plus homework because I do dual credit and AP classes and I have friends who do the same and I know many more who are not my friends who do the same and I love to learn about the economy and political sciences. The only day I have free in my week is Sunday, and most of Sunday is church and cleaning in my house. Anyone can learn things about the economy and about politics if they try, I mean you could watch 2 1 hour talks on RUclips on different days on Keynesian economics and on Hayek's economics and make a decision based on history that they can also learn on places as accessible on RUclips. That, or go read a book. Read a book on Keynes over a few months and then on me on Hayek for a few months and then read up on our history. Anyone who decides to get involved can learn these things easily.
Funny how all you Keynesians respond by saying "well it would have been worse" because you know that Keynesianism has no credibility.
All of their hypothetical criticism is nothing but a mere explanation of the status quo!
This is what I get for studying austrian economics before learning [in detail] any other school of economics. Now every time I hear anything about keynesian economics I want to scream.
Bravo.
I’m a nobody who listens to several economic lectures. Mises is my favourite. Love from Australia 🇦🇺
Yoooo that’s me
10 years past after...
An Indonesian who never has interest in Economic studies, come to very much obliged the Mises Institute for sharring their videos, ideas and thougts.
Gin,
PS:
As a token of gratitute, may I add, about Keynesian versus Free Market...
---
In the Tao Te Ching, written more than 2,000 years before Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” Lao Tzu instructed the sage‐ruler to adopt the principle of noninterference as the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity: “Take no action and the people of themselves are transformed … Engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” He recognized that “the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” Corruption stems not from freedom but from freedom’s being overly constrained by government. Like water, the market is resilient and will seek its natural course - a course that will be smoother the wider the path the market can take and the firmer the institutional banks that contain it.
---
The recession was officially over by June of 2009. By that time we had spent less than 8% of the stimulus package. For anyone to say that the stimulus prevented another great depression is sidesplittingly uproarious.
He sounds so similar to Rothbard it's kinda scary... Or encouraging... Both?
Only noticed it for this video. He was definitely inspired by him. Though all of his more recent talks (last few years at least) I don't hear that. Maybe he noticed and didn't want to sound like a direct copy of Rothbard.
I love these videos. The growth in the Austrian school of thought has been getting lots of traction recently. I have personally gone from one extreme to another. Thanks Tom, great as usual.
In the long run we're all dead-Yours truly, Keynes
Another great lecture by Thomas Woods.
I like the slogan: "Keynes must die so the economy can live."
In the end, if America would just re-discover its small government, free market & level playing field Capitalistic roots, it will do good again. Sadly under both big government, Progressive GOP & Democratic leaders, we are still headed in the wrong direction & towards a fiscal collapse.
Ethercruiser1 trump
Well said, where do you stand now 8 years later ?
@@rohansingh-wt7hi Worse than I thought! We are self destructing, the crown of world leadership has passed to China & the US paper dollar is headed for extinction.
Keynesian policies stroke the egos of politicians and regulators who believe they do good because they do something.
Voters also want politicians to be seen to "do something".
Sadly, it takes intelligence and self control to do "nothing", to let events run their course.
How many people actually have intelligence and self control?
"You cannot invade the United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
--Admiral Yamamoto
Tom Woods is a funny and entertaining guy. Which is easy when your material comes from Keyensians.
@utubehayter - That's what I've been saying the whole time really. I was stating that by consenting to their employment, marginal productivity (the difference between the value of the service they provide, and amount they're paid) is not theft. Marginal productivity is part of a legitimate business model, as is profit.
Fear can also be an encouragement. If I'm minding my own business and someone is acting like they want to do harm to me, I might do harm first to ensure my survival. Same for nations. Situations are all unique: what is the level of agression, private and public, what weapons are involved, what are the stakes for losing, the same of acting in error, and so on.
How would Austrians counter the post-WWII argument I've heard, which is that the only reason the U.S. economy was so robust after the war is that the U.S. was the sole superpower left standing in the Western world while everyone else had been bombed to the stone age? Therefore, the U.S., largely undamaged during the war, could export its products to all those countries that needed to rebuild.
Why is there a need to counter such point, the point Keynesians, progressives and liberals alike make is that since top marginal tax rates were at 90 percent, then that's what caused the period of economic growth.
While it's true that tax rates were so high, very few payed such rates, and that money went to pay the war debt.
Spending levels went down after ww2, not up.
It was also a period were regulation levels were down, which is what Austrians advocate.
+fountainhead So, the fact that millions were killed and $trillions (2015 dollars) of wealth was destroyed is a good thing?
US Economic growth from 1946 to 1963 occurred because the government shrank, taxes shrank, workers showed up in huge numbers (former soldiers), interest rates dropped (government ran a surplus), and yes, the much of the world was rebuilding.
However, US was not the only country that didn't get destroyed during the war. Check out what happened to Argentina - once one of the strongest economies around and the strongest in South America. It's economy died because of the government.
+Josue Barboza There is a need to counter such a point, because many people are convinced by arguments like these that Keynes wasn't wrong. It's not just about being right, it's about convincing people of your theories as well.
+fountainhead If I understand your point correctly it is this: How can you be sure that decreased government spending and regulation were the main cause of the post-war boom if there were also other factors, like global hegemony and lack of competition, that might have contributed?
My answer is as follows:
1. The main point is not that these things caused the boom, but that they DIDN'T cause an enormous depression and huge unemployment, as the Keynesians predicted.
2. Being able to export products is not beneficial on its own, it would be more beneficial to consume these products domestically. Why being able to export is normally beneficial, is the fact that you can focus production on products in which you have a comparative advantage and import things that another country produces relatively more efficient.
Comparative advantage is often misunderstood, so I'll post a short explanation here, just in case: www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/law-comparative-advantage.asp). In one sentence: It's all relative.
3. The reason why foreign aid and loans to the EU, which financed the export you're talking about were beneficial is that it was an investment that created more global wealth, which in the long run is better for everybody (although these benefits are rarely evenly distributed and there are always some temporary losers). They were investing in the EU economy, not because that profited the US in the short run, but because that profited EVERYBODY in the long run.
Anyone whose argument begins "the only reason" is wrong from the start.
I was practicing guitar while watching this when I heard this at 20:27 :
"No toilet paper...is this a good trade-off for going to the gulag?"
I had to put my guitar away and pause the video so I could laugh for a good minute.
Fantastic. Loved it. I look forward to the day when this strain of thought is called American, instead of Austrian. Seriously, aren't they socialists now?!
I find it funny how, on a video debunking Keynesianism, the liberals commenting decide to discuss Marxism.
The best adaption to Austrian economic theory to the real world is offered by Prof. Fred Foldvary (San Jose State University). What I find most insightful in Professor Foldvary's analyses is his understanding of property markets as a fundamental driver of what we think of as "business cycles." He finds his inspiration from a number of classical political economists, in particular, Henry George. Among the mistakes made by Keynes was his assertion that land markets were no longer important to economic growth or how wealth is distributed. He followed the long list of neoclassical economists in this assertion. Fred Foldvary reminds us that land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) do not respond to the price mechanism as does labor and actual capital goods. Thus, he aligns with Henry George in calling for the public collection of the rent of land. As a libertarian, Professor Foldvary argues the case for distribution of most of this fund to citizens as an income supplement or dividend. Real democracy can be relied upon to determine at the community level what portion of the rent fund ought to be used to pay for desired public goods and services and what portion ought to be distributed.
Jason Shults I am glad my comments were of some value to you. I would not go so far as to say the economics I took in college were worthless, but they certainly did not contribute to a sound understanding of what causes business cycles or has lead to the concentration of income and wealth plaguing the world's societies.
+Edward Dodson If only we could reach a "real democracy"...
Interesting points, though.
Edward Dodson
To say that land does not respond to price mechanisms is beyond laughable. All assets must obey supply and demand. I suspect his position is being misrepresented, because I can scarcely believe someone would claim such a thing.
Wanting to redistribute land income is some communist BS. That would totally disrupt the land market. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
It’s Keynesian type thinking as Woods says in the video - thinking in terms of aggregates rather than the micro.
The last thing we need is more taxes.
As for what leads to concentrated wealth, that’s easy: physics. Physics goes by the exponential distribution.
The masses of animals, masses of stars, volumes of land masses, usage of words in a language - everything goes by this. Wealth would inevitably be concentrated. Physics despises equality, outside of equal and opposite reaction.
What matters is merit and mobility. The freer the market, the greater the meritocracy and the higher the mobility.
The highest inequality is also found in socialist countries - not that inequality matters at all. Suffering matters. Inequality is nothing.
> All we need is an information network...
You still haven't read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" if you continue to make this same sad argument.
There already is an efficient communications system for the allocation of scarce resources: Prices.
Almost done listening to it now. Very good information. Not that I ever supported Greenspan but truthful information always has higher value when it's difficult to come by.
@Salvysahagun interstate highway system: so the federal reserve act was post-50s?
Dr. Woods quotes extensively from Hayek. Does anyone know what works he is quoting?
By ensuring living space is available, and is covered, and by ensuring food is available and is covered, and nothing extra, the worst is averted and those who can work can be given every opportunity to work, and to learn to work better and smarter if one is able.
@ytgv3fc7 - Marginal productivity is what empowers the Capitalist system. It's important as it aids savings and investment.
There is going to be a gap between the value of the service you provide and the your compensation. However, in the Communist state, you are not guaranteed compensation. You have no ability for redress against government, but in the system set forth by most states, you have protection against force, fraud, and coercion from corporations.
@ytgv3fc7 - The purpose of a company is NEVER to take all they can from the workers. Ever. Thus, there is ALWAYS an incentive to keep the labor force happy. Always.
The purpose of a company is ALWAYS to make a profit. Abusing your labor force severely compromises that ability. You're just assuming the conditions needed for your caviot to exist, actually exist.
@wintereis57 - What is going to lead to reckless investment? Is it the repeal of a regulation that has nothing to do with investment, or the assurance of the government that if you fail, you will be bailed out.
What would make a tight rope walker take more chances, rules against recklessness, or the addition of a net?
The lower the interest rate, especially when the inflation rate is higher than the real rate means that anyone taking a loan was essentially borrowing for free. It also distorts the true cost of future projects by making unprofitable ones into good ventures, incentivizes people to borrow across the board, from main street to wall street, and harms savings. There's no stronger incentive to borrow than when you're being paid to do it.
I was also very clear about "division of labour" in multiple time frames: in a single time frame it can make PLENTY of sense to divide, specialize and work quickly; in a longer-term time-frame a person who uses multiple "unrelated" skills in a new job that requires them all, or who can mobilize his/her labour elsewhere or smaller distances/costs to keep working, is better utility / survival.
It makes me feel good to know Tom woods has 4 kids!! lil bit of hope for the future!
Likewise, pedantry and convoluted arguments do not imply correctedness nor truthfulness. Quite often false premises are enshrouded in complicated verbiage in order to make them "seem" truthful.
Wall Street got drunk because the Fed provided all the booze. Hey, if I am guaranteed all my loss and I get all the cheap money I want, I would take all the high-risk short term profits I want.
@wintereis57 You think this laws in any way would have curbed the financial speculatory bubble? Why? As with the crash in 29 the problem was an extensive credit expansion which fuels an unsustainable investment trajectory where because of abritrary price setting of interest rates you both have increasing consumption and investment at the same time, the problem being that there are simply not enough physical resources in the conomy to fulfill these projects. This is text-book ABCT.
It's sad that there is only 37,552 views on April 29th 2012 when this video was posted more then 2 years ago.
Very enjoyable and invigorating video! I will share with many friends. Thank You
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, Fo' Sure :)
@ytgv3fc7 We're living through the greatest period of prosperity in the entirety of human history, with lifespans just having tripled from 25-30 years to 80-90 years.
Clean water wasn't scarce in hunter-gatherer societies because there were ~1000 times fewer people and they were only able to live in a handful of places; they couldn't engage in agriculture because they had no expectation of being able to keep what they produce(aka socialism). They died like flies in famines and disease.
@vince33x The FED is a gov. entity? They themselves stated they were not. You forgot the "not"?
There are multiple reasons for lacking productivity: physical or mental disability, refusal to work, inability to learn to work BETTER yet still be productive enough to survive, and so on. I can really only see a logical result of starvation, that is not unfair, to a person who is too lazy to get/make their own food. Life has always expected we do such things. It's entirely different NOW if that person is denied only because you STOLE the food first.
@Salvysahagun the railroad system went belly up after the government took it over.
and what's your point about the Louisiana Purchase? the fact Jefferson bought it off France over concerns of Spain or France blocking trade into New Orleans? we had just gained sovereignty to allow some other power to take us over, considering what a hotbed Europe was at the time.
How about imposing a maximum tax? That is to say, no person shall be taxed more than $1 000 000. The figure could be debated, but conceptually, there should be a limit to how much money one person should have to pay the government.
How about getting rid of income tax all together? The US's (and other countries') income tax laws makes all citizens potential criminals (if they don't adhere to the tax laws exactly) and costs $billions in enforcement that is completely, utterly, and absolutely unproductive waste of scarce resources. Instead, the governments should consider two taxes.
The first is a consumption tax (VAT, sales tax, or whatever) that is then voluntary since a person has the right to decline consuming most things (except for minimum necessities). The disadvantage of a consumption tax is it reduces consumption, but the advantage is it encourages investment, so the net result is positive for the economy (much to the disagreement of Keynesian views). The second tax could be an employee tax - similar to social security and unemployment taxes. This would be a tax paid by companies on wages paid. It could also be (like social security) shared by both the employer and employee. Since companies must already pay various employee taxes, there would be little increase burden on compliance by the companies while eliminating about 80% of the IRS.
Some may say that these taxes would be regressive in that they put a burden on the low-income side of the income curve. First off, all taxes are regressive since they put a burden on the productive side of the economy. Second, it is entirely possible to put graduated tax rates - say no tax on the first $500 per week income, lower rates on the next $1,000 per week normal tax rate on the next $4,000 per week, and higher rates above that salary. In fact, this would encourage companies to hire low-income employees since they have to pay less taxes for those employees. Also, people could be free to get as much employment as they want, since they do not get tax penalties for additional wages (additional wages push them into higher brackets and reduce the benefits of the additional wages).
These are not perfect solutions, and these will require significant study, but I can easily and confidently say that the current income tax system does not work, is inefficient, forces bad behaviors (spending instead of savings, for example) and does not pay for the government's expenses.
Skip Reith All excellent ideas.
I agree that there should be a limit. Or, more importantly, a limit as to how much the government can spend. If companies are paying directly an employee tax, than it becomes a little difficult to track (companies would need to know how much other companies paid for you, and that could be an invasion of privacy). However, something similar to social security where a tax payer can get money back if they have two or more jobs during the year.
Still, the first step is to remove individual taxation power from the government, and then use that reduction in power to reduce governmental spending.
Skip Reith I like your way of thinking, mostly. I would prefer a system that left the private citizen out of the Federal and State paper work loop. My thinking: 1) A retail consumer tax collected at the state level and distributed to the national, county and city governments with a portion held back by the state. All but a couple of states have the necessary machinery in place. There would be no tax on services, consumable item (food, medicine, soda pop...), or used items from any source. 2) A modest residential property tax collected by the counties and shared with state and city governments. 3) There would remain the usual court fees, property transfer fees, registration fees and etc.. 4) As per the constitution there would remain maintenance level import/export taxes in the 2-5% range. 5) No tax of any kind on incomes or capital gains. 6) No SS, MC taxes, no unemployment taxes.
Ed Waggoner Sr. Taxes are compulsory, though, regardless of what form they come in. Your example still begs the question of how the government has the authority to take money from people and threaten violence against them if they refuse to comply.
People can debate who predicted what and when. But it seems to me that the matter of central planning's inability to accurately set prices, set interest rates, or pick the right investments proves what the Austrians are saying.
Where is 'fiat' in the Constitution?
Where it says "States may make only gold and silver money"?
Or "borrow on the credit of the US"?
@ytgv3fc7 - "The worker can stop it if he/she suspects theft is about to result." EXACTLY! Consent renders this NOT theft by definition. Your theory falls apart here. Marginal Productivity cannot be theft by your own definition, as the worker consents to its existence by NOT striking. LOGIC FAIL!
like I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Fisher hypothesiss. Furthermore, increasing the money supply through the central bank lowers interest rates. The rates only go back up after the money is loaned out, spent, and prices begin the rise. Anyways, I was just making a guess here because I haven't read the Austrian perspective on the Fisher hypothesis.
within a system, it doesnt matter what the direction or flow of money is, your average will always be your average. doesnt matter whether it is (50+50+50)/3=50 or (25+75+50)/3=50 or any which way for (a1+a2+a3)=150 where in the previous equation a1=25, a2=75, a3=50. the only way average income will go up is if you increase the sum of a1::a3. And when all your money comes from a printing press, that means the GDP directly tells us inflation. GDP per capita is no indicator of a "good economy".
@wintereis57 - Disparity between incomes of the rich and poor doesn't cause depressions. It has always to some extent existed, so why aren't we ALWAYS in a depression. Add to that the fact that even after the recovery from depressions, we still have a disparity in income gap. It doesn't go away, and yet things get better.
So if it's the cause, and it doesn't always happen, and it's still there during the recovery, can it really be a cause?
Can't remember if I responded to this or not. One way I can think of is that when you simply increase the money supply and give it to people, you're not actually giving them more wealth, just more paper. You're not really give me three more apples, you're just cutting my one apple into four pieces. Basically, people who should actually be saving money are now spending it because they think they just became richer.
interest rates have EVERYTHING to do with finance. EVERYTHING. Everything we price in the derivatives markets, every project undertaken by an investment firm, any forecast done by the corporate finance dept at any company uses the interest rates to determine if future projects will generate value.
@ParapaDrifter critical to community survival and I know not to make the wrong choice on that. Winter roads: well this is a severe problem. We've got different changes in density/size with different temps, shifting soil and salt damage. I have continually looked at how roads can be improved while not sacrificing ability to USE them in the heavy winter (salt?). This is actually a very difficult problem.
#1 incentive: can't argue on that. If you pay more of anything to do something, that is where the incentive will go.
#2 calculation: measurement using machines and communication (using same) indicates where real needs and resources are better than pricing. Even today's markets admit as much by including volume and capitalization and resource estimates of oil, gold, uranium, and so on. Pricing is insufficient.
#3 central planner: not required, since a decentralized network beats it easily
To be more clear: the mining act in Canada that allows this does not in any way say who DOES own the rights, simply that you do not own them for having a residence on top of the minerals, oil, metals, etc. that are beneath you.
I'm no banking expert but I think that sounds like a real plan. With real disclosure from private banks, and with real competition, there's real choice and real freedom. I think you have a winning plan. And honestly, if people are cautious enough and help out those who need it individually, even without a hint of socialism, it just might work. Long term.
@Salvysahagun you mean how they shifted the bracket so nobody paid that high? or how they added a shitload of tax writeoffs and business expenses so the rich only paid an average of 30% of their taxes? that's what's called a nominal tax cut.
the gilded age: who mentioned tariffs? but if we wanna talk tariffs, explain why tariffs levied against the confederacy hurt the northern states causing South Carolina to consider nullifying tariffs, which they were prevented from through threat of force.
ad 1.
thats no problem at all because productivity growth mostly results in falling prices. And the increase in the costs of living are 100% due to government induced inflation and taxing.
assertion of 4 items: Southern Ontario's economic expansion and electrical grid is a direct result of international trade used to steal the lives, health and food (by killing the land and water) of West Virginians who are not protected by the miners, working for them, on their PRIVATE property (and being shot at is bad too). Your explanation?
1. Wage growth is far behind productivity growth, and with cost of living increases the bottom half has been hard hit.
2. The income gap exists for both types of income.
3. Social mobility in the US is the lowest it has ever been.
Most sensible people would call that "regulation". As in laws to regulate activities, put people in jail, extract fines, and so on. But as soon as the government is involved the hyper-capitalists will call it regulation and government interference with the free market. It's been quoted here quite often in this article's comment-list.
Unfortunately no. You will get a sort of certificate you can use in Resumes and scholar credentials but the mises institute is more of a honorary place for Austrian scholars. You will learn more about Austrian economics more than anywhere else on their website and at the institute but it does serve more as a base/think tank than a school. You can get your degree of economics anywhere and still be a self proclaimed Austrian economist and collaborate in their network
In Canada, for example, we have a very deadly situation that doesn't exist in the USA. In America you can be threatened or bribed but there's a legal process to fight an attempt to directly get what's on or under your land, like oil, gold or uranium. In Canada you have no such legal righst. NONE. A company walks in, claims, and boots you out. Period.
ah, good point about the aspartame. No, I won't disagree with you on that, you definitely got information right. So with no regulation, wouldn't we have that problem about aspartame and A LOT MORE? If you think we'd have less I'd like to know reasons why I should be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced if there are good reasons.
20:15 I have vague recollection that farmers were (secretly) making their own fuel for tractors and farm machines in the 80s, so this part isn't entirely true. Toilet paper remark - spot on.
The politicians will never change. We must replace them.
> Open source would only work with virtual property, PERIOD.
OpenSource only works on that which can be infinitely reproduced, such as designs, software code, etc.
Law, for instance, has always operated in the "OpenSource" model. Laws, legal decisions, etc, are all openly published and are utilized and built upon freely and constantly by lawyers, legislators and judges.
Yet who is going to say that lawyers don't get paid? Or architects?
I've been looking at other articles, noting the messages I haven't replied to yet. Most of what I'm looking at is the under-pinning of inflation, money supply, gold, stocks, commodities. Sorry I was busy. It's on the list... back in a bit
@Salvysahagun Also, Jefferson spoke out against tariffs and taxes--and told the American people to keep away from both-- but when it came to paying off Hamilton's gross national debt he was forced to make a compromise. He might have enacted a temporary tariff but he eliminated every single direct federal tax and vowed America will never again see another federal tax collector at his door. obviously he broke his promise...
@Salvysahagun wrong decade... that was the 70s. the 50s was marked by prosperity by ending the war and downsizing the scope of the New Deal, like eliminating the price-setting National Recovery Act and lowering taxes for the rich.
so much for which theory? the entire gilded age was marked by low money supply and high productivity which caused massive deflation and wages to rise nominally. the panic and striking was the lack of knowledge of inflation and deflation.
well, there's an interesting argument, and I think something in the technology world is about to give you and I no certain answer. It's called a Fab machine. It means taking quite a few basic materials and 3-D printing them. So it's the resource-cost for those materials, the machine, perhaps a time-trade off if you can build it from parts, rather than higher cost to buy it finished, with open-source of course.
The line's about to be blurred. I can't say you're wrong, you might be right. But...
All we need is an information network, and we certainly have one, to relay where resources are, where they are needed, and to choose to move them. We can measure all the alternate routes/methods and costs in real physical terms like joules, litres/barrels oil, time, momentum, without resorting to "dollars" or credit or intangibles. Because now we have COMPUTERS. Starting to sink in?
@Salvysahagun first answer me, did u imply before that you're an advocate of the gold standard? and how does speculation cause inflation? and why is deflation bad?
That makes no sense. The problem is they're not firewalled due to removal of Glass-Steagall and it's very obvious what happens. No deposit insurance = no use for a bank at all. Any lack of assurance my money is safe in the bank and I don't need one.
(continued)
also, prices don't all go up equally. Certain prices may go up, others may go down, and others may stay the same. So even relative prices change (prices in relation to other prices).
from wikipedia:
"If rr is assumed to be constant, rn must rise when πe rises. Fisher Effect: The one for one adjustment of the nominal interest rate to the expected inflation rate."
Again, this is my guess here - Austrians would probably say that this stuff is incorrect.
Some variations of genetic programming actually only simulate biological evolution, and act strictly in machines; some do not actually physically control robots or labs but simply write output programs, instructions, plans, blue-prints, for a machine later to be told to use, or a person/team. But it works, and very well, enough to compete with humans for making NEW patents.
The alternative is to have private gains and socialized losses. This will only encourage companies to act recklessly and in a manner that is harmful to almost everyone but themselves. If there were actual risks this kind of behaviour would quickly diminish.
In 1946 you have to keep in mind that we were exporting stuff to most of the world for rebuilding , since our industrial base was still in fantastic shape .
ok I read some older posts of yours to try to figure out what your angle was.. I agree that Civil War 2 will be more of a change than Ron Paul becoming president, but don't get me wrong, I would like to see RP win too.
my father was a realtor and he warned the other realtors the housing market was ready to collapse. Leave it to say, he was hushed up and so he quit.
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. It is a preposterous notion.” - Dr. Peter Mansfield
@wintereis57 I'm talking about any measure of regulations, and I don't know a measure in which they have gone down since the 70s.
I say it again, if Glass-Steagall was even relevant then the problems would have occured in the banking sector before they did so in the investment banks. That is what it pertains to.
There is no real conflict of interest beteween investment banks and banks. What it has to do with is the FDIC. As long as the FDIC exists I don't support the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
@razerfish what you call "free exchange" is not what I call "free exchange". If the ownership initially of each, any or all property or assets is disputed then free exchange CAN NOT EXIST AND IS A FRAUD.
so when I brought up that open-source is higher quality than paid-for closed-source software, is always $0 and therefore propagates higher quality without a pricing mechanism, your response must have been a draft you lost somewhere, because I haven't found it yet.
@synestheticmonotony if, however, someone wanted to insert something into any trading system of real inventory, something in place of gold which had no use at all but was equally rare, it wouldn't fly. It may have value to almost no one or to no one at all because of having no use. It is for this reason gold is not setting a price - it is merely another item of another inventory, already counted and able to be shown globally to all interested parties the real quantity.
I'm not too sure about the malinvestment part yet, lots of the Austrian economists link the housing bubble to the inflation of the currency/lowering of interest rates, etc. I look at the situation like this: There isn't really a difference between taxing people and redistributing or printing money and distributing. So sure, the people who get the money are going to benefit and be able to expand but everyone else is going to have a little less money to spend or invest with.
@clawtheunconquered i meant all they could see was inflation meaning inflation to them is a strong economy.
@clawtheunconquered
Central banking not National banking
Central banking promotes speculation. which depletes the value of your currency.
National banking promotes production, Production increases the value of your currency. Therefore the inflation is countered. Thou it should not be excessive.
The crash of 1893 was caused by Railroad speculation because of over subsidies. Which is why I believe Hayek and Mises Business cycle is crucial thing for government to understand.
So when I say "ensuring space is available" what I'm saying is it is RIGHT NOW available to many of us and if we fight back against the capitalists we can keep it that way. If we lose the fight we will have to pay a lot more for imported food and even local food, and not have as much choice. What I propose is avoiding the loss of it. It's not gone yet. Not where I am.
@Pglarsen not really. I just link together related videos, articles, and collect groups of bookmarks in the high-priority order and then look at them all in a row. It minimizes the time it takes to process the data. For those that I anticipate no response or that I will make no comment they go into another stream/collection. If I can't get useful information from writing a comment, I typically won't. But it's also tempting to tell off blatant idiots.
> contract law IS regulation.
Your error is in not understanding coercion.
A contract is voluntarily agreed to, otherwise there would be no contract.
A regulation is IMPOSED, at gunpoint, upon people who never agreed to it. That's why tax rates change and you have no recourse. You can't "unsubscribe".
If your credit card company changes its contract terms, you can refuse the terms and void the contract without any penalty what so ever.
Coercion. It makes all the difference.
Very well put response.
Low interest rates encourage riskier investments.
The metaphor of a sports team is often used to explain. You pick the 8 best players available to you for your team, rejecting the less able players. If you are then allowed to pick 2 more players, you have to choose form ones you rejected before. The more players you are allowed to pick, the less qualified the new picks will be.
SaulOhio, what are you talking about?
The draft is coming up, and I don’t see how this even makes any sense at all?
I didn't phrase that very well, it's not that I believe they don't care about national security. I just think they may be a bit optimistic about other countries leaving us alone, just because we keep are paws to ourselves, so to speak. That said, I do think we should try as much as possible to stay out of other countries. I do not think the President should ever state what he will not do, fear can be the best deterrent.
"Each govt. is unable to print money when they have to." Yes, but ECB can decide to print. It's similar to the American states not having a printing press while the federal government does. If you look at the EU member states like that, it's not that much different that here.
I don't know why you picked the EU as a success. I mean, have you noticed what is going on over there. The EU project, ECB, and paper currency are failing there, too.
It's your ideology that is bankrupt.
@Visfen I don't mean in an absolute sense. I mean equality of opportunity (not only in developing states).
So the same happens with investing and interest rates. Low rates encourage more people to invest more money. Instead of choosing just the safest investments, people choose a larger number of investments, many of which will be riskier than what they would invest in if they had less money to invest.
And of course the lower rates mean the payoff is bigger, making risk that much more attractive.
SaulOhio, it’s Government that lowers interest rate by the amount of money they print and put into the economy. Government also affects how risky banks are willing to be by federally insuring loans. This is what caused the housing bubble.
If you remove the government backed loans, and government injection of cash into banks, then lest risky higher interest loans would only be possible. Which goes against Keynesian principles.
But lower interest rates increase the number of people making bets, and the number of bets being made. The choices of what to bet on necessarily have to be poorer risks.
SaulOhio , only a loan for business funding is a “bet”.
When you buy a car, it a house to own, that’s not a “bet”.
Buying a house to flip, is a business, there fore a “bet”.
Lending for the purpose of investing IS making a bet. People do borrow in order to invest. Banks borrow in order to lend, and every loan is a bet. All of this is regulated by interest rates.
If the central banks didn't try to regulate, the interest rates, which would be dependent on saving, would do the regulating.
SaulOhio , the federal reserve sells bonds as a loan, then gives it to banks to loan.
I don’t think you have a full grasp on what you are implying.
> And yes, I read the economic calculation.
So, since you've taken the time to check out one of the sources I've provided, can you provide any sources for your conviction of the workability of pure Communism that I may not have already read?