*💬Bonus reading below: Leftists and Austrians on Inflation.* 🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel ▶RUclips Memberships: ruclips.net/channel/UCnZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mgjoin ⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel 🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6 📚Main sources: 📉America's Great Depression: amzn.to/3U9x6x6 📈Human Action: amzn.to/3h6F2ks Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Crypto: 💸 🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26 🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60 You can also watch us on... 👀 ❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel 💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel *Bonus reading:* Leftists are usually reluctant to adopt the (traditionally right-wing) Austrian view on any aspect of economics. But I believe that there may be common ground on defining and understanding inflation. In the Austrian’s view, inflation is categorically an act of class warfare by the rich against the poor. You see, most economic schools define inflation as a general rise in prices. The Austrian school defines inflation as any increase in the money supply - regardless of its effect on prices. This matters because, if the economy is growing and there's no increase in the money supply, everyone will become wealthier without any need for an increase in wages. Let’s say that workers in the food sector produce 10% more food each year. This will naturally cause the price of food to go down. Any worker that purchases food (all of them) will become wealthier as they can now either buy more food or buy the same amount and spend the money they save on another good or service. In an environment of 0 inflation, the workers will directly benefit from their increasing productivity without any change in their wages because the underlying value of those wages increases on its own. This is the approach to inflation that the Austrians advocate for. But since other schools only care about changes in prices, the workers get screwed. If government policy is to increase the money supply in such a way as to keep prices unchanged, then the working class loses 100% of the benefits of their increased productivity. Austrians consider this to be inflation because the money supply is increasing, while rival schools do not because there's no change in prices. Even worse is that this stolen value is being taken by the government who will almost certainly use it to lower the interest rates and lend out that money to capitalists. (But only those capitalists who the government likes, and not those who are best able to use it.) To sum up: In the name of “stabilizing prices,” “stimulating growth,” “lowering interest rates,” or any other nonsense, non-Austrian economists enrich themselves by robbing the working class. Inflation is a tax on the poor whose proceeds almost universally go to the rich and well-connected. It is a vile act of class warfare that leftists and Austrians alike should oppose.
Thank you so much for tackling this subject, its crucial for the next generation of Americans to understand the dangers of inflation and how to bounce back up in case of another economic crash.
@@fishsteakyelk341 seeing your comment made me do a little digging looks like these guys say he was interventionist. It being a RUclips video you just have to trust them ruclips.net/video/KfeHWnaK7rY/видео.html
Well i don't think they ever do tackle the recovery in those classes. While it should be intuitive that trying to artificially increase food prices by destroying crops is a bad plan, most never even suggest that the government may have been part of the problem.
@@buddermonger2000my teacher kinda talked about that but not as a major cause, also I sat in the front and I kept adding that to his speech when he was explaining reasons for the GD lol
it's nonsense. There's a reason we haven't seen a depression since we got off the gold standard. tying your money supply to the availability of gold was a terrible idea
@@grimaffiliations3671Dude what are you talking about lmao. Literally the gold standard makes sure that the supply of money doesn't increase drastically. It prevents the gov from printing infinite amounts of fiat currency, which has no value. Look at what happened to zimbabwe.
@@Anonym0us_Fr0g yeah, limiting the supply of money isn't a good thing. Demand for money shoots up during downturns, if the government is unable to provide it to support aggregate demand, recessions turn into depressions. That's why depressions were so common during the gold standard era and we haven't had one since we left it. Having the freedom provide money when it's needed doesn't mean you have to print endlessly. Countries that end up hyperinflating their currencies like Weimar and Zimbabwe do so because they end up being forced to take up debt in currencies they do not control, The US is in a very different boat
arguably government intervention in the case of passing the smoot-Hawley act, which increased tarriffs and led to tariffs placed on americans products by other countries in retaliation, made the depression worse.
in most affected countries, the Great Depression was technically over by 1933, meaning that by then their economies had started to recover. Most did not experience full recovery until the late 1930s or early 1940s, however. The United States is generally thought to have fully recovered from the Great Depression by about 1939.
Yeah it is odd that they rope would think that. One could say unemployment didn’t sign fired ice till the late 40’s/ 50’s. I wouldn’t count the war since it was basically all temporary until the war ended.
Drafting people doesn't count as employment, nor is employment our aim. Demanded production & services is what we want. The depression didn't end until 70% spending cuts after ww2. Then we experienced the post war boom. Seen as one of the greatest periods of growth in recorded history.
Comment section: 33% saying "based" 33% saying they didn't get it 33% angry at austrian economics Great video. So many of these interventions really did nothing but worsen and promote the structural issues in the economy.
the gold standard was the cause of that depression and al of the others. There's a reason we haven't seen a depression since we got off the gold standard
“First the strangers came with argument and authority and gunpowder to back up both. And in the four hundred years Kino's people had learned only one defense - a slight slitting of the eyes and a slight tightening of the lips and a retirement. Nothing could break down this wall, and they could remain whole within the wall.” ― John Steinbeck,
This video hits a bit different than your previous ones. It left me a bit unsatisfied / wanting to hear more about it. It took me rewatching older videos, and this one a few more times to figure it out. Let me just start with the deserved praise about the production value that somehow keeps getting better and better every video. The art work is amazing as always, and somehow manages to get even better every video. The stylish neon / synth music also sets a really good theme. The one thing that didn't quite work for me personally (not saying this as fact, just what I think) is the storytelling / script. Past videos had a more chill attitude of: "This is how Anarcho-Capitalism sees it." "This is how Libertarian history sees it." But this video's narrative is a lot more direct / confrontational, stating that what we traditionally known is a lie and Austrian economics can give us the real answers. Now in the past you've done something similar. The brilliant two part "How to take down a Monopoly", started out pretty strong. But over those 26 minutes we went step by step following Standard oil & Royal Shell + The extra reading of "Breaking Rockefeller" afterwards. It changed my opinion on the matter, and remains one of my fav. videos you've made. I really feel that this subject deserved the same treatment. Multiple parts, a more in depth look, a nice chronological story to follow, and more after-the-credits reading would have been great. Even after multiple viewings I'm still a bit confused. I will pay you money to go slower / explain more in depth. The subject is arguably bigger than the one from "How to take down a Monopoly" but the time is less than half. I'd love for you to give this the extra time it deserves.
I mean if you change your mind based on someone who only talks about libertarianism, objectivism and generally how left wing evrything and democracy fail, then I Hope you know you are reading a politically inspiered work and you already know than. Not saying that Is wrong to change ideas , I just want to make sure you know this Isn't as unbiased as some people might say.
@@AureliusLaurentius1099 Is it that bad in America? Here we have a lot of teachers that teach both, know a handful of teachers that are proud Anarchocapitalists.
@Baph0met In short: yes. Unless you're taking a deliberate economics course, basically everyone down to the people who write the textbooks are down for government intervention. And in fact it's taught that the New Deal solved the depression and that hoover did nothing. Also all teachers are in government schools, with unions, and are generally very much into government.
4:24 Lol I love how you put Kane from WWE in there. It even fits because he’s subscribes to the Austrian school of economics and is now a mayor, but you probably knew that and knew what you were doing when putting him in the video.
I love everybody winking and turning towards the camera at 2:13 except for Austria Hungary who just looks very confused and doesn't know there is a camera
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no LOL! Sure kid. There was a recession in 1980 which happened right when Reagan came to power. Standards of living started to really decline (ever wonder why you can't afford a house?) and haven't stopped since. The gains made in the economy were at the top and only at the top.
@@danmorgan3685 Living standards had been declining for close to a decade before Reagan took office. At most he is a symptom of the disease, not the source.
Love this video, but I have one issue in how you framed the boom & bust cycle. Borrowers aren't making a 'mistake' persay. Lenders compete to offer cheaper loans. When their amount of loanable funds increases artificially through inflation, they don't need as many savers. They're a liability, so they offer less interest. Once this cheap borrowing starts it creates inflationary pressure throughout the economy, which encourages spending & borrowing, which creates more inflationary pressure, & exacerbates the problem. It's cyclical. People are merely doing what's best for them under current conditions. The boom & bust cycle can take decades. People need to eat lol. People want to live their lives. Life is short. They *have to* borrow & spend, especially under current conditions, & have every incentive to. The lenders create create credit. They know where it goes & can follow the money. Inflation makes debts easier to pay off. They simply have more money to do so. Their loans carry little numerical risk. They create their own artificial demand. Not a big mistake, but this framing of mises' theory has confused a lot of people & only helps our opposition's arguments.
Also it must be approached through sectoral balances. The private sector can't be in surplus without drawing that surplus from the government or the foreign sector. but since the US has a trade deficit, it must draw the surplus from the government
Really nice editing, whoever joined you recently did a tremendous job! It's funny I started following this channel cus of your vic2 tutorials hoping you'd make more
Love how giddy the lil' guy looks at 0:50! Also, fascinating explanation. Been looking for full but succinct explanations of the school, and this is going in the list!
I like the idea, anytime the synthway is busted out, it's to show why government intervention in the market is a bad thing. And that we're about to get a lesson in what free markets should stay free
@@grimaffiliations3671I've been looking for critics under this video and almost none of you actually say what's inaccurate about the video. You might as well just say, that you don't like the conclusions at this point.
Two questions that comes to mind after this video 1. How could the USA have a massive food surplus when the dust bowl of the 1930 wrecked havoc on farm lands 2. The panics of 1873 and Jackson's Economic panic weren't "solved in a couple of years by the markets", so which panics did you use in that final statement as an example?
1. This is explained in the video. Overinvenstment has occured in that sector. Dust bowl affected a small minority of American soil. It affected parts of 6 states at most so it was not enough to cripple the entire agricultural output. 2. The panic you are referring to is also known as the "long depression". The thing about it is that it didn't actually happen, as during this supposed "depression" America saw growth and expansion in output. However, orthodox economists looked at falling prices and concluded, that there simply must be a depression, because "muh, deflation bad". Rothbard gives a nice summary of the issue in his book "History of Money and Banking in the United States" So I'll just quote it now. "Orthodox economic historians have long complained about the “great depression” that is supposed to have struck the United States in the panic of 1873 and lasted for an unprecedented six years, until 1879. Much of this stagnation is supposed to have been caused by a monetary contraction leading to the resumption of specie payments in 1879. Yet what sort of “depression” is it which saw an extraordinarily large expansion of industry, of railroads, of physical output, of net national product, or real per capita income? As Friedman and Schwartz admit, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-perannum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged “monetary contraction” never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion-a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction. It should be clear, then, that the “great depression” of the 1870s is merely a myth-a myth brought about by misinterpretation of the fact that prices in general fell sharply during the entire period. Indeed they fell from the end of the Civil War until 1879. Friedman and Schwartz estimated that prices in general fell from 1869 to 1879 by 3.8 percent per annum. Unfortunately, most historians and economists are conditioned to believe that steadily and sharply falling prices must result in depression: hence their amazement at the obvious prosperity and economic growth during this era. For they have overlooked the fact that in the natural course of events, when government and the banking system do not increase the money supply very rapidly, freemarket capitalism will result in an increase of production and economic growth so great as to swamp the increase of money supply. Prices will fall, and the consequences will be not depression or stagnation, but prosperity (since costs are falling, too) economic growth, and the spread of the increased living standard to all the consumers."
I enjoyed the video and commend you for putting these videos up (and a bit humorous for me because the first videos that drew me to you were Victoria 2 tutorials).
Look up "encilhamento" Brazil's first republican minister of the economy ( of the farm, as we called it) tried to promote industrialization and economic growth through increase availability for credit, printing money and lowering interest rates. As a result Brazil went on a major economic crisis, and what is more funny is that recently one of the main candidates for the presidency said that printing money doesn't lead to inflation, and these types of policies are not uncommon here :(.
Printing money isn't always inflationary, just when you print more than the productive capacity of your economy. If Brazil prints in order to improve energy and food independence, it will greatly strengthen your economy
@@grimaffiliations3671 yeah printing money totally doesn't lead to inflation I mean just look at weimar Germany, modern-day Zimbabwe, and of course Brazil who have/had the best economies in the world thank you government we totally appreciate you destroying our currency's value and eating away our life savings
@@GyorgySzollosi-n2mprinting is only a problem if you print beyond your economies productive capacity. we printed 2 trillion in the US last year, and inflation has only gone down in that period, why? Because supply was able to match spending
@@grimaffiliations3671 30% of all dollars in existence were created in the past couple of years which at first doesn't sound much but when you realize that's trillions of dollars that's being injected into the economy and you say it will deliver financial relief when reality all it is just creating inflation
I know it's a joke, but "moneytos" at 3:36 on the doritos bag is very similar to "monitos" in spanish, which means little monkeys :)
2 года назад+52
This is such a good summary of Murray N. Rothbard's America's Great Depression that I'm going to recommend it to a friend who is interested in economics instead of going through the "Trouble" of reading it!
Something people also forget is the VERY important impact earlier issues had on the great depression, namely for example the crash the UK stock market had before even the US one which put additional pressure on the US stock market. Further we for some UNGODLY REASON detangled from various global trade markets in the leadup to the great depression (largely accomplished by high tariffs and trade wars), which have helped prevent things like the agriculture prices from falling so utterly low, or at least not as fast while simultaneously expanding our financial influence far too greatly through as you mentioned the great amount of printing done so other nations could take loans.
An interesting and entertaining video though my only qualm is how the Great Depression and what factors that supposedly cause it are presented. It feels like it the information provided should be presented more as an interpretation of the Austrian school of economics on the Great Depression whereas the video presents it as a sort of actual fact on the entire issue. There are also a couple bits of information left out which feel purpose fully ignored regarding the New Deal and Hoover’s Interventionist policies that should be looked into more to create a more critical analysis per say as to avoid appearing biased as throughout the video I felt some sort of bias towards Austrian economics theories on the Great Depression. Also where are the sources for all the information mentioned
I see you're a subscriber to "unlearning economics". Please unfollow that guy as he's a dishonest man with no idea of what he is talking about, this video shows one of his most blatant mistakes: ruclips.net/video/nUStnKeFvQs/видео.html
And he ignores that world war 2 was only possible by ditching the gold standard, so if you credit it for ending the depression, you must thank fiat money
American People: Why are prices on everything going up? U.S. govt: I don't know, but hey got this fancy printer! Let's just print more money! American People: Okay, sounds good to me! *1937 Bank crash*
The one thing I will say is that this video was a lot more opinionated (or "biased" if you will, though Im put off that term because it's a bit loaded) than your other videos. Still interesting even for those who have their reservations though, and definitely got me into reading more about economics.
If an annual increase of 7.7% in the supply of Dollars caused the Great Depretion, then what do you think will happen after atlease about 25% increase in the supply of the Dollar in 2021?
So long as the US keeps bribing everyone to stay quiet? Nothing Seriously invest your fucking money and do not keep it in the banks. Most nations have a Bail-In law for their banks where they're allowed to seize the money kept there to pay off their debts. When the crash happens, expect the banks to seize what you're keeping with them
@@grimaffiliations3671 Not sure how it disproves the video.. Post Covid has been disastrous for the economy. That 25% increase is most definitely at a different rate than the 7.7%, simply because the economy is so different, money's value is so different. Technology has also changed considerably. We're in a time where food is extremely cheap, even if it is bad food. Doesn't mean every single other part of the economy isn't burning around us.
Honestly, I would call myself a protectionist or an interventionist economically speaking. But economic intervention is a complex thing, and this story just shows you, that you should only dabble in it if you're actually capable of making it work.
@@thaneofwhiterun3562 if we assume that God it's a perfect being that knows everything, then he would be a good economist. Also we should assume that God exists (which is definitely a debatable thing).
@@polishscribe674 the government pushing more money into the system is what ended the great depression. The private sector can't create enough demand on its own
Other than being an excellent Communicator that could calm the General Public and make them feel as though the things being done would eventually end the Depression he helped prolong, maybe a few pretty good banking reforms, and building some nice hiking trails using the newly-made Civilian Conservation Corps with money that they didn't have, I can't think of anything FDR really did that actually helped. Especially when it comes to tackling the main issue he claimed the "New Deal" would fix, the Great Depression. If it wasn't for competent leadership during World War II he would be deserving of around the same ranking as Herbert Hoover. But of course biased "historians" and ideologues wouldn't like that.
Not to mention that he paid farmers to destroy thousands of dollars in crops and livestock to drive up food prices, only to screw those farmers over by institutin' price controls that created monopolies on the things they needed to work.
Honestly, throwing money out of a helicopter would be more beneficial for the economy. People get money, they buy good which they want more of, those companies have to produce more to meet demand, thus they hire new workers, which then have wages to spend and thus the cycle of virtuous growth commences again. This is because money in the hands of consumers has a higher velocity than money in the hands of any other group.
yes but if the money from the helicopter is made by printing more money, (inflation) then every ones money will be worth less, and if the money from the helicopter is just from taxing people, you might as well just lower taxes instead of throwing every ones money back at them.
@@theskeletonappearsinthisco5896 Money doesnt automatically lose value if more of it is printed. The consumer will only feel inflation from the rise in the price of goods due to the new pool of consumers
Can someone explain what is meant by Benjamin Strong "advocating for intense inflation"? Is this shorthand for simply printing more money? Also (perhaps relatedly) how does this supposedly "prevent precious metals from leaving fiat Europe and entering gold standard America"? I didn't understand that connection. Thanks in advance!
The sound us gold policy in contrast to the inflationary policies of Europeans countries like Britain led the british to lose gold to the US due to the US demand being higher. As a result british actually encouraged the US to follow a similar inflationary policy. The US implemented similar policy so the market advantages they had that were getting them the influx of gold went away. Essentially: hey us forfeit your market advantages because we're losing gold to you. The inflation i don't think was just printing money, but it was spread out among many things like bank reserve requirement shifts, buying securities, and foreign loans.
@@szymonpinkowski256 from the Austrian school of economics perspective, which is just one way of analyzing economics. But for the record I don't think most economist would agree with it even if they agree with the concepts.
about the gold standard, idk about other countries but Britain returned to the gold standard in 1925 so to insinuate they didn't return to it is a bit misleading in Britains case
France and Britain did but Britain had the empire pay for it and France never recovered untill it was invaded it kept going from inflation to deflation to recession and depression, litteral hell
Amaaaazing bro ! So in line of this the gov shouldnt do loans and stuff but instead use em loans on cheapend infrastructure and education so that more financially bright ppl could get on the wheels and actually make economy boom ! Right?
@@Boretheorythat happens when the government prints a lot. The opposite tends to happen when the govenrment prints little or tries to "balance the budget". Every depression in US history happened after a period of deficit reduction
So one of the great values I learned about the New Deal is that it sucks as an economic policy. Though was necessary for the country as it broke up the power old school energy conglomerates had over the nation, and unified the country. Before it, only urban areas had electricity and power companies erroneously and egotistically refused to build to farmers. After the New Deal, everyone had power, and the age of electricity had come to everyone, no longer restricted by back room monopolies. Mind you it was good business to build to farmers, the power companies were just doing it to be dicks. The greatest value the New Deal gave is it allowed every American to enjoy the rewards of American innovation.
Basically the new deal can be metaphorically described in this way: "someone handed a box full of the problems america was facing to the government and told them that fixing those problems would have ended the great depression". It's a bit sad to think that, without one of history's worst economic crisis, living conditions wouldn't have been improved.
@@grimaffiliations3671 I recommend you watch Anthony Galli’s video on the bank runs that occurred while the U.S. was on the gold standard. While I might not agree with the conclusion at the end of his video, he gives solid evidence that the Gold Standard actually prevents crashes from getting as bad. I highly recommend you watch it.
Those figures are misleading. Especially once you get into WW2, where the "growth" was driven by wartime spending. However it didn't actually increase anyone's standards of living. Priced where controlled too during the WW2 which makes these figures even more inflated as the statistics simply failed to adjust for inflation, because of price controls. And speaking of failure, under gold standard, America would never experience price inflation its experiencing today.
@@rlkinnard a similar story occurs. GDP is hardly a decent measure of economic growth, because of the way it treats government spending. Government can just spend money in any way to increase GDP, however such increase can be hardly an increase in general welfare, for the governmental spending doesn't work the same way as private spending or investment. For private investment is only possible and supported by consumers spending their money on a product (or by an expectations of such spending from investors). At the same time, government spending is not subject to the test of the market. Treating government "investment" and private investment as the same thing is therefore a grave error. Private investment did very poorly under the Roosevelt administration and it failed to begin recover until 1941. This sluggish state of private investment can be explained by unchecked interventionism of Roosevelt and regime uncertainty. Businessmen were too afraid to invest, because "the rules of the game" could change at any moment in time. This is something that Robert Higgs covers in his article called "regime uncertainty".
2:35 As a filipino who knows hell of a ton history by RUclips, I don't know hell of a ton of history of Philippine's great depression, how do i not know this as a filipino? Idk
What people don't know is Adam Smith wrote a second book after the Wealth of Nations called the Depression of Nations, where he introduce the invisible d**k who will f**k everybody in the end that got wealthy in the first book.
They have a certain level of independence from the government, but saying it isn't a government institution is retarded. The members of the Fed are appointed by the government.
I am not entirely sure about the overproduction of food issue is entirely real either. It's something the Keynseam new dealers and apparently these guys agree onnbut i have my doubts
@@ben8147 If society collapses due to an economic collapse. There is an easy path. But my comment was in reference towards wanting him to make it the next video.
This video is weird because Keynes only published his General Theory in 1936, literally after all of the stuff in this video happened. How then could his ideology have been of any influence??
Strictly you are correct, but the federal government was still conducting policies that were favoured by Keynes during the recession, so putting him in makes sense from the narrative standpoint.
5:55 equity is not the same as stocks. Stocks are parts of the company as valued by people outside the company and equity is parts of a company valued by people inside the company. In other words, equity is ownership, stocks are speculation.
*💬Bonus reading below: Leftists and Austrians on Inflation.*
🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel
▶RUclips Memberships: ruclips.net/channel/UCnZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mgjoin
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6
📚Main sources:
📉America's Great Depression: amzn.to/3U9x6x6
📈Human Action: amzn.to/3h6F2ks
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel
💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel
*Bonus reading:* Leftists are usually reluctant to adopt the (traditionally right-wing) Austrian view on any aspect of economics. But I believe that there may be common ground on defining and understanding inflation. In the Austrian’s view, inflation is categorically an act of class warfare by the rich against the poor. You see, most economic schools define inflation as a general rise in prices. The Austrian school defines inflation as any increase in the money supply - regardless of its effect on prices.
This matters because, if the economy is growing and there's no increase in the money supply, everyone will become wealthier without any need for an increase in wages. Let’s say that workers in the food sector produce 10% more food each year. This will naturally cause the price of food to go down. Any worker that purchases food (all of them) will become wealthier as they can now either buy more food or buy the same amount and spend the money they save on another good or service.
In an environment of 0 inflation, the workers will directly benefit from their increasing productivity without any change in their wages because the underlying value of those wages increases on its own. This is the approach to inflation that the Austrians advocate for. But since other schools only care about changes in prices, the workers get screwed.
If government policy is to increase the money supply in such a way as to keep prices unchanged, then the working class loses 100% of the benefits of their increased productivity. Austrians consider this to be inflation because the money supply is increasing, while rival schools do not because there's no change in prices. Even worse is that this stolen value is being taken by the government who will almost certainly use it to lower the interest rates and lend out that money to capitalists. (But only those capitalists who the government likes, and not those who are best able to use it.)
To sum up: In the name of “stabilizing prices,” “stimulating growth,” “lowering interest rates,” or any other nonsense, non-Austrian economists enrich themselves by robbing the working class. Inflation is a tax on the poor whose proceeds almost universally go to the rich and well-connected. It is a vile act of class warfare that leftists and Austrians alike should oppose.
Based beyond belief
Are you going to do a video on Huey Long and Longism?
Thank you so much for tackling this subject, its crucial for the next generation of Americans to understand the dangers of inflation and how to bounce back up in case of another economic crash.
Do a vid on georgism
Leftist syndicalism 🤝Rightist capitalism
Ezekiel going from a man who explained how to play Hearts of Iron 4 to one of the selectable leaders in Hearts of Iron 5
@@fishsteakyelk341 Im not calling you a liar but im legitimitly curious of some examples so i can search myself
@@fishsteakyelk341 seeing your comment made me do a little digging looks like these guys say he was interventionist. It being a RUclips video you just have to trust them ruclips.net/video/KfeHWnaK7rY/видео.html
great idea Ezekiel teaching us with some of the best crew collected for art, editing, and musics
I would vote Ezekiel
Ok
This honestly explained the reason for the Great Depression’s slow recovery way better than my economics class
Well i don't think they ever do tackle the recovery in those classes. While it should be intuitive that trying to artificially increase food prices by destroying crops is a bad plan, most never even suggest that the government may have been part of the problem.
@@buddermonger2000my teacher kinda talked about that but not as a major cause, also I sat in the front and I kept adding that to his speech when he was explaining reasons for the GD lol
it's nonsense. There's a reason we haven't seen a depression since we got off the gold standard. tying your money supply to the availability of gold was a terrible idea
@@grimaffiliations3671Dude what are you talking about lmao. Literally the gold standard makes sure that the supply of money doesn't increase drastically. It prevents the gov from printing infinite amounts of fiat currency, which has no value. Look at what happened to zimbabwe.
@@Anonym0us_Fr0g yeah, limiting the supply of money isn't a good thing. Demand for money shoots up during downturns, if the government is unable to provide it to support aggregate demand, recessions turn into depressions. That's why depressions were so common during the gold standard era and we haven't had one since we left it. Having the freedom provide money when it's needed doesn't mean you have to print endlessly.
Countries that end up hyperinflating their currencies like Weimar and Zimbabwe do so because they end up being forced to take up debt in currencies they do not control, The US is in a very different boat
arguably government intervention in the case of passing the smoot-Hawley act, which increased tarriffs and led to tariffs placed on americans products by other countries in retaliation, made the depression worse.
@Ancap Po It's generally accepted that tariffs in general are bad for the economy, but this isn't a political science topic, it's an economic one.
ngl, the art for call me ezekiel's vids are god-tier. Keep up the good work! 👍
in most affected countries, the Great Depression was technically over by 1933, meaning that by then their economies had started to recover. Most did not experience full recovery until the late 1930s or early 1940s, however. The United States is generally thought to have fully recovered from the Great Depression by about 1939.
Yeah it is odd that they rope would think that. One could say unemployment didn’t sign fired ice till the late 40’s/ 50’s. I wouldn’t count the war since it was basically all temporary until the war ended.
Indeed
Thankfully we had the New Deal... right? Right?
Can you give any links for the 1939 claim? id find those very useful.
Drafting people doesn't count as employment, nor is employment our aim. Demanded production & services is what we want. The depression didn't end until 70% spending cuts after ww2. Then we experienced the post war boom. Seen as one of the greatest periods of growth in recorded history.
Comment section:
33% saying "based"
33% saying they didn't get it
33% angry at austrian economics
Great video. So many of these interventions really did nothing but worsen and promote the structural issues in the economy.
@Mike Mo
They don’t make comments
the gold standard was the cause of that depression and al of the others. There's a reason we haven't seen a depression since we got off the gold standard
@@grimaffiliations36712009
you serious@@grimaffiliations3671
@@grimaffiliations3671 oof sorry about that, Didn't hear you here in the 2020's
“First the strangers came with argument and authority and gunpowder to back up both. And in the four hundred years Kino's people had learned only one defense - a slight slitting of the eyes and a slight tightening of the lips and a retirement. Nothing could break down this wall, and they could remain whole within the wall.”
― John Steinbeck,
Indeed
What's this a reference to?
This video hits a bit different than your previous ones. It left me a bit unsatisfied / wanting to hear more about it.
It took me rewatching older videos, and this one a few more times to figure it out.
Let me just start with the deserved praise about the production value that somehow keeps getting better and better every video.
The art work is amazing as always, and somehow manages to get even better every video.
The stylish neon / synth music also sets a really good theme.
The one thing that didn't quite work for me personally (not saying this as fact, just what I think) is the storytelling / script.
Past videos had a more chill attitude of:
"This is how Anarcho-Capitalism sees it."
"This is how Libertarian history sees it."
But this video's narrative is a lot more direct / confrontational, stating that what we traditionally known is a lie and Austrian economics can give us the real answers.
Now in the past you've done something similar. The brilliant two part "How to take down a Monopoly", started out pretty strong.
But over those 26 minutes we went step by step following Standard oil & Royal Shell + The extra reading of "Breaking Rockefeller" afterwards.
It changed my opinion on the matter, and remains one of my fav. videos you've made.
I really feel that this subject deserved the same treatment. Multiple parts, a more in depth look, a nice chronological story to follow,
and more after-the-credits reading would have been great. Even after multiple viewings I'm still a bit confused.
I will pay you money to go slower / explain more in depth. The subject is arguably bigger than the one from "How to take down a Monopoly" but the time is less than half.
I'd love for you to give this the extra time it deserves.
The video singlehandedly turned me from Keynesian to Austrian Economics.
What were you smoking to pick up keynesianism in the first place?
@@gunter6377
Its a little thing called the education system
I mean if you change your mind based on someone who only talks about libertarianism, objectivism and generally how left wing evrything and democracy fail, then I Hope you know you are reading a politically inspiered work and you already know than.
Not saying that Is wrong to change ideas , I just want to make sure you know this Isn't as unbiased as some people might say.
@@AureliusLaurentius1099 Is it that bad in America? Here we have a lot of teachers that teach both, know a handful of teachers that are proud Anarchocapitalists.
@Baph0met In short: yes. Unless you're taking a deliberate economics course, basically everyone down to the people who write the textbooks are down for government intervention. And in fact it's taught that the New Deal solved the depression and that hoover did nothing. Also all teachers are in government schools, with unions, and are generally very much into government.
4:24 Lol I love how you put Kane from WWE in there. It even fits because he’s subscribes to the Austrian school of economics and is now a mayor, but you probably knew that and knew what you were doing when putting him in the video.
I love your historical economics vids. The two about taking down a monopoly were my favorites of yours.
I love everybody winking and turning towards the camera at 2:13 except for Austria Hungary who just looks very confused and doesn't know there is a camera
dame this video looking great i really like the style
Talking about 1920/30s Great Depression with 1980s synthwave. Nice
It fits Reagan triggered a massive recession in the 1980s.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no LOL! Sure kid. There was a recession in 1980 which happened right when Reagan came to power. Standards of living started to really decline (ever wonder why you can't afford a house?) and haven't stopped since. The gains made in the economy were at the top and only at the top.
@@danmorgan3685 Living standards had been declining for close to a decade before Reagan took office. At most he is a symptom of the disease, not the source.
Love this video, but I have one issue in how you framed the boom & bust cycle. Borrowers aren't making a 'mistake' persay.
Lenders compete to offer cheaper loans. When their amount of loanable funds increases artificially through inflation, they don't need as many savers. They're a liability, so they offer less interest. Once this cheap borrowing starts it creates inflationary pressure throughout the economy, which encourages spending & borrowing, which creates more inflationary pressure, & exacerbates the problem. It's cyclical.
People are merely doing what's best for them under current conditions. The boom & bust cycle can take decades. People need to eat lol. People want to live their lives. Life is short. They *have to* borrow & spend, especially under current conditions, & have every incentive to.
The lenders create create credit. They know where it goes & can follow the money. Inflation makes debts easier to pay off. They simply have more money to do so. Their loans carry little numerical risk. They create their own artificial demand.
Not a big mistake, but this framing of mises' theory has confused a lot of people & only helps our opposition's arguments.
Also it must be approached through sectoral balances. The private sector can't be in surplus without drawing that surplus from the government or the foreign sector. but since the US has a trade deficit, it must draw the surplus from the government
Really nice editing, whoever joined you recently did a tremendous job!
It's funny I started following this channel cus of your vic2 tutorials hoping you'd make more
You have a good taste in music =) If only more economics videos were like this...
i gotta love komm susser tod on the backround in the end. Very fitting
Love how giddy the lil' guy looks at 0:50!
Also, fascinating explanation. Been looking for full but succinct explanations of the school, and this is going in the list!
I like the idea, anytime the synthway is busted out, it's to show why government intervention in the market is a bad thing. And that we're about to get a lesson in what free markets should stay free
The music of this one has me GOIN
The Great Depression is pretty depressing ngl
You can see Rothbard all over this vídeo, it's so good.
Wow this video is education with pure aesthetics.
Ending on Komm Sösser Tod was a poignant and diabolical touch
The fact that this doesnt have 1 million+ views is a crime against humanity.
it's inaccurate so probably for the best
@@grimaffiliations3671 get outta here
@@grimaffiliations3671It’s a bit biased for sure but it isn’t straight misinformation
@@grimaffiliations3671I've been looking for critics under this video and almost none of you actually say what's inaccurate about the video. You might as well just say, that you don't like the conclusions at this point.
"Trying to force the interest rates down" hmmmmmmm
I live in Turkey, and it seems we're fucked.
raising interest rates raises the price level which is bad for inflation
🎶 My stocks keep tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down 🎶
Two questions that comes to mind after this video
1. How could the USA have a massive food surplus when the dust bowl of the 1930 wrecked havoc on farm lands
2. The panics of 1873 and Jackson's Economic panic weren't "solved in a couple of years by the markets", so which panics did you use in that final statement as an example?
I lasted 5 years the Great Depression lasted more than double that
1. This is explained in the video. Overinvenstment has occured in that sector. Dust bowl affected a small minority of American soil. It affected parts of 6 states at most so it was not enough to cripple the entire agricultural output.
2. The panic you are referring to is also known as the "long depression". The thing about it is that it didn't actually happen, as during this supposed "depression" America saw growth and expansion in output. However, orthodox economists looked at falling prices and concluded, that there simply must be a depression, because "muh, deflation bad".
Rothbard gives a nice summary of the issue in his book "History of Money and Banking in the United States"
So I'll just quote it now.
"Orthodox economic historians have long complained about the “great depression” that is supposed to have struck the United States in the panic of 1873 and lasted for an unprecedented six years, until 1879. Much of this stagnation is supposed to have been caused by a monetary contraction leading to the resumption of specie payments in 1879. Yet what sort of “depression” is it which saw an extraordinarily large expansion of industry, of railroads, of physical output, of net national product, or real per capita income? As Friedman and Schwartz admit, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-perannum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged “monetary contraction” never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion-a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction. It should be clear, then, that the “great depression” of the 1870s is merely a myth-a myth brought about by misinterpretation of the fact that prices in general fell sharply during the entire period. Indeed they fell from the end of the Civil War until 1879. Friedman and Schwartz estimated that prices in general fell from 1869 to 1879 by 3.8 percent per annum. Unfortunately, most historians and economists are conditioned to believe that steadily and sharply falling prices must result in depression: hence their amazement at the obvious prosperity and economic growth during this era. For they have overlooked the fact that in the natural course of events, when government and the banking system do not increase the money supply very rapidly, freemarket capitalism will result in an increase of production and economic growth so great as to swamp the increase of money supply. Prices will fall, and the consequences will be not depression or stagnation, but prosperity (since costs are falling, too) economic growth, and the spread of the increased living standard to all the consumers."
Amazing quality and content, keep up the good work!
My brain is too smooth I don't understand this one 😭😭😭
I enjoyed the video and commend you for putting these videos up (and a bit humorous for me because the first videos that drew me to you were Victoria 2 tutorials).
Look up "encilhamento" Brazil's first republican minister of the economy ( of the farm, as we called it) tried to promote industrialization and economic growth through increase availability for credit, printing money and lowering interest rates. As a result Brazil went on a major economic crisis, and what is more funny is that recently one of the main candidates for the presidency said that printing money doesn't lead to inflation, and these types of policies are not uncommon here :(.
Printing money isn't always inflationary, just when you print more than the productive capacity of your economy. If Brazil prints in order to improve energy and food independence, it will greatly strengthen your economy
@@grimaffiliations3671 yeah printing money totally doesn't lead to inflation I mean just look at weimar Germany, modern-day Zimbabwe, and of course Brazil who have/had the best economies in the world thank you government we totally appreciate you destroying our currency's value and eating away our life savings
@@GyorgySzollosi-n2mprinting is only a problem if you print beyond your economies productive capacity. we printed 2 trillion in the US last year, and inflation has only gone down in that period, why? Because supply was able to match spending
@@grimaffiliations3671 again you still don't know what you're talking about three inflation went up by 3.4% in 2023
@@grimaffiliations3671 30% of all dollars in existence were created in the past couple of years which at first doesn't sound much but when you realize that's trillions of dollars that's being injected into the economy and you say it will deliver financial relief when reality all it is just creating inflation
I know it's a joke, but "moneytos" at 3:36 on the doritos bag is very similar to "monitos" in spanish, which means little monkeys :)
This is such a good summary of Murray N. Rothbard's America's Great Depression that I'm going to recommend it to a friend who is interested in economics instead of going through the "Trouble" of reading it!
love these vids
Komm Susser Todd is the perfect song to end this on, you just got yourself a new subscriber.
Something people also forget is the VERY important impact earlier issues had on the great depression, namely for example the crash the UK stock market had before even the US one which put additional pressure on the US stock market. Further we for some UNGODLY REASON detangled from various global trade markets in the leadup to the great depression (largely accomplished by high tariffs and trade wars), which have helped prevent things like the agriculture prices from falling so utterly low, or at least not as fast while simultaneously expanding our financial influence far too greatly through as you mentioned the great amount of printing done so other nations could take loans.
I WISH THAT I COULD TURN BACK TIME
COUSE NOW THE GUILT IS ALL MINE
CANT LIVE WITHOUT THE TRUST OF THOSE YOU LOVE
Congratulations on running the most intelligent and rational youtube channel I have found.
An interesting and entertaining video though my only qualm is how the Great Depression and what factors that supposedly cause it are presented.
It feels like it the information provided should be presented more as an interpretation of the Austrian school of economics on the Great Depression whereas the video presents it as a sort of actual fact on the entire issue. There are also a couple bits of information left out which feel purpose fully ignored regarding the New Deal and Hoover’s Interventionist policies that should be looked into more to create a more critical analysis per say as to avoid appearing biased as throughout the video I felt some sort of bias towards Austrian economics theories on the Great Depression.
Also where are the sources for all the information mentioned
Its pretty obvious Ezekiel is a free marketeer
@@hussite7235 yeah good
I see you're a subscriber to "unlearning economics". Please unfollow that guy as he's a dishonest man with no idea of what he is talking about, this video shows one of his most blatant mistakes: ruclips.net/video/nUStnKeFvQs/видео.html
@@hussite7235 good good
And he ignores that world war 2 was only possible by ditching the gold standard, so if you credit it for ending the depression, you must thank fiat money
About turned this off after the first part until he said it was a lie… glad I stuck around
American People: Why are prices on everything going up?
U.S. govt: I don't know, but hey got this fancy printer! Let's just print more money!
American People: Okay, sounds good to me!
*1937 Bank crash*
?
The one thing I will say is that this video was a lot more opinionated (or "biased" if you will, though Im put off that term because it's a bit loaded) than your other videos. Still interesting even for those who have their reservations though, and definitely got me into reading more about economics.
yeah it was very biased. The war he claims really got us out of the depression would not have possible had the gold standard not been suspended
@@grimaffiliations3671 US intervention was needed why?
@@TheWizardGamez getting out of the depression
If an annual increase of 7.7% in the supply of Dollars caused the Great Depretion, then what do you think will happen after atlease about 25% increase in the supply of the Dollar in 2021?
So long as the US keeps bribing everyone to stay quiet?
Nothing
Seriously invest your fucking money and do not keep it in the banks. Most nations have a Bail-In law for their banks where they're allowed to seize the money kept there to pay off their debts. When the crash happens, expect the banks to seize what you're keeping with them
thank you for disproving this video
This is why the U.S. is going to have an insane collapse in the near future. Either due to hyper inflation, or a depression/recession.
@@grimaffiliations3671 Not sure how it disproves the video..
Post Covid has been disastrous for the economy. That 25% increase is most definitely at a different rate than the 7.7%, simply because the economy is so different, money's value is so different. Technology has also changed considerably. We're in a time where food is extremely cheap, even if it is bad food. Doesn't mean every single other part of the economy isn't burning around us.
@@zekehatcher2196 every other part of the economy is objectively not burning around us
May von Mises smile upon you.
And your heart be filled with hop(p)e
I know it's just a byproduct of your dialect but now I want to see what a Lazy Fair Utopia looks like
Honestly, I would call myself a protectionist or an interventionist economically speaking.
But economic intervention is a complex thing, and this story just shows you, that you should only dabble in it if you're actually capable of making it work.
(only) God would make a good economist.
@@CANmoPants Debatable
@@thaneofwhiterun3562 if we assume that God it's a perfect being that knows everything, then he would be a good economist. Also we should assume that God exists (which is definitely a debatable thing).
@@nicopavvi8494 He said only god would make a good economist.
I agree, but there are good economists out there and they're not god.
@@thaneofwhiterun3562 you're right.
All I understand was "If government pushes more money into the system, the more likely it will fall hard". Did I get something wrong?
yes
@@grimaffiliations3671 then what did I get wrong?
@@polishscribe674 the government pushing more money into the system is what ended the great depression. The private sector can't create enough demand on its own
@@grimaffiliations3671 did you watch the video?
@@polishscribe674 yes
Did you know brisket is a very common meal in the united states? well know you do!
This is kinda scary considering we had the lowest interest rates in recorded history from 2020 to mid 2022
20s but its the 80s - love the style!
I'm right !
I'm f**king right !
Other than being an excellent Communicator that could calm the General Public and make them feel as though the things being done would eventually end the Depression he helped prolong, maybe a few pretty good banking reforms, and building some nice hiking trails using the newly-made Civilian Conservation Corps with money that they didn't have, I can't think of anything FDR really did that actually helped. Especially when it comes to tackling the main issue he claimed the "New Deal" would fix, the Great Depression.
If it wasn't for competent leadership during World War II he would be deserving of around the same ranking as Herbert Hoover. But of course biased "historians" and ideologues wouldn't like that.
Not to mention that he paid farmers to destroy thousands of dollars in crops and livestock to drive up food prices, only to screw those farmers over by institutin' price controls that created monopolies on the things they needed to work.
@@frankg2790 yep.
He got us off the gold standard, which was crucial for ending the depression
This channel gets more based with every upload.
Honestly, throwing money out of a helicopter would be more beneficial for the economy. People get money, they buy good which they want more of, those companies have to produce more to meet demand, thus they hire new workers, which then have wages to spend and thus the cycle of virtuous growth commences again. This is because money in the hands of consumers has a higher velocity than money in the hands of any other group.
yes but if the money from the helicopter is made by printing more money, (inflation) then every ones money will be worth less, and if the money from the helicopter is just from taxing people, you might as well just lower taxes instead of throwing every ones money back at them.
@@theskeletonappearsinthisco5896 Money doesnt automatically lose value if more of it is printed. The consumer will only feel inflation from the rise in the price of goods due to the new pool of consumers
Can someone explain what is meant by Benjamin Strong "advocating for intense inflation"? Is this shorthand for simply printing more money? Also (perhaps relatedly) how does this supposedly "prevent precious metals from leaving fiat Europe and entering gold standard America"? I didn't understand that connection. Thanks in advance!
The sound us gold policy in contrast to the inflationary policies of Europeans countries like Britain led the british to lose gold to the US due to the US demand being higher. As a result british actually encouraged the US to follow a similar inflationary policy. The US implemented similar policy so the market advantages they had that were getting them the influx of gold went away. Essentially: hey us forfeit your market advantages because we're losing gold to you. The inflation i don't think was just printing money, but it was spread out among many things like bank reserve requirement shifts, buying securities, and foreign loans.
thank you!@@yarvae
"Gramps that bullshit" 0:38
It blows my mind how history books straight up lie about this topic, or maybe it doesn't surprise me anymore.
how do they lie?
@@grimaffiliations3671he said at the start that this story of the Great Depression was a lie made and puppeteer by the persecutors
Is no one gonna question the polish cat girl sign?
man it always throws me off hearing the Lain opening in these videos LMAO
Fucking love your content
Damn, you made it almost in the same time as Monsieur Z
's - What If The Great Depression Never Happened?
I wonder how this would have went if the government maintain it's hands-off approach.
If it had one before the prohibition*
We would have seen a crash and extremely long recovery with a mix of inflationary and deflationary spirals.
In addition to the economic problems the US may have had a socialist revolution. The attempted fascist coup may have actually happened as well.
@@michaelsoland3293 the entire video is litterally about why goverment intervention prolonged the crisis
@@szymonpinkowski256 from the Austrian school of economics perspective, which is just one way of analyzing economics. But for the record I don't think most economist would agree with it even if they agree with the concepts.
Awesome
about the gold standard, idk about other countries but Britain returned to the gold standard in 1925 so to insinuate they didn't return to it is a bit misleading in Britains case
France and Britain did but Britain had the empire pay for it and France never recovered untill it was invaded it kept going from inflation to deflation to recession and depression, litteral hell
Where can I get the polish cat girls? Asking for a friend
Coming soon in the soon synthwave future!
@@jimijimo3289 I can't... I mean my friend can't wait for that, personally I'm not into that
Amaaaazing bro ! So in line of this the gov shouldnt do loans and stuff but instead use em loans on cheapend infrastructure and education so that more financially bright ppl could get on the wheels and actually make economy boom ! Right?
Lesson of this story DON’T PRINT MONEY LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW and clearly we have not learned said lesson
that's what they did during world war 2 tho, and that's supposedly what got us out of the depression
@@grimaffiliations3671yes because then the economy had a massive post war boom and healed
@@Boretheorythat happens when the government prints a lot. The opposite tends to happen when the govenrment prints little or tries to "balance the budget". Every depression in US history happened after a period of deficit reduction
Bruh I just did an essay on this
I love the retrowave theme
So one of the great values I learned about the New Deal is that it sucks as an economic policy. Though was necessary for the country as it broke up the power old school energy conglomerates had over the nation, and unified the country. Before it, only urban areas had electricity and power companies erroneously and egotistically refused to build to farmers. After the New Deal, everyone had power, and the age of electricity had come to everyone, no longer restricted by back room monopolies. Mind you it was good business to build to farmers, the power companies were just doing it to be dicks.
The greatest value the New Deal gave is it allowed every American to enjoy the rewards of American innovation.
Basically the new deal can be metaphorically described in this way: "someone handed a box full of the problems america was facing to the government and told them that fixing those problems would have ended the great depression". It's a bit sad to think that, without one of history's worst economic crisis, living conditions wouldn't have been improved.
Besides your dig at tariffs, this is a greatly educational video! If only we could go back on the classical gold standard!
I'd rather not go back to having depressions every few years,
@@grimaffiliations3671 I recommend you watch Anthony Galli’s video on the bank runs that occurred while the U.S. was on the gold standard. While I might not agree with the conclusion at the end of his video, he gives solid evidence that the Gold Standard actually prevents crashes from getting as bad. I highly recommend you watch it.
Under FDR, the economy grew 9.3% per year on average. You know that every time the gold standard has been tried in the end it has failed.
Those figures are misleading. Especially once you get into WW2, where the "growth" was driven by wartime spending. However it didn't actually increase anyone's standards of living. Priced where controlled too during the WW2 which makes these figures even more inflated as the statistics simply failed to adjust for inflation, because of price controls. And speaking of failure, under gold standard, America would never experience price inflation its experiencing today.
@@zigoter2185 Even if you delete the war time growth, the economy did very well from 1932 to 1939.
@@rlkinnard a similar story occurs. GDP is hardly a decent measure of economic growth, because of the way it treats government spending. Government can just spend money in any way to increase GDP, however such increase can be hardly an increase in general welfare, for the governmental spending doesn't work the same way as private spending or investment. For private investment is only possible and supported by consumers spending their money on a product (or by an expectations of such spending from investors). At the same time, government spending is not subject to the test of the market. Treating government "investment" and private investment as the same thing is therefore a grave error. Private investment did very poorly under the Roosevelt administration and it failed to begin recover until 1941. This sluggish state of private investment can be explained by unchecked interventionism of Roosevelt and regime uncertainty. Businessmen were too afraid to invest, because "the rules of the game" could change at any moment in time. This is something that Robert Higgs covers in his article called "regime uncertainty".
6:38 polish cat girl?!
The stocks keep tumbling down...
Ahhh, a fellow astrophysics enjoyer.
Good vid!
2:35 As a filipino who knows hell of a ton history by RUclips, I don't know hell of a ton of history of Philippine's great depression, how do i not know this as a filipino? Idk
Great video. The music was way to loud
Not going to lie this music slaps
Neat
Democracy's detractors in the next video? can I make a brief appearance?
My head hurts with this economics thing.....
So should we double the lengths of politicians' terms (while keeping the same term limits)?
What people don't know is Adam Smith wrote a second book after the Wealth of Nations called the Depression of Nations, where he introduce the invisible d**k who will f**k everybody in the end that got wealthy in the first book.
Tf you're on about?
Lets not forget that the central banking system is also not a government institution. They are private.
They have a certain level of independence from the government, but saying it isn't a government institution is retarded. The members of the Fed are appointed by the government.
Ah, yes. Private entity created by congress.
I am not entirely sure about the overproduction of food issue is entirely real either. It's something the Keynseam new dealers and apparently these guys agree onnbut i have my doubts
Spooky to think about how that really happened
Sources please I want to use you're arguments
I do hope that Corporatism/Distributism is next.
I believe that it's a bit too late for corporatism, I don't see how it could functionally mesh with a service-dominated economy.
@@ben8147 If society collapses due to an economic collapse. There is an easy path. But my comment was in reference towards wanting him to make it the next video.
This video is weird because Keynes only published his General Theory in 1936, literally after all of the stuff in this video happened. How then could his ideology have been of any influence??
Strictly you are correct, but the federal government was still conducting policies that were favoured by Keynes during the recession, so putting him in makes sense from the narrative standpoint.
1:29 serial experiments lain. Good taste.
i wish that i could turn the time
This man just spew straight facts
5:55 equity is not the same as stocks. Stocks are parts of the company as valued by people outside the company and equity is parts of a company valued by people inside the company. In other words, equity is ownership, stocks are speculation.
1:25 Serial Experiments Lain
Just realized the ending is also Astrophysics.
so the government.....printing large amounts of money and raising taxes.....made things worse? GLAD WE LEARNED OUR LESSON =d
very based