@@ericrodwell8706 I think it's that desire and inclination to worship that is the problem that underlies modern far-Left politics. They worship the state.
@@BobWidlefish One can't really put a single thinker, from any era, at the top. They each have their great ideas, and their blunders. With Rothbard, his position on abortion is flawed. Have yet to find anything else like that in his writings, but that fact is not withstanding against his work in economics and how the state is always the biggest problem regarding socio-economic issues. He belongs in the proverbial Hall of Fame of history's great thinkers. People like Marx et al belong on the funeral pyre.
Correct. That other branch "moderated" themselves into irrelevance. Kochs didn't like Rothbard and Mises, too free-market and anti-crony for them, so they ignored Mises and purged Rothbard out of Cato.
I love this show! The first time I watched this, I couldn't really figured out what he was talking about; but as I have been doing more homework on economics and history, monetary policy and so forth, I have increased my understanding of his ideas!
Yeah Murray is in my top 5 of people I wish to meet or still can meet. He seemed like a very noble human being who just spoke logic and wanted the best for all of mankind through free market Anarcho-Capitalism.
To quote Man, Economy, and State - "The process by which the market reverts to its preferred interest rate and eliminates distortion caused by credit expansion- is, moreover, the business cycle!" This man knows and truly understands macroeconomics with human action. Keynesians cannot disprove this...
My friend Zhou from China, came from a poor town called Xien-Yong. He had nothing but sticks and dirt growing up. He defected from a troop of acrobats and stayed here in the U.S. He worked a horrible job as a waiter but saved his money, bought wholesale products and set up a kiosk at the mall. Years later he's a successful business man, drives a Lexus, owns his own house and pays his employees very well. He IS Praxeology in it's brightest sense. A true inspiration.
@@mecachislamar Thanks to China dumping socialism and promoting the opportunities for betterment provided by the market - though China, like all nations, is woefully negligent in not having a complete free market.
@ bluebeard You are absolutely correct. It is crystal clear that wherever socialism/communism/fascism has been tried it has been a complete failure. It is no accident that the more libertarian a society is, the happier and wealthier the people are.
Rothbard was a genius: he possessed an astonishing range of knowledge and expertise in fields as varied as ethics and natural law, economic history, revisionist histories of wartime politicians and the American revolution.
Libertarianism in general and Rothbard in particular can only be appreciated by reasonable, civilized people. Savages and socialists and communists and such criminals cannot be reasoned with and are not civilized, so, if anyone wants liberty and libertarianism, they are only going to get it if they cram it down the criminals' throats in the same violent way that criminal tyrants cram their tyranny down civilized people's throats. It's sad that human existence works this way, and it should be not much of a surprise that gentle and humble libertarians have a hard time coming to grips with this truth, but it is truth nevertheless.
Rothbard acknowledged the money supply shrunk, his argument was that the Fed was attempting to increase the money supply which is true. The reason the total money supply fell is that Americans were withdrawing their money from the system and the Fed couldn't keep up. Also, the Austrian business cycle theory only requires monetary expansion to create a recession not to sustain it. It is undeniable the Fed was inflating before the recession hit.
Nothing prevents it, per se, but we know from economics that capital only accumulates to those who do not destroy it or waste it. Since war is at its root a destruction of capital, it would be highly unlikely that it would happen more than a few times at the hands of a private group, which would drive itself out of existence with such activities. Not to mention the improbability of someone making all their money honestly and voluntarily and then suddenly deciding to take over a region by force.
Rothbard explicitly disputes the idea that children have "the right to food." Look it up in his book. I mean, seriously, if someone like Paul Ehrlich had argued that children don't have the right to eat, libertarians would have jumped all over that as further evidence of Ehrlich's depravity.
I'm amazing that his name is not more widely known outside of specialized academic and economic circles. He and Thomas Sowell are two of the great minds of modern America.
Hayek made in a letter to Terence W. Hutchison dated 15 May, 1983: “I had never accepted Mises’ a priorism .... Certainly 1936 was the time when I first saw my distinctive approach in full clarity - but at the time I felt it that I was merely at last able to say clearly what I had always believed - and to explain gently to Mises why I could not ACCEPT HIS A PRIORISM” Caldwell, B. 2009. “ on Hayek, Popper, Mises, and methodology,” Journal of Economic Methodology 16.3: 315-324.
I also Believe in the great Austrialian-School of Economics.The great Bruce Foster from University of Canberra with desciples like Prof. Mrs. Mathilda Waltz invented the Micronesian-Economy of Tariff Trading Theory and even predicted 9 of the 5 last recessions,if only Von Mises lived today and seen the great development of his theories.
One of the absurd (perhaps latent) assumptions made by internet Austrians is that praxeology is the only method held by Austrian economists. It never seems to sink in to the Misesians that pure apriorist praxeology was rejected by Hayek and by some of the Austrian school influenced by Hayek.
I love the "property is theft" fallacy. It contradicts itself. The phrase seeks to show the illegitimacy of property yet the concept of theft presumes the very legitimacy of property the phrase seeks to destroy. You are correct that the two ideas I posit are not binding on anyone else. They are, however, two ideas, the general acceptance of which I believe will allow for an eventual free market anarchist society. Ideas determine outcomes. Slavery was once thought OK until deemed immoral.
And the rival companies will be rewarded for opening up the area, not just by the people they free but by the entire society. Handling water is not a community asset: if you can make money by piping water to houses and making sure the water is clean, it'll be included in a system focussed around private ownership.
"invalidate the role of government" Since the role of government is one of coercion, you are completely correct. Government it, in of itself, destructive because it is coercive. It can only destroy. "but you don't take the next logical step" Then why don't you tell me what that step is? Keep in mind that without government backing, a firm cannot prevent competition without criminal action.
Probabaly the biggest problems labor faces are impediments to succeed: licensing laws (entrenches the licensed); minimum wage laws above market clearing level (reduces demand for labor increasing unemployment); business regulation (for the benefit of established businesses and reduces new business job opportunities).
@infanta3126 The first part is autonomous investment, the second is investment induced by interest rates and the final part is investment induced by changes in consumption demand (the "acceleration" principle). It is assumed that 0 < b . As we are concentrating on the income-expenditure side, let us assume Ir = 0 (or alternatively, constant interest), so that: It = I0 + b (Ct - Ct-1)
The last and perhaps most significant disadvantage of applying the unqualified term "Austrian"...is the fact that it fosters a conflation of the very different and conflicting research programs that have grown up under this opaque semantic veil. Rothbard recognized and lamented this state of affairs in the preface to the revised edition of Man, Economy, and State published in 1993: In fact, the number of Austrians has grown so large, and the discussion so broad,
I'm a free market anarchist. To achieve an anarchist society requires two ideas prevail in worldwide idealogical battle: that people can own property and that coercion is never justified. Anarchist victory in the modern world with its instant communication would mean its desireability will also have permeated all other societies. Remaining nations would be so busy trying to keep their own rebellious subjects shackled they'd be unable to "win" militarily against a huge anarchist society.
The fact remains that the Food and Drug Administration was created in part as a reaction to this book. While it is a novel it fairly depicts the packing houses of the turn of the century. On government regulations being for big business, I agree with you. The muntinational corporations not only tell the government what laws to pass, they also tell the government what Foreign policy to enact.
This is why I am so surprised. Austrian economics is the only school that takes into account how people behave. The root axiom is that "humans act", something ignored by Keynesians and others who plan as if people are mere machines. By pointing out the inefficiency of central planning on all levels, the "utopian" vision of a perfect society is specifically contradicted. Other schools of thought specifically espouse that, given sufficient power, government can plan efficiently: Utopia.
@hoodoo961 A Great Depression happen in 1920-1921 that was worse then the first year of the depression in 1929. Production fell -20% GDP -24% Unploment -12%. This period only lasted 18 months until the economy started growing again. This was due to the fact the Free Market was alowed to play out and fix the problem. The Federal Reserve did not start inceasing the money supply until 1922 after the economy started growing again leading the boom in the 20's (Roaring Twenties).
"A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together." Thomas Paine
"Don't sell your soul for a mess of pottage, so to speak, 'cause that's what you're gonna get, is a mess of pottage, if that. ... If you follow what you believe, not only is it a very joyful thing to do it, but you also win out."
@onepiecefan74 2) This is something that is forgotten by many people: Keynesianism is not just about stimulating the economy during times of recession or depression; the important other side of Keynesian demand management is to stop inflationary outbreaks during boom times by reducing the level of aggregate demand.
It's a problem of how resource ownership is organized, which is perfectly relevant to the cases you cited. People will always pursue their own interests according to their unique values and preferences. The question is how their actions affect society at large, which depends on legal/regulatory context.
I said "most" people cannot take care of themselves, not all. Second, government is not a person, it is an institution embodied in ideals. It is headed by people, but government in and of itself is comprised of a wide range of people, interests, functions, etc.
Because the government got out in one end and helped th eeconomy (1920s), and the government interfered in the other. (1930s) Then Keynesian economics helped prolong the depression and gave us a perfect example of how it creates booms and busts at the end of the 1930s. What error did they ever have in predicting economic fluctuation as well? Keynesian economics has failed our economy and it's implications will only continue to worsen it. I guess the only thing to do is let time run its course.
Austrian School of Ecomomic professor, Peter Boettke, writes: "It must be admitted that Austrian economics is plagued with many thorny issues of an epistemological, theoretical, empirical, and political nature. Disagreement within the ranks of Austrian economists still persists over many issues" Peter J. Boettke, "What is Wrong With Neoclassical Economics (And What is Still Wrong With Austrian Economics)"(Edward Elgar Publishing, 1996).
the deductive nature of praxeology just means you theorize and then test empirically, as to vice versa. Empirical evidence can be used to challenge praxeology it just isn't used to support it.
"And why wouldn't this happen, then?" This is why I mentioned power companies putting up parellel grids in the same town: if there is a field in which one can make a lot of money (and thus accumulate power), then you will face competition for that money. Hence the free market levels the playing field. You have to be monstrously efficient to gain a large market share, something that is not aided by spending time/money hiring gangs of mercenaries.
The "environmental" industry is huge and constantly on the lookout for environmental harm. We are inundated with worldwide news of real and imagined environmental dangers daily. TV, internet, mobile phones etc. Communication is so vast and immediate that these "ifs" become certainties.
The enforcement of contracts could be subsidized by individual communities or provided by other credible agencies who uphold contracts: perhaps they coordinate with select credibility ratings providers or insurance companies. The benefit here (as opposed to gov't granted credibility), is that corrupt agencies will become less competitive--so it's in their best interest to remain credible.
Look, I'm not denying people are subject to an enormous range of influences. We'd all like everyone to be considerate and kind. Just as I'd like to see physical coercion cease so too for what you call social coercion. Any initiatory aggression causes friction, conflict, pain, psychic trauma etc. Market activity, characterized by mutually agreeable exchanges of property lacks this initiatory aggression. It is also a more productive economic system than any alternative.
2) In the housing bubble,loans were made to people who were unlikely to pay them back. Debt was used bid up asset prices in property,allowing yet more debt via refinancing for purchasing of commodities whether durable or non-durable.Austrian Buisness Cycle does not explain this process.Another fundamental factor in the crisis of 2008 was the emergence of exotic financial instruments like collateralised debt obligations,including asset backed securities & mortgage backed securities
We definately do need some measure of protective programs. IF we depend on foreign countries 100% for food, and we are geared up for IT, they could pull our strings no prob. But as a general rule, I definately think we need to slowly cut government spending, lessen federal regulation, etc.
A competitive market trends toward rational (the most efficient) use of resources. If businessman X mistakenly believes that destroying his own valuable resources is economically sound, competitors will take advantage of his wastefulness and put him out of business. You can say humans are irrational, but that applies equally to any economic "system", since they all involve humans.
@infanta3126 Your wrong Keynes correct as Paul Samuelson MIT showed his multiplier-accelerator model that relies on a multiplier mechanism which is based on a simple Keynesian consumption function with a Robertsonian lag: Ct = c0 + cYt-1 so present consumption is a function of past income (with c as the marginal propensity to consume). Investment, in turn, is assumed to be composed of three parts: It = I0 + I(r) + b (Ct - Ct-1)
A company giving "slave wages" to its workers will simply be undercut, and it won't be possible for a company to control an area militarily. If it's a small town, he'll just be cut off, and a large area requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Right, but the kind of power disparity you describe is exactly exclusivity: if someone gets that much influence, then clearly they are going to face competition from people who want in on the riches, if not nearby then further away or in the future. This, at least, is the theory: if you can find an example that directly contradicts the theory, then we can get somewhere. If not, then you need to explain why the East India co. is just as likely without a state as with a large one.
I meant a combination of hard commodities with a digital component. So if a bank collapsed there would still be money within the system that could be transfered digitally to a person's account and prevent some sort of domino effect. Once again though I'm public schooled. I'm trying to read the articles but its a bit difficult for me to grasp without a decent education beforehand.
I am also a open mind,and i respect your no sectrerist.I read all from Von Mises to Oscar Lange and Keynes.I try to se so objective on them that i can.But i must admit that even that i not agree with him allways the most sharpest US economist in about last 60 years in my view is Paul Samuelson.The brightest and most innovative genius in Economics.With all my respect for your Austrian view(and i don´t want argue or be rude or such sincerly!)Have you read Samuelson? What do think about him if?
NBER) writes: "Although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas."
@zsylvana Austrians would say just because the economy can run for a period of time while its being planned doesn't mean what the planners are planning is correct or that the economy wouldn't be better off without the planning. they would also make the moral argument that with the economy being planned that means people aren't free to decide what goods to produce, sell, or buy. All the peoples desires has to be approved by an oversee.
"other businesses lose customers" Yes, they do. You know about those conditions because there are people who deliberately go and check, then write about them. You, and other people who agree with you, then do not buy those products. It happens every day, right now. And if you think those conditions are bad, what OTHER CHOICES are available to those people? Farming? Prostitution? Best solution for everyone: Expanded trade, expanded opportunities, not more regulation.
Once the subject of heated national debate over 100 years ago, the gold standard today has nearly disappeared as a political issue. The world has abandoned the gold standard in favor of so-called "paper money,"and only a diminishing group on the far right continues to call for its return. However, if mainstream economists (on both the left and the right) have anything to say about it,there will never be a return to "that barbarous relic," as John Maynard Keynes called gold over 60 years ago
@NicosMind What you need to remember is that a decline in prices can be caused by either supply or demand changes. Deflation because of a decline in demand is what I am against, because it is accompanied by unemployment and declining output. However, a shift in the supply schedule that lowers prices while increasing output is not the same thing as a recession caused by a monetary contraction like the Austrians advocate. hope this helps.
Apparently you'd rather fight than discuss. It can be fun to dish out verbal punches but doesn't advance the discussion. For my part I'll try to focus solely on the topic. I trust you will as well.
Although natural rights theory appeals to many libertarians - such rights can be criticized as fantasies. But what is clear to me is that I value social harmony, mutual respect and cooperation. None of these exist where we live subject to violence - and all command economies ultimately rely on violence and create friction as people are compeled to act contrary to their own values. Even lacking an explicit moral theory every peasant would naturally resist, if possible, the master's "taxation".
"So long as the business owners perceive" Do you buy organic food? I don't, usually, because cost/benefit for me isn't worth it. Yet they profit, and established companies are cleaning up their acts to try to stay competitive. Same thing. "work in those conditions or else starve." Exactly! So let's close the bad factories and have them starve. Better than being exploited. Or, how about allowing free trade, and having someone open a better factory? Competition works.
It is the state that functions as a mighty "protection racket" on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: "Pay us for your 'protection' or else." In the light of the massive power of the state, the danger of a "protection racket" emerging from private police agencies is relatively small indeed. Defense services are more viably privatized and replaced by the market provision of security. I refer you to The Myth of National Defense by Hans Hermann Hoppe.
"The situation analyzes whether or not it is POSSIBLE for force to be 'right' based upon your criteria." Then USE my criteria, rather than yours. When you're prosecuted for initiating force, stand up and explain what happened to the adjudicator and the jury (if any). Maybe the injured party will not prosecute due to their opinion that the outcome was good. Don't assume that just because YOU can rationalize YOUR actions based on YOUR opinion of the outcome in YOUR scenario, I'm going to agree.
The laws governing physics and biology explain these subjects mechanistic behaviour. Under identical conditions the subject matter always behaves identically. Economics, by contrast, deals with the choices made by conscious beings, whose actions are based upon the actors ever changing values. It is like geometry in that both rest on basic axioms upon which their body of thought is simply a logical spinning out of the implications of these axioms. Empiricism can be used to confirm its axioms.
Tell me, what is capitalism for you... I think we have different definition for it. My definition for capitalism is people without interference from anyone exchangeing products and services they want to exchange because they value what they will get in exchange more than what they have.
@zsylvana Austrians would argue that its impossible for a small group of men to understand what the money supply should be at any time. But your right that Keynes actually advocated fighting inflation during booms and for the government to run surpluses in times of economic growth. If Keynesians today followed everything Keynes advocated for we probably would be in a better situations.
"its only goal is profit." But how does one make a profit? By better serving ones customers. The one result you leave out of the doom and gloom scenarios you come up with is the fact that such a company would LOSE CUSTOMERS. Haven't you noticed that Green sells? That Clean sells? Clean is also much more efficient, cutting costs. More profit. That's why big business just LOVES big government: They use it to prevent competition.
"this would be a 'lawless' situation anyway" And exactly how is it NOT "lawless" now, when sealed warrants are used, false informants and mistaken information justify killing people in their homes, imprisonment without charges, agents of the state assaulting and killing without repercussions, and ever single aspect of the so-called "constitution" ignored? No matter how bad private criminals may be, IT COLD NOT BE WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
Americans withdrawing money doesn't actually shrink the money supply. It's part of M2. Money supply was increasing before Great Depression but it wasn't inflation. Inflation was negative during the 20s. The problem with Austrian theory is, everything is the fault of money supply increase, according to them. Well, sometimes people just invest badly. There were many recessions before the Fed while we were on a true gold standard.
In fact, many "Austrian" libertarians (in fact, an expanding group) advocate for a free market in money just as in everything else. Whatever contracting parties wish to designate as money would be so. Practically, time has revealed precious metals have shown themselves to be superior as a money: relatively rare, fungible, equally and easily divisible, etc. It is government granted legal monopolies on the creation of money (central banking) that Austrians oppose.
Gold can devalue as well. Look at the massive inflation in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. Also, gold mining in So. Africa caused inflation in the US during the late 19th century. Fiat currency means the money can be managed to fit actual conditions, not the rate at which a mineral can be dug from the ground.
@infanta3126 Now,assume away government& foreign sector,aggregate demand at time t is: Ytd = Ct + It = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (Ct - Ct-1)assuming goods market equilibrium (so Yt = Ytd), then in equilibrium:Yt = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (Ct - Ct-1)But we know the values of Ct and Ct-1 are merely Ct = c0 + cYt-1 and Ct-1 = c0 + cYt-2 respectively, then substituting these in: Yt = c0 + I0 + cYt-1 + b (c0 + cYt-1 - c0 - cYt-2) as a 2 order linear difference equation:Yt - (1 + b )cYt-1 + b cYt-2 = (c0 + I0)
Starvation, malnutrition, class warfare, plague, and filthy living conditions also happen in a free market setting. How many people depend of food stamps for nutrition? How many revolutions have happened because the market unfairly distributed wealth? How many outbreaks of disease occur because of unsanitary living conditions in cities without government infrastructure? And to repeat, deflation lowers real wages because as money appreciates, it can command more labor.
To finish that, "Competition works" even in the labor market. Always has. Conditions in the factory can be bad, because the alternatives are worse. Allow for better alternatives through free trade and lowering regulations, and factories have to compete for labor by offering better conditions and higher salaries. Put more regulations in place, factories close without alternatives (such as is happening in Detroit right now) and people are all worse off than before.
I remember Nikita Khrushchev, of the now collapsed Soviet Union, pound his shoe on a table at the UN. Said that communism will bury western capitalism. All I see is communism is dead or dying and capitalism has replaced communism in even the former communist states.
This video takes forever to download. Much slower than any other video I've viewed on RU-vid and the playback has to stop repeatedly to wait for the download. Perhaps uploading a different file format would help.
for achievement and progress of both the individual and society as a whole. Another view that capitalist utopias do not address is the issue of market failure, any more than socialist utopias address the issue of planning failure. Thus a blend of socialism and capitalism is seen by some as the type of economy in a utopia
BTW Khyron. that post was in response to another persons statement that laws make businesses act ethically in a Lassiez faire system. when posting from the all comments page the posts get out of order on the front page.
@infanta3126 The solution to this becomes elementary.The equilibrium level of Y (call it Yp,the particular solution) is solved by letting Yt = Yt-1 = Yt-2 = Yp, or:(1 - c - b c + b c)Yp = (c0 + I0) so:Yp = (c0 + I0)/(1-c)Complementary function,Yc is also easy to determine. Namely, we know that it will have the form Yc = A1r1t + A2r2t where A1 and A2 are arbitrary constants to be defined and where r1 and r2 are the two eigenvalues of the following characteristic equation: r2 - (1+b )cr + b c = 0
