I wonder why is it that the authors forgot to mention that Mises was Rotarian, a close friend of Otto Habsburg (Crown Prince of the dissolved Autro-Hungarian Empire and also a member of Hayek's Mont Pelerin Society, later a "cofounder" of Paneuropean movement - European federalist and Cold War era anti-communist subversionary network).
Monarchist liberals - what a joke! :))
Socialism did not fail because of its inefficiency but because of these rats who undermined it for decades!
@Lillymill They didn't mention his shoe size either ... and for the same reason. Socialism has failed in every case for clear and easily discernable economic reasons.
If Socialism was bound to fail, there would be no need for the subvertive activities of Mont Pelerin Society and Pan-Europa to undermine European socialism.
It seems like a lot of hard work to take down something that was supposedly about to fall anyways.
@Lillymill The fairy-tale of the "subversive" activities (LOL!) is a new one. Their efforts amount to a warning so that the inevitable (and spectacular) failures harm fewer people. None of those organizations were responsibe for 50 years of economic stagnation by the Soviets and their client states; nor were they responsible for the correlation between the adoption iof capitalism and improved living standards.
And someone might read socialist nonsense and accidentally fall for it.
I guess that's why these "warning efforts" are described as "underground work" by their very perpetrators.
What's far more puzzling is the fact that after all this efforts invested into the noble cause of bringing down the old red scarecrow, these anarcholiberal benevolent activities are still kept away from the public.
Liberalism lead by an European would be imperial family??
I guess that's the kind of naivety that makes people believe in Invisible Hand 0.o
@Lillymill Funny that you would bring up naivete considering your assertions. That they mockingly referred to it as underground work is a surprise to no one. That anyone could seriously believe that this constituted an active attempt to bring down communism ... requires reference to naivete again.
Since no "imperial family" is involved and since "the invisible hand is not a "belief" but a term used to describe an empirically established phenomenon, you're simply undermining yourself.
@ THe williamcale. The cold war is over, its time to read facts and not just barf up BS propaganda. Its these type of shock phrases that prevent us from a complete evaluation of our economic options and history.
@ THe williamcale. The cold war is over, its time to read facts and not just barf up BS propaganda. Its these type of shock phrases that prevent us from a complete evaluation of our economic options
Nowadays, we are being tricked into believing we have freedom. We're told we have freedom of speech but in reality our words are meaningless and hollow as they have no power and fall on deaf ears. These days, we just have the worst of capitalism. The rich and wealthy make sure they hold on to the power and money but as soon as soon as the shit hits the fan, the ordinary workers are expected to bail them out? That's ridiculous! Either has a Socialist state or don't. Capitalism has already failed.
Communism forging ahead while producing nothing and enslaving/impovershing everyone and not meeting "quotas" not exporting shit, not building shit and giving their "lesser"S no wealth no needs and no future. Hysterical.
The Soviet economy never "worked" it always starved people to death, malnurishedthem, and provided not even the basic neccessities for productivesness or growth, hence the murders of babies and the eldery and crippled, and the slave labor and "population control".
Well it was very good at building up a massive industrial sector in the early years, even while millions were starving from food shortages.
But as new technologies came about later in the 20th century, the Communist economies couldn't compete. Gradually the various versions of capitalism (Anglo, Asian, social-democracy) all overtook the USSR and eventually left it in the dust. You could argue that it was the computer chip that ultimately sent Communism to its grave.
@deltapunk21 I'm not surprised you're American. In my experience, most Americans do not understand Socialism and Communism. They are not the same thing. Sweden and France are examples of social democrat (socialist) countries and aren't anything like you've described. The USSR was Communist of the Stalinist kind. This was very different from what Karl Marx had outlined or ever wanted. Marx would have been spinning in his grave at what Stalin did. There has never been a truly Marxist country yet.
The places the poor exist, business does not exist, there is a correlation. The wealthy aka US and those who produce, are business not fascist socialists.
lenin was an icy, friendless fanatic. he was absolutely unfeeling about human suffering. .far from regretting the outbreak if war, he greeted it with joy.
lenin was bitterly criticized foe introducing factory piece-work and the assembly -line system known as "taylorism" . ..( the scientific management of industry devised by the u.s. engineer f.w. taylor and by ford). lenin wanted to turn people into machines...
You're absolutely right about the Taylorism. Basically Lenin was willing to use the same tactics that capitalists used but on a much more ruthless scale since workers didn't have even nominal freedom to choose their employer(s).
Any time you have a labor market monopsony, whether a company town or a Communist state, you end up with the most brutal forms of repression on the job that are imaginable.
in may , 1849, marx was expelled as a "statement" person and so as a man without a country- a citizen of the world- marx begins his exile in london.before seeking refuge in london, marx and engels had taken part in a secret society called the "communist league" which commissioned them to prepare the now famous COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. at first it didn't cause any great sensation. but later, bit by bit,it began to create real world-wide anxiety.
the manisfeto's publication turns out to be one of the more important events in human history.... idea of communism terrifies european hierarchy which attempts to crush it. ( today anyone who disagrees is called a communist).
marx remained in london for the rest of his life, in the direct poverty( three of his children died through the lack of medication) unhappy and bitter, he continuing to write revolutionary books and articles for for the news paper which would accept them...
don't imagine that charlie's ideas were greeted with enthusiasm by the public. on the contrary- no one knew anything about charlie outside a small circle of german exiles and a few intellectuals. in fact, it was only in 1917, with lenin's( half jew)victory in russia, that the words of marx were heard of throughout the world, and studied and discussed...
the last 25 years of his life were spent working on his major work CAPITAL which he did not manage to finish.
That's all great and well, but Marx's theories are simply incorrect; so bad, that any introduction of a monetary system invalidates all of it. Not to mention that Marx confuses "profit" with interest, which lead to many fallacious conclusions. One example would be Marx's "exploitation theory of labor," which is the only thing the typical Marxist wannabe understands, or has heard of.
The problem is that by the time Marx was writing CAPITAL, the utility theory of value was gaining momentum and it rendered the classical school of economic thought obsolete. Remember, Marx was the last of the classical economists; almost everyone after him was considered neoclassical.
That being said, to claim that unfettered capitalism is perfectly fair to workers and income distribution is also hogwash. Social power structures are every bit as important as conventional market forces here.
More capital means higher real wages. Americans get paid a lot more than Indians because Americans have the more and better capital. High savings rates means more capital accumulation, more investment (more roundabout production processes), higher labor demand, higher productivity, and higher wages. The 'capitalists' and the wage earners interests are the same, and they work together. The government, though, pins them against each other, and destroys real wages through inflation.
There is no social tension between the forces and relations of production. The only social tension is between the people and the government. The latter seeks to divide and conquer us through class warfare, and by appealing to jealousy and our most evil faculties. Individualism, freedom, and prosperity are entirely at odds with the government.
Collectivism = the Dark Ages. Central control over every aspect of life. It is oppressive; It is murderious; it is a few masters and fearful slaves. It is lies and distortions greed and corruption wrapped in a pretty package of warm fuzzies for good of all.
Individualism = Enlightment natural law, free trade, little government, free thought, truth, power structures built on many levels to oppose one another and stop tyranny from consintration into a few hands.
@Lillymill Actually, in the real world, socialistic intervention in the economy caused, among other things, the Great Depression and the current economic crisis. And blaming war, which is, by definition, a state action on "individualism" (particularly the one precipitated by National Socialism) is just too nonsensical to be treated at all seriously.
This series Commanding Heights is only pseudo pro Capitalism. They don't take a principled stand in favor of the free market, instead they mix various ingredients of socialism and statism. The result is a system built around a hodge podge of solutions and compromises with statism that does not inspire in the least. Libertarianism and Austrian economics on the other hand, are unified and logically thought out system's that are based on reason and principles.
To know more about Von mises visit site through YAHOO Von mises click search full text of human action book available in the site and whole Austrian school texts
If you found out more about Mises and Hayek you'd know that they (unlike Friedman and Greenspan) opposed central banking, public and private alike. The Fed is just another tool of government intervention. Even though it is run by private bankers, its monopoly powers are delegated and protected by the state. If you want to blame someone for the current fucked-up monetary situation it would have to be both Keynesians and Monetarists, but not Austrians.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Fed has nothing to do with the government beyond having a Chairman who is "nominally" appointed by the government. The Fed has always been a tool of Wall St. which has since its beginning been a tool of the Bank of England and financial oligarchy.
Sorry dude, your country is pretty bankrupt and you're just a subject of vulture like financiers who love to use you for cannon fodder in their little geopolitical games.
I never said that Friedman "liked" the Fed. I know that he blamed it for the Great Depression, but he did not oppose the concept of central banking. He called for a "better" central bank policy, not for the abolition of the Fed.
there are problems in any system, but the advantage of capitalism it is a truly macroeconomic system, so if it is used wisely it can help everyone, from the richest to the poorest
That is fascism, as Benito stated, the merger between government and big corps! That is NOT free market....the republican moron support supply-side economics which is just as stupid as demand-side economics.....that is NOT a free market! Corporate welfare, regulations, taxes.....that creates the wealthy elite with a mixture of both business CEOs and government officials!
Mussolini was run by Count Volpi di Misurata and Hitler was run by Hjalmar Schacht. They used the dictators to impose financial austerity at the point of a gun. That is the "free market" at work. Imposing austerity when the bubbles they create collapse and the speculators demand that their gambling debts be paid, just like with Paulson/Bernake attempting to bail out the dead financial system.
Its obvious, that you have a very very simplified view of so-called "free markets" or economics in general which is the problem I'm going to have explaining anything complicated in this ridiculous reply system. What I see on your channel typifies the Dick and Jane level of the thinking of the typical populist. Unless we straighten out the vocabulary, we can't get make anything clear to each other.
I don't view the "free markets". Its a worthless word that harkens back to the cold war. Using "The West versus the Communist dictatorships" comparisons is meaningless today.
How can their system be collapsing if it was never fully implemented? The 1980s Chicago school incorporated only some of the ideas of the Austrian School. Among others, the idea of returning to the gold standard and abolishing central banking were not adopted by the monetarists. That is where the failures of the current system come from.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why return to a British system of financial dictatorship which is all the old gold standard was anyways. Don't worry about the central banks, they are destroying themselves and the west with their austerity policies.
I wonder why is it that the authors forgot to mention that Mises was Rotarian, a close friend of Otto Habsburg (Crown Prince of the dissolved Autro-Hungarian Empire and also a member of Hayek's Mont Pelerin Society, later a "cofounder" of Paneuropean movement - European federalist and Cold War era anti-communist subversionary network).
Monarchist liberals - what a joke! :))
Socialism did not fail because of its inefficiency but because of these rats who undermined it for decades!
Lillymill 5 months ago
@Lillymill They didn't mention his shoe size either ... and for the same reason. Socialism has failed in every case for clear and easily discernable economic reasons.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom
If Socialism was bound to fail, there would be no need for the subvertive activities of Mont Pelerin Society and Pan-Europa to undermine European socialism.
It seems like a lot of hard work to take down something that was supposedly about to fall anyways.
Lillymill 3 months ago
@Lillymill The fairy-tale of the "subversive" activities (LOL!) is a new one. Their efforts amount to a warning so that the inevitable (and spectacular) failures harm fewer people. None of those organizations were responsibe for 50 years of economic stagnation by the Soviets and their client states; nor were they responsible for the correlation between the adoption iof capitalism and improved living standards.
And someone might read socialist nonsense and accidentally fall for it.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom
I guess that's why these "warning efforts" are described as "underground work" by their very perpetrators.
What's far more puzzling is the fact that after all this efforts invested into the noble cause of bringing down the old red scarecrow, these anarcholiberal benevolent activities are still kept away from the public.
Liberalism lead by an European would be imperial family??
I guess that's the kind of naivety that makes people believe in Invisible Hand 0.o
Lillymill 3 months ago
@Lillymill Funny that you would bring up naivete considering your assertions. That they mockingly referred to it as underground work is a surprise to no one. That anyone could seriously believe that this constituted an active attempt to bring down communism ... requires reference to naivete again.
Since no "imperial family" is involved and since "the invisible hand is not a "belief" but a term used to describe an empirically established phenomenon, you're simply undermining yourself.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
he wasn't narcissist..
blahhhk 1 year ago
whats the song that comes in at 5:00
Flametoy 1 year ago
Excuse me guys... do any of you happen to know the song that comes in at 1:18?
rawcoolness 1 year ago
@ THe williamcale. The cold war is over, its time to read facts and not just barf up BS propaganda. Its these type of shock phrases that prevent us from a complete evaluation of our economic options and history.
labu2be 1 year ago
@ THe williamcale. The cold war is over, its time to read facts and not just barf up BS propaganda. Its these type of shock phrases that prevent us from a complete evaluation of our economic options
labu2be 1 year ago
Nowadays, we are being tricked into believing we have freedom. We're told we have freedom of speech but in reality our words are meaningless and hollow as they have no power and fall on deaf ears. These days, we just have the worst of capitalism. The rich and wealthy make sure they hold on to the power and money but as soon as soon as the shit hits the fan, the ordinary workers are expected to bail them out? That's ridiculous! Either has a Socialist state or don't. Capitalism has already failed.
bacabu30 1 year ago
Communism forging ahead while producing nothing and enslaving/impovershing everyone and not meeting "quotas" not exporting shit, not building shit and giving their "lesser"S no wealth no needs and no future. Hysterical.
The Soviet economy never "worked" it always starved people to death, malnurishedthem, and provided not even the basic neccessities for productivesness or growth, hence the murders of babies and the eldery and crippled, and the slave labor and "population control".
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Well it was very good at building up a massive industrial sector in the early years, even while millions were starving from food shortages.
But as new technologies came about later in the 20th century, the Communist economies couldn't compete. Gradually the various versions of capitalism (Anglo, Asian, social-democracy) all overtook the USSR and eventually left it in the dust. You could argue that it was the computer chip that ultimately sent Communism to its grave.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
@deltapunk21 I'm not surprised you're American. In my experience, most Americans do not understand Socialism and Communism. They are not the same thing. Sweden and France are examples of social democrat (socialist) countries and aren't anything like you've described. The USSR was Communist of the Stalinist kind. This was very different from what Karl Marx had outlined or ever wanted. Marx would have been spinning in his grave at what Stalin did. There has never been a truly Marxist country yet.
bacabu30 1 year ago
The places the poor exist, business does not exist, there is a correlation. The wealthy aka US and those who produce, are business not fascist socialists.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
lenin was an icy, friendless fanatic. he was absolutely unfeeling about human suffering. .far from regretting the outbreak if war, he greeted it with joy.
lenin was bitterly criticized foe introducing factory piece-work and the assembly -line system known as "taylorism" . ..( the scientific management of industry devised by the u.s. engineer f.w. taylor and by ford). lenin wanted to turn people into machines...
hevidt 2 years ago 4
You're absolutely right about the Taylorism. Basically Lenin was willing to use the same tactics that capitalists used but on a much more ruthless scale since workers didn't have even nominal freedom to choose their employer(s).
Any time you have a labor market monopsony, whether a company town or a Communist state, you end up with the most brutal forms of repression on the job that are imaginable.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
in may , 1849, marx was expelled as a "statement" person and so as a man without a country- a citizen of the world- marx begins his exile in london.before seeking refuge in london, marx and engels had taken part in a secret society called the "communist league" which commissioned them to prepare the now famous COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. at first it didn't cause any great sensation. but later, bit by bit,it began to create real world-wide anxiety.
hevidt 3 years ago
the manisfeto's publication turns out to be one of the more important events in human history.... idea of communism terrifies european hierarchy which attempts to crush it. ( today anyone who disagrees is called a communist).
marx remained in london for the rest of his life, in the direct poverty( three of his children died through the lack of medication) unhappy and bitter, he continuing to write revolutionary books and articles for for the news paper which would accept them...
hevidt 3 years ago
don't imagine that charlie's ideas were greeted with enthusiasm by the public. on the contrary- no one knew anything about charlie outside a small circle of german exiles and a few intellectuals. in fact, it was only in 1917, with lenin's( half jew)victory in russia, that the words of marx were heard of throughout the world, and studied and discussed...
the last 25 years of his life were spent working on his major work CAPITAL which he did not manage to finish.
hevidt 3 years ago
That's all great and well, but Marx's theories are simply incorrect; so bad, that any introduction of a monetary system invalidates all of it. Not to mention that Marx confuses "profit" with interest, which lead to many fallacious conclusions. One example would be Marx's "exploitation theory of labor," which is the only thing the typical Marxist wannabe understands, or has heard of.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
The problem is that by the time Marx was writing CAPITAL, the utility theory of value was gaining momentum and it rendered the classical school of economic thought obsolete. Remember, Marx was the last of the classical economists; almost everyone after him was considered neoclassical.
That being said, to claim that unfettered capitalism is perfectly fair to workers and income distribution is also hogwash. Social power structures are every bit as important as conventional market forces here.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
More capital means higher real wages. Americans get paid a lot more than Indians because Americans have the more and better capital. High savings rates means more capital accumulation, more investment (more roundabout production processes), higher labor demand, higher productivity, and higher wages. The 'capitalists' and the wage earners interests are the same, and they work together. The government, though, pins them against each other, and destroys real wages through inflation.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
There is no social tension between the forces and relations of production. The only social tension is between the people and the government. The latter seeks to divide and conquer us through class warfare, and by appealing to jealousy and our most evil faculties. Individualism, freedom, and prosperity are entirely at odds with the government.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
It also terrified the 10,000,000 soon to be dead Ukrainians, and the 2 million other soviets which starved to death.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Collectivism = the Dark Ages. Central control over every aspect of life. It is oppressive; It is murderious; it is a few masters and fearful slaves. It is lies and distortions greed and corruption wrapped in a pretty package of warm fuzzies for good of all.
Individualism = Enlightment natural law, free trade, little government, free thought, truth, power structures built on many levels to oppose one another and stop tyranny from consintration into a few hands.
BeanGene 4 years ago 9
@BeanGene
Collectivism never brought about the global economic crisis and world war.
Individualism did - TWICE!
Lillymill 5 months ago
@Lillymill Actually, in the real world, socialistic intervention in the economy caused, among other things, the Great Depression and the current economic crisis. And blaming war, which is, by definition, a state action on "individualism" (particularly the one precipitated by National Socialism) is just too nonsensical to be treated at all seriously.
FletchforFreedom 3 months ago
@FletchforFreedom
Why bother responding to my comments if its nonsensical? 0.o
Lillymill 3 months ago
This series Commanding Heights is only pseudo pro Capitalism. They don't take a principled stand in favor of the free market, instead they mix various ingredients of socialism and statism. The result is a system built around a hodge podge of solutions and compromises with statism that does not inspire in the least. Libertarianism and Austrian economics on the other hand, are unified and logically thought out system's that are based on reason and principles.
jackson32 4 years ago 3
To know more about Von mises visit site through YAHOO Von mises click search full text of human action book available in the site and whole Austrian school texts
BNMWE 4 years ago
Minimum Government intervention and Maximum individual liberty is the key to human freedom out of government command and control over people .
BNMWE 4 years ago
Great, now we have private bankers controlling us. Yahoo!
Amiduffer 4 years ago
If you found out more about Mises and Hayek you'd know that they (unlike Friedman and Greenspan) opposed central banking, public and private alike. The Fed is just another tool of government intervention. Even though it is run by private bankers, its monopoly powers are delegated and protected by the state. If you want to blame someone for the current fucked-up monetary situation it would have to be both Keynesians and Monetarists, but not Austrians.
vonPeterhof 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Fed has nothing to do with the government beyond having a Chairman who is "nominally" appointed by the government. The Fed has always been a tool of Wall St. which has since its beginning been a tool of the Bank of England and financial oligarchy.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
The Bank of England! Dude - so we rule the world still?
xipirho 4 years ago 2
Sorry dude, your country is pretty bankrupt and you're just a subject of vulture like financiers who love to use you for cannon fodder in their little geopolitical games.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Are you kidding? The Fed admitted to the Great Depression....they are the reason for excess inflation.........you are BLIND!!!!!
watch?v=fpPNjkeL-Ks
shanklinmike 3 years ago
No, I'm not kidding. The Fed is not an institution within themselves so stop having a fetish about them.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Explain.....they are not an institution within themselves? What do you mean by this?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
watch?v=fpPNjkeL-Ks
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Friedman like the Fed? I think you need to do a little more research before making it sound like he liked the Fed.....
watch?v=fpPNjkeL-Ks
shanklinmike 3 years ago
I never said that Friedman "liked" the Fed. I know that he blamed it for the Great Depression, but he did not oppose the concept of central banking. He called for a "better" central bank policy, not for the abolition of the Fed.
vonPeterhof 3 years ago
Excellent!
meberic 4 years ago
Economic liberalism owns.
CanadianNooB 5 years ago
there are problems in any system, but the advantage of capitalism it is a truly macroeconomic system, so if it is used wisely it can help everyone, from the richest to the poorest
adi87tya 5 years ago
Is it? What we have now seems to be creating a tiny elite with all the wealth, and a huge mass of poor. Isn't that the opposite of liberty?
Amiduffer 4 years ago
That is fascism, as Benito stated, the merger between government and big corps! That is NOT free market....the republican moron support supply-side economics which is just as stupid as demand-side economics.....that is NOT a free market! Corporate welfare, regulations, taxes.....that creates the wealthy elite with a mixture of both business CEOs and government officials!
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Mussolini was run by Count Volpi di Misurata and Hitler was run by Hjalmar Schacht. They used the dictators to impose financial austerity at the point of a gun. That is the "free market" at work. Imposing austerity when the bubbles they create collapse and the speculators demand that their gambling debts be paid, just like with Paulson/Bernake attempting to bail out the dead financial system.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
"That is the free market at work"
Are you serious? You think Enron, Wal-Mart, Freddie/Fannie, MCI....are free markets???
Are you joking or smoking something? (preferably both)
watch?v=rulSfrcNU9U
watch?v=fpPNjkeL-Ks
watch?v=YxHhAQgyr1g
watch?v=3PYggjQVwAs
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Its obvious, that you have a very very simplified view of so-called "free markets" or economics in general which is the problem I'm going to have explaining anything complicated in this ridiculous reply system. What I see on your channel typifies the Dick and Jane level of the thinking of the typical populist. Unless we straighten out the vocabulary, we can't get make anything clear to each other.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
OK, any links? how do you view free markets compared to me?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
I don't view the "free markets". Its a worthless word that harkens back to the cold war. Using "The West versus the Communist dictatorships" comparisons is meaningless today.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek are the greatest!
vonPeterhof 5 years ago
If their system is so great, why is it collapsing?
Amiduffer 4 years ago
How can their system be collapsing if it was never fully implemented? The 1980s Chicago school incorporated only some of the ideas of the Austrian School. Among others, the idea of returning to the gold standard and abolishing central banking were not adopted by the monetarists. That is where the failures of the current system come from.
vonPeterhof 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why return to a British system of financial dictatorship which is all the old gold standard was anyways. Don't worry about the central banks, they are destroying themselves and the west with their austerity policies.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Prices Are Code!
Alessandro1985 5 years ago
Excellent
adi11235 5 years ago