What a crock. These people don't know WTF they're talking about. They use Greenspan as a talking point? GREENSPAN? Are you f'ing kidding me?
What does Greenspan know about free markets? It is the Fed that PREVENTS markets from being free. How could you have free markets when the Fed controls interest rates AND the supply of money? We never had a free market, there has ALWAYS been government intervention, in one way of another. You can't say free markets don't work if there never was one!
@jjenson2006 - Never heard of Carnegie, Rockefeller, JP Morgan...? Wealth inequality was at its height when those men were alive and laissez-faire (i.e. your "Free market") reigned. Things got BETTER when we enacted the SEC, Trust Indenture, and Glass Steagall. And now that they have been eroded so badly and many of these protections have been repealed, or are not being properly enforced, where do we find ourselves but, yet again, on the precipice of another great depression.
@edschaeffer When banks were given the right to print money and CONTROL interest rates through a central bank, that was not laissez-faire Capitalism. Laissez-faire can only exist if there is sound money. Money that is backed by a commodity and floating interest rates based on market forces. Bernie Madoff was a result of the SEC and FINRA.
Glass Steagall wouldn't be needed if the government didn't guarantee loans which goes 100% against free market philosophy.
@jjenson2006 Laissez-faire, "Austrian" economics, or Anarcho-capitalism is not supported but any major top 25 university, nor is it required on any economic reading list at these universities because any real economist with a brain knows that these ideologies lead to complete corporate tyranny. You wanna see the "free market" in action? Move to a third world country like the Congo where corporations are more powerful than governments.
Austrian economic isn't taught in universities because government has the power over what gets taught in universities. Austrian economics condemns the government; can you not see why it's not taught in universities? Universities get subsidized by government.
Keynesian economics is all they teach in universities because it gives government the power to control the economy. This is the reason why this country is fucked!
@edschaeffer "Move to a third world country like the Congo where corporations are more powerful than governments."
Go to wikipedia and do some research on Congo before you make a silly statement like this. Especially the part where Government corruption is mentioned!
@jjenson2006 - My point doesn't change. The countries are ruled by the corporation. My point there is far more contrary evidence that anarcho-capitalism actually works. Anyone who believes that it does work can't see the monstrous evidence that it only benefits the modern-day robber-barrons. Even Adam Smith who wrote Wealth Of Nations which many "conservatives" believe the bible of free market capitalism was against wage labor. watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
@edschaeffer Corporations are in bed with government. That is NOT capitalism, it's called corporatism.
Free market capitalism isn't anarcho-capitalism. Lessez-faire means "hands off" the markets, but does not mean NO government to provide courts, police and military.
You are getting your propaganda from a hard core socialist (Chomsky), who redefines the meaning of capitalism to confuse his followers.
Adam Smith warned about how government collusion would destroy an otherwise free market
@edschaeffer - Adam Smith's argument for markets that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. Laissez-faire capitalism will work properly only under these conditions. The word "free" being unregulated does not work. Only under the conditions of a "perfect market" can laissez-faire capitalism properly work. I suggest you use Wikipedia for the definition of a perfect market becuase only under these conditions can we have true competition.
Why economic illiterates shouldn't be spouting abject nonsense on youtube. That should be the video. This guy is a shill... "The new deal largely worked, and brought us out of the crisis." LMAO, it lasted almost twelve more years HAHA.....He is a spokesmen for big government because it saves his paycheck.
I heard a poll was taken saying 33% of people approve of socialism, 33% approve of capitalism and 33% aren't sure, but 8:1 on the same poll said they approve of letting the free market work vs a government managed economy. LOL if that's true, at BEST it shows many american's don't take polls seriously.
@AroundSun - Did you see the statistics from the last 100 years that free market ideology benefits only the largest corporations; thus creating an income gap of benefiting only the top 1% of the country; in which the 99% voted to reverse but it didn't happen? So I wonder why the 99% don't give a fuck?
@edschaeffer Did you know that 17.903164% of statistics are made up on the spot? Did you see the statistics from the past 300 years which prove that capitalism is responsible for the highest standard of living for the widest range of people the world has ever seen? Or did you, like most of the left, conveniently overlook that pesky little fact that stands in the way of the liberal agenda?
@AroundSun - No one is arguing against capitalism, just unbalanced capitalism, specifically, anarcho-capitalism. But I agree with you that "reality" has such a liberal agenda. Screw the liberals. Deny all reality.
""Free Market Ideology" (i.e. unregulated markets) is at the heart of conservative ideology. This economic strategy of the Bush era led to the widest gap between huge fortunes and the fortunes of ordinary people ever." Yet another misunderstanding of what free market IS. We haven't had true free market in this country for 100 freakin years.
The extreme right is called anarchy, absence of any control. The extreme left is Nazism communism and dictatorship the complete control. Hitler had social programs for everyone and everything.
One of Nazi's main points. "We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
How did Germany's stimulous package work out? How did Hitler's massive government spending on military build up? Giving the government more power has ALWAYS been about left idealism that the government can manage ultimate power, and distribute wealth fairly. Historically - as traditional conservatives will certainly point out, Neoconservatives (as Bush was) was in many cases Liberal. Economic collapse occurs when you fail to encourage production and the result is minimal supply to meet demand.
@secretbonus - Quote Mein Kampf - "If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain....." continued
--- continued from other post "by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." Nothing regarding that statement is liberal or leftist. Cut the propaganda from Peter Schiff's "Crash Proof" or any other Austrian economic crackpot.
See also, "Tragedy and Hope" by Dr Carrol Quigley or "The Naked Capitalist" by W. Cleon Skousen (a review and commentary on Dr. Carrol Quigley's book)
@dffykvn True, social Darwinism is right extremists view point (that doesn't mean the individuals aren't charitable, they just don't like government managing their charity)... something Hitler never did. Hitler was a control freak wanting to take over the world, he believed in MORE government power. He was a classic power liberal (contrary to popular belief, so was Bush... which is why 0bama is continuing in his power liberal foreign military policies)
Hitler was the biggest socialist (nazi=national socialist party) in history. Stalin and Mussilini of the axis of evil were BOTH as well. Dictatorships rise out of communistic principals, which rises out of socialism. Greece now is a MINOR example of what happens when socialism occurs and why many people fear it. The Government owns you in socialism, and they will demand gun control. Mass Genocide has always occurred AFTER gun control. Wake up from the matrix of influences on your ideas, Neo
@secretbonus - LOL! Industries, trusts, military production was not nationalized and under private control under Hitler. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers and established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise". By calling themselves "National Socialists", the nazis were attempting to woo the left-wing citizenry.
@edschaeffer His idealism was all about the power-liberal idealism of global militarism, huge government spending for "social good", stimulous packages, and wealth distribution. The only difference is Hitler thought certain races were "supperior" and deservent of this socialism than others. Our market has not been free since 1913, and taxes were paid by less than 5% of the population up until 1940 when the foundations of industrialism and growth were already sound in place.
@secretbonus How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running the government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was Führerprinzip - "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did not have party congresses in which policy was discussed and determined - there were no dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made. Those whose opinions differed from those of der Führer either maintained silence or were purged. The "social good" was BS
@secretbonus - Typical right-wing Mccarthyism in every sentence you speak of and typical right-wing distortion and the huge failure to actually call Nazis leftists?? In terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of government structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to see how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist. What a joke!
@edschaeffer Power-Liberals by definition are pro global military to spread decmocracy. Power-Liberals emphasize the importance of unilateral military force to promote Liberal idealism throughout the international community. Bush fought against Clinton's nation building in 2000, then flip flopped and became fully Power-liberal after 9/11.
@secretbonus - The word "Power-Liberal" itself is a ruse that someone created to have a contradiction of terms. I can create a new word called "Power Conservative" and say that these are the people who followed Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to a tee. Adam Smith was really anti-capitalist and said something has to be done to prevent a division of labor and was anti-wage labor, and advocated markets under perfect liberty and equality. Notice, this is a contradiction of an American "Conservative".
@edschaeffer Everything about socialism is a ruse to make you think that the bankers wouldn't have complete control of everything. Everything socialism is actually very capitalistic for the elite bankers who have a major role in politics and would have an even greater one. Early socialists other than Karl Marx believed that banks and rails were areas where monopolies made sense, and some even proposed that the banks would run the state who in turn would run society.
@secretbonus -The Nazis themselves were the distortionists with "sozialistische" in the party's title. The party's appropriation of the term was a sick lie. Socialism itself means everyone owns and controls the meaning of production. I fail to see how any of your examples are socialist. I take one principle of far right "free market" ideology and you immediately go to the reverse extreme and call it socialism. Wow.
@edschaeffer There are die-hard socialists and die-hard goose-stepping right wingers. No matter what anybody says or what evidence is gathered, these extremists will never be persuaded to change their mind. Rather than explain in a civil manner, you attack and use the argument that fits your agenda that I must be of the "right wing distortion". These labels mean nothing to me. What's sad is the election is swayed by only 10% of "free thinkers" that don't use a system of thought to their agenda.
Free market is as much of an ideology as atheism is a religion. We simply reject the ridiculous and unquestioned belief that central planning can work. It doesn't, and that is provable.
@Houshalter - No, it is not provable. The scientific method has shown quite the opposite. That is why after 100 years of this free market Austrian demagoguery it is not taught or is on any required economics reading list at any major university. Hence this crackpot study only serves to benefit the very oligopoly corporations that fund and keep its "study" around today. You have been lied to, and its a shame you continue to believe the sham.
@edschaeffer you've been lied to. Where is the evidence central planning works? Where is the solution to the calculation problem? There isn't any. It's all religious dogma. It's a shame you buy into it.
@edschaeffer there are many examples of societies that worked fine without government, but even if there weren't, it's not a fair question at all since states claim every habitable square foot of the earth and fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. If you try to set up any of the systems anarcho-capitalists or even just libertarians in general advocate, even if it's completely voluntary and hurts no one, the police will show up and put a stop to it, with force if necessary.
These dopes are dancing around the elephant in the room. The only economists with anything resembling a thorough view of the current crisis are Marxist. Richard Wolff and David Harvey are goods starts.
@bapyou - Marxist is a strong word. I don't say anyone who is pro-Free Market are anarcho-capitalists. I would appreciate it if you would take a video like this and think two-sided. Instead you're doing what your authors do and make the most extreme examples of communism and try to make them the norm of all Keynesians. Lighten up.
@edschaeffer I don't think you've understood my comment. Re-read it.
Richard Wolff and David Harvey are scholars who view the world through a Marxist prism. To me, Marxists are the only ones makng sense of the current economic situation. Wolff is an economist, Prof Emeritus at UMass Amherst. Harvey is an anthropologist/geographer at CUNY who's written some of the best books about neoliberal economic practice in print.
What a twisted view of history this assclown has. His first premise is completely wrong. We didnt get out of the great depression because of government, we got out of it despite government.
@jjrglobal - WW2 and the New Deal combined was considered the greatest financial stimulus package ever in history of the U.S. We didn't get out of the depression immediately because the Fed did not do enough to stimulate the economy.
Ohhh another WW2 got us out of the Depression, Keynesian. The New Deal did nothing but exacerbate the problems in the economy because gov spending takes money from the productive sector and then uses it less efficiently. WW2 didnt get u out of the depression, war is never good for any economy, thats an idiotic myth. What really got us out of the depression was slashing govt spending by 75% after WW2 and huge tax cuts across the board, the largest in history I believe.
@jjrglobal - When you want to prove a theory you usually use the scientific method. Make observations, form a conjecture, and test for truth. Your assumptions are based on logic alone, has serious holes, and does not use the scientific method. This is why no top 40 academic institution even considers your branch of economics real and has none of the books on the required reading list. Yet your branch of sham economics has been around for over 100 years.
@jjrglobal - so the stock market going 2x since 09, job growth, and the fed and other independent agencies saying that the recession is over all on Keynesian policies and your still not convinced? You are way in the minority.
The market going 2X? WTF does that even mnean? What job growth are you talking about?
I certainly dont consider it a favor to any of us when the fed creates the problem and then turns around to try and take credit for any upturn. If you think the recession is over your inxane
@jjrglobal - Fed was a catalyst in the problem but it was private business that exploited the fed. Recession is over dude. Several 3rd party organizations independent of the fed said the recession ended in the 3rd quarter of 2009. Its over. Economy has been adding jobs for the last 3 quarters. I follow economic reports. Job growth is the reason the stock market is up above 12,000. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I really wish you were right, but the reason the market is up is the same reason your grocery bill, oil, gold, and everything else is up, its called inflation. The DOW may go to 50000, but what good is that if it takes $1000 to fill up your tank? Keynesian economics is a short term fix, but it only exacerbates the problem that will eventually have to be dealt with. If we had taken or medicine from the tech crash in 2000, there would not have been a housing boom
Bush did not "impose" free markets. Quite the opposite. First, his combination of his tax cuts along with deficit spending, which led to an increase in the money supply, which to higher inflation. Now, it is generally assumed that inflation leads to higher relative prices. Yes, that is true, but what is left out is that the prices of each good doesn't change proportional with all other goods and services. This provides a perfect environment for malinvestment.
@GoingGoingGalt - Bush certainly did impose free markets. The deregulation of capital requirements of investment banks in 2004 (led by then Goldman Sach's CEO Hank Paulson - which two years later became Bush's Treasury secretary) reversed a 20 year rule that stated banks can now have 40x from 15x leverage. This one "free market" imposition led to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. What part of this "free market" (i.e. deregulation) imposition did you not understand?
@edschaeffer The part where he raised spending to record highs (which led to higher inflation) and lowered interest rates to far below equilibrium level. This in of itself led to the recession. Everything else you mentioned is a non sequiter.
This isn't just my opinion. Peter Schiff warned of these consequences LONG before it actually happened. People like you can't just walk up and say "Well, we knew it was going to happen, we just didn't bother telling you until after the fact."
@GoingGoingGalt - Your economic ideology is faulted due to the fact that no ivy league or top 100 college even considers "austrian economics" as a real science... yet the crackpots who spew what you and Peter Schiff do have been around for over 100 years. Peter Schiff is a good at capitalizing on how his broken clock can sometimes tell the right time, but for the wrong reasons.
@edschaeffer Interesting, because none of these so-called genius colleges predicted the collapse. They gave their ad-hoc analysis, which you must admit lacks credibility.
And who says these colleges are top 100? US News and World? You must be joking.
Stop changing the subject. This is a logical fallacy.
@GoingGoingGalt - WHAT?? No one from mainstream economics predicted the crash? Only Peter Schiff? You are living in a world that is lying to you. I can give names longer than I can type in this message that predicted the crash including risk advisers and DSGE architects. You're out of your league dude. Go back to your libertarian hole that you crawled out of.
@GoingGoingGalt - Don't waste my time, dude. There were WAY more than 12 economists who predicted the "crash". Robert Kuttner, Joe Stiglitz, Meredith Whitney, Whitney Tilson, all the executives at Goldman Sachs who sold their stock in 2007... all of which who have varying economic ideologies but NONE subscribe to the bull shit crackpot Austrian economic conspiracy theories.
@GoingGoingGalt -- Sure look at this: watch?v=g9idzp6sZV8 and look at this: watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw&feature=related. Naomi Klein was in September of 2007 well before the recession hit. Kuttner was in January 2008. At 4:12 he stated this is "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression". Naomi Klein was working on her book through 2007. Her book details when and why the crash will occur.
@edschaeffer Klein's book, however incorrect, had nothing to due with the coming recession. Kuttner isn't predicting anything. He is telling us that the current situation (of that time) is bad. He didn't predict it was going to get worse.
Keep in mind that's just one of the names you mentioned, and that was hardly proof of anything
@GoingGoingGalt - Her book had everything to do with the coming recession. She discussed the scurry of mergers just before the credit crunch as an effect of a coming crisis. If u watched the clip, Kuttner said a crash was coming a year before the crash. Some people will just refuse to stop cheering for their team.
@edschaeffer Indeed, such as yourself. Klein and Kuttner mentioned obvious facts at the time, giving details regarding what was currently going on at that time. The few predictions they made at that point were just following the given trend. Peter Schiff predicted a recession at the height of the bubble, when a crash was unthinkable.
You mentioned many more names than just Klein and Kuttner
1)Today, most economists readily admit that the equilibrium system of the neo-classicists is totally divorced from reality. It does not take into account the particular institutional framework of capitalism, which makes quite absurd the notion that wages are determined by “the product of the last unit of his time that the worker wishes to give up rather than devote it to leisure”.
2) It does not take into account the dynamic character of competition and the continual disturbances of equilibrium. which it causes. It is essentially static and brings dynamics as at most an element disturbing equilibrium, whereas in reality equilibrium is only a transient moment in a spasmodic economic movement which is in ceaseless oscillation. It has no explanation to offer either for periodical crises or for structural crises.
3)The neo-classical theory is not only divorced from social reality as whole. It is also divorced from the practical reality of everyday life. Despite all the teachings of the neo-classical school,businessmen continue to calculate their costs of production using “amount of labour expended”
The marginalist theory & the neo-classical school function was, purely to justify the capitalist order as? ; to justify wages,prices and profits as the result of exchanges carried out on an equal footing.
4)Many economists,was dissatisfied with the answers from the neo-classical school,the problems of investment (the rate of interest),money (the quantity theory of money) periodical crises.Neo-classical began breaking up on its weakest sides,difficulties in formulating a dynamic theory,theory of growth,starting from micro-economic data of marginal value,& difficulty of reconciling the theory of prices from supply & demand with a theory of prices resulting from the quantity of money in circulation
5) It can be said that the marginalist school was never able to solve the problem of the “marginal value of money”, and that for this reason it remained dualistic, combining a subjective theory of value with an objective theory of money (e.g. the quantity theory). which correspond to? different needs of equal intensity.
6)The quantity theory of money implies that prices rise or fall depending on whether the quantity of currency in circulation increases or decreases, in relation to a definite level of equilibrium.It was in this way that the idea of a rate? of interest resulting from the supply and demand of capital, a rate of interest which rises until the demand ceases because it is excessive, was refuted at the beginning of the century by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell.
7) Knut Wicksell showed that the rate of interest in equilibrium is determined by the relation between saving and investment; and Gunnar Myrdal, a pupil of Wicksell’s, went still further, explaining that this? rate of interest actually depends on the return expected from investments’, that is, on the rate of profit, as also Karl Marx said.
The problem with so-called "conservative" free market ideology is that it is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism. "Free market ideology" asks for no limitations as to how money can be traded, so it encourages people to take greater risks in excess of the growth rate real economies.
Bush spent more than all presidents before him combined, excess credit and money were created, stimulous was spent like crazy. His father propped up banks and did the same thing to keep them in business. The democratic lead house under Pelosi passed every possible spending bill possible. Bush is more liberal than any republican president before Reagan. Money was spent on Iraq. Barney Frank had all sorts of special interest because congress was given power.
1)In famous book "The Great Transformation" Karl Polanyis central thesis is that capitalism is a historical anomaly because while previous economic arrangments were embedded in social relations,in capitalism,the situations was reversed-social relations were defined by economic relations.Polanyis view,in the sweep of human history,rules of reciprocity,redistribution and communal obligations were far more frequent than market relations.completely replace all modes of interaction with the other
2)The details of this "ascendancy" was Karl Polanyi's other main contribution. Far from a "natural" or "necessary" outcome, Polanyi argued that capitalism evolved from the demands placed by new mercantile and then bourgois classes upon the State to protect their fledgling enterprises and precarious social status. In this way, governments became the handmaiden of capitalism, helping to advance it with the necessary legislation and execution by virtual force of arms.
In this respect the success of Japanese industry at the time drew a lot of attention and Toyotist management techniques were widely adopted in Europe and America. A range of social psychology theories, much of it developed in the in New Age circles suddenly became popular in the boardrooms. It was as if capitalism had discovered religion Jungian Myer-Briggs Personality Types,Group Dynamics, Behaviourism,and 101 gurus all marketing their own brand of managerial self-help
The Chicago School of political economists with their operations research,complexity and game theory,were at the time,Freemarketers best hope here but was a total failure & on the other hand,the working class had to be brought under control at the coal face with improved management techniques,as "Toyotaism",and other "Human Engeenering" methods, and rather than as before,simply relying on high unemployment & centralised wage bargaining to do the job.
Among other things, the financial world had become far too complex for monetarist measures and instruments to control, and the 1987 crash, brought on by computers that had been programmed to make instant investment decisions in competition with one another, was a clear demonstration of this.
The crisis had to be approached on two fronts: more sophisticated methods of dealing with the financial markets had to be developed.
Microeconomics led to intractable complexities as soon as it was attempted to draw macro-conclusions from the analyses.Macroeconomics, which focussed on fiscal methods was thrown into disrepute in of the break-down of the Bretton Wood arrangements in 1968-73 and capitalist governments embraced its opposite,monetarism.The failure of monetarism to extricate the major capitalist economies from Stagflation,and then the stock market crash of October 1987 forced the economists to look elsewhere
Somewhat like the situation when physics had relativity theory and quantum physics, the two ends of the spectrum used incommensurable categories and could not talk to one another. Macroeconomics used to rest on totally unrealistic models of micro-economic behaviour, but more and more developed separately, resting on concepts through which the actions of individuals were quite invisible.
Economic science is composed of two branches: Microeconomics which deals with the behaviour of individual economic agents, what makes workers work harder, wage-bargaining, why people buy or sell at a given price and so on, and Macroeconomics which deals with aggregates such as Gross Domestic Product, unemployment level, money supply, government spending and so on.
Bring Back Glass Steagall Act. The Government has not fixed the problem, it shifted it to the poor...and saved the rich...
There wont be a Law Fix until, the To Big to Fails make back the Trillions they lost with the Betting games there currently playing now and after the 2010 elections have regrouped the Lobbyist settings.
This idea that we had free markets since the 80's is crazy. We haven't had anything even remotely resembling free markets. What we have had is crony capitalism.
One thing these people always forget about the wealth gap is how much inflation is responsible for that.
Completely Free Markets aren't even teniable. I don't think anybody means we had Free Markets at the start of the Reagan era, but Reagan started the de-regulation policies to fulfill the Unfettered Capitalism ideology.
Also, how does inflation count for the wealth gap? (Honest Question)
Reagan ruined our economy and helped bring in crony capitalism.
Inflation accounts for the wealth gap because of the different ways that the middle class and poor people are paid vs the way rich are paid. Poor and middle class work for wages which are 'sticky' and unless you switch jobs every year you will always be behind the inf curb. The rich are paid by profits, bonuses and stocks/options which are always in CURRENT dollars, where wages are in past dollars and never keep up with inflation.
For example during the 2000's wages were inflated away, but because profits/stocks/bonuses... are in current dollars, their "pay" goes up even with inflation.
Even Keynes was strongly against inflation (other than deficit spending which can be inflationary today)
Oh, I see. I'm just old enough to remember the last decade, and how it seemed like everybody stopped making money at the turn of the century. Well, at least where I've lived, which is not in an upper class area by any means..
Yes. BUSH'S Free Market? The... "failure of an 'unfettered market' from 1940 to present"??? The market have plenty of fettering. "Why Free Market Ideology is Wrong" is the title, but there is no definition of what he means by that phrase, and no presentation of why it is "wrong" ethically, or how "free market" advocates are habitually incorrect. I was hoping for a defense of Socialism. Very disappointing.
No system has brought wealth to the world the way capitalism has. There does need to be CERTAIN regulations but aside from that, the more free a society is the better off it is. Do you really think the gov is capable of managing the wealth of society than the people are? The system we have now sucks. We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the everyone else. The gov is TAKING your money by FORCE and giving it to the wealthiest people on the planet, and you think that is good?
NO! My apologies! I am disappointed because the title misled me: I was curious at the prospect of an argument that would explain to me why I have been wrong in believing that Individual Freedom (including the extension of that freedom to economic activity) is wrong, and why Socialism is right. I think very much as you do, fellow human being. Capitalism and Liberty are under attack, and calling what America has been doing since Theodore Roosevelt (and esp. Wilson) "CAPITALISM", is WRONG.
Hopefully as things get worse, more and more people like you and I will stand up for liberty and freedom! Already we are seeing a big libertarian resurgence. HOPE!
No True Scotsman Fallacy, you lying limpdick little free market cultist. Go jerk off to Rand and Friedman and Reagan some more, you religious ideologue.
You can do a lot of things if you overclock any system, be that system a computer or a car or an economy, but you will damage it in the long-term all in the name of some short-term gains. THAT is where the so-called "wealth" of capitalism comes from - overclocking the economy into unsustainability.
We have had capitalism for over 300 years. We have a sickening bad system that simply isn't capitalism and that has played a large role in the problems we have right now. Too much gov and not enough capitalism.
No, you're just a religious free market cultist who makes up excuses for the doctrine of Rand and Reagan and Friedman, like this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY.
I like your use of the phrase "overclocking the system". That's precisely how an unregulated market works. "Free market cultists" like to use the word "free", but never use the phrase "unregulated", and are quick to use the word socialist.
Truly anyone who wants regulation doesn't want socialism, but a perfect market. Which is supposedly the same goal of free market cultists. The problem is the source of unregulated market propaganda is the same people who don't want a perfect market.
As an engineering student, what appalls me the most about free market cultists is their shocking disregard for empirical evidence. Everything I read about in my statics of materials textbook here has been tested, tested, tested to the full and based in a greater scientific system that is internally consistent. When free market cultists make statements about how they think things ought to be, they're utterly axiomatic - they have no regard or respect for empiricism.
First of all, you are making some major assumptions that are wrong. I don't really like Rand and I can't stand Reagan. Reagan was a big gov neocon, not a free market person. I haven't made excuses for anything. THe US is not a free market, period. We have all kinds of managed trade, government guarantees, bailouts, regulatory bodies that are owned by the industry they are supposed to be regulating, managed interest rates and never ending inflation. How is this a free market?
Are you honestly suggesting that a free market is immune to periods of intensified inflation? Evidence, please. I somehow doubt the de facto local currencies of Somalia are immune to inflation.
Hard currencies can't by hyper inflated. Immunity isn't the problem, likelihood is. FIAT currencies always inflate and always end badly. The dollar would be gone by now if it weren't the reserve currency.
FIAT currencies end badly when you compare the net worth of a nation. If you look at the net worth of Zimbabwe or Iceland their printing ruined the country. You can't even come close to comparing the net worth of the United States to that of Zimbabwe or even compare Zimbabwe to that of the city of Chicago. Ask the question "what is the net worth?", and you'll find the picture is far more different than the one you paint.
Saying that a wealthy nation can't experience hyper-inflation is wrong.
I don't think we are on the edge of hyperinflation like a lot of people do, but I do think the next decade is going to have pretty high inflation sustained. Furthermore, it couldn't be happening at a worse time. Oil production peaked in 2005 and if that was THE peak, we will see falling oil production over the next decade while demand is increasing in India and China, this could get very ugly.
What? Why is it that the Austrians are able to predict beforehand what is going to happen when the gov interferes? I don't think we would be better off with L-F capitalism, but moving in that direction would be far better than what we have now.
Oh please, this is only if we accept your No True Scotsman redefinitions of concepts at the crux of the issue, like what a "free" market is or isn't, something you conveniently continue to try to ignore.
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. How is a banking system that has gov guarantees a free market? How is managed trade a free market? Gov bailouts? I could go on and on. Do we need some gov regulations? Yes, but what we have is crazy.
What he's trying to say is Austrians have no proof to their arguments. They just use blind rhetoric. You can rightly criticize government bailouts for great reason. I don't think anyone really wants to defend that morality.
However, "Too Big To Fail" is a reality and there may be a way to take down these organizations in an orderly manner, but the point of this vid really is to find a different solution instead of arguing about which ideology is correct.
We should be moving towards freedom and not towards socialism and that's the problem. The firms that were "too big to fail" are now EVEN BIGGER and their failure would cause even more damage. If you remove fear from capitalism, it doesn't work. Why do we need managed trade? What has it done for American workers but put them out of business? American businesses are so encumbered by regulations and complicated rules that what is left of our industry can no longer compete.
Like I said there's been discussions among economists about how to let big firms like Citigroup fail. Just exactly what regulations and complicated rules do you have a problem with?
Now we are going to regulate failure? I can't very well go through the entire code with you for ever type of business, but I can start with an easy, big, recent one. The patriot act turns my investment adviser into an unpaid spy who has to spend a lot of money in equipment and manpower looking for tax cheats (supposedly money laundering).
Look at all of the small businesses that have to hire "under the table"! They simply couldn't hire anyone if they followed the law.
Do you know how to have a conversation without being a jerk?
Are you going to deny how so many small businesses hire under the table? I live in a large city and almost all of the take-out/delivery places, corner stores, private contractors, small roofers and on and on ALL hire people under the table (and most pay better than min wage). I have watched regulations destroy the city I live in. There are abandoned factories EVERYWHERE, especially in older parts of the city.
Do you know how to provide EVIDENCE instead of AXIOMS for your bald-faced ideologically-driven assertions? Do you know how fucking feeble the methodologies of economists are compared to scientists and engineers? Do you know why we treat economists and their methods with such pitying contempt? If we had the same lack of respect for empiricism that economists do, there wouldn't be a single reliably safe bridge, engine, surgical procedure or nuclear reactor in existence. Economics is simply voodoo.
Gaussian correlation models and dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models have been around for a few decades. These predict with high accuracy on average. So if you're asking if there is a science devoted to the psychology of consumers taking into accounts budget constraints, etc. the answer is yes.
"Gaussian correlation models and dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models have been around for a few decades."
The only reason why any of these B.S. models work is that other people use them. When a W.S. Elite buys a stock, the chances that another W.S. Elite will buy it will be higher. Because this amplifies the rally, more stock addicts join the financial fishing pond. Now HF trading can generate a 1000-point fall in the stock market - hardly the limit. THAT'S EXPECTED.
Economics involves the behavior of organisms. I think you'll find that there are many, MANY fields of scientific study devoted to understanding the motives of organic life, but of course these are all gruellingly difficult to learn, to the point where the hordes of b-school party animals who go to school to get drunk on their parents' dime and be awarded a position through nepotism would fail to qualify, and they definitely don't exist to protect and serve the existing economic hegemony.
my question to those who want large government to regulate business is... what makes you think the politicians are going to represent your interests? The fact is, the best way to win a campaign is to get hundreds of millions of dollers of funding from the large mega corperations anyways. If you're anti large corperation, then large government is just going to fuel that anyways
I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that the Human Development Index is higher in nations with more regulation and government intervention and less free market circlejerking, and as an engineer, all that matters is that it WORKS. How it works is a trivial detail.
when you have a free market you have no central bank and the role of government becomes one of administration of fair regulation. we have never seen that in thousands of years. paradoxically, with the internet we have the capability of complete transparency in the markets and an ease of trade never before seen. but the governments have completely destroyed any fair trade with nonsense regulation and market distorting subsidies. thus leaving the world with economic confusion and ultimately chaos.
Thanks for posting. Finally, someone who understands that neither extremes work. I couldn't agree more with the content in this video, and I enjoyed watching. Thanks.
You're right about extreme's not being good, but what you and this guy don't realize is that the U.S. is currently under extreme government influence and regulation. The FED, Fannie, Freddie, GMAC, Sallie Mae, FDIC, all of these government sponsored entities distort the free market by taking away the risk of lending. Bush was no better then the democrates, he increased government in the name of the Free Markets. It's the same story for dems and reps for the past 20-30 years.
Uhhh, the economy has been deregulated by every president for the last 30 years. Even Clinton removed some very crucial regulations toward the end of his term. The economy needs more regulations right now, not less. The deregulation is what has caused the recent collapse.
Agreed. And reversing deregulation is like moving a mountain. Take the deregulation of capital requirements that was lobbied and won by Wall St. firms in 2004. They successfully reversed a 20 year rule that said banks could now take up to 40:1 leverage from 15:1 if their computer models said it was safe. The SEC essentially outsourced the job monitoring the risk to the banks themselves.
And... when you look at the firms that went down... Lehman, Bear Stearns... Both were essentially maxed on leverage.
It's a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs, said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we've seen throughout history, they often don't work.
THANK-YOU!! The leverage change was definitely a driving factor behind the crash, and those risks getting entangled in the Public Banks would be the removal of Glass-Steagal, correct?
2)Indeed those most opposed to the hypothetical market are the capitalists themselves because, if the hypothetical market would actually be in operation, they wouldnt make a penny. The only way capitalists make serious money is if they have quasi-monopolies. To obtain quasi-monopolies, they need intervention by the state in multiple ways and capitalists are totally aware of this.
3)Talk about this hypothetical market is, subsequently, ideological rhetoric. The market doesnt actually work that way and any sane and wealthy capitalist will tell you that. Free market economists wont tell you that, but no capitalist believes in the autonomy of the market
I looked at your profile and I imagine in Sweden where tax revenue is 50% of GDP it's easy to come to these conclusions. The capitalists in the US though (which is only 28% of GDP in taxes) found several ways to exploit our system and it's safegaurds.
I don't believe it was too little laissez-faire it was too much.
I think Dow said it best when he said "Markets left unfettered will take things too extreme"
YES! Glass-Steagall's removal was two-fold. Commercial banks and investment banks merging caused all sorts of problems like take a good profitable business and merge with a place that's using that money to backstop losses. Instant liquidity. The velocity of money stops!
Then you got the creation of mortgage-backed securities which was only legal through the removal of glass-steagall. Fannie and Freddie's investments in MBS took them down.
It's nice to talk to somebody that doesn't just parrot Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, lol.
Also, it's bullshit that your video is already knocked down to 3 stars because of Austrian douchebags. This video makes a lot of sense to both sides of the spectrum.
your assuming free markets deregulation with the federal reserve in place. because true free markets do not have central economic planning aka federal reserve. the artificial low interest rates and constant inflation. because the fed doesn't contract the supply of money, it only increases it.
1)Yes your right!And for the market, one has to distinguish between the hypothetical market and the real market. The hypothetical market operates according to purely objective laws of supply and demand that put pressure on prices and thus behavior of rational and egoistic individuals.But in fact, this hypothetical market has never existed and most certainly does not exist in the capitalist system. .
I think you're believing rhetoric without proof. I think you "hypothetical market" is the real market, and it is controlled almost entirely by egoistic individuals. Watch the ABC TV show "Shark Tank", for example.
The GSEs you have listed perform an important function: They take loans off the books of banks. Japan's recession consisted of banks holding onto sour assets because they thought the assets' value would return. What this did was use good money to backstop bad; hence they didn't lend, thus the 10-year recession.
GSEs have the time to wait for mortgages, etc. to come back. Also the CRA has actually proven to increase responsible lending. All of which increases liquidity.
Agreed. From what I can tell is they are backstopping potential losses. The commercial real estate meltdown is about ready to bottom and the banks are beefing up laon loss provision. Commercial real estate should come back first, but a second wave of bad mortgages will hit at the end of 2011. Geithner has a plan in place called PPIP to try and thwart that.
It basically works like this...
watch?v=oB59PLxB84k
...only Jim needs to poke a few holes in the glass. lol
No, this was caused by both economic/financial reasons. We will converge to a lower steady state of income in the long run. Our level of consumption is unsustainable and the prolonged delusion has only been extended by expansionary fiscal/monetary policy. Our wage rates are far higher than that of equivalent work, globally. Everything must converge.
I don't get what you're saying. Are you basically saying the current interventionist policies are just band-aids?
Btw, just because our wage rates are higher than sweat shops in South-East Asia, that doesn't mean our economic system is "totally awesome". That's a completely relative standard. (Wages)
There exists an ability (given the usage was not expected) that expansionary monetary / fiscal policy will have a short term impact. It will not effect long run dynamics unless if it dampens innovation. One cannot positively alter the fundamental dynamics of the economy by continued expansionary policies. If that were the case every country would engage in expansionary policy into perpetuity.... which is extremely ludicrous.
Not extremely ludicrous. Expansionary policy is very threatening especially coming from the most efficient producer. China who's currency is undervalued matched our expansionary policy by injecting it's own stimulus. Other countries are following suit. Agreed this can't go on forever, but government investment results in more spending in the general economy.
Focus on the demand side. Right now we're facing "underconsumption" - an economic drought. More laissez-faire is not the answer.
25 people are Reaganomics supporters.
CaddenOnline 2 weeks ago
What a crock. These people don't know WTF they're talking about. They use Greenspan as a talking point? GREENSPAN? Are you f'ing kidding me?
What does Greenspan know about free markets? It is the Fed that PREVENTS markets from being free. How could you have free markets when the Fed controls interest rates AND the supply of money? We never had a free market, there has ALWAYS been government intervention, in one way of another. You can't say free markets don't work if there never was one!
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 - Never heard of Carnegie, Rockefeller, JP Morgan...? Wealth inequality was at its height when those men were alive and laissez-faire (i.e. your "Free market") reigned. Things got BETTER when we enacted the SEC, Trust Indenture, and Glass Steagall. And now that they have been eroded so badly and many of these protections have been repealed, or are not being properly enforced, where do we find ourselves but, yet again, on the precipice of another great depression.
edschaeffer 3 months ago
@edschaeffer When banks were given the right to print money and CONTROL interest rates through a central bank, that was not laissez-faire Capitalism. Laissez-faire can only exist if there is sound money. Money that is backed by a commodity and floating interest rates based on market forces. Bernie Madoff was a result of the SEC and FINRA.
Glass Steagall wouldn't be needed if the government didn't guarantee loans which goes 100% against free market philosophy.
watch?v=3AJDMuMOj2U
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 Laissez-faire, "Austrian" economics, or Anarcho-capitalism is not supported but any major top 25 university, nor is it required on any economic reading list at these universities because any real economist with a brain knows that these ideologies lead to complete corporate tyranny. You wanna see the "free market" in action? Move to a third world country like the Congo where corporations are more powerful than governments.
edschaeffer 3 months ago
@edschaeffer Laissez-faire Capitalism isn't Anarcho-Capitalism.
Austrian economic isn't taught in universities because government has the power over what gets taught in universities. Austrian economics condemns the government; can you not see why it's not taught in universities? Universities get subsidized by government.
Keynesian economics is all they teach in universities because it gives government the power to control the economy. This is the reason why this country is fucked!
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@edschaeffer "Move to a third world country like the Congo where corporations are more powerful than governments."
Go to wikipedia and do some research on Congo before you make a silly statement like this. Especially the part where Government corruption is mentioned!
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 - My point doesn't change. The countries are ruled by the corporation. My point there is far more contrary evidence that anarcho-capitalism actually works. Anyone who believes that it does work can't see the monstrous evidence that it only benefits the modern-day robber-barrons. Even Adam Smith who wrote Wealth Of Nations which many "conservatives" believe the bible of free market capitalism was against wage labor. watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
edschaeffer 3 months ago
@edschaeffer Corporations are in bed with government. That is NOT capitalism, it's called corporatism.
Free market capitalism isn't anarcho-capitalism. Lessez-faire means "hands off" the markets, but does not mean NO government to provide courts, police and military.
You are getting your propaganda from a hard core socialist (Chomsky), who redefines the meaning of capitalism to confuse his followers.
Adam Smith warned about how government collusion would destroy an otherwise free market
jjenson2006 3 months ago
@edschaeffer - Adam Smith's argument for markets that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. Laissez-faire capitalism will work properly only under these conditions. The word "free" being unregulated does not work. Only under the conditions of a "perfect market" can laissez-faire capitalism properly work. I suggest you use Wikipedia for the definition of a perfect market becuase only under these conditions can we have true competition.
edschaeffer 3 months ago
Why economic illiterates shouldn't be spouting abject nonsense on youtube. That should be the video. This guy is a shill... "The new deal largely worked, and brought us out of the crisis." LMAO, it lasted almost twelve more years HAHA.....He is a spokesmen for big government because it saves his paycheck.
AroundSun 4 months ago
I heard a poll was taken saying 33% of people approve of socialism, 33% approve of capitalism and 33% aren't sure, but 8:1 on the same poll said they approve of letting the free market work vs a government managed economy. LOL if that's true, at BEST it shows many american's don't take polls seriously.
secretbonus 4 months ago
@secretbonus Did you see the poll that said 99% don't know the difference between any of them, and could fucking care less.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun - Did you see the statistics from the last 100 years that free market ideology benefits only the largest corporations; thus creating an income gap of benefiting only the top 1% of the country; in which the 99% voted to reverse but it didn't happen? So I wonder why the 99% don't give a fuck?
edschaeffer 4 months ago
@edschaeffer Did you know that 17.903164% of statistics are made up on the spot? Did you see the statistics from the past 300 years which prove that capitalism is responsible for the highest standard of living for the widest range of people the world has ever seen? Or did you, like most of the left, conveniently overlook that pesky little fact that stands in the way of the liberal agenda?
AroundSun 3 months ago
@AroundSun - No one is arguing against capitalism, just unbalanced capitalism, specifically, anarcho-capitalism. But I agree with you that "reality" has such a liberal agenda. Screw the liberals. Deny all reality.
edschaeffer 3 months ago
""Free Market Ideology" (i.e. unregulated markets) is at the heart of conservative ideology. This economic strategy of the Bush era led to the widest gap between huge fortunes and the fortunes of ordinary people ever." Yet another misunderstanding of what free market IS. We haven't had true free market in this country for 100 freakin years.
supahsekzy 5 months ago
WTF? Fuck Scottrade. I'm switching companies...
Dsengerer 6 months ago
Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman, geese if only Milton was here...
woopsme 6 months ago
The extreme right is called anarchy, absence of any control. The extreme left is Nazism communism and dictatorship the complete control. Hitler had social programs for everyone and everything.
One of Nazi's main points. "We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
secretbonus 8 months ago
How did Germany's stimulous package work out? How did Hitler's massive government spending on military build up? Giving the government more power has ALWAYS been about left idealism that the government can manage ultimate power, and distribute wealth fairly. Historically - as traditional conservatives will certainly point out, Neoconservatives (as Bush was) was in many cases Liberal. Economic collapse occurs when you fail to encourage production and the result is minimal supply to meet demand.
secretbonus 8 months ago
@secretbonus - Quote Mein Kampf - "If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain....." continued
edschaeffer 8 months ago
--- continued from other post "by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." Nothing regarding that statement is liberal or leftist. Cut the propaganda from Peter Schiff's "Crash Proof" or any other Austrian economic crackpot.
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@edschaeffer see Professor Antony Sutten's lecture who connects bankers to socialism.
secretbonus 6 months ago
See also, "Tragedy and Hope" by Dr Carrol Quigley or "The Naked Capitalist" by W. Cleon Skousen (a review and commentary on Dr. Carrol Quigley's book)
secretbonus 6 months ago
@secretbonus Social darwinism (let the poor fend for themselves or die) is a right wing ideology asshole.
dffykvn 6 months ago
@dffykvn True, social Darwinism is right extremists view point (that doesn't mean the individuals aren't charitable, they just don't like government managing their charity)... something Hitler never did. Hitler was a control freak wanting to take over the world, he believed in MORE government power. He was a classic power liberal (contrary to popular belief, so was Bush... which is why 0bama is continuing in his power liberal foreign military policies)
secretbonus 4 months ago
Hitler was the biggest socialist (nazi=national socialist party) in history. Stalin and Mussilini of the axis of evil were BOTH as well. Dictatorships rise out of communistic principals, which rises out of socialism. Greece now is a MINOR example of what happens when socialism occurs and why many people fear it. The Government owns you in socialism, and they will demand gun control. Mass Genocide has always occurred AFTER gun control. Wake up from the matrix of influences on your ideas, Neo
secretbonus 8 months ago
@secretbonus - LOL! Industries, trusts, military production was not nationalized and under private control under Hitler. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers and established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise". By calling themselves "National Socialists", the nazis were attempting to woo the left-wing citizenry.
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@edschaeffer His idealism was all about the power-liberal idealism of global militarism, huge government spending for "social good", stimulous packages, and wealth distribution. The only difference is Hitler thought certain races were "supperior" and deservent of this socialism than others. Our market has not been free since 1913, and taxes were paid by less than 5% of the population up until 1940 when the foundations of industrialism and growth were already sound in place.
secretbonus 8 months ago
@secretbonus How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running the government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was Führerprinzip - "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did not have party congresses in which policy was discussed and determined - there were no dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made. Those whose opinions differed from those of der Führer either maintained silence or were purged. The "social good" was BS
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@secretbonus - Typical right-wing Mccarthyism in every sentence you speak of and typical right-wing distortion and the huge failure to actually call Nazis leftists?? In terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of government structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to see how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist. What a joke!
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@edschaeffer Power-Liberals by definition are pro global military to spread decmocracy. Power-Liberals emphasize the importance of unilateral military force to promote Liberal idealism throughout the international community. Bush fought against Clinton's nation building in 2000, then flip flopped and became fully Power-liberal after 9/11.
secretbonus 8 months ago
@secretbonus - The word "Power-Liberal" itself is a ruse that someone created to have a contradiction of terms. I can create a new word called "Power Conservative" and say that these are the people who followed Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to a tee. Adam Smith was really anti-capitalist and said something has to be done to prevent a division of labor and was anti-wage labor, and advocated markets under perfect liberty and equality. Notice, this is a contradiction of an American "Conservative".
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@edschaeffer Everything about socialism is a ruse to make you think that the bankers wouldn't have complete control of everything. Everything socialism is actually very capitalistic for the elite bankers who have a major role in politics and would have an even greater one. Early socialists other than Karl Marx believed that banks and rails were areas where monopolies made sense, and some even proposed that the banks would run the state who in turn would run society.
secretbonus 6 months ago
@secretbonus -The Nazis themselves were the distortionists with "sozialistische" in the party's title. The party's appropriation of the term was a sick lie. Socialism itself means everyone owns and controls the meaning of production. I fail to see how any of your examples are socialist. I take one principle of far right "free market" ideology and you immediately go to the reverse extreme and call it socialism. Wow.
edschaeffer 8 months ago
@edschaeffer There are die-hard socialists and die-hard goose-stepping right wingers. No matter what anybody says or what evidence is gathered, these extremists will never be persuaded to change their mind. Rather than explain in a civil manner, you attack and use the argument that fits your agenda that I must be of the "right wing distortion". These labels mean nothing to me. What's sad is the election is swayed by only 10% of "free thinkers" that don't use a system of thought to their agenda.
secretbonus 8 months ago
Free market is as much of an ideology as atheism is a religion. We simply reject the ridiculous and unquestioned belief that central planning can work. It doesn't, and that is provable.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter - No, it is not provable. The scientific method has shown quite the opposite. That is why after 100 years of this free market Austrian demagoguery it is not taught or is on any required economics reading list at any major university. Hence this crackpot study only serves to benefit the very oligopoly corporations that fund and keep its "study" around today. You have been lied to, and its a shame you continue to believe the sham.
edschaeffer 11 months ago
@edschaeffer you've been lied to. Where is the evidence central planning works? Where is the solution to the calculation problem? There isn't any. It's all religious dogma. It's a shame you buy into it.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter - Evidence? Name one country you would like to live in that has no central planning.
edschaeffer 11 months ago
@edschaeffer there are many examples of societies that worked fine without government, but even if there weren't, it's not a fair question at all since states claim every habitable square foot of the earth and fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. If you try to set up any of the systems anarcho-capitalists or even just libertarians in general advocate, even if it's completely voluntary and hurts no one, the police will show up and put a stop to it, with force if necessary.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@edschaeffer if the state was such a good thing for society, you wouldn't have to use force to get people to participate.
Houshalter 11 months ago
These dopes are dancing around the elephant in the room. The only economists with anything resembling a thorough view of the current crisis are Marxist. Richard Wolff and David Harvey are goods starts.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou - Marxist is a strong word. I don't say anyone who is pro-Free Market are anarcho-capitalists. I would appreciate it if you would take a video like this and think two-sided. Instead you're doing what your authors do and make the most extreme examples of communism and try to make them the norm of all Keynesians. Lighten up.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer I don't think you've understood my comment. Re-read it.
Richard Wolff and David Harvey are scholars who view the world through a Marxist prism. To me, Marxists are the only ones makng sense of the current economic situation. Wolff is an economist, Prof Emeritus at UMass Amherst. Harvey is an anthropologist/geographer at CUNY who's written some of the best books about neoliberal economic practice in print.
bapyou 1 year ago
What a twisted view of history this assclown has. His first premise is completely wrong. We didnt get out of the great depression because of government, we got out of it despite government.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal - WW2 and the New Deal combined was considered the greatest financial stimulus package ever in history of the U.S. We didn't get out of the depression immediately because the Fed did not do enough to stimulate the economy.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
Ohhh another WW2 got us out of the Depression, Keynesian. The New Deal did nothing but exacerbate the problems in the economy because gov spending takes money from the productive sector and then uses it less efficiently. WW2 didnt get u out of the depression, war is never good for any economy, thats an idiotic myth. What really got us out of the depression was slashing govt spending by 75% after WW2 and huge tax cuts across the board, the largest in history I believe.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal - When you want to prove a theory you usually use the scientific method. Make observations, form a conjecture, and test for truth. Your assumptions are based on logic alone, has serious holes, and does not use the scientific method. This is why no top 40 academic institution even considers your branch of economics real and has none of the books on the required reading list. Yet your branch of sham economics has been around for over 100 years.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
Who would you say has the best record of economic forecasting?
Keynesians have never been right about anything as far as I know
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal - so the stock market going 2x since 09, job growth, and the fed and other independent agencies saying that the recession is over all on Keynesian policies and your still not convinced? You are way in the minority.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
The market going 2X? WTF does that even mnean? What job growth are you talking about?
I certainly dont consider it a favor to any of us when the fed creates the problem and then turns around to try and take credit for any upturn. If you think the recession is over your inxane
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal - Fed was a catalyst in the problem but it was private business that exploited the fed. Recession is over dude. Several 3rd party organizations independent of the fed said the recession ended in the 3rd quarter of 2009. Its over. Economy has been adding jobs for the last 3 quarters. I follow economic reports. Job growth is the reason the stock market is up above 12,000. Sorry to burst your bubble.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
I really wish you were right, but the reason the market is up is the same reason your grocery bill, oil, gold, and everything else is up, its called inflation. The DOW may go to 50000, but what good is that if it takes $1000 to fill up your tank? Keynesian economics is a short term fix, but it only exacerbates the problem that will eventually have to be dealt with. If we had taken or medicine from the tech crash in 2000, there would not have been a housing boom
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Bush did not "impose" free markets. Quite the opposite. First, his combination of his tax cuts along with deficit spending, which led to an increase in the money supply, which to higher inflation. Now, it is generally assumed that inflation leads to higher relative prices. Yes, that is true, but what is left out is that the prices of each good doesn't change proportional with all other goods and services. This provides a perfect environment for malinvestment.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt - Bush certainly did impose free markets. The deregulation of capital requirements of investment banks in 2004 (led by then Goldman Sach's CEO Hank Paulson - which two years later became Bush's Treasury secretary) reversed a 20 year rule that stated banks can now have 40x from 15x leverage. This one "free market" imposition led to the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. What part of this "free market" (i.e. deregulation) imposition did you not understand?
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer The part where he raised spending to record highs (which led to higher inflation) and lowered interest rates to far below equilibrium level. This in of itself led to the recession. Everything else you mentioned is a non sequiter.
This isn't just my opinion. Peter Schiff warned of these consequences LONG before it actually happened. People like you can't just walk up and say "Well, we knew it was going to happen, we just didn't bother telling you until after the fact."
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt - Your economic ideology is faulted due to the fact that no ivy league or top 100 college even considers "austrian economics" as a real science... yet the crackpots who spew what you and Peter Schiff do have been around for over 100 years. Peter Schiff is a good at capitalizing on how his broken clock can sometimes tell the right time, but for the wrong reasons.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer Interesting, because none of these so-called genius colleges predicted the collapse. They gave their ad-hoc analysis, which you must admit lacks credibility.
And who says these colleges are top 100? US News and World? You must be joking.
Stop changing the subject. This is a logical fallacy.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt - WHAT?? No one from mainstream economics predicted the crash? Only Peter Schiff? You are living in a world that is lying to you. I can give names longer than I can type in this message that predicted the crash including risk advisers and DSGE architects. You're out of your league dude. Go back to your libertarian hole that you crawled out of.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer There are 12 economists who predicted the crash, and none of them belong to your so-called mainstream.
Again, your ad hominem attacks prove nothing but your hollow arguement
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt - Don't waste my time, dude. There were WAY more than 12 economists who predicted the "crash". Robert Kuttner, Joe Stiglitz, Meredith Whitney, Whitney Tilson, all the executives at Goldman Sachs who sold their stock in 2007... all of which who have varying economic ideologies but NONE subscribe to the bull shit crackpot Austrian economic conspiracy theories.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer Can you prove any of these people knew the crash was coming? Or is this just your typical bullshit rhetoric
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt -- Sure look at this: watch?v=g9idzp6sZV8 and look at this: watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw&feature=related. Naomi Klein was in September of 2007 well before the recession hit. Kuttner was in January 2008. At 4:12 he stated this is "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression". Naomi Klein was working on her book through 2007. Her book details when and why the crash will occur.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer Klein's book, however incorrect, had nothing to due with the coming recession. Kuttner isn't predicting anything. He is telling us that the current situation (of that time) is bad. He didn't predict it was going to get worse.
Keep in mind that's just one of the names you mentioned, and that was hardly proof of anything
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt - Her book had everything to do with the coming recession. She discussed the scurry of mergers just before the credit crunch as an effect of a coming crisis. If u watched the clip, Kuttner said a crash was coming a year before the crash. Some people will just refuse to stop cheering for their team.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer Indeed, such as yourself. Klein and Kuttner mentioned obvious facts at the time, giving details regarding what was currently going on at that time. The few predictions they made at that point were just following the given trend. Peter Schiff predicted a recession at the height of the bubble, when a crash was unthinkable.
You mentioned many more names than just Klein and Kuttner
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
this is all hypothesizing, did he bring up a single real piece of evidence? what a moron...
Sean2046 1 year ago
they don't even know their own risk because of all the government involvement.......
MirageScience 1 year ago
The free market didn't fail this time, rich people took advantage of the government back loans and have now enslaved our children.
MirageScience 1 year ago
1)Today, most economists readily admit that the equilibrium system of the neo-classicists is totally divorced from reality. It does not take into account the particular institutional framework of capitalism, which makes quite absurd the notion that wages are determined by “the product of the last unit of his time that the worker wishes to give up rather than devote it to leisure”.
profit, as also Karl Marx said
zsylvana 1 year ago
2) It does not take into account the dynamic character of competition and the continual disturbances of equilibrium. which it causes. It is essentially static and brings dynamics as at most an element disturbing equilibrium, whereas in reality equilibrium is only a transient moment in a spasmodic economic movement which is in ceaseless oscillation. It has no explanation to offer either for periodical crises or for structural crises.
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
3)The neo-classical theory is not only divorced from social reality as whole. It is also divorced from the practical reality of everyday life. Despite all the teachings of the neo-classical school,businessmen continue to calculate their costs of production using “amount of labour expended”
The marginalist theory & the neo-classical school function was, purely to justify the capitalist order as? ; to justify wages,prices and profits as the result of exchanges carried out on an equal footing.
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4)Many economists,was dissatisfied with the answers from the neo-classical school,the problems of investment (the rate of interest),money (the quantity theory of money) periodical crises.Neo-classical began breaking up on its weakest sides,difficulties in formulating a dynamic theory,theory of growth,starting from micro-economic data of marginal value,& difficulty of reconciling the theory of prices from supply & demand with a theory of prices resulting from the quantity of money in circulation
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5) It can be said that the marginalist school was never able to solve the problem of the “marginal value of money”, and that for this reason it remained dualistic, combining a subjective theory of value with an objective theory of money (e.g. the quantity theory). which correspond to? different needs of equal intensity.
zsylvana 1 year ago
6)The quantity theory of money implies that prices rise or fall depending on whether the quantity of currency in circulation increases or decreases, in relation to a definite level of equilibrium.It was in this way that the idea of a rate? of interest resulting from the supply and demand of capital, a rate of interest which rises until the demand ceases because it is excessive, was refuted at the beginning of the century by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell.
zsylvana 1 year ago
7) Knut Wicksell showed that the rate of interest in equilibrium is determined by the relation between saving and investment; and Gunnar Myrdal, a pupil of Wicksell’s, went still further, explaining that this? rate of interest actually depends on the return expected from investments’, that is, on the rate of profit, as also Karl Marx said.
zsylvana 1 year ago
The problem with so-called "conservative" free market ideology is that it is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism. "Free market ideology" asks for no limitations as to how money can be traded, so it encourages people to take greater risks in excess of the growth rate real economies.
kmarinas86 1 year ago
Bush spent more than all presidents before him combined, excess credit and money were created, stimulous was spent like crazy. His father propped up banks and did the same thing to keep them in business. The democratic lead house under Pelosi passed every possible spending bill possible. Bush is more liberal than any republican president before Reagan. Money was spent on Iraq. Barney Frank had all sorts of special interest because congress was given power.
secretbonus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1)In famous book "The Great Transformation" Karl Polanyis central thesis is that capitalism is a historical anomaly because while previous economic arrangments were embedded in social relations,in capitalism,the situations was reversed-social relations were defined by economic relations.Polanyis view,in the sweep of human history,rules of reciprocity,redistribution and communal obligations were far more frequent than market relations.completely replace all modes of interaction with the other
zsylvana 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2)The details of this "ascendancy" was Karl Polanyi's other main contribution. Far from a "natural" or "necessary" outcome, Polanyi argued that capitalism evolved from the demands placed by new mercantile and then bourgois classes upon the State to protect their fledgling enterprises and precarious social status. In this way, governments became the handmaiden of capitalism, helping to advance it with the necessary legislation and execution by virtual force of arms.
zsylvana 2 years ago
In this respect the success of Japanese industry at the time drew a lot of attention and Toyotist management techniques were widely adopted in Europe and America. A range of social psychology theories, much of it developed in the in New Age circles suddenly became popular in the boardrooms. It was as if capitalism had discovered religion Jungian Myer-Briggs Personality Types,Group Dynamics, Behaviourism,and 101 gurus all marketing their own brand of managerial self-help
zsylvana 2 years ago
You always make the best posts, zsylvana.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
The Chicago School of political economists with their operations research,complexity and game theory,were at the time,Freemarketers best hope here but was a total failure & on the other hand,the working class had to be brought under control at the coal face with improved management techniques,as "Toyotaism",and other "Human Engeenering" methods, and rather than as before,simply relying on high unemployment & centralised wage bargaining to do the job.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Among other things, the financial world had become far too complex for monetarist measures and instruments to control, and the 1987 crash, brought on by computers that had been programmed to make instant investment decisions in competition with one another, was a clear demonstration of this.
The crisis had to be approached on two fronts: more sophisticated methods of dealing with the financial markets had to be developed.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Microeconomics led to intractable complexities as soon as it was attempted to draw macro-conclusions from the analyses.Macroeconomics, which focussed on fiscal methods was thrown into disrepute in of the break-down of the Bretton Wood arrangements in 1968-73 and capitalist governments embraced its opposite,monetarism.The failure of monetarism to extricate the major capitalist economies from Stagflation,and then the stock market crash of October 1987 forced the economists to look elsewhere
zsylvana 2 years ago
Somewhat like the situation when physics had relativity theory and quantum physics, the two ends of the spectrum used incommensurable categories and could not talk to one another. Macroeconomics used to rest on totally unrealistic models of micro-economic behaviour, but more and more developed separately, resting on concepts through which the actions of individuals were quite invisible.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Economic science is composed of two branches: Microeconomics which deals with the behaviour of individual economic agents, what makes workers work harder, wage-bargaining, why people buy or sell at a given price and so on, and Macroeconomics which deals with aggregates such as Gross Domestic Product, unemployment level, money supply, government spending and so on.
zsylvana 2 years ago
Bring Back Glass Steagall Act. The Government has not fixed the problem, it shifted it to the poor...and saved the rich...
There wont be a Law Fix until, the To Big to Fails make back the Trillions they lost with the Betting games there currently playing now and after the 2010 elections have regrouped the Lobbyist settings.
ubuibiok 2 years ago
This idea that we had free markets since the 80's is crazy. We haven't had anything even remotely resembling free markets. What we have had is crony capitalism.
One thing these people always forget about the wealth gap is how much inflation is responsible for that.
christo930 2 years ago
Completely Free Markets aren't even teniable. I don't think anybody means we had Free Markets at the start of the Reagan era, but Reagan started the de-regulation policies to fulfill the Unfettered Capitalism ideology.
Also, how does inflation count for the wealth gap? (Honest Question)
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Reagan ruined our economy and helped bring in crony capitalism.
Inflation accounts for the wealth gap because of the different ways that the middle class and poor people are paid vs the way rich are paid. Poor and middle class work for wages which are 'sticky' and unless you switch jobs every year you will always be behind the inf curb. The rich are paid by profits, bonuses and stocks/options which are always in CURRENT dollars, where wages are in past dollars and never keep up with inflation.
christo930 2 years ago
For example during the 2000's wages were inflated away, but because profits/stocks/bonuses... are in current dollars, their "pay" goes up even with inflation.
Even Keynes was strongly against inflation (other than deficit spending which can be inflationary today)
christo930 2 years ago
@christo930
Oh, I see. I'm just old enough to remember the last decade, and how it seemed like everybody stopped making money at the turn of the century. Well, at least where I've lived, which is not in an upper class area by any means..
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Yes. BUSH'S Free Market? The... "failure of an 'unfettered market' from 1940 to present"??? The market have plenty of fettering. "Why Free Market Ideology is Wrong" is the title, but there is no definition of what he means by that phrase, and no presentation of why it is "wrong" ethically, or how "free market" advocates are habitually incorrect. I was hoping for a defense of Socialism. Very disappointing.
engine2truck6 2 years ago
No system has brought wealth to the world the way capitalism has. There does need to be CERTAIN regulations but aside from that, the more free a society is the better off it is. Do you really think the gov is capable of managing the wealth of society than the people are? The system we have now sucks. We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the everyone else. The gov is TAKING your money by FORCE and giving it to the wealthiest people on the planet, and you think that is good?
christo930 2 years ago
NO! My apologies! I am disappointed because the title misled me: I was curious at the prospect of an argument that would explain to me why I have been wrong in believing that Individual Freedom (including the extension of that freedom to economic activity) is wrong, and why Socialism is right. I think very much as you do, fellow human being. Capitalism and Liberty are under attack, and calling what America has been doing since Theodore Roosevelt (and esp. Wilson) "CAPITALISM", is WRONG.
engine2truck6 2 years ago
Hopefully as things get worse, more and more people like you and I will stand up for liberty and freedom! Already we are seeing a big libertarian resurgence. HOPE!
christo930 2 years ago
Hear, hear!
engine2truck6 2 years ago
No True Scotsman Fallacy, you lying limpdick little free market cultist. Go jerk off to Rand and Friedman and Reagan some more, you religious ideologue.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
You can do a lot of things if you overclock any system, be that system a computer or a car or an economy, but you will damage it in the long-term all in the name of some short-term gains. THAT is where the so-called "wealth" of capitalism comes from - overclocking the economy into unsustainability.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
We have had capitalism for over 300 years. We have a sickening bad system that simply isn't capitalism and that has played a large role in the problems we have right now. Too much gov and not enough capitalism.
christo930 2 years ago
No, you're just a religious free market cultist who makes up excuses for the doctrine of Rand and Reagan and Friedman, like this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
I like your use of the phrase "overclocking the system". That's precisely how an unregulated market works. "Free market cultists" like to use the word "free", but never use the phrase "unregulated", and are quick to use the word socialist.
Truly anyone who wants regulation doesn't want socialism, but a perfect market. Which is supposedly the same goal of free market cultists. The problem is the source of unregulated market propaganda is the same people who don't want a perfect market.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
As an engineering student, what appalls me the most about free market cultists is their shocking disregard for empirical evidence. Everything I read about in my statics of materials textbook here has been tested, tested, tested to the full and based in a greater scientific system that is internally consistent. When free market cultists make statements about how they think things ought to be, they're utterly axiomatic - they have no regard or respect for empiricism.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago 2
First of all, you are making some major assumptions that are wrong. I don't really like Rand and I can't stand Reagan. Reagan was a big gov neocon, not a free market person. I haven't made excuses for anything. THe US is not a free market, period. We have all kinds of managed trade, government guarantees, bailouts, regulatory bodies that are owned by the industry they are supposed to be regulating, managed interest rates and never ending inflation. How is this a free market?
christo930 2 years ago
The Bush administration had largest free market blunder in history: credit default swaps.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
Are you honestly suggesting that a free market is immune to periods of intensified inflation? Evidence, please. I somehow doubt the de facto local currencies of Somalia are immune to inflation.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
Hard currencies can't by hyper inflated. Immunity isn't the problem, likelihood is. FIAT currencies always inflate and always end badly. The dollar would be gone by now if it weren't the reserve currency.
christo930 2 years ago
FIAT currencies end badly when you compare the net worth of a nation. If you look at the net worth of Zimbabwe or Iceland their printing ruined the country. You can't even come close to comparing the net worth of the United States to that of Zimbabwe or even compare Zimbabwe to that of the city of Chicago. Ask the question "what is the net worth?", and you'll find the picture is far more different than the one you paint.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
Saying that a wealthy nation can't experience hyper-inflation is wrong.
I don't think we are on the edge of hyperinflation like a lot of people do, but I do think the next decade is going to have pretty high inflation sustained. Furthermore, it couldn't be happening at a worse time. Oil production peaked in 2005 and if that was THE peak, we will see falling oil production over the next decade while demand is increasing in India and China, this could get very ugly.
christo930 2 years ago
See, this is what I mean about the cultists and their litanies of axioms. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING empirical ever comes out of their mouths.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
What? Why is it that the Austrians are able to predict beforehand what is going to happen when the gov interferes? I don't think we would be better off with L-F capitalism, but moving in that direction would be far better than what we have now.
christo930 2 years ago
Oh please, this is only if we accept your No True Scotsman redefinitions of concepts at the crux of the issue, like what a "free" market is or isn't, something you conveniently continue to try to ignore.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. How is a banking system that has gov guarantees a free market? How is managed trade a free market? Gov bailouts? I could go on and on. Do we need some gov regulations? Yes, but what we have is crazy.
christo930 2 years ago
What he's trying to say is Austrians have no proof to their arguments. They just use blind rhetoric. You can rightly criticize government bailouts for great reason. I don't think anyone really wants to defend that morality.
However, "Too Big To Fail" is a reality and there may be a way to take down these organizations in an orderly manner, but the point of this vid really is to find a different solution instead of arguing about which ideology is correct.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
We should be moving towards freedom and not towards socialism and that's the problem. The firms that were "too big to fail" are now EVEN BIGGER and their failure would cause even more damage. If you remove fear from capitalism, it doesn't work. Why do we need managed trade? What has it done for American workers but put them out of business? American businesses are so encumbered by regulations and complicated rules that what is left of our industry can no longer compete.
christo930 2 years ago
Like I said there's been discussions among economists about how to let big firms like Citigroup fail. Just exactly what regulations and complicated rules do you have a problem with?
edschaeffer 2 years ago
Now we are going to regulate failure? I can't very well go through the entire code with you for ever type of business, but I can start with an easy, big, recent one. The patriot act turns my investment adviser into an unpaid spy who has to spend a lot of money in equipment and manpower looking for tax cheats (supposedly money laundering).
Look at all of the small businesses that have to hire "under the table"! They simply couldn't hire anyone if they followed the law.
christo930 2 years ago
"We should be moving towards freedom and not towards socialism and that's the problem."
Axioms abound, but respect for empiricism - nope, nowhere in sight.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
Do you know how to have a conversation without being a jerk?
Are you going to deny how so many small businesses hire under the table? I live in a large city and almost all of the take-out/delivery places, corner stores, private contractors, small roofers and on and on ALL hire people under the table (and most pay better than min wage). I have watched regulations destroy the city I live in. There are abandoned factories EVERYWHERE, especially in older parts of the city.
christo930 2 years ago
Do you know how to provide EVIDENCE instead of AXIOMS for your bald-faced ideologically-driven assertions? Do you know how fucking feeble the methodologies of economists are compared to scientists and engineers? Do you know why we treat economists and their methods with such pitying contempt? If we had the same lack of respect for empiricism that economists do, there wouldn't be a single reliably safe bridge, engine, surgical procedure or nuclear reactor in existence. Economics is simply voodoo.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
As you yourself are talking about economics?
Economics isn't physics and involved humans and their idiosyncrasies.
christo930 2 years ago
Gaussian correlation models and dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models have been around for a few decades. These predict with high accuracy on average. So if you're asking if there is a science devoted to the psychology of consumers taking into accounts budget constraints, etc. the answer is yes.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
@edschaeffer
"Gaussian correlation models and dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models have been around for a few decades."
The only reason why any of these B.S. models work is that other people use them. When a W.S. Elite buys a stock, the chances that another W.S. Elite will buy it will be higher. Because this amplifies the rally, more stock addicts join the financial fishing pond. Now HF trading can generate a 1000-point fall in the stock market - hardly the limit. THAT'S EXPECTED.
kmarinas86 1 year ago
@kmarinas86 -- What does a DSGE model have to do with the stock market? You don't have a point.
edschaeffer 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
What does a DSGE model have to do with this:
@christo930 "As you yourself are talking about economics?
Economics isn't physics and involved humans and their idiosyncrasies."
kmarinas86 1 year ago
@edschaeffer
"What does a DSGE model have to do with the stock market? You don't have a point."
As if no economists used a DSGE model in their trading strategy. Who says none one hasn't tried?
kmarinas86 1 year ago
Economics involves the behavior of organisms. I think you'll find that there are many, MANY fields of scientific study devoted to understanding the motives of organic life, but of course these are all gruellingly difficult to learn, to the point where the hordes of b-school party animals who go to school to get drunk on their parents' dime and be awarded a position through nepotism would fail to qualify, and they definitely don't exist to protect and serve the existing economic hegemony.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
my question to those who want large government to regulate business is... what makes you think the politicians are going to represent your interests? The fact is, the best way to win a campaign is to get hundreds of millions of dollers of funding from the large mega corperations anyways. If you're anti large corperation, then large government is just going to fuel that anyways
secretbonus 2 years ago
I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that the Human Development Index is higher in nations with more regulation and government intervention and less free market circlejerking, and as an engineer, all that matters is that it WORKS. How it works is a trivial detail.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
when you have a free market you have no central bank and the role of government becomes one of administration of fair regulation. we have never seen that in thousands of years. paradoxically, with the internet we have the capability of complete transparency in the markets and an ease of trade never before seen. but the governments have completely destroyed any fair trade with nonsense regulation and market distorting subsidies. thus leaving the world with economic confusion and ultimately chaos.
boptah 2 years ago
This is what is called a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
Just reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act!
MyImago 2 years ago 2
Thanks for posting. Finally, someone who understands that neither extremes work. I couldn't agree more with the content in this video, and I enjoyed watching. Thanks.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
You're right about extreme's not being good, but what you and this guy don't realize is that the U.S. is currently under extreme government influence and regulation. The FED, Fannie, Freddie, GMAC, Sallie Mae, FDIC, all of these government sponsored entities distort the free market by taking away the risk of lending. Bush was no better then the democrates, he increased government in the name of the Free Markets. It's the same story for dems and reps for the past 20-30 years.
kalidosokid 2 years ago
Uhhh, the economy has been deregulated by every president for the last 30 years. Even Clinton removed some very crucial regulations toward the end of his term. The economy needs more regulations right now, not less. The deregulation is what has caused the recent collapse.
You got it all backwards.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Agreed. And reversing deregulation is like moving a mountain. Take the deregulation of capital requirements that was lobbied and won by Wall St. firms in 2004. They successfully reversed a 20 year rule that said banks could now take up to 40:1 leverage from 15:1 if their computer models said it was safe. The SEC essentially outsourced the job monitoring the risk to the banks themselves.
articles..moneycentral..msn..com/Investing/JubaksJournal/fluke-credit-crisis-was-a-heist..aspx
edschaeffer 2 years ago
And... when you look at the firms that went down... Lehman, Bear Stearns... Both were essentially maxed on leverage.
It's a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs, said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we've seen throughout history, they often don't work.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
@edschaeffer
THANK-YOU!! The leverage change was definitely a driving factor behind the crash, and those risks getting entangled in the Public Banks would be the removal of Glass-Steagal, correct?
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
2)Indeed those most opposed to the hypothetical market are the capitalists themselves because, if the hypothetical market would actually be in operation, they wouldnt make a penny. The only way capitalists make serious money is if they have quasi-monopolies. To obtain quasi-monopolies, they need intervention by the state in multiple ways and capitalists are totally aware of this.
zsylvana 2 years ago
3)Talk about this hypothetical market is, subsequently, ideological rhetoric. The market doesnt actually work that way and any sane and wealthy capitalist will tell you that. Free market economists wont tell you that, but no capitalist believes in the autonomy of the market
zsylvana 2 years ago
I looked at your profile and I imagine in Sweden where tax revenue is 50% of GDP it's easy to come to these conclusions. The capitalists in the US though (which is only 28% of GDP in taxes) found several ways to exploit our system and it's safegaurds.
I don't believe it was too little laissez-faire it was too much.
I think Dow said it best when he said "Markets left unfettered will take things too extreme"
edschaeffer 2 years ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 2 years ago
YES! Glass-Steagall's removal was two-fold. Commercial banks and investment banks merging caused all sorts of problems like take a good profitable business and merge with a place that's using that money to backstop losses. Instant liquidity. The velocity of money stops!
Then you got the creation of mortgage-backed securities which was only legal through the removal of glass-steagall. Fannie and Freddie's investments in MBS took them down.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
It's nice to talk to somebody that doesn't just parrot Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, lol.
Also, it's bullshit that your video is already knocked down to 3 stars because of Austrian douchebags. This video makes a lot of sense to both sides of the spectrum.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
your assuming free markets deregulation with the federal reserve in place. because true free markets do not have central economic planning aka federal reserve. the artificial low interest rates and constant inflation. because the fed doesn't contract the supply of money, it only increases it.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
1)Yes your right!And for the market, one has to distinguish between the hypothetical market and the real market. The hypothetical market operates according to purely objective laws of supply and demand that put pressure on prices and thus behavior of rational and egoistic individuals.But in fact, this hypothetical market has never existed and most certainly does not exist in the capitalist system. .
zsylvana 2 years ago
I think you're believing rhetoric without proof. I think you "hypothetical market" is the real market, and it is controlled almost entirely by egoistic individuals. Watch the ABC TV show "Shark Tank", for example.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
The GSEs you have listed perform an important function: They take loans off the books of banks. Japan's recession consisted of banks holding onto sour assets because they thought the assets' value would return. What this did was use good money to backstop bad; hence they didn't lend, thus the 10-year recession.
GSEs have the time to wait for mortgages, etc. to come back. Also the CRA has actually proven to increase responsible lending. All of which increases liquidity.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
We would be on our way out of this recession if the banks just did what the were supposed to with the bailout money....
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Agreed. From what I can tell is they are backstopping potential losses. The commercial real estate meltdown is about ready to bottom and the banks are beefing up laon loss provision. Commercial real estate should come back first, but a second wave of bad mortgages will hit at the end of 2011. Geithner has a plan in place called PPIP to try and thwart that.
It basically works like this...
watch?v=oB59PLxB84k
...only Jim needs to poke a few holes in the glass. lol
edschaeffer 2 years ago
No, this was caused by both economic/financial reasons. We will converge to a lower steady state of income in the long run. Our level of consumption is unsustainable and the prolonged delusion has only been extended by expansionary fiscal/monetary policy. Our wage rates are far higher than that of equivalent work, globally. Everything must converge.
axe863 2 years ago
I don't get what you're saying. Are you basically saying the current interventionist policies are just band-aids?
Btw, just because our wage rates are higher than sweat shops in South-East Asia, that doesn't mean our economic system is "totally awesome". That's a completely relative standard. (Wages)
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
There exists an ability (given the usage was not expected) that expansionary monetary / fiscal policy will have a short term impact. It will not effect long run dynamics unless if it dampens innovation. One cannot positively alter the fundamental dynamics of the economy by continued expansionary policies. If that were the case every country would engage in expansionary policy into perpetuity.... which is extremely ludicrous.
axe863 2 years ago
Not extremely ludicrous. Expansionary policy is very threatening especially coming from the most efficient producer. China who's currency is undervalued matched our expansionary policy by injecting it's own stimulus. Other countries are following suit. Agreed this can't go on forever, but government investment results in more spending in the general economy.
Focus on the demand side. Right now we're facing "underconsumption" - an economic drought. More laissez-faire is not the answer.
edschaeffer 2 years ago
I suppose I should change the name of this vid to "Why Complete Free Market Ideology Is Wrong"