@DigitalShaolin No, just that they each have their own style of debating, and that there are different ways to pwn Krugman. Murphy knows the details of Krugman's failing arguments, and could really expose him on his own territory.
@doughtymqan Lols at the Keynes also advocated eugenics. Everybody advocated eugenics including US states prior to Hitler taking things a bit too far ; )
"So that means Krugman would have to explain to his loyal readers why it wasn't worth his time to debate for an hour on business cycle theory even though it would mean $95,000 of right-wing money would be used to feed hungry new yorkers."
"Wow, Tina that is mind-blowing! I haven't been this flummoxed since I lasted smoked crack."
@BobMurphyAncap i actually do support Austrian economics, and a classic libertarian position but this is just naive SELF-GRATIFYING BULLSHIT.
This is no different from the common situation whereby atheists automatically respect or 'shun' another or for affirming or disagreeing to their own position, no matter what the reason. BTW i am also an atheist.
This video isn't actually helpful to the cause, and represents the arrogance that will no doubt just isolate classical libertarians- poor form.
I don't understand the logic behind having Krugman debate Murphy rather than Peter Schiff. You admit that Schiff would wipe the floor with Krugman, but suggest that Krugman might bamboozle Schiff with terms like "liquidity trap."
@areswarren Because for the masses, Schiff would be great. We aren't dealing with the masses. We're dealing with people in academia, and a lot of them have a completely warped view of economics. Murphy knows Austrian and Keynesian economics inside and out. We need a thorough, solid defense if this ever goes down.
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominem which is fallacious & ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language 'Austrian Economics is horse....', besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominem which is fallacious & ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language 'Austrian Economics is horse....', besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominen which is not only fallacious but is ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language Austrian Ec is horse...., besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
i just want to repeat: successfulbuild is a troll. his arguments are half truths at best, or false generalities at worst. really, he's saying that mises was for dictatorial rule of the elites...
not that i'd stop anyone from clobbering him, but just don't let yourselves believe that you can "reason" with this kind of person. he's a stereotypical undergrad whose head is full of college-room hypotheticals he claims is the "real world"
@SimulacrumMaster What I did notice (of course it was with people in real life not online), that if I argued well, even if at the end of the discussion it seemed the disagreement had grown, next time when I heard them discuss the same topic with other people, suddenly they used some of my arguments.
So i think it is worthwhile. I am curious if and how he responds to me again.
"Marxism, in my view, belongs in the history of organized religion. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any concept with a person's name on it belongs to religion, not rational discourse. There aren't any physicists who call themselves Einsteinians. And the same would be true of anybody crazy enough to call themselves Chomskyan. In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting."
So finally you do not answer. The only thing I know now that you read chomsky.
So I'll ask different. Are you (capitalism I think I dont need to ask) for socialism, interventionism or maybe syndicalism ?? Or something new, nobody knows yet ?
BTW: Just because someone is quoting someone. He is not in religious love with him.
(2 of 2)"In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting. But I never heard of anyone who didn't make mistakes and whose work wasn't quickly improved on by others. That means if you identify yourself as a Marxisit or a Freudian or anything else, you're worshiping at someone's shrine." -- from "Chomsky" Rolling Stone, 1992, p 47.
I'm not a "Marxist." Claiming that there is a scientific theory of history or that social sciences are exactly like pure sciences is almost as bad as making up a bunch of a priori principles and claiming that whenever evidence goes against them, the evidence and "reality" are flawed, while contributing almost nothing to statistical analysis of the economy.
The fact is, skycladdy, that people like j4ck2234 and Simulam, and the other alternative and fake accounts with no uploaded videos and few favorites - probably Molyneux cult members who've left their families and spend all their free-time creating fake accounts for Mises as Molyneux tells them, people who hate decency, justice, democracy, and freedom - are better representatives of MIses than you.
And for those of us who like history, we know that Hitler originally wanted to "expel" all Jews from Germany - from the "property" of the private dictatorship (in totalitarianism, everything is the private property of the despot). However, because of the war Hitler realized that resources would be wasted and that a "final solution" should be implemented: extermination of political dissidents, jews, etc.
_
Such are the consequences of Hoppean theory played out in the real world.
Btw... Alan Turing was a homosexual and he had more intelligence in his pinky finger than an intellectual fraud Hans-Hermann Hoppe has in his whole body. This shows why the principles of exclusion and discrimination (Libertarianism) are so harmful society - rather, as I said, you want to promote decency and cooperation in all the communities, and certainly no community has the right to start "expelling" people they don't like. We've seen Hoppe's ideas play out in Russia and Germany. They fail.
The claim that "cooperation" (socialism) does not work is false. All advancements in history have come from such cooperation including in the capitalist countries. Every invention can be traced to scientists sharing ideas - including with inventors like Edison who didn't even really invent the incandescent bulb but was just the first to get the patents. I get my energy for my summer house from a consumer owned plant. Cooperatives are all over in Latin America - and that's all socialism is.
What I was talking about was from JSM's essay "On Liberty." In it he says that the government should only prevent people from attacking one another, and that communities should promote happiness (of course, he did not believe all rights are property rights like this cult but rather that property rights probably stem from certain rights individuals already have). Really the TRUE form of minarchism because the government wouldn't dictate who could and couldn't won property.
Since all land would be owned by private tyrannies, there would be no longer such a thing of free-speech. Hoppe is committing the fallacy that communities have the right to take away our inherent rights - such as free-speech. This is false, communities do NOT have the right to expel somebody for being a homosexual or advocating communism, regardless of property titles. Furthermore, the community has the right to forcibly remove anything that stands in the way of these rights - like property.
LOL. The totalitarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not talking about socialist communes in that quote, but Libertarians. Good try shifting the totalitarianism of Libertarianism onto socialism (why would socialist communities prevent people from advocating socialism)?
_
In anarcho-totalitarianism land, only the property owners have rights. Your free-speech and all your rights would be at the discretion of the property owner, and these would vary from owner to owner.
"Anarcho"-capitalists have it in the back of their mind that if there's an island, and one guy is running around on a third of an island and he's bumped into by a group of 20 people, he gets to claim that third of the island his because he was using it (homesteading) it, and force the others into slavery. This is a ridiculous concept of property rights and no one believes it because there's no way to find a "true owner" of property.
We have an interventionist (socialist) state and no one is starving to death. And no one is starving to death in Europe. However, in Somalia, where the anarcho-capitalist society is playing out, people are starving to death. There were actually millions of deaths due to resource distribution problems in the industrial revolution. Capitalism kills.
@successfulbuild Do you know that Somalia was under scientific socialism (=marxism) until the early 90ies, under a very nice and cute dictator? How well off had the people been back then?
Do you know somehting about the corn laws during industrial revoltuion in england?
Do you know that it is since the industrial revolution that mass starvation was over in europe (until the holodomor in the ukraine -> socialsim) ?
"“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society."--Most prominent Libertarian professor - Hans Hermann Hoppe.
_
No wonder Libertarians get so upset with people who offer different views, in the Libertarian colonies, provinces, and plantations, free-speech will be something of the past. Thank goodness these true totalitarians have no power.
Just to have the accused one on his own words about this too:
Mises . org/daily/1792
and
W w w . lewrockwell . com/blog/lewrw/archives/58561 . Html
And nice that you project your interpretation about this on all libertarians. But yes you are right libertarians did build Gulags and KZs and prohibit free speech all over the world…
You talk of hateful people. Your are extremely raging on here. Its almost like a personal campaign of vengeance...
You don't understand. Socialism is the legalization of theft. You wouldn't like your neighbor coming to your house with a gun and steal all your stuff and then share the loot with his friends right?
Libertarianism just applies the same societal rules to our wise government overlords.
+free speech is no problem. All laws against it would be abolished. (and the're quite a few..copyright, libel legislation and so on)
+If you want to live in a socialist utopia (and starve) this is no problem whatsoever.
As long as you don't enslave/kidnap/coerce other people into your system you can build the voluntary socialist utopia. (good luck with that...socialism without violence lol..ask Gorbatschow how that went)
You see what Hoppe was talking about is the socialist mindset, which is that of a criminal. It only becomes 'justified' if you believe in marxist theory..which really nobody does. (I think marxism is more of a mental state)
If somebody comes to my house and shoots me because he thinks i've exploited him by selling him an I-phone...well how do you deal with these people? You have to expell them, lock em up, shoot them..? Expelling them seems the most humane thing to do.
No unfortunately this is wrong, I stated a postiori that there are still a bunch of people who really beleive in marx. At least in the internet you find them easy. And I am not sure what you mean by mental state. But be aware just don't fall into the trap of (how mises called it) "polylogism", like the marxists, nationalists and racists do..
It is not possible to be a rational marxist. The system demands a suspension of all logical reasoning, you have to engage in an all out djihad against reality in order to subscribe to marxist economic theory. That's why I think marxism is a psychological condition. You wouldn't classify a crazy person who thinks he's napoleon as a bonapartist, right?
(disclaimer; I used to be a 'marxist' before I actually tried to understand the economic reasoning)
I would actually say the same about keynesianism, and I'm really not in the habit of describing political enemies as mentally 'disturbed' people -But I just can't bring myself to believe that someone could have found his way to these theories by logical reasoning.
I think our political structure is artificially elevating a horde of crazy people to respectability - Just like the nazi government elevated racial theorist into respectable circles.
@LovePsalm1 LMFAO what? Actually Keynesian economics is much closer to Nazi economics than Austrian. Keynes actually praised Nazi Germany for it's economic policies such as spending money on public works, and printing money.
@SamuelMoralesJr I think you're thinking of 1920's germany, not nazi germany. I'm a hardcore austrian, I have to hand it to nazi germany's miracle economy, which was not keynesian. Their currency was pinned to labor, nearly unmanipulable and naturally inflates in recession.
@venik88 you are very incorrect, Nazi Germany ballooned deficit spending on public works, & military spending. Nazi Germany also had price controls to combat inflation. Germany rearmament was also banking the country. Hjalmar Schacht was head of the Reichsbank, who was a liberal politician, & co-founder of the German Democratic Party. Increased spending creates the illusion of growth. Spending isn't growth, investment is growth. Germany exceeded 10% GNP in military spending alone.
@venik88 Aside that deficit spending isn't economic growth, and Hitler bankrupting the German economy Hjalmar Schacht was allowed freedom to expand deficits because Nazi Germany was not on the gold standard, ie, money printing. Germany couldn't continue ballooned deficit spending without stealing wealth from other countries that is conquered.
@venik88 not to mention that the handicapped, the crippled, the mentally ill people were executed, and there was mandatory employment. Meaning by law Germans had to have a job. Nazi German economy was nothing of a miracle you speak of. It wasn't a real economy & yes Nazi economy was that of Keynesian approach. Even Keynes praised the Nazis for their work in the German edition of his book. You don't seem very Austrian to me at all.
@SamuelMoralesJr Keynes also praised Hayek and agreed with much of his work. Keynes described fiat currency. Keynes on fiat currency "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”
You've got your history all mixed up. There were 3 economies in nazi-era germany:
@SamuelMoralesJr First the fiat currency and hyper-inflation in the 1920's. Then laissez faire thinkers took economical control before Hitler took office. Then the third... hitler threw them out in 1936 replacing it with a fascist militaristic state with a non-existent economy.
The entire reason there was a nationalistic hate for jews, and partly why hitler got into power in the first place, was because the jews were free from usury laws and thus could charge interest and thus all bankers jew.
@venik88 there was no laissez faire thinkers. Hitler was Chancellor in 1933-45, Hjalmar Schacht was head of the Reichsbank in 1933. Lowering interest rates, & massive deficit spending on public works was what Schacht did such as the Autobahn. In 1933 Reinhardt Program was introduced which combined indirect incentives, such as tax reductions, with direct public investment in waterways, railroads and highways among other initiatives. Nothing free market about that.
@venik88 Nazi Germany balance of payments was also strongly negative. Exports declined by 9%, while imports grew 9% from 1933-1936, which is indicative of a economy that spends, not produces from deficits. At the same time, Nazi Germany was boosting military spending which boosted demand, with low availability of foreign currency, imports for raw materials were constrained, this created a conflict between preceding with a moderately free economy to that of autarkic economy.
@SamuelMoralesJr *were jewish. So hitler took the torch from free-market "austrians" and used the fruits of that miracle economy to declare war on jews, or bankers, still blaming them for the recovering depression and HYPERINFLATION from 1920's.
@venik88 I don't think you are hardcore austrian or know the meaning of laissez faire, much less what you are talking about. The Nazi "miracle" you claim wasn't a real economy, it was fueled by deficit spending doing government projects, along with incentives to build whatever the government wanted. You are far from Austrian, it's so even funny especially for one to claim to be "hardcore" Austrian.Nazi Germany boomed primarily with construction jobs, & military spending with deficits.
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about some college kid (or professor) who doesn't know anything about anything and calls himself a marxist. I'm talking about people who have enganged economic scienece and then decided that marxism or keynesianism make the most sense. That's just crazy. I don't think there are many people who would actually be capable of making such a judgement.
I understand what you mean. I myself was quite a interventionist and attracted by the magic of Marx authority. But when I approached his actual writings I couldn't beleive how fast I opposed it. There were so many stupid, absolutely baseless unlogical arguments.With his reasoning you can argue everything.
Nevertheless I think that if people truly believe this, the most have the same goal as we do. The so called common good, although they don't actually know that we want the same...
@j4ck2234 . That just the means to the goal are different. So you need to argue still respectfully, even if they are not. Because I think those who don't, just want do make people angry, by provoking, generalizing, making baseless statements like "lovepsalm1" (who uses racist logic to call you a racist jew hater.. ;)...
@j4ck2234 ... So that they feel good if they notice that other ones get crazy, and then they have at least one real reason why they don't like you. Then they can say this is an unfriendly asswhole who is a dogmatic lunatic who cannot stand arguments.
"in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant ... such as democracy and communism." "Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society."
@Xasew I'm just asking questions. And when the leading "Austrian economist" is putting on make-up and talking to himself in the mirror, and the most famous one is a gynecologist from Texas, maybe it's not me you guys need to be worrying about.
I think what's glossed over here is the issue of safety. There has been at least one death threat made against "Keynesians" - in a Murphy video entitled "Tribute to My Favorite Blogger." Admittedly the threat came from someone who claims to be British, but I still think it's a reasonable concern as Austrians seem to be hateful people. I don't agree with Krugman always, but I am concerned about his safety, and since Austrian fans seem unable to behave themselves why hold it down there?
"Let's say that the government subsidized the price of bananas, you bought so many bananas, put them on your roof, and then the roof collapsed. Is that government failure or market failure? The price was distorted, but I still say this is mostly market failure. No one made you put so many bananas on your roof.
If Minsky and Hayek are running in a race for interpreting the last two years of the U.S. macroeconomy, Hayek has something to offer but so far Minsky is in the lead." Tyler Cowen
"An alternative theory is that markets are bubble-prone and that easy monetary policy was simply a trigger that set off an irrational speculative excess. The Austrian story is that "the government distorted price signals to the market." Are those two accounts really so different? "
"Do we need metaphysics to resolve that question? Take the classic "thin skull" case in the law. Austrians won't describe it this way, but they are postulating a very thin skull for markets and then blaming government for the disaster which results from government's glancing blow to that skull."
"Keep in mind that no entrepreneur looks at price signals exclusively, rather they interpret prices in the context of the real economy and other bits of knowledge Was it so hard for investors to say to themselves?: "I see that one price (short-term rates) has changed in favor of greater housing investment. But other parts of my brain tell me that real estate prices won't go up forever, levered positions are dangerous, and that I should be cautious."
I do think a debate on the Austrian Business Cycle may be worthwhile, although I think John Quiggin has done a good job already debunking it. Of course, Sraffa, Cown, and others have debunked it as well.
@SimulacrumMaster Just pointing out some more logic errors in the cult that claims to be based on "deductive logic." And my post should have read "If you believe that the government cannot do anything to help the economy you can't make policy recommendations..." and "if you plug numbers into certain equations you get unstable results, no periodic functions, but not randomness either." This is no validation for markets. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that, as you're a cult member.
@SimulacrumMaster I'm not a fascist. I believe that people should have markets if they want them. Markets seem to work good for things like getting TVs to people but not for roads etc. However, I would allow communities to attempt non-market alternatives, if they felt like it. Please don't make assumptions.
private toll roads are better than roads paved by gov't. the fac that you parse your nonsense with phrases like "i would allow" disqualifies your opinion on grounds of principle, and if you don't know why then don't respond to me ever again.
@SimulacrumMaster Let me guess - because of some mythical axioms that you can't even prove exist. Austrian economists believe in telling people what to do - according to principles that they make up, and that have been rejected by the vast majority of not only economists but all social scientific disciplines, all modern philosophy, and certainly all of the sciences, and that have been proven to be incorrect by empirical evidence.
@SimulacrumMaster Explain to me how I'm a fascist then. Like most modern economists, I believe in putting my values up front, and have done so. How are my "values" similar to fascism when the values of fascism are in fact similar to capitalist economists who claim that individual leaders get to bully their way to the top without pesky things like democracy standing in the way. You probably believe "market principles" govern the universe like Stefbot. You are a lunatics.
" believe that people should have markets if they want them. ...[and] allow communities to attempt non-market alternatives,"
I am with you, and Mises too! The only way to determine what has to be established is through respectful discussing and trying to convince other ones with arguments. Freedom of choice is the most important good, and as far as I see it, at least most libertarians know this too. So dont generalize, and calm down. And look forward to the debate.
@skycladdy Actually, you are incorrect. Mises never said anything like what I wrote and what many leftists and "left-Libertarians" believe - that people should run the communities to their own discretion. He actually was closer to this "j4ck" jackass in that he believed the government should only recognize property as capitalists define it as this is the only way society could function (he was not an anarchist).
He was clearly against any form of minority rule over majority. This only can be done in a democratic process. He said it is the minorities own fault if they were not able to convince enough people to be in the majority.. Hence if the majority believes that they should have socialism... they must do it, and the minority has to vote with their feet (leave) or adapt. Of course democratic decissions have their limits. You cannot abolish free speech that would contradict democr.
@skycladdy LOL. Mises was against minority rule over the majority? Mises explicitly said that the capitalist owners - the movers and shakers and the wiser and nobler families - should have control over society. Everybody else is subservient to the property owners, although the consumers may "dictate" what will be provided to them (of course, the real power is in the hands of the property owners, not the consumers). Quote Mises explicitly or admit you're just pandering.
@skycladdy I've already posted the quotes and shown where Mises said this. And when corporations get too big they end up shaping the market more than the market shapes them. Miseans wrongly argue that market share plays no part - apparently completely unaware of the fact that even the THREAT of a monopoly keeps many people out of business. Austrian economics is for ultra-conservatives who like to pretend they understand economics.
Please do that once more for my. A simple copy and past, since I could not find it.
Just that we don't missunderstand. Where does he say:
"Mises explicitly said that the capitalist owners - the movers and shakers and the wiser and nobler families - should have control over society. Everybody else is subservient to the property owners, ..."
Quote Mises from "Nation, State and economy" from 1920:
"It [Liberalism] can therefore see only justice in the decisions of the majority; for the errors that were committed revenge themselves on all, both on those who had supported them and on the outvoted minority, which also must pay
for not having understood how to win the majority over to its side."
"Christian: A good-natured, simple fellow; a true lamb of the fold, who, in the innocence of his heart, persuades himself that he firmly believes unbelievable things that his priests have told him to believe, especially those he cannot even imagine. Consequently, he is convinced that three x's make fifteen, that God was made man, that he was hanged and rose to life again, that priests cannot lie, and that all who do not believe in priests will be damned without remission." If that isn't Murphy..
Austrian economics is now a cult movement. Hoppe has retired, its best "economists" have died and are forgotten, and so the "school" has to result to intelligent design/AIDS denialist tactics like these publicity stunts just to get attention. There is a wide rise of the left all over Latin America and many Europeans are seriously questioning whether they even need capitalism. Just like with intelligent design its best to ignore them.
I think Krugman should accept the debate only if they debate praxeology and the methodologies of Austrian economics; its belief that there are "axioms" out there that cannot be verified through experience and that the only way to discredit them is through creating another axiomatic system, its belief that calculus cannot be applied to economics, and its belief in a purely ordinal concept of marginal utility.
_
Get to the heart of the matter, and then we can see who's the real social scientist.
We have a crisis on our hands. There is no time for debating School of Salamanca and its belief that axioms can be applied to human beings. They cannot. You cannot apply the principles of logic to nature - nature is constantly changing all the time. Furthermore, believing it's all a matter of "chaos theory" is ridiculous, that would imply that the government could find the same patterns for natural balance as the market. There are non-periodic functions that nonetheless have similar patterns.
If you deny that the government cannot do anything that makes the economy more efficient, and you believe that all actions from government are evil, then you cannot support one government action over another as all government actions are inefficient and evil. If Keynesianism is going to force the economy to collapse, then Autrian economists should encourage Keynesianism so as to force the government to weaken to the point where it'd be easy to overthrow it.
If anarcho-capitalists are so convinced that they're correct, why doesn't Lew Rockwell get his buddies over at Koch Industries to buy up an island or something or mass acres of land here in the US and implement the anarcho-capitalist society? You may have to pay taxes on it but within the community you could run it according to the principles of anarcho-totalitarianism.
@joepeeler34 I agree (Woods- because we need a good historian), but Pento is top class- I swear. :D BTW I stumbled on a Pento video a couple of months ago and i thought:"Wow, this guy is so Schiff like" Couple of a days later-Pento joins EuroPac. :)
Krugman has no need to debate. He writes about ease of printing money to pay off debt in the widest read paper in America and no one cares. He lives in a bubble with other Statists.
Krugman's career would be over if he agreed to this. If he has any brain at all, he will simply never acknowledge this challenge.
Maybe he DOESN'T have any brain at all, and we'll see a historic/comical debate. But I think it's more likely that he's just a lying whore who knows full-well that his nonsensical theories can't stand up to scrutiny.
Much as I support Austrian economics I can't help feeling this could backfire. Keynesiaism is very adept at making emotional appeals for support with simple concepts like aggregate demand, the social cost of unemployment, the harsh face of capitalism etc.... Bob may find himself struggling to explain the importance of things like Time Preference theory and the structure of capital while Paul concentrates on sound bites revolving around the plight of the poor and do nothing govt/economic policy.
Maybe it is because you do not understand the concepts of time preferences and the capital theory that you think that Bob Murphy cannot explain those concepts to an audience. Well, he is a PHD economist and if there is someone who can make those concepts simple enough for the like of you and I to understand, it is him.
Bob is an excellent economicst. I follow his blog quite closely - I usually go onto it three or four times a week. His understanding of time preference etc.., dwarfs mine. He is one of the many giants the shadow of whose shoulder's I am able to take shade but am not worthy to stand upon. His prose style in the two books of his that I have read is excellent and he does explain things very well. As I said before I hope he demolishes Krugman in this debate.
"I eat nothing but red meat and think the Articles of Confederation were an unjustified expansion of government power. Don't be fooled by my pink shirt."
somebody has to say it. THE VOICES SUCK AND MAKES THE VIDEOS SUCK. It doesn't matter the content, it's hard to listen to. Can we STOP using these videos plz?!?!?!
@fagan411 yes and no, only if the charitable donation doesn't abet negative aspects of human nature, which unfortunately, a lot of charities do by doling out cash/goods without seeing changes in behavior.
Ha ha! The script is funny, but the economics not at all. I am more persuaded by Steve Keen.
padraig1971 2 months ago
So Murphy is saying that Peter Schiff doesn't fully understand economics?
DigitalShaolin 5 months ago
@DigitalShaolin No, just that they each have their own style of debating, and that there are different ways to pwn Krugman. Murphy knows the details of Krugman's failing arguments, and could really expose him on his own territory.
TWSceptic 2 months ago 2
Keynes also advocated eugenics.
doughtymqan 6 months ago
@doughtymqan Lols at the Keynes also advocated eugenics. Everybody advocated eugenics including US states prior to Hitler taking things a bit too far ; )
beamla 5 months ago
The Purity Products Vitamin Menu Driven phone voice sounds just like the guy's voice in these videos. Wonder who ripped who off here!
azerosum666 6 months ago
Good to see others using xtranormal too.
I make videos with it as well. Check them out sometime.
begood4000 6 months ago
hahaha, these videos are too funny. this channel is win
RKAddict101 7 months ago
This video is full of win.
PJCelis 10 months ago
"So that means Krugman would have to explain to his loyal readers why it wasn't worth his time to debate for an hour on business cycle theory even though it would mean $95,000 of right-wing money would be used to feed hungry new yorkers."
"Wow, Tina that is mind-blowing! I haven't been this flummoxed since I lasted smoked crack."
darklordsma 11 months ago 2
They need to push for something longer than an hour. I would love to see a debate between those guys.
voskresene 1 year ago
@BobMurphyAncap i actually do support Austrian economics, and a classic libertarian position but this is just naive SELF-GRATIFYING BULLSHIT.
This is no different from the common situation whereby atheists automatically respect or 'shun' another or for affirming or disagreeing to their own position, no matter what the reason. BTW i am also an atheist.
This video isn't actually helpful to the cause, and represents the arrogance that will no doubt just isolate classical libertarians- poor form.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
Pauly Kugnuts!
mikemat3307 1 year ago
Hahahaha since I am a libertarian I spend 7 hours a day in my parents' basement surfing the internet lmfao
MTL911Truth 1 year ago
Hahaha this is hilarious.. great ad. I hope he accepts it would be glorious but somehow I doubt it will happen.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
I don't get why there are so many jabs at austrians in this? Is this supposed to be humble or just stupid?
CaMaster 1 year ago 6
@CaMaster Not sure why there were so many jabs, but I heavily lean Austrian and was LMAO.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
Krugman is a joke. hahaha
hyylo 1 year ago
Keynes praised the USSR too.
They are statists - Austrians are for individual freedom and a minimal state opposed to a corporatist ruling elite.
See Murray Rothbards Anatomy of the State at mises dot org
marxbitesall 1 year ago 20
I like when the the Robo-Babe calls Bob "Smurphy".
I would definitely watch this debate if it was free and South Park wasn't on. (Or a rerun of Deadwood.)
jtk3 1 year ago
I don't understand the logic behind having Krugman debate Murphy rather than Peter Schiff. You admit that Schiff would wipe the floor with Krugman, but suggest that Krugman might bamboozle Schiff with terms like "liquidity trap."
You're not serious?
areswarren 1 year ago
@areswarren Because for the masses, Schiff would be great. We aren't dealing with the masses. We're dealing with people in academia, and a lot of them have a completely warped view of economics. Murphy knows Austrian and Keynesian economics inside and out. We need a thorough, solid defense if this ever goes down.
Gasolinealley00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominem which is fallacious & ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language 'Austrian Economics is horse....', besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
johncmuiz 1 year ago
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominem which is fallacious & ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language 'Austrian Economics is horse....', besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
johncmuiz 1 year ago 2
@LovePsalm1 Psalm 1 is about meditating on God's Torah or Word and growing in godliness & righteousness as a result. But you accuse Austrian economics of Jew-hating simply because you claim Hitler was Austrian. That is an argument ad hominen which is not only fallacious but is ungodly for it breaks the ninth command (as slanderous). Then you use foul language Austrian Ec is horse...., besides being libellous as you know nothing of Austrian Economics. Seems you do not love Psalm 1 at all!
johncmuiz 1 year ago
Would Stephen hawking reject a debate with a burger flipper because he is scared? or because it would be a waste of time?
funisverygood 1 year ago
@funisverygood Debating a PhD in economics is a waste of time? Especially when you consider the charity angle.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Austrian economics. Isn't that what inspired neo-liberalism? Which has been a complete failure for everyone except for the wealthiest 5% of society?
Austrian economics is just horseshit.
LovePsalm1 1 year ago
i just want to repeat: successfulbuild is a troll. his arguments are half truths at best, or false generalities at worst. really, he's saying that mises was for dictatorial rule of the elites...
not that i'd stop anyone from clobbering him, but just don't let yourselves believe that you can "reason" with this kind of person. he's a stereotypical undergrad whose head is full of college-room hypotheticals he claims is the "real world"
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
@SimulacrumMaster What I did notice (of course it was with people in real life not online), that if I argued well, even if at the end of the discussion it seemed the disagreement had grown, next time when I heard them discuss the same topic with other people, suddenly they used some of my arguments.
So i think it is worthwhile. I am curious if and how he responds to me again.
skycladdy 1 year ago
"Marxism, in my view, belongs in the history of organized religion. In fact, as a rule of thumb, any concept with a person's name on it belongs to religion, not rational discourse. There aren't any physicists who call themselves Einsteinians. And the same would be true of anybody crazy enough to call themselves Chomskyan. In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
So finally you do not answer. The only thing I know now that you read chomsky.
So I'll ask different. Are you (capitalism I think I dont need to ask) for socialism, interventionism or maybe syndicalism ?? Or something new, nobody knows yet ?
BTW: Just because someone is quoting someone. He is not in religious love with him.
skycladdy 1 year ago
(2 of 2)"In the real world you have individuals who were in the right place at the right time, or maybe they got a good brain wave or something, and they did something interesting. But I never heard of anyone who didn't make mistakes and whose work wasn't quickly improved on by others. That means if you identify yourself as a Marxisit or a Freudian or anything else, you're worshiping at someone's shrine." -- from "Chomsky" Rolling Stone, 1992, p 47.
_
Consider this cult calls itself "Misean."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I'm not a "Marxist." Claiming that there is a scientific theory of history or that social sciences are exactly like pure sciences is almost as bad as making up a bunch of a priori principles and claiming that whenever evidence goes against them, the evidence and "reality" are flawed, while contributing almost nothing to statistical analysis of the economy.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
The fact is, skycladdy, that people like j4ck2234 and Simulam, and the other alternative and fake accounts with no uploaded videos and few favorites - probably Molyneux cult members who've left their families and spend all their free-time creating fake accounts for Mises as Molyneux tells them, people who hate decency, justice, democracy, and freedom - are better representatives of MIses than you.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
And for those of us who like history, we know that Hitler originally wanted to "expel" all Jews from Germany - from the "property" of the private dictatorship (in totalitarianism, everything is the private property of the despot). However, because of the war Hitler realized that resources would be wasted and that a "final solution" should be implemented: extermination of political dissidents, jews, etc.
_
Such are the consequences of Hoppean theory played out in the real world.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Btw... Alan Turing was a homosexual and he had more intelligence in his pinky finger than an intellectual fraud Hans-Hermann Hoppe has in his whole body. This shows why the principles of exclusion and discrimination (Libertarianism) are so harmful society - rather, as I said, you want to promote decency and cooperation in all the communities, and certainly no community has the right to start "expelling" people they don't like. We've seen Hoppe's ideas play out in Russia and Germany. They fail.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
The claim that "cooperation" (socialism) does not work is false. All advancements in history have come from such cooperation including in the capitalist countries. Every invention can be traced to scientists sharing ideas - including with inventors like Edison who didn't even really invent the incandescent bulb but was just the first to get the patents. I get my energy for my summer house from a consumer owned plant. Cooperatives are all over in Latin America - and that's all socialism is.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
What I was talking about was from JSM's essay "On Liberty." In it he says that the government should only prevent people from attacking one another, and that communities should promote happiness (of course, he did not believe all rights are property rights like this cult but rather that property rights probably stem from certain rights individuals already have). Really the TRUE form of minarchism because the government wouldn't dictate who could and couldn't won property.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Since all land would be owned by private tyrannies, there would be no longer such a thing of free-speech. Hoppe is committing the fallacy that communities have the right to take away our inherent rights - such as free-speech. This is false, communities do NOT have the right to expel somebody for being a homosexual or advocating communism, regardless of property titles. Furthermore, the community has the right to forcibly remove anything that stands in the way of these rights - like property.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
LOL. The totalitarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not talking about socialist communes in that quote, but Libertarians. Good try shifting the totalitarianism of Libertarianism onto socialism (why would socialist communities prevent people from advocating socialism)?
_
In anarcho-totalitarianism land, only the property owners have rights. Your free-speech and all your rights would be at the discretion of the property owner, and these would vary from owner to owner.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Anarcho"-capitalists have it in the back of their mind that if there's an island, and one guy is running around on a third of an island and he's bumped into by a group of 20 people, he gets to claim that third of the island his because he was using it (homesteading) it, and force the others into slavery. This is a ridiculous concept of property rights and no one believes it because there's no way to find a "true owner" of property.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
We have an interventionist (socialist) state and no one is starving to death. And no one is starving to death in Europe. However, in Somalia, where the anarcho-capitalist society is playing out, people are starving to death. There were actually millions of deaths due to resource distribution problems in the industrial revolution. Capitalism kills.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Do you know that Somalia was under scientific socialism (=marxism) until the early 90ies, under a very nice and cute dictator? How well off had the people been back then?
Do you know somehting about the corn laws during industrial revoltuion in england?
Do you know that it is since the industrial revolution that mass starvation was over in europe (until the holodomor in the ukraine -> socialsim) ?
skycladdy 1 year ago
successfulbuild is a troll, guys.
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
"“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society."--Most prominent Libertarian professor - Hans Hermann Hoppe.
_
No wonder Libertarians get so upset with people who offer different views, in the Libertarian colonies, provinces, and plantations, free-speech will be something of the past. Thank goodness these true totalitarians have no power.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
Just to have the accused one on his own words about this too:
Mises . org/daily/1792
and
W w w . lewrockwell . com/blog/lewrw/archives/58561 . Html
And nice that you project your interpretation about this on all libertarians. But yes you are right libertarians did build Gulags and KZs and prohibit free speech all over the world…
You talk of hateful people. Your are extremely raging on here. Its almost like a personal campaign of vengeance...
skycladdy 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
You don't understand. Socialism is the legalization of theft. You wouldn't like your neighbor coming to your house with a gun and steal all your stuff and then share the loot with his friends right?
Libertarianism just applies the same societal rules to our wise government overlords.
+free speech is no problem. All laws against it would be abolished. (and the're quite a few..copyright, libel legislation and so on)
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
+If you want to live in a socialist utopia (and starve) this is no problem whatsoever.
As long as you don't enslave/kidnap/coerce other people into your system you can build the voluntary socialist utopia. (good luck with that...socialism without violence lol..ask Gorbatschow how that went)
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
You see what Hoppe was talking about is the socialist mindset, which is that of a criminal. It only becomes 'justified' if you believe in marxist theory..which really nobody does. (I think marxism is more of a mental state)
If somebody comes to my house and shoots me because he thinks i've exploited him by selling him an I-phone...well how do you deal with these people? You have to expell them, lock em up, shoot them..? Expelling them seems the most humane thing to do.
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@j4ck2234
No unfortunately this is wrong, I stated a postiori that there are still a bunch of people who really beleive in marx. At least in the internet you find them easy. And I am not sure what you mean by mental state. But be aware just don't fall into the trap of (how mises called it) "polylogism", like the marxists, nationalists and racists do..
skycladdy 1 year ago
@skycladdy
It is not possible to be a rational marxist. The system demands a suspension of all logical reasoning, you have to engage in an all out djihad against reality in order to subscribe to marxist economic theory. That's why I think marxism is a psychological condition. You wouldn't classify a crazy person who thinks he's napoleon as a bonapartist, right?
(disclaimer; I used to be a 'marxist' before I actually tried to understand the economic reasoning)
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@skycladdy
I would actually say the same about keynesianism, and I'm really not in the habit of describing political enemies as mentally 'disturbed' people -But I just can't bring myself to believe that someone could have found his way to these theories by logical reasoning.
I think our political structure is artificially elevating a horde of crazy people to respectability - Just like the nazi government elevated racial theorist into respectable circles.
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@j4ck2234 Exactly, the government is moving towards Austrian economics.
And you know who was Austrian? Thats right. Hitler. Austrian economics is literally the economic system of the Nazis, you Jew-hater.
LovePsalm1 1 year ago
@LovePsalm1 LMFAO what? Actually Keynesian economics is much closer to Nazi economics than Austrian. Keynes actually praised Nazi Germany for it's economic policies such as spending money on public works, and printing money.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago 26
@SamuelMoralesJr I think you're thinking of 1920's germany, not nazi germany. I'm a hardcore austrian, I have to hand it to nazi germany's miracle economy, which was not keynesian. Their currency was pinned to labor, nearly unmanipulable and naturally inflates in recession.
venik88 1 month ago
@venik88 you are very incorrect, Nazi Germany ballooned deficit spending on public works, & military spending. Nazi Germany also had price controls to combat inflation. Germany rearmament was also banking the country. Hjalmar Schacht was head of the Reichsbank, who was a liberal politician, & co-founder of the German Democratic Party. Increased spending creates the illusion of growth. Spending isn't growth, investment is growth. Germany exceeded 10% GNP in military spending alone.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 month ago
@venik88 Aside that deficit spending isn't economic growth, and Hitler bankrupting the German economy Hjalmar Schacht was allowed freedom to expand deficits because Nazi Germany was not on the gold standard, ie, money printing. Germany couldn't continue ballooned deficit spending without stealing wealth from other countries that is conquered.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 month ago
@venik88 not to mention that the handicapped, the crippled, the mentally ill people were executed, and there was mandatory employment. Meaning by law Germans had to have a job. Nazi German economy was nothing of a miracle you speak of. It wasn't a real economy & yes Nazi economy was that of Keynesian approach. Even Keynes praised the Nazis for their work in the German edition of his book. You don't seem very Austrian to me at all.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 month ago
@SamuelMoralesJr Keynes also praised Hayek and agreed with much of his work. Keynes described fiat currency. Keynes on fiat currency "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.”
You've got your history all mixed up. There were 3 economies in nazi-era germany:
venik88 1 month ago
@SamuelMoralesJr First the fiat currency and hyper-inflation in the 1920's. Then laissez faire thinkers took economical control before Hitler took office. Then the third... hitler threw them out in 1936 replacing it with a fascist militaristic state with a non-existent economy.
The entire reason there was a nationalistic hate for jews, and partly why hitler got into power in the first place, was because the jews were free from usury laws and thus could charge interest and thus all bankers jew.
venik88 1 month ago
@venik88 there was no laissez faire thinkers. Hitler was Chancellor in 1933-45, Hjalmar Schacht was head of the Reichsbank in 1933. Lowering interest rates, & massive deficit spending on public works was what Schacht did such as the Autobahn. In 1933 Reinhardt Program was introduced which combined indirect incentives, such as tax reductions, with direct public investment in waterways, railroads and highways among other initiatives. Nothing free market about that.
SamuelMoralesJr 4 weeks ago
@venik88 Nazi Germany balance of payments was also strongly negative. Exports declined by 9%, while imports grew 9% from 1933-1936, which is indicative of a economy that spends, not produces from deficits. At the same time, Nazi Germany was boosting military spending which boosted demand, with low availability of foreign currency, imports for raw materials were constrained, this created a conflict between preceding with a moderately free economy to that of autarkic economy.
SamuelMoralesJr 4 weeks ago
@SamuelMoralesJr *were jewish. So hitler took the torch from free-market "austrians" and used the fruits of that miracle economy to declare war on jews, or bankers, still blaming them for the recovering depression and HYPERINFLATION from 1920's.
venik88 1 month ago
@venik88 I don't think you are hardcore austrian or know the meaning of laissez faire, much less what you are talking about. The Nazi "miracle" you claim wasn't a real economy, it was fueled by deficit spending doing government projects, along with incentives to build whatever the government wanted. You are far from Austrian, it's so even funny especially for one to claim to be "hardcore" Austrian.Nazi Germany boomed primarily with construction jobs, & military spending with deficits.
SamuelMoralesJr 4 weeks ago
@skycladdy
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about some college kid (or professor) who doesn't know anything about anything and calls himself a marxist. I'm talking about people who have enganged economic scienece and then decided that marxism or keynesianism make the most sense. That's just crazy. I don't think there are many people who would actually be capable of making such a judgement.
j4ck2234 1 year ago
@j4ck2234
I understand what you mean. I myself was quite a interventionist and attracted by the magic of Marx authority. But when I approached his actual writings I couldn't beleive how fast I opposed it. There were so many stupid, absolutely baseless unlogical arguments.With his reasoning you can argue everything.
Nevertheless I think that if people truly believe this, the most have the same goal as we do. The so called common good, although they don't actually know that we want the same...
skycladdy 1 year ago
@j4ck2234 . That just the means to the goal are different. So you need to argue still respectfully, even if they are not. Because I think those who don't, just want do make people angry, by provoking, generalizing, making baseless statements like "lovepsalm1" (who uses racist logic to call you a racist jew hater.. ;)...
skycladdy 1 year ago
@j4ck2234 ... So that they feel good if they notice that other ones get crazy, and then they have at least one real reason why they don't like you. Then they can say this is an unfriendly asswhole who is a dogmatic lunatic who cannot stand arguments.
skycladdy 1 year ago
"in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant ... such as democracy and communism." "Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Successfulbuild - God Level Troll?
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew I'm just asking questions. And when the leading "Austrian economist" is putting on make-up and talking to himself in the mirror, and the most famous one is a gynecologist from Texas, maybe it's not me you guys need to be worrying about.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
"I'm just asking questions."
No you aren't. Sure you do that, too, but in a provocative manner and sometimes you do nothing but provoke.
Xasew 1 year ago
I'm in. How likely is this? Not very, but, just in case Krugman grows a set.
cooperbry 1 year ago
I think what's glossed over here is the issue of safety. There has been at least one death threat made against "Keynesians" - in a Murphy video entitled "Tribute to My Favorite Blogger." Admittedly the threat came from someone who claims to be British, but I still think it's a reasonable concern as Austrians seem to be hateful people. I don't agree with Krugman always, but I am concerned about his safety, and since Austrian fans seem unable to behave themselves why hold it down there?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild burn in hell fascist.
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
So yeah, market failure.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Let's say that the government subsidized the price of bananas, you bought so many bananas, put them on your roof, and then the roof collapsed. Is that government failure or market failure? The price was distorted, but I still say this is mostly market failure. No one made you put so many bananas on your roof.
If Minsky and Hayek are running in a race for interpreting the last two years of the U.S. macroeconomy, Hayek has something to offer but so far Minsky is in the lead." Tyler Cowen
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"An alternative theory is that markets are bubble-prone and that easy monetary policy was simply a trigger that set off an irrational speculative excess. The Austrian story is that "the government distorted price signals to the market." Are those two accounts really so different? "
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Do we need metaphysics to resolve that question? Take the classic "thin skull" case in the law. Austrians won't describe it this way, but they are postulating a very thin skull for markets and then blaming government for the disaster which results from government's glancing blow to that skull."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Keep in mind that no entrepreneur looks at price signals exclusively, rather they interpret prices in the context of the real economy and other bits of knowledge Was it so hard for investors to say to themselves?: "I see that one price (short-term rates) has changed in favor of greater housing investment. But other parts of my brain tell me that real estate prices won't go up forever, levered positions are dangerous, and that I should be cautious."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Comment removed
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I do think a debate on the Austrian Business Cycle may be worthwhile, although I think John Quiggin has done a good job already debunking it. Of course, Sraffa, Cown, and others have debunked it as well.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
looks like the socialists/facists have gotten to the comment section already.
go get 'em, murphy.
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
@SimulacrumMaster Just pointing out some more logic errors in the cult that claims to be based on "deductive logic." And my post should have read "If you believe that the government cannot do anything to help the economy you can't make policy recommendations..." and "if you plug numbers into certain equations you get unstable results, no periodic functions, but not randomness either." This is no validation for markets. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that, as you're a cult member.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@SimulacrumMaster I'm not a fascist. I believe that people should have markets if they want them. Markets seem to work good for things like getting TVs to people but not for roads etc. However, I would allow communities to attempt non-market alternatives, if they felt like it. Please don't make assumptions.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
private toll roads are better than roads paved by gov't. the fac that you parse your nonsense with phrases like "i would allow" disqualifies your opinion on grounds of principle, and if you don't know why then don't respond to me ever again.
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
@SimulacrumMaster Let me guess - because of some mythical axioms that you can't even prove exist. Austrian economists believe in telling people what to do - according to principles that they make up, and that have been rejected by the vast majority of not only economists but all social scientific disciplines, all modern philosophy, and certainly all of the sciences, and that have been proven to be incorrect by empirical evidence.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@SimulacrumMaster Explain to me how I'm a fascist then. Like most modern economists, I believe in putting my values up front, and have done so. How are my "values" similar to fascism when the values of fascism are in fact similar to capitalist economists who claim that individual leaders get to bully their way to the top without pesky things like democracy standing in the way. You probably believe "market principles" govern the universe like Stefbot. You are a lunatics.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
" believe that people should have markets if they want them. ...[and] allow communities to attempt non-market alternatives,"
I am with you, and Mises too! The only way to determine what has to be established is through respectful discussing and trying to convince other ones with arguments. Freedom of choice is the most important good, and as far as I see it, at least most libertarians know this too. So dont generalize, and calm down. And look forward to the debate.
skycladdy 1 year ago
@skycladdy Actually, you are incorrect. Mises never said anything like what I wrote and what many leftists and "left-Libertarians" believe - that people should run the communities to their own discretion. He actually was closer to this "j4ck" jackass in that he believed the government should only recognize property as capitalists define it as this is the only way society could function (he was not an anarchist).
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
He was clearly against any form of minority rule over majority. This only can be done in a democratic process. He said it is the minorities own fault if they were not able to convince enough people to be in the majority.. Hence if the majority believes that they should have socialism... they must do it, and the minority has to vote with their feet (leave) or adapt. Of course democratic decissions have their limits. You cannot abolish free speech that would contradict democr.
skycladdy 1 year ago
@skycladdy LOL. Mises was against minority rule over the majority? Mises explicitly said that the capitalist owners - the movers and shakers and the wiser and nobler families - should have control over society. Everybody else is subservient to the property owners, although the consumers may "dictate" what will be provided to them (of course, the real power is in the hands of the property owners, not the consumers). Quote Mises explicitly or admit you're just pandering.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
how is with you to show me the quote where he said that, or admit that you are just pandering ... rofl
Just for information: Mises argued always that it is the cunsumer who is the souvereign, not the producer in capitalism...
skycladdy 1 year ago
@skycladdy I've already posted the quotes and shown where Mises said this. And when corporations get too big they end up shaping the market more than the market shapes them. Miseans wrongly argue that market share plays no part - apparently completely unaware of the fact that even the THREAT of a monopoly keeps many people out of business. Austrian economics is for ultra-conservatives who like to pretend they understand economics.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
Please do that once more for my. A simple copy and past, since I could not find it.
Just that we don't missunderstand. Where does he say:
"Mises explicitly said that the capitalist owners - the movers and shakers and the wiser and nobler families - should have control over society. Everybody else is subservient to the property owners, ..."
skycladdy 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
I am not pandering.
Quote Mises from "Nation, State and economy" from 1920:
"It [Liberalism] can therefore see only justice in the decisions of the majority; for the errors that were committed revenge themselves on all, both on those who had supported them and on the outvoted minority, which also must pay
for not having understood how to win the majority over to its side."
skycladdy 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
And another one. Quote Mises in "Liberalism" 1927: 1/2:
"Violent resistance against the power of the state is the last resort of the minority in its effort to break
loose from the oppression of the majority. The minority that desires to see its ideas
triumph must strive by intellectual means to become the majority. The state must be
so constituted that the scope of its laws permits the individual a certain amount of
latitude within which he can move freely... ."
skycladdy 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
2/2:
"... The citizen must not be so narrowly
circumscribed in his activities that, if he thinks differently from those in power, his
only choice is either to perish or to destroy the machinery of state."
Page 58 to 59 and the former quote from "Nation, State and economy" is page 71.
skycladdy 1 year ago
@successfulbuild
What did you read of Mises?
Who do you think is right? Marx, Noeclassical, Keynsians, Gsell?
skycladdy 1 year ago
Young women are overwhelmingly hardened feminist Obama drones. It's sad.
cellspotbiz 1 year ago
@cellspotbiz lol Look at this little cult member. What do you think the government should do to fix the economy?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"Christian: A good-natured, simple fellow; a true lamb of the fold, who, in the innocence of his heart, persuades himself that he firmly believes unbelievable things that his priests have told him to believe, especially those he cannot even imagine. Consequently, he is convinced that three x's make fifteen, that God was made man, that he was hanged and rose to life again, that priests cannot lie, and that all who do not believe in priests will be damned without remission." If that isn't Murphy..
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Austrian economics is now a cult movement. Hoppe has retired, its best "economists" have died and are forgotten, and so the "school" has to result to intelligent design/AIDS denialist tactics like these publicity stunts just to get attention. There is a wide rise of the left all over Latin America and many Europeans are seriously questioning whether they even need capitalism. Just like with intelligent design its best to ignore them.
_
Funny dialogue, but face it, you guys are done.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
I think Krugman should accept the debate only if they debate praxeology and the methodologies of Austrian economics; its belief that there are "axioms" out there that cannot be verified through experience and that the only way to discredit them is through creating another axiomatic system, its belief that calculus cannot be applied to economics, and its belief in a purely ordinal concept of marginal utility.
_
Get to the heart of the matter, and then we can see who's the real social scientist.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
We have a crisis on our hands. There is no time for debating School of Salamanca and its belief that axioms can be applied to human beings. They cannot. You cannot apply the principles of logic to nature - nature is constantly changing all the time. Furthermore, believing it's all a matter of "chaos theory" is ridiculous, that would imply that the government could find the same patterns for natural balance as the market. There are non-periodic functions that nonetheless have similar patterns.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
If you deny that the government cannot do anything that makes the economy more efficient, and you believe that all actions from government are evil, then you cannot support one government action over another as all government actions are inefficient and evil. If Keynesianism is going to force the economy to collapse, then Autrian economists should encourage Keynesianism so as to force the government to weaken to the point where it'd be easy to overthrow it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
If anarcho-capitalists are so convinced that they're correct, why doesn't Lew Rockwell get his buddies over at Koch Industries to buy up an island or something or mass acres of land here in the US and implement the anarcho-capitalist society? You may have to pay taxes on it but within the community you could run it according to the principles of anarcho-totalitarianism.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Schiff, Murphy, Faber, Pento
vs
ANY 4 Keynesian economists.
Voy2378 1 year ago
@Voy2378 Agree with the first three--no one can handle Mr. Schiff, but I would substitute either Thomas Woods or Robert Higgs for Pento.
joepeeler34 1 year ago
@joepeeler34 I agree (Woods- because we need a good historian), but Pento is top class- I swear. :D BTW I stumbled on a Pento video a couple of months ago and i thought:"Wow, this guy is so Schiff like" Couple of a days later-Pento joins EuroPac. :)
Voy2378 1 year ago
LMFAO <3 speech software
margoliesmedia 1 year ago
Well, xtranormal is xtra nerdy, but otherwise, I like the idea.
itsagass 1 year ago
Krugman has no need to debate. He writes about ease of printing money to pay off debt in the widest read paper in America and no one cares. He lives in a bubble with other Statists.
yojimbo81 1 year ago
Krugman is too big of a puss to take the challenge. If the debate takes place, I will pledge $100.
WDierker 1 year ago
Krugman's career would be over if he agreed to this. If he has any brain at all, he will simply never acknowledge this challenge.
Maybe he DOESN'T have any brain at all, and we'll see a historic/comical debate. But I think it's more likely that he's just a lying whore who knows full-well that his nonsensical theories can't stand up to scrutiny.
robotron17 1 year ago
"... last smoke cracked" lol
MrAlpruitt 1 year ago
liked, subscribed, can't wait to see the debate actually happen!!
Will try and check out the site and if i can donate .. the "law"-makers made using the paypal donate button illegal here :(
alennna 1 year ago
This will be epic. I'll be making a pledge as soon as I can.
MacFall 1 year ago
I could pledge $1 million and feel safe that it won't be spent. Krugman is a wimp.
briananderson1 1 year ago
Just pledged an electronic Franklin.
Kudos for having the guts (no pun intended!!) to do the Stoke the Fear video with Krugman on the mirror!
MengersDisciple 1 year ago
I'd bone Tina
JonnyRocketfingers 1 year ago
Where do you pledge? I want everyone to see this debate.
HuggumsMcgehee 1 year ago
@HuggumsMcgehee Clcik on the full description of the video and you'll see the link.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
So you just pledge here? Kinda different than prior money bombs, etc.
OrangeCountyCFLRocks 1 year ago
@OrangeCountyCFLRocks No, you pledge at the link that you can find in the video description.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
I pledged $25 yesterday!
freeyourcrt 1 year ago
Pledged $50 today.
starsfan6878 1 year ago
I'm pledging today.
Theclodhopper 1 year ago
I'm a broke college student, and I just pledged $50
NO EXCUSES!
It will all be indescribably worth it to see Krugman exposed for the unfunny assclown that he is
JakeNonphixion 1 year ago 7
pledged modest sum
jpcl21 1 year ago
This is a great idea. I just pledged $100.
DanMorin007 1 year ago
this i awesome, awesome, aaaawmee
h2sammo 1 year ago
Krooooogman.
JiveDadson 1 year ago
win/win
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
Much as I support Austrian economics I can't help feeling this could backfire. Keynesiaism is very adept at making emotional appeals for support with simple concepts like aggregate demand, the social cost of unemployment, the harsh face of capitalism etc.... Bob may find himself struggling to explain the importance of things like Time Preference theory and the structure of capital while Paul concentrates on sound bites revolving around the plight of the poor and do nothing govt/economic policy.
ffmarkm 1 year ago
Maybe it is because you do not understand the concepts of time preferences and the capital theory that you think that Bob Murphy cannot explain those concepts to an audience. Well, he is a PHD economist and if there is someone who can make those concepts simple enough for the like of you and I to understand, it is him.
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY
Bob is an excellent economicst. I follow his blog quite closely - I usually go onto it three or four times a week. His understanding of time preference etc.., dwarfs mine. He is one of the many giants the shadow of whose shoulder's I am able to take shade but am not worthy to stand upon. His prose style in the two books of his that I have read is excellent and he does explain things very well. As I said before I hope he demolishes Krugman in this debate.
ffmarkm 1 year ago
28,000 already, we'll get there in no time.
JBSCOLORADO2 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is the New York Times' court jester!
campusliberty1 1 year ago
Pledged $50
nchambers42 1 year ago
End the state!
thinkrevolution 1 year ago 12
Just made my pledge.
I'm not holding my breath that Krugman would have the Cojones to take up this challenge, but even if he doesnt, that, in itself would speak volumes.
swiftysmithuk 1 year ago
Hey Tina (There Is No Alternative) !
gunnarsom 1 year ago
...is that milk in the water cooler bottle?
manfred127 1 year ago
"I eat nothing but red meat and think the Articles of Confederation were an unjustified expansion of government power. Don't be fooled by my pink shirt."
LOL
TheBullionBull 1 year ago 5
Going to pledge in $25 tonight.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
"Seek help for his Krugman complex."
Maybe Murphy could wear the Zombie makeup to the debate....
CurtHowland 1 year ago 3
This is amazing, the mainstream can't keep us out forever and this is a genius plan to get Austrian economics out there.
roflthetofl 1 year ago
I'm going to donate, but the speech generation software that made this video is too boring for me to watch. lol
Okay well its not to bad, some parts where it is just screamingly awkward and the lines ridiculous it is funny.
"Its in Alabama, for crying out loud.,,, *awkwardly throws up hands "
blubot89 1 year ago
this is huge. so huge I literally feel I will wake from a dream soon. THIS IS OUR CHANCE, FOLKS!
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
Pledge. Now. Do it.
VTAcraft 1 year ago 2
I eat nothing but red meat and think the Articles of Confederation were an unjustified expansion of government power.
VTAcraft 1 year ago 3
somebody has to say it. THE VOICES SUCK AND MAKES THE VIDEOS SUCK. It doesn't matter the content, it's hard to listen to. Can we STOP using these videos plz?!?!?!
freshdesh 1 year ago
@freshdesh I disagree completely. It's the awkwardness of the voices that accounts for half of why the videos are so funny.
TomWoodsTV 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
olmofo 1 year ago
AMAZING
Omroon 1 year ago
haHAHahahahahahahHAHAHAHAhahahaHAH
Omroon 1 year ago
I thought libertarians were very charitable.
fagan411 1 year ago
@fagan411 yes and no, only if the charitable donation doesn't abet negative aspects of human nature, which unfortunately, a lot of charities do by doling out cash/goods without seeing changes in behavior.
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
@fagan411 Yes, we are, but we don't want people to be dependent on others for their livelihood.
Gasolinealley00 1 year ago
Very clever :)
bonkers45 1 year ago
Awesome!
trekkerperson 1 year ago
"...I haven't been this flummoxed since I last smoked crack." Hardy har har. LvMI is boss.
totustuus11 1 year ago
This is Hilarious!!! I love their inside jokes about libertarians! I'd love to see a Bob Murphy vs. Krugman debate.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago 4