On Doing Economic History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[flowewritharoma]

Thomas E. Woods, Jr　is agreat speaker.

[100CommonCents]

i actually love history. i support austrian economics, but there are some people who go too far with it in some ways.

i think more people fighting for small changes 'on the front line' so to speak, rather than describing ideal worlds is what is needed IMO.

so more of Michael cannon (fighting the corporatist healthcare bill) less iunternal fighting over the 'ethics of liberty' - A world i frankly don't think will ever happen. but hey, maybe we can get somewhere close to it.

[kihjin]

I wish I could here the questions at the end

[NicosMind]

This is fantastic but im just asking here has anyone ever heard Norman Dodd talk about the rewritting of history? I think as great as Tom Woods speech is here(and it is) people have to equally if not much more watch this interview with him!

watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

Trust me its well worth it!

[NicosMind]

There should be a Tom Woods channel here on youtube with all his speeches, lectures and interviews. I would love to subscribe to it. I would hate to think that i was missing out on some Tom Woods goodness

[Panax07]

@NicosMind misesmedia has done a good job of collecting all of Tom's stuff.

[europa]

Tom needs to be the front man for liberty he's enthralling in his speeches due to humor placed well through out

[032125]

I always wondered what was behind that curtain.

[AustinW90]

Tom Woods is my homeboy.

[capitalist4life]

Thomas effing Woods!

[tracycolorado]

He who laughs last , laughs the most

[DenmarkRadar]

Regarding the question of comparative US advantage following WW2:

No advantage to the US was present because: There were noone to trade with.

To allow europeans to purchase the US tractors the US government instituted the Marshall Plan, which I do believe was rather costly for all of the US citizens forced to pay for it.

[campaign4liberty]

the truth

LibertyPoet

website

[furyofbongos]

To misesmedia: please have the speakers repeat the questions, or better yet, provide microphones for the audience.

[vorbeigehende]

Ralph Raico The European Miracle

mises.org/daily/2404

[suedeslounge]

Every time Tom Woods speaks, I lose my pants.

[VTAcraft]

@suedeslounge Ditto.

[evangrogers]

@suedeslounge that's a serious problem. You should get that checked out.

[maxgunn555]

@suedeslounge what does that mean?

[suedeslounge]

@maxgunn555 It's like libertarian porno

[maxgunn555]

@suedeslounge right i get more intellectual stimulation.

[reapfreak]

I really wish this guy wasn't so Catholic. I highly respect him but belief in a sky daddy kinda hurts his credibility. Austrian for life!

[anyfekinnamewilldo]

@reapfreak Why? The 2 things are about as closely related as baked bean consumption and the lunar cycle.

[slickbtk]

@reapfreak he is not nearly as delusional as the people who think that science can answer the philosophical question of life and its origins. I agree with you that it is foolish to blindly believe in something that is so unprovable, however dont forget that atleast religious people use words like "faith" and "belief" its the smart ass big bang scientist and their followers who use words lie "fact" and "proof" so who is the more delusional one?

[slickbtk]

@reapfreak the 3 positions to take on the subject would be to believe in a religions explanation, scientists explanations and to not have an opinion at all on the subject. obviously the most logical and reasonable position is to not have an opinion on the subject,. but the most irrational and foolish position is not woods but of atheist who beleive that they know that answers for certain from scientist. woods is in the middle camp which is not as foolish as the scientific position

[reapfreak]

@slickbtk It's pretty irrational to believe in invisible unicorns, given there is not a lick of evidence to suggest it. Sure, there's a possibility invisible unicorns exist, but it's as likely as God existing. If Woods believed in invisible unicorns he would still be a brilliant historian and economist, since they are not related, but my view of his intellect in general would diminish overall.

[slickbtk]

@reapfreak I agree but I hope that you also agree that if someone doesnt believe in god but rather believes in the big bang and single celled organisms evolving to humans is just as foolish and irrational. there only man made imagination that supports this,just like in religion. I wonder if you would have made the same comment if he wasnt a catholic but rather a person who believed the man made scientific explanation of life with just as much faith? I agree with you,I just hope you agree with me

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk actually dude to believe in what is observable is far more rational a decision that to believe in something which isn't. religion was created by man - it wasn't something we naturally observed around us. religion is highly comforting and that is why it exists and unfortunately why people then believe there is an actual god ie a creator. there isnt a creator because that implies there was nothing before everything ie big bang. however nothing is a logical impossibility.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 big bang and so on are not observed, it is all man made imagination just like religion. Science in theory can explain and achieve everything except for one thing, and that is to explain and prove the origins of life. Even if you follow the scientific man made guess on life it doesnt explain existence. You confuse real science with man made imaginary guesses in the name of science.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk please tell me what 'real science' is? if you don't consider big bang not real science. right now without hearing what you have to say i would say the big bang is proven using scientific and mathematical theory rather than religion because we will never find a 'creator' because what created the creator - it goes onto infinity. all we know is what we have observed thus far and how much we have observed. matter simply existed from the start - a state of nothing is an impossibility.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 you are tapping into the question that man cannot ever answer, no matter what man imagines (religion or speculation sciences), and that is origins, as you said if there is a god than who created him, but the same goes for matter, if matter created everything than what created matter?, these are the questions that are all equally unanswerable, so in this area all of mans explanations are all equally unprovable and all equally imaginary. who created the creator applies to all guesses.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 "what we observed thus far". You cannot cite "scientific and mathematical theory" as something that is observed. Scientific and mathematical theory is mans imagination. At the root of all of mans explanations of origins is nothing more than imagination in the name of comfort and understanding. Religion expresses its imagination with words and grammar, while "science" express its imagination with math and theory.God the creator, or 2 unicorns + 3 unicorns = 5 unicorns, to each his own

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk actually i'll put an end to your cynicsm, scietific theory is observable. gravity is not simply imagination in the sense that heaven and hell is. gravity is observable. raise your hand off your mouse/keyboard and you will feel some strain due to gravity meaning you have to use muscle to hold your arm up. gravity is also a massive factor of the big bang. science unifies everything observable in an attempt to understand causaulity whereas religion is nothing but favourable fantasy.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 religion and science are the same in the sense that they are both mans explanations of unprovable things such as origins of life and matter. You are wrong in your gravity analogy, because what is observed is the strain on your arm when you hold it up, not gravity, gravity is mans theory on why the strain is there. But gravity is not what I have an issue with, you change the subject to try to equate object falling to the ground with mans explanation of origins.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk really hope i'm not being trolled. gravity is provable. the agree that your arm feels strain... that is science in itself. it feels strain because you are holding it up against a force - that force we call gravity. gravity is one of the factors of the big bang - i'm repeating myself now. so dont you say that i'm chaning the subject please just because you dont understand!!! the fact you argue against he law of gravity existing is quite shocking. jump up and down and then think u moron.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 your not understanding at all. Maybe you will understand a different example. A thousand years ago people observed the sun rising and falling every day, science explained this by theorizing that the sun revolved around the earth and this is what made it appear to rise and fall. Of course you now know what happened to that theory. At the time that was the scientific explanation and some religious explanations claimed the sun was a god,  both were mans imagination and both were wrong.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 your exact statement of "jump up and down and then think u moron" referring to the scientific theory of gravity is no different than if we were having this argument 1000 years ago in reference to the scientific theory of the sun revolving around the earth if you said "look outside and see the sun move then think u moron" you may somehow disagree but do you atleast understand my philosophical point here? to me big bang and "there shall be light" are both equally imaginary guesses.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk also i have no idea why you're watching this video because you dont have an analytical mind. you dont know what 'provable' means. if you observe something then you have proved it. we have observed the big bang. (obviously we werent around billions of years ago but using models and simulation - general accumulated intelligence).

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 the type of science you are talking about (speculation science) is not observing but rather trying to explain what is being observed. if you see a tree you are observing it, but how it got there and where it came from is not an observation but a product of mans imagination. The further back you go the more ridiculous it becomes, its one thing to explain how a tree uses water and light to grow, its a totally different thing to explain where the water ,sun, dirt, and life came from

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk actually it's not. like i said you don't understand what observable and provable really mean. or atleast your mind is far too narrow minded and cynical that even if you could understand how science works i doubt you'd even want to know of it. just because you dont care about origins doesnt mean no one else should nor that there claims aren't valid and logical. just stick to telling non believers there faith is hopeless - leave science alone. for you know little about logic.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 you are delusional man, do you know the history of science? do you know the nature of science? science has constantly "proved" itself wrong, that is how science works, man makes up a guess until another mans guess is better. Are you really saying that at this point in history science has all of its major theories and understandings 100% correct and all worked out? because if you think that then you do realize that this would be the first time in history that science is correct right?

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 you are foolish to think that you are any less delusional than religious people in thinking that they have the answers to the origins questions.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk believe me i have made you to look like a cynical fool who doesnt even believe in the laws of gravity for a start. again we have observed the big bang. just because you're either too lazy, unaware, or stupid to not understand scientific DISCOVERIES doesnt mean you can say it's as delusional as a beliving in allah, god, or anyone of those comfortable fairy tales. as a side note it's pretty sad that you care zero for knowing why things have happened and origins/causality.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 lol well theres not much more I can say, I have made my point several times and you are not understanding it. We are not even on the same page, you are not thinking philosophically. Doesnt seem like your gonna get it man

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk dude you think science and religion are bounded by some similar rules that will mean neither is more provable than the other. in fact can you explain why this is so? i dont think you've explained this well enough. before you do though bear in mind the religious person is someone who desires comfort/helping others. a scientific mind is one that can only deal with logic or/and seeks 'truth' and provable laws through emprical experiment.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 Your problem is that you refuse to separate real science from speculation science. You equate something simple like a boiling water temp with origins of life matter and the universe, you refuse to accept that they are two totally different subjects that are not even the in the same realm of logic and provability. All "science" is not equally provable, the inverse of that would be like saying that anything written in a book is fantasy because the bible is also written in book form.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk i've already proven to you the unity of science which you misundersttod for me changing the subject. the example i gave you was gravity - gravity can be observed by simply jumping yet we have also worked out that it was gravity that resulted in these gigantic astral bodies such as stars and planets. there are many theories such as background radiation that prove that the universe is ever expanding and therefore started in one place - big bang. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU CONCLUDE FALSE

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 lol your just not gonna get it so we can agree to disagree. I will go along thinking that I dont know everything and cant know everything and you can go along thinking that you do and can know everything. If you wanna blindly believe that others have the answer just because they express their guess in math and call it a theory then thats up to you. It makes you feel comfortable that you know the answers and have an understanding of the world, whatever floats your boat.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 even if your logic of the big bang was sound, what is the difference between that and a religious man saying that a god said let their be light and a big explosion happened? you think that you are oppose to religions explanations but you are more similar than different. You believe that there was a big explosion out of no where and that created the universe, a religious man would say that a big explosion came from a god saying let there be light, both made up, both unprovable.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk now you'rebegining to atleast try to make logical arguments instead of just being cynical. the thing is we're not saying that the big bang came out of nowhere we're just saying that the big bang is the furthest back we have observed thus far... science continually seeks to understand and perhaps there is an infinite cause of events we will discover and maybe that is god in itself. or maybe there will never be a creator because who created the creator. all we have observed is big bang.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 science is not a living thing, science doesnt "seek to understand" people seek to understand. Some people use religion to find comfort in understanding the inexplicable and others use "science". I refuse to accept that a mans guess on what occurred or didnt occur billions of years ago is classified with the same degree as fact and observability as water freezing at 32 degrees, when you lump all things using math in one "science" category you look like a fool. Facts and guesses

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 we have not observed the big bang. Just because theories exist that have not been "disproven" yet doesnt make them fact, no more than if a religions explanations havent been disproven. There is as much proof that a god created everything (because we are here) as a magical explosion created everything (we are all here), any further "proof" in either guess is more imaginary guess work

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk god hasnt been proven and thus cannot be disproven. why do you say magical explosion? do you agree that the universe is 13 billion years old? if you do then you are using science to understand the origins of the universe and one step closer to understanding the 'latest' theory which is big bang. i agree theories can be disproven and new ones come however thats natural - all we can believe is the current EXISTING theory. believe what is observable through logic. use yoru mind.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 13 billion years is a man made guess. There is no proof of that, again there is a difference in accuracy between coming up with the age of ancient pyramids for example and something that is "13 billion years old". The problem again I have with your attitude is that you imply that all things under the name of science are equally provable and factual. Your problem is that you dont understand that there is widely varying levels of provability and logic in what you call science.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 you or I do not understand everything in the field of speculation sciences, such as big bang, string theory, atomic theory, and you or I have not discovered or come up with those theories on our own, in other words you have to blindly believe the findings and math of what other men have come up with in the past, that is the same for religion. You would not have any idea what the big band was unless someone invented it in their mind and told you. no different than believing in god

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk sadly your cynism is coming into play again. i actually do MATH at degree level so i wouldnt have to 'blindly believe' the findings although it would take time to understand truly indepth the theory. just because we do not understand everything in teh field right now doesnt mean other people don't nor that we couldnt if we tried... it's all within the realms of logic and reason hence why i've told you about factors involved such as gravity and mathematics which i study. god isnt.

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 we just have a philosophic difference here, I think that its impossible to know and prove the origins of everything and you think that man can prove these things. You think that somehow math is a stand alone entity but it is not, math has to have human inputs, 2 unicorns plus 3 unicorn equals 5 unicorns, just because that can be expressed in math doesnt mean there is proof that there are 5 unicorns running around somewhere. man comes up with theory not math.maths just an expression

[slickbtk]

@maxgunn555 I think you are wrong and I think you are wrong, not much more we can say. We arent geting anywhere because you refuse to bend on your thinking that if something can be expressed in math then it must be true.

[maxgunn555]

@slickbtk incorrect statement by you. i've mentioned more than just math... gravity i mentioend too. i find it shocking that your logic has led you to conclude that science is within the sam realm of understanding as religion towards a 'creator'. i'll tell you my belief though i think you're completely agnostic and proud. there is no creator, although there is an endless chain of causes. matter has always existed and the idea that there was ever 'nothing' is impossible. hence no true creator.

[JamesRRedford]

@reapfreak

For the proof of God's existence per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available for free at Tipler's website.

[TheAmericanRifleman]

@reapfreak

Some people look beyond themselves for guidance and some people look within. What make you so special?

[CurtHowland]

If I ever, ever am in a position to do so, Mises University will be a REQUIRED COURSE for EVERYONE.

I am an electrical engineer, and find this information extremely valuable. Specialization is for Insects!

[pretorious700]

Woods is a racist because he advocates states' rights and nullification.

I thought I would get that out of the way. You're welcome, trolls.

[CurtHowland]

@pretorious700 Braaaaaaaains!

youtube-com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxc­c

[aravoth]

@pretorious700

thank you for making me smile so early in the morning.

[TheAmericanRifleman]

@pretorious700

Care to elaborate with detail?

[pretorious700]

@TheAmericanRifleman Care to own intellect enough to recognize satire?

[TheAmericanRifleman]

@TheAmericanRifleman

My apologies, I mistook your comment for sincerity. Thank you for revealing your satirical intent as vague as it appeared on its face value.

[libertyplayground]

Attention, kids, do not listen to this speech. Turn off the computer, plug your ears, and only unplug them when you get to your government school. The approved information shall lie within those approved teachers and approved textbooks.