Austrian School of Economics Total Failure

[UltraConservative298]

The only difference between the business cycles before the FED and after the FED is that the ones after the FED were more servere. But all of them were caused by credit expansion, whether by central banks or private banks. The banking system is a Ponzi scheme. It must be 100% decentralized, no government support, and fractional reserve banking must be abolished.

[UltraConservative298]

You fucking Zionist bastard. The Federal Reserve created the economic crisis by printing money! It did not save the financial system! The financial system is progressively being destroyed by the government! Bad loans are a result of low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, and in particular chanelled into the housing market by Fannie May and Freddie Bac. You are a servant of the Zionist New World Order banking elite. Fuck you! You Fucking Zionist Traitor!

[32peartree]

America's gigantic military expenditure necessitates a small government in the social sector. Its impossible to run an empire and the Great Society.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

The Bill O'Reilly interview itself isn't bad, but the terrible editing makes it unwatchable. Also, the title is presenting a false premise. In fact, the entire video seems to be arguing in favor of the Austrian School, save for that bit at the end dealing with the California Gold Rush.

[lessiv]

"Bush istn a big thinking guy as well" :D

[perfectfailure23]

We look at these disasters like they're the end of the world. They say we have to fight back the contraction because there is no way out once we've hit rock bottom. A decade before the depression there was a contraction we never hear about. Our economy tanked but recovered in less than a year by cutting govt spending and taxes. Keynesian policies and govt intervention made the G.D. last longer and this recession as well. Mises predicted the Great Depression so he is actually a very good source.

[pqnelson]

Sadly, I am afraid you realize now the difficulty of trying to discuss economics. My deepest sympathies.

The problem is, I think, discussing economics gets emotional somehow.

Strictly speaking, from the unemotional and rational perspective, you are right: Austrian economics is terribly flawed. But, then again, so is Neoclassical economics. (See, e.g., the economics anti-textbook, etc.)

[defnotacanadian]

notwithstanding, the keynsian model may well be a fair model of how to run the ecomony. The whole point the keynsians miss is that no one is intelligent enough to control the reactions of 7 billion different people to any specific policys. You can't control things, and you certainly can't skim billions off the top and expect the system to work.. By the way, the bankers knew the loans were no good, that why they bet against them with CDO's. The government started the malinvestment in 90's.

[Robbob9933]

People think, wrongly by the way, that big institutions failing is a bad thing. If CITI Bank and the others were permitted to go bankrupt, they would not have disappeared. What would have happend is a Trustee / Receiver would have taken over and they would unraveled all the bad contracts. Excessive pay would have been 'clawed back'. The Hedge Funds wold have been left holding the bag and not the tax payer.

[HybridStoner]

The Federal Reserve has saved saved this economy",lol yea right after they nearly drove it off a cliff

[newnoggin2]

Is this some lame attempt at humor? History has proven that Austrian economics are the only hope people have. Show me one case where that is not the case. This posting wants to put people on plantations again. Man up and compete. Keynesian theories are for sheep and the paranoid. Only competitition in the market can offer a chance. The crisis in Europe has proven this video a crock and one must hope this was a bad joke.

[SwissArmySnives]

@WhyMeMoFo Banks lent out 10x more than the borrower had, the borrower hoping to make huge profits in the stock market. Banks knew that there was no way they were going to be repaid, except by the central bank. Thus, it's elimination would have caused a smarter banking strategy that kept bankers making reasonable loans.

[SwissArmySnives]

@WhyMeMoFo Care to rationalize your opinion, or are you just going to call us con men?  The theory of a free market, especially as it relates to bank bailouts is quite on the contrary. With a central reserve, banks are free to encourage mal-investments such as the buying on margin found before the great depression. -continued-

[roland20002000]

What a shit video. Anyway, how do you explain Ron Paul saw the credit crunch coming well in advance, while the Fed was saying the economy was just fine. Why do people listen to those that are wrong and shun those that are right, and then wonder why the world is such a mess.

[IVSpod]

SOCIALIST NEOCON!

[clydrobe]

what the hell kinda super TROLL posted this shit?

[Sublime570]

It's always funny when retards get their hands on some video editing software.

[ConservativeCavalry]

BTW Search YouTube for "Ron Paul is a Total Idiot when it comes to Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve " Radio Alamo is you want to see a similar video

[MrFmmcosta]

ALERT!!! PROPAGANDA !!!!!

[bluesrockfan36]

So, the banks and financial firms get rich with easy low/interest free money. And when they mal-invest and run into trouble, the taxpayers have to pay for their loses?.

Are you joking?. There is no such thing as neo-austrian school.

Austrian school itself is against socialized loses and private profits, like this current system advocates.

History channel, really?. Why don't you mention the problems with the manipulation of gold by the central banks at the time?. And the deflation at the time?

[IxenBlaze]

This whole video is full of ***. Capitalism didnt cause the great depression. Looks like this is another fail attempt to justify neo-conservative economic policy. None of those dimwits that continue to parrot abject lies to smother the freedom of the people can prove their assertion that Herbert Hoover or George W. Bush were laissez faire advocates. They were both statists through and through.

[IBloodSweatTears]

The unloaders own video disproves himself.

4:15 - 1929, Billions of dollar's in good's are bought on bad credit, But the people had no savings. The bubble bursts & company values are brought down to real market prices. The encouraging of easy credit & borrowing & not saving causes a big bubble. It bursts & the market begins to liquidate, stabilize, kill all bad investment, and cleanse it's pours so to speak, should have taken no time at all.

Government prolongs the suffering with intervention.

[sellsjeeps]

@ConservativeCavalry There's no such thing as the Neo-Austrian school. What you're talking about is the Chicago school. And yes because of guys like Friedman the philosophy of Monetarism has taken over as the heterodox theory to the Keynesian school. No clear thinking Austrian would advocate a government monopoly on the money supply and credit. You're wrong in your analysis because you don't even know what it is you're criticizing.

[Fireinthedawn]

oh for the record, I agree with you. Fuck the Austrian School! But the ONLY economist left outside of that bubble are LIBERALS.

[Fireinthedawn]

LOL a conservative saying the austrian school is full of shit! This IS GOLD!!! What Economist DO you agree with then? LOLOLOLOLOL

[Ltpeppers05]

How about you study up before dismissing something. Every Austrian economist knows everything about our current Keynesian system, while you don't know a thing about Austrian economics. If you did your opinion would instantly change your view

[anyfekinnamewilldo]

Terrible editing- and the point of it is ...?

[dantean]

Was there a reason for editing this like an old-school rap dj?

[jhk863]

-unproductive jobs to more productive companies. Dont believe me? Read Henry Hazlitt's, Any Rand's mentor and Hayek's partner, "Economics on One Lesson." Or Thomas Woods' more recent "Meltdown."

[jhk863]

If the company goes bankrupt, the labor and machinery would be freed up. They would be absorbed by more productive economic sectors. Thats how the free market works. Bailouts dont DESTROY an economy, like high taxes do. But they block greater prosperity be preventing machinery and workers from being transferred from unproductive sectors of the economy and going to productove sectors. If the banks went broke, all of the labor at the banks would have moved from their-

[jhk863]

Your an idiot retarded statist who's as conservative as joseph stalin. Friedrich Hayek DEVELOPED the austrian theory of the business cycle in his 2 greatest works,"Prices and Production" and "Monetary Theory and the trade cycle." He also attacks bailouts in the road to serfdom. Bailouts are wrong for the same reason that welfare is wrong. The reason why companies go bankrupt is becuase costs exceed revenues. This is becuase the company is unproductive (products dont sell, mismangement).

[perdondaris]

breezio01--the second part of your statement (according to Ayn Rand) is that one should not ask others to sacrifice for you. In every society there are people disenfranchised (by race, religion, gender, wealth etc.) who have nothing to lose by a change in management. Why should they sacrifice themselves? For example, during the forties the Marxist Paul Robeson put out a tract called "The Negro in a Soviet America" the purport of which was blacks had nothing to lose if America lost the Cold War.

[perdondaris]

One of the problems I find with the Objectivist philosophy is this quandary: selfishness is a virtue. The looters are selfish for not working hard. The tyrant (politician) is selfish for wanting to manipulate the looters for his own benefit. If you argue its bad for society not to defend the creators from the looters and tyrants then you are arguing for the common good and sacrificing oneself for another's liberty/welfare which is altruistic by definition. Could an objectivist answer this 4 me?

[Frumibandersnatch]

@perdondaris

[breezio01]

@perdondaris Good question. I think the quandary is created in how you use the word "selfishness." The word can not be used with the same definition as a virtue and to describe the looters and tyrants. According to Ayn Rand, a man must not sacrifice himself for the sake of others nor sacrifice others for his own sake. The looters and tyrants break this rule.

[breezio01]

@breezio01 According to Ayn Rand's own words: "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." The word "selfishness" is misapplied in your question by using the same definition to describe both the virtue and the action of the looters and tyrants.

[quinngoes]

LOL @ STUPID UPLOADER

[Heat6906]

Wtf is wrong w u. U ruined this good video. I heard them the first 5000 fucking times!

[Menry9374]

the problem is that using the federal reserve to "prevent" recession and depression is that those who keep making bad investments will never receive the retribution necessary to end their trend of ruining the economy. Not only that, but allowing TARP programs to enlarge debt even more gives the government the incentive to give the fed the ok to print more money, after all, debtors LOVE inflation. What we saw in 2008 was the death of the dollar and the first step towards hyperinflation

[GHCME]

Even if you wanted to make a point, the skips are just a headache.

[grungeguy13]

The only thing that TARP did was begin the process of trying to inflate away our debt and bad assets. TARP is delaying the depression, it did nothing to solve the problem, and in the end, just makes America poorer since we had to borrow the money to fund it, AND we have to pay interest on it. It doesn't even matter if we borrowed the money from ourselves, because that would mean we had to print it, which creates inflation, which decreases the general purchasing power of the middle/ lower class.

[PaleoAthletics]

Look at your dislikes Douche. Austrian Economics is the economics of freedom. Keynesianism is a TOTAL failure cause that's what we've had. Doesn't look so well moron. Will it take 1984 for you all to realize how ignorant you are???

[ConservativeCavalry]

@PaleoAthletics The Neo-Austrian School isn't about "Freedom," it is about liquidation of the economy. The original Austrian School was anti-socialism, ie Road to Serfdom. No where in Road to Serfdom did Hayek attack the Federal Reserve. In none of Hayek's writing does he attack the Federal Reserve. The Austrian Business Cycle was developed from the data of the 19th Century Business Cycle. The Federal Reserve didn't exist in the 19th Century. Talk about 1984, you don't even know the basics.

[pahana]

@ConservativeCavalry Perhaps you have not read "Denationalisation of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and Practise of Concurrent Currencies" by F.A. Hayek (1976). If you read his third introduction to Road To Serfdom, also written in the 70s, you would know that he openly stated that book was part of a process in anti-socialist thinking, that while it was fundamentally correct, he still had not broken free from some of his mistakenly held exceptions for interventionist measures at the time.

[pahana]

@ConservativeCavalry Take down this video and stop posting. You're only embarrassing yourself. You honestly do not understand economics, nor do you understand anything about the "Austrian" school. Keynesianism is liquidation of the economy. But you really don't even understand what that means. Your understanding about the Great Depression is totally wrong, so much so that you don't understand the differences between then and now. Truly, you do not know any "basics" whatsoever.

[pahana]

@ConservativeCavalry Since I can't link it, I suggest you google "foundation for economic education myths of the great depression". Then read von Mises' "Socialism" and "Liberalism" to begin with. Maybe one day when you learn to understand the subjective theory of value, you'll know enough about the positive economic questions to have intelligent insight on the normative ones. As of now, you're just a sophist shill.

[TheNeodoxian]

@ConservativeCavalry

Extremely scant and inconclusive if looked at in a good light.

Also,

Protip:

Hayek criticized inflation through credit expansion (except for stabilization) by means of a central bank he was also critical of central banks in general as well as a central banking system. So Hayek was critical of central banks running fiat money. The Federal Reserve is a Central Bank using fiat money which engages in credit expansion. Therefore, by extension Hayek disliked the federal reserve.

[TheNeodoxian]

@ConservativeCavalry

Also, Hayek was born in 1899 and didn't die until 1992. He advocated his theory of the business cycle until his death implying he would have accepted data post-19th century as further vindication of his theory, especially likely as he and Mises anticipated the great depression in 1929. I don't know a single case where he specifically attacked the federal reserve system but I'm sure he did and he certainly had a scathing critique through extension.

[IBloodSweatTears]

@ConservativeCavalry If we let all this Debt & malinvestment liquidate, which is CAUSED by the Keynsian Model, we could be out of recessions & even depressions in a year, maximum. But Keynsians think we need more debt & borrowing, more malinvestment threw "Stimulating" the economy.

This is what prolonged the depression, it lasted more then 10 years, we should have recovered in no time at all. Your Keyns idea's have obliterated the middle class by destroying there purchasing power.

[jeffiek]

@ConservativeCavalry "The Neo-Austrian School isn't about "Freedom," it is about liquidation of the economy. The original Austrian School was anti-socialism, ie Road to Serfdom."

Then why did you title the video "Austrian School of Economics Total Failure"?

[MillionthUsername]

@ConservativeCavalry "The Federal Reserve didn't exist in the 19th Century"

Fractional reserve banking causes the business cycle. FRB was alive and well in the 19th century. The Federal Reserve is just the latest, most evil, centralized, state created and subsidized version of it. How can you not know that? How can you not know that the system is inherently unstable and that FRB's credit expansion causes booms and busts? How the hell can you present such utter crap?

[PaleoAthletics]

@ConservativeCavalry Hey retard, if you create easy credit you create mal-investment and bubbles which eventually crash.  That's about as common sense as 2+2=4. Wanna debate that? Whatever tool. The FED was created in 1913. I know the basics you don't know the obvious. Look at your votes: This comment has received too many negative votes DOUCHE

[ConservativeCavalry]

@PaleoAthletics Care to explain how the Federal Reserve created easy credit during the 19th Century Business Cycle when the Federal Reserve didn't exist? You do know the Austrian Business Cycle explained the late 19th Century Business Cycle when we had no central bank and were were on a gold standard? You did know that right? As far as Ron Paul fans not liking this video, truth hurts.

[PaleoAthletics]

@ConservativeCavalry I didn't say during the 19th century retard.

[GivettheGAS]

@ConservativeCavalry Sorry dude, but central banks existed way before the Federal Reserve. It's basic history. You don't have to have the Federal Reserve to have seen it's basic policies in action. Your video and comments shows a massive lack of understanding on these issues.

[defnotacanadian]

@ConservativeCavalry You dont need a central bank for a business cycle, the central bank just makes the business cycle more dramatic because they foolishly interfere in 'free' markets. The central bank just makes the business cycle worse then it would naturally be,.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@ConservativeCavalry The Second Bank of the United States, i.e., an American Central Bank, was created in 1816 and lasted until 1836. So the United States did in fact have a Central Bank, it just wasn't called the Federal Reserve.

I would suggest you learn banking history before you spew nonsense like this.

[37712]

@ConservativeCavalry what's so bad about the gold standard if you compare it to the dollar the gold standard is king by far just by the simple fact that it is uncentralized and gov cant control it therefore it can not debase the currency thus people win. with the dollar everyone loses even you. Austrian economics is about free markets therefore it is about freedom.

[InvincibleNumanist]

@ConservativeCavalry

its not just an attack on the fed, its an attack on all central banks who can propagate fractional reserve, precisely why mises used multiple examples of central banks.

mises theory of money and credit made that case without even mentioning the fed if i recall. But then latter day austrians adapted it because the analysis is against all central banks.

[danewheeler]

@ConservativeCavalry That is easy, Yes the fed did not exist but the same idea did. Fractional reserve banking still threw false economic signals to the market which increased mal-investment during the booms. Furthermore, the idea that the Fed is supposed to control inflation is like saying the tobacco industry is meant to control cancer. It does not work.

[potosinodelcerro12]

@ConservativeCavalry Which cycles are you referring to? We had a central bank until 1836 and the downturns after that were almost all related to federal interventions in banking and from war, and one dowturn due to our switch to monometallism in 1873. The U.S. federal government, starting after the first issuance of greenbacks in 1862, had a pseudo central bank through its many chartered banks. I suggest referring to Rothard's "Money and Banking in the United States".

[NEPHiLiX1]

@ConservativeCavalry You're creating a paper tiger here. The ASE doesn't say that only the FED ever created Business Cycles, but rather that central banking does this. The predecessors to the FED in the US, for example, was the First and Second Bank of the US. These banks acted in coordination with the Treasury Department in this period to promote credit expansion, allowed for the suspension of specie payments, etc--thus allowing for the practice of inflation and fractional reserve banking.

[intoxicated12gauge]

@ConservativeCavalry You're just outright uneducated about this subject. Your assessment of the 19th century is ridiculous. Sure, the boom and bust existed, but it was never outright apocalyptic until the creation of the federal reserve and federal intervention in the economy. Figure out what fractional reserve banking is bud. Until then, have fun being a liberal that calls himself a conservative. Support murder and vote for Bush again (or Romney as he's called today.)

[danewheeler]

@ConservativeCavalry As far as the booms and the busts occuring prior to 1913 it is obvious that same principle of inflating the money supply is practiced in Fractional Reserve Banking which did occur all the time preceding this event.

[Joe11Blue]

@ConservativeCavalry You really need to read more Hayek. If you are listening to Friedman as a source of Austrian economics, you are failing. Friedman was an Keynesian Economist.

Your cute video about the 20's ignored the crash of 1921, which was far worse than the crash of 1929. In conclusion I do not think you've read enough on Economic History to really understand the argument.

[FrankiePoker]

@ConservativeCavalry There were already central banks in Europe before the FED.

[dantean]

@PaleoAthletics You should've called that guy a stinky-head and a doo-doo brain and said his mother wears combat boots. THAT would have made your argument more gooder. I ENJOY POTATOES!!!!!

[TruthInjector]

The great reality of the USA is the people are extremely innovative. China is doing well but in real economic terms China is not the second power it is number 92 in terms of per-capita GDP. The USA is still number 1. We have had trillions stolen by crooks-- this is not the end of America but proof how strong we are. We do need to take back control of the country -- stop blindly trusting people that smile and stab us in the back and rob from us.

[TruthInjector]

hundreds of top economists signed a letter to Congress opposing the 700 billion TARP bailout saying that it clearly was not needed that the President had the power needed to intervene in the credit markets. We have been lied to by these criminals. Bush took the lid off of state crime by working with the Neocons to do the scam of 9/11 and the war on terror -- he showed there was no limit to the crime that could be done at the national level. The USA's big problem: we are hijacked by criminals.

[ConservativeCavalry]

@TruthInjector Hundreds of top economists were wrong then. TARP made money, TARP prevented another Great Depression, TARP was one of the greatest economic successes in world history. No economist in their right minds would sit back and allow the banking system to fail. Nata one.

[TruthInjector]

@ConservativeCavalry TARP was theft just like all the bankster scum stealing people's homes and pensions was theft and then the 10's of trillions stolen additionally.

The economist were right. It is NOT conservative to be brainwashed by the crooks that are destroying the U.S.A.. You haven't made the slightest effort to learn the truth of what happened as is very clear by your repeats of propagandistic lies.

[mrtuber88]

@ConservativeCavalry It was a huge success at making too big to fail an even bigger too big to fail problem poor fool. As a result of the bailouts, the big financial institutions that put us in this mess got propped up, while hundreds of financial institutions suffering from systemic risk where allowed to fail...And ALL of the economists that predicted this crisis and got their facts straight were against the bailouts...And you think the sheep statist economists are heroes?

[pererapnimesh]

@ConservativeCavalry can you prove that TARP prevented another Great Depression save what media pundits were saying? What exactly were the grounds for 700 billion and not 10 billion or 5 trillion? Was it some magic number? The problem with "economists in their right minds" is that they follow Keynesian thought in which it's a huge sin for a company to go bankrupt for their mistakes. Too bad. P.s. none of your comments receive thumbs up dbag. ask Hannity for one

[ddstar]

@ConservativeCavalry LOLOLOLOL

[Robbob9933]

@ConservativeCavalry TARP only made money through accounting practices that would send you or I to jail for a couple decades. Most of the banks that took TARP were FORCED to. They were told that even if they were complete sound, that the Federal Reserve would tripple or more their reserve requirement and they could not use over night facilities (direct deposit and the like would take place the work day after receipt). You get it,EXTORSION.

[37712]

@ConservativeCavalry tarp did not prevented another great depression it only delayed it and made the problem even bigger.

[AroundSun]

Yea we can use Bill O'Reilly as a credible source LMAO. "Bush isn't a big government guy" HAHA...The guy who ran on no nation building, no world police. The guy who tripled the size of the department of education and created a new bureau. He was the worse spender in history until Obama came along. They both bailed out the private sector. Yes, he was a big government guy... Too big to fail means that your choice is too small to matter. It is all bullshit folks, just like STIMULUS LMAO

[mpc91]

Except that nothing in this video proves a failure of the Austrian School.

It does prove that those in government who are actually responsible for turning depressions and recessions are much more adept at shifting blame than they are a "managing" an economy.

The stimulus failed, it didn't prevent a collapse. It just wasted a lot of misdirected resources.

Do a little more history work. Tell me about the depression of 1921.

[scoobrs]

Yet the Austrians believe that the 1800s were a panacea, despite six Great Depressions. We get a few historically insignificant market upsets due to the cyclic exuberance of Wall Street while maintaining easy credit too long and right away Austrians want us to go to a Gold Standard and give up all medicines that we know actually work. More currency upsets have occurred from precious metals than paper. When Austrians reject data, they reject history and blunder into the same fatal mistakes.

[panzerkilla]

@scoobrs It's funny how America experienced it's largest growth when the policies of the government actually reflected what the Austrian School now teaches. It's also funny how these 6 "great depressions" only lasted a few years, if that and we went back to growth. Now we have Great Depressions and Great recessions that last more than 5 years... The law's of human nature defeat your artificial system.

[mpc91]

@scoobrs - There weren't six great depressions in the 1800's. But it is a claim progressives cling to. The 1870's depression that is often focused on is based on statistical error. It didn't happen. Keynesians see deflation and depression as being almost synonymous. There was deflation, but there was no depression.

The medicines you claim work are the ones that caused the depressions that did occur in the 1800's and the one that did occur in 1929, and the one we are in now.

[scoobrs]

@mpc91 The 1870s depression wasn't only real, it was the longest contraction in American history. U.S. businesses defaulted on over a billion dollars in debt-- a LOT before inflation. Sure Net National Product grew 3%, but our U.S. population grew >17%. Over a million Americans became unemployed. They called it the Great Depression, prior to 1930s, for a reason. Keynes wasn't even born yet. The trouble with Mises et al is no economy can abandon all control. Theory without any test is mere faith.

[mpc91]

@scoobrs - Keep repeating the bad statistics that have been rebuked.

Abandoning all control is NOT what Mises was advocating, clearly you need protections against fraud and theft. But it's people in government and the central bank of the day trying to control the economy that lead to the misapplication of resources that causes depressions. Keynesians predicted a massive depression after WWII, the overtaking of the US economy by the Soviets, Krugman wanted the housing bubble.

[AlainG80]

@ConservativeCavalry

What History channel title did you use in this clip?

[aaasssfffdddiii]

Hmmm,

I am still trying to figure out what exactly Austrian Economics failed at in this video?

[th4n4t0s25]

ALL CAPS RAGE!!

[nmreich]

Great video. Proves the Austrian School was right! Thanks for the video!

[TheLoyalOfficer]

And you consider yourself a conservative?

Maybe in the cavalry - like the Poles charging German tanks on horseback in 1939 - but not conservative.

[LifeLibertyNow]

by "failure" do you mean accurately predicting and warning about the current recesssion YEARS before it happened? Thought so...

[scoobrs]

Austrian economics is mostly a crock, but this video is practically unwatchable because of the bad editing.

[LifeLibertyNow]

@scoobrs crock because...?

[TheStfu1000]

@scoobrs i too ask how is it a crock? how do you define austrian school?

[AroundSun]

@scoobrs Your life is mostly a crock. You act as if Austrian is some sort of religion that we can either believe in or not. The only magical fantasies are that there is a free lunch, especially one that benefits us at the expense of our income and our currency.

[scoobrs]

@AroundSun That's pathetic. You can't handle the message, so you attack the messenger. Austrian economics is a crock because it rejects the scientific method. It claims that there is no crowd or group behavior in economies and that people only function as individual actors who always seek their own benefit. We all know that's a crock because people voluntarily seek groups like corporations, political parties, trusts, and unions, acting with the group when it may barely help or even harm them.

[AroundSun]

@scoobrs Leftism is predicated on economic illiteracy. Free market, Austrian economics in particular, is based on logical deduction from the empirical axiom of motivated human action; that humans use means to reach subjectively-valued ends. If you disagree with this statement try to disprove it. Liberals appeal to emotions and/PR using irrelevant truths as an obscurantist way to try to deflect facts from their world view

[scoobrs]

@AroundSun I don't disagree with the idea of motivated action. I disagree with the notion that group behavior cannot be studied... That the scientific method cannot apply to an entire economy simply because each human has one's own ends. The "Austrians" argue that macroeconomics must be studied "a priori" because what is true about a crowd one day will not be true another, since each actor is wholly independent. The complete rejection of data is what renders Austrian economics meaniningless.

[AroundSun]

@scoobrs So what? It is and has been studied. Supply and demand, incentives, profit motives are what motivate people. The government doesn't have the right to centrally plan and socially engineer us to fit into their mold. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design. Nobody is smart enough to 'control' the economy as history has shown us. Keynesianism is the creationism of science. Free energy machine. Its fantasy dude

[colbyVas]

i thought he might have been saying halicarnassus?ha

[colbyVas]

is he saying von mises?

[ConservativeCavalry]

@colbyVas  Yes