I think generally people in the US can agree on a common good which there is no choice but the same choice. I'm having troubles with clarity on her points. I see media corruption,propaganda, misinformation,censorship,greed,too much power in the hands of incompetent gov ,and weak education resources as the reason behind non-socialistic functions that would benefit us all. not as a problem of choice. I don't agree with and didn't vote for most of the laws and functions were forced to live with.
Every person makes mistakes on a daily basis but with a person or group making mistakes for the masses that repeat over and over from a single choice with no realistic ability to stop them is greatly problematic. The voting process its self has become an illusion where people think they are actually participating in gov functions. Individuals power in choice's are illusions as we become choiceless. Most real choices in the US are made illegal limiting people to consumer type choices.
Renata brings about a subject of choice I haven't thought of. Its hard to see outside that frame but she has broadened problem's with it. Feel free to help me with clarity, viewers! I see both conscious and unconscious choice and I see in the US gov how damaging one persons choices over the masses is usually because of lack of choice and inequality.
I don't think I would mind having someone make choices for me in my best interest . but not without having complete control over them and choices among who would be guiding my path. In the US the government is hypocritically criminal and ironically the worst crimes ever committed is something they don't concern themselves with making laws for and have very little or no punishment for. As that means lethal injection and life sentences for them.
A lots of choice = making the attempt to satisfy yourself. pros: you are in control. cons, you may never be able to satisfy yourself.
Little choice = allow another entity (society, parents, peer group) to guide you to satisfaction. Pros: less stress from choosing, have someone to blame for failures to satisfy. Cons: you know best what you want.
Life is all about choices, choosing which way you'll live from the 2 ways above is even a choice in it self.
Having a lot to choose from in a supermarket does not equal living in a free (market) society. I think Salecl just pionted out that post-chicago friedmanite world only gives us an illusion of choice. Like when Regan used the libertarian ideas to push his socialist agenda.
The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.
In my four decades of life, I have never experienced being horrified at the number of choices in a supermarket or having a nightmare at going to a Chinese restaurant with multiple choices.
In fact, unless I chose to go to a specific restaurant for their single dish, I would never go to such a restaurant.
This seems to be a bizarre argument to make: that freedom of choice is bad.
Oddly enough, if you allow someone to make your decisions for you, you are allowing another to make your choice.
@myiuer But the way we think, our ideas about things, determine our actions, thats the point with sharing ideas. Of course it hasn't direct impact, and may be it is not going to help imidiately a person who suffers from what she describes (which I think nowdays everybody does) but it can help us to understand things, to recognice where we are, to change the perspective,...
@myiuer You don't need to apologize. I'm curious, I just discover Renata and for me she is quite honest, she doesn't make to me a bad impression, why do you find her dishonest, or is something you couldn't explain...
For choices to exist, do we consider What happens to the workers that need to work triple working hours each day, just to fulfill the rich class's yearning for 'choices'?
Choice is also a byproduct of Competition -- which stems from Greediness.
Equal Money System brings forth Heaven on earth and everyone's basic necessities will be taken care of.
Isn't it Commonsense that if one fear losing that little pension/salary that one should do something about the current greediness based system?
Choice is also an idea that support Ego that the mind thinks I am special, I have (apparent) Power i can "choose" I satisfy my "wants". I want to experience this/that.
Instead of doing what is Best for All, for everyone for the whole Earth, nature and animals.
Asking: What I can do to Benefit/Achieve Best for All so I as part of all can benefit from this decision too, that I will be taken care of too.
Choice only satisfy those that have money so they can have 'Choice'.
@myiuer why do you think he likes money so much? she dresses normally...but I unduerstand what you mean (even i don't sii it in this example), it happens all the time. But even the person don't follw his or her own message it could have meaning. If someone gives me the key to some topic doesn't it has value if sje don't act accordingly?
This maybe a sexist view but isn't the problem of choice and anxiety largely a woman thing? With most men, the make a decision it works or it doesn't work. If it works they go with it and if it doesn't they make changes according. Stuff happens. The decision making for women seems to be much more complicated and omnifocused. If they make a "bad" decision, they will review it for the rest of their lives. Even that outcome requires more consideration.
@BenNCM I like that: Primate. Yes, I am. I think the science is moving that evolutionarily that we are hunter gathers still. How women perceive the world is different than how men perceive it. We look at the primitive pejoratively when we aren't doing such a great job ourselves. Read Debois SO HUMAN AN ANIMAL.
Going back to her lecture, the problem isn't so many choices as much as how one goes about the making choices and creating outcomes.
I can really relate to this! I think she is onto something, but I'm not sure socialism is a "cure" though. I don't want to loose the ability to choose. For me choice can be like offering a really powerful car to an inexperienced driver, you know you want it even if you can't handle it.
Wow...thank you for opening my eyes. I wish I lived in a socialist country where the problem of choice didn't cause great stress and anxiety. I would much prefer poor economic conditions and lack of freedom....no anxiety there
Hm. Like the speaker, she seems to be very candid.
Find myself inclined to agree with what she has to say.
I suddenly feel quite lucky that in the small things, I actually enjoy choosing between 16 flavours of jams, or 27 different variations of spice combinations in a curry ... and in the large things I feel grateful that I do a lot of thinking before hand.
Check out Krishnamurti - he asks us to understand that there is no freedom in 'choice' - meaning - when we have 'no choice' we act without hesitation... in this there is a certain freedom. Check it out for your self...
@slightlymooshed - It is an effect which is witnessed in people who are in very stressful situations, such as activists in china in the 70's, feeling that they must speak out, and having less hesitation to do so.
V for Vendetta illustrates it as well.
It seems to mostly occur for people who are under great pressure, thus is being a temporary release not to decide. It is however suggestive of a greater stresser, implying an unhealthy life.
It also sounds like easy pickings for fundamentalists. :(
@CurtHowland - I guess I didn't blink when she said that because I believe that is what we have been living through with the huge financial crisis all over the world. Instead of saying capitalism is broken and exploring what might be a better, we throw good money after bad to keep those in power and who contributed to the broken system still running the show. It is like driving an old car that has never run well and has exceeded its life expectancy & spending exorbitant monies to keep it going.
@RationalizeIt2 The problem being that there is nothing wrong with "capitalism".
.
What is breaking is fascism. Government control decreases efficiency, causing problems that are used to justify more government control.
.
The greater the interference in people's lives and choices, the more inefficient things get until the "system" collapses.
.
Blaming "capitalism" on the failure of government control is exactly like bleeding a medical patient, and blaming their death upon "insufficient bleeding"
@CurtHowland, nicely put. I said something similar to a friend when I was trying to explain the problem with this line of reasoning. I recently stumbled upon these RSA videos. It's amazing that these people seem to think their ideology makes sense of the real world, and that capitalism is some sort of monster that we don't really understand. These are typical academic elitists who can't stand criticism.
I would gladly watch few more hours of this ideology-toppling topic. And also, I would probably not be a college dropout if professors were like Renata. Ex-Yu excellence.
@dracir11 In 1992 several Russian scientists came to where I was working in California.
.
To the day they left two weeks later, they were CONVINCED that it was all a setup, that store shelves could not possibly be full everywhere, all the time.
.
They simply could not deal with it. They pulled back and going to the same places and eating the same things the entire two weeks, to keep their sanity.
@CurtHowland I hope you don't use that incident to damn all socialist or communist ideas. Russia was more totalitarian in it's approach to economics than communist, when the USSR collapsed many prominent Marxists reacted along the lines of "Thank God that abomination is dead" and as she says in the video, many people in Yugoslavia didn't even (or weren't allowed) to read Marx's writings, which she found illuminating.
@RCLibra Actually, I condemn all Socialist and Communist ideas because they don't work. They never have.
Such collective control requires coercion to exist. That means some rule while others get ruled.
I prefer individual liberty and individual responsibility. It is the only consistent conclusion that can be arrived at when one first assumes that coercion is wrong.
If coercion is "right", then it's just might makes right and the war of all against all.
@CurtHowland But that's such a sad viewpoint. To close yourself off from an entire school of thought because you don't agree with one part of it deprives you of the gems and insights it possess I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but his writings are important in pointing out the flaws in capitalism that need to be addressed if we don't want the devastation caused by market failures like the Great Depression or the 2008 crash.
@RCLibra "I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but his writings are important in pointing out the flaws in capitalism"
Marx's condemnations and identification of very real problems had nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production.
What Marx identified were the failings of Merchantilism, of Corporate/Govt partnerships.
To then assert that to solve the problems caused by govt intervention in markets can only be solved by completely eliminating markets is why Marxism fails.
@CurtHowland additionally, I don't want to assume things that you haven't said outright, but your line of thinking sounds much like libertarian or anarchist. My problem with the rejection of all control is that if you want to live that way you need to live away from all society. As long as we live together we need a means to manage personal dispute and cannot just assume everyone will act for society's best interest.
@CurtHowland That was the problem with the 2008 crash, everyone (bankers, home buyers, investors) knew what they were doing was wrong but they didn't care and there was no collective control in the form of regulation to stop them. We can't assume people will be angels, that's why American government was designed by the founders to have checks and balances.
@RCLibra "everyone knew what they were doing was wrong"
Nope. They were told it was working, just like they are told that stimulus and bailout are "working" when it's obviously not.
The central bank (a Marxist institution) screws with interest rates and confuses people into thinking that long term investment is more viable than it really is.
Then, when that mistake is discovered, the malinvestment must be liquidated. That liquidation is the "bust", the malinvestment, the mistake, is the "boom".
@CurtHowland Really? You didn't think that the homeowners taking 20% interest mortgages could pay them? That banks thought they could sell bad loans to consumers and then pass off the crap to investors?
In fact there are multiple records (and books written about said records) showing that the executives at pretty much every big bank knew what they were doing was wrong, they just thought they would get out of the game before people realized what was up and the economy crashed.
@RCLibra One more thing. Imagine the word "bailout", who was it who got bailed out?
Individuals who had gotten the loans? No.
Investors who through they were buying good stocks? No.
Big banks got bailed out, because it was the big banks who are able to screw with the interest rates to make over-investment in long term projects, like HOUSES, seem like a good idea when they're not.
Do a search for "housing bubble" on Mises. org and see how far back the Austrians were warning people about it. 2003!
@CurtHowland And please don't call the institution of central banks "Marxist". Central banks are the cornerstone of multiple schools of economic thought, the only economists that outright reject central banks (that I know of) are of the Austrian school. Calling any intervention in the "Marxist" is hyperbole. Even Keynes can be considered quite conservative in his approach to Economics, that capitalism at it's core works fine but needs a few tweaks here and there when it occasionally fails.
@EVERYTHINGISINUSE You didnt choose to, otherwise you wouldnt because you know that nobody likes a douchebag.
Of course you can be hated if you like, but its not a survival trait anywhere except online where its null since block lists typically have a limit to their practical size.
I thought I was in love with Zizek, but now I realize I'm in love with Slovenian philosophers
fightpollution 1 month ago
I think generally people in the US can agree on a common good which there is no choice but the same choice. I'm having troubles with clarity on her points. I see media corruption,propaganda, misinformation,censorship,greed,too much power in the hands of incompetent gov ,and weak education resources as the reason behind non-socialistic functions that would benefit us all. not as a problem of choice. I don't agree with and didn't vote for most of the laws and functions were forced to live with.
ProBonoz 4 months ago
Every person makes mistakes on a daily basis but with a person or group making mistakes for the masses that repeat over and over from a single choice with no realistic ability to stop them is greatly problematic. The voting process its self has become an illusion where people think they are actually participating in gov functions. Individuals power in choice's are illusions as we become choiceless. Most real choices in the US are made illegal limiting people to consumer type choices.
ProBonoz 4 months ago
Renata brings about a subject of choice I haven't thought of. Its hard to see outside that frame but she has broadened problem's with it. Feel free to help me with clarity, viewers! I see both conscious and unconscious choice and I see in the US gov how damaging one persons choices over the masses is usually because of lack of choice and inequality.
ProBonoz 4 months ago
I don't think I would mind having someone make choices for me in my best interest . but not without having complete control over them and choices among who would be guiding my path. In the US the government is hypocritically criminal and ironically the worst crimes ever committed is something they don't concern themselves with making laws for and have very little or no punishment for. As that means lethal injection and life sentences for them.
ProBonoz 4 months ago
I'm in love.
JackSkylightFLASH 6 months ago
A lots of choice = making the attempt to satisfy yourself. pros: you are in control. cons, you may never be able to satisfy yourself.
Little choice = allow another entity (society, parents, peer group) to guide you to satisfaction. Pros: less stress from choosing, have someone to blame for failures to satisfy. Cons: you know best what you want.
Life is all about choices, choosing which way you'll live from the 2 ways above is even a choice in it self.
johndixon 7 months ago 2
Having a lot to choose from in a supermarket does not equal living in a free (market) society. I think Salecl just pionted out that post-chicago friedmanite world only gives us an illusion of choice. Like when Regan used the libertarian ideas to push his socialist agenda.
AtheistRightWing 7 months ago
The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.
-Milton Friedman
TheSummitnatural 7 months ago
In my four decades of life, I have never experienced being horrified at the number of choices in a supermarket or having a nightmare at going to a Chinese restaurant with multiple choices.
In fact, unless I chose to go to a specific restaurant for their single dish, I would never go to such a restaurant.
This seems to be a bizarre argument to make: that freedom of choice is bad.
Oddly enough, if you allow someone to make your decisions for you, you are allowing another to make your choice.
Timasion 7 months ago
@Timasion Communists are stupid plain and simple
TheSummitnatural 7 months ago
I love how she made the choice to make this lecture about not making choices.
cohenmarioman 8 months ago
@myiuer I'm 29, also european, spanish. May be we can... :)
Paseosinperro 8 months ago
@myiuer But the way we think, our ideas about things, determine our actions, thats the point with sharing ideas. Of course it hasn't direct impact, and may be it is not going to help imidiately a person who suffers from what she describes (which I think nowdays everybody does) but it can help us to understand things, to recognice where we are, to change the perspective,...
Paseosinperro 8 months ago
@myiuer You don't need to apologize. I'm curious, I just discover Renata and for me she is quite honest, she doesn't make to me a bad impression, why do you find her dishonest, or is something you couldn't explain...
Paseosinperro 8 months ago
For choices to exist, do we consider What happens to the workers that need to work triple working hours each day, just to fulfill the rich class's yearning for 'choices'?
Choice is also a byproduct of Competition -- which stems from Greediness.
Equal Money System brings forth Heaven on earth and everyone's basic necessities will be taken care of.
Isn't it Commonsense that if one fear losing that little pension/salary that one should do something about the current greediness based system?
DesteniChineseTD 8 months ago 6
@DesteniChineseTD Touch my wealth and I will end your life you worthless piece of shit.
BrettDunbar 8 months ago
Choice is also an idea that support Ego that the mind thinks I am special, I have (apparent) Power i can "choose" I satisfy my "wants". I want to experience this/that.
Instead of doing what is Best for All, for everyone for the whole Earth, nature and animals.
Asking: What I can do to Benefit/Achieve Best for All so I as part of all can benefit from this decision too, that I will be taken care of too.
Choice only satisfy those that have money so they can have 'Choice'.
DesteniChineseTD 8 months ago 10
She sounds like a female Slavoj Zizek.
ViolentMonopoly 8 months ago
@myiuer why do you think he likes money so much? she dresses normally...but I unduerstand what you mean (even i don't sii it in this example), it happens all the time. But even the person don't follw his or her own message it could have meaning. If someone gives me the key to some topic doesn't it has value if sje don't act accordingly?
Paseosinperro 8 months ago
I'm not surprised that she was married to Zizek.
BenNCM 1 year ago
"Everyone can make it" has made me so much guilt!
Thanks Renata!
FleshMob 1 year ago
This maybe a sexist view but isn't the problem of choice and anxiety largely a woman thing? With most men, the make a decision it works or it doesn't work. If it works they go with it and if it doesn't they make changes according. Stuff happens. The decision making for women seems to be much more complicated and omnifocused. If they make a "bad" decision, they will review it for the rest of their lives. Even that outcome requires more consideration.
eotto2001 1 year ago
@eotto2001 what sort of a man are you? you sound like a primate.
this woman is ripping off the ultimate don, barry schwartz!
BenNCM 1 year ago
@BenNCM I like that: Primate. Yes, I am. I think the science is moving that evolutionarily that we are hunter gathers still. How women perceive the world is different than how men perceive it. We look at the primitive pejoratively when we aren't doing such a great job ourselves. Read Debois SO HUMAN AN ANIMAL.
Going back to her lecture, the problem isn't so many choices as much as how one goes about the making choices and creating outcomes.
eotto2001 1 year ago
There is a fabulous Ted Talk from Barry Schwartz with this same title.
h14216 1 year ago
I can really relate to this! I think she is onto something, but I'm not sure socialism is a "cure" though. I don't want to loose the ability to choose. For me choice can be like offering a really powerful car to an inexperienced driver, you know you want it even if you can't handle it.
thedolenorway 1 year ago
the self made man never existed
bvrcrap56 1 year ago 4
Wow...thank you for opening my eyes. I wish I lived in a socialist country where the problem of choice didn't cause great stress and anxiety. I would much prefer poor economic conditions and lack of freedom....no anxiety there
Paintgonzo1 1 year ago
Hm. Like the speaker, she seems to be very candid.
Find myself inclined to agree with what she has to say.
I suddenly feel quite lucky that in the small things, I actually enjoy choosing between 16 flavours of jams, or 27 different variations of spice combinations in a curry ... and in the large things I feel grateful that I do a lot of thinking before hand.
PurpleGhost 1 year ago
Check out Krishnamurti - he asks us to understand that there is no freedom in 'choice' - meaning - when we have 'no choice' we act without hesitation... in this there is a certain freedom. Check it out for your self...
slightlymooshed 1 year ago
@slightlymooshed - It is an effect which is witnessed in people who are in very stressful situations, such as activists in china in the 70's, feeling that they must speak out, and having less hesitation to do so.
V for Vendetta illustrates it as well.
It seems to mostly occur for people who are under great pressure, thus is being a temporary release not to decide. It is however suggestive of a greater stresser, implying an unhealthy life.
It also sounds like easy pickings for fundamentalists. :(
PurpleGhost 1 year ago
she looks so nervous speaking in public
LukeLegere 1 year ago
At 4:54, did she really say, "when capitalism collapsed"?
.
Woops.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Freudian slip
Umbalafum 1 year ago
@CurtHowland - I guess I didn't blink when she said that because I believe that is what we have been living through with the huge financial crisis all over the world. Instead of saying capitalism is broken and exploring what might be a better, we throw good money after bad to keep those in power and who contributed to the broken system still running the show. It is like driving an old car that has never run well and has exceeded its life expectancy & spending exorbitant monies to keep it going.
RationalizeIt2 1 year ago
@RationalizeIt2 The problem being that there is nothing wrong with "capitalism".
.
What is breaking is fascism. Government control decreases efficiency, causing problems that are used to justify more government control.
.
The greater the interference in people's lives and choices, the more inefficient things get until the "system" collapses.
.
Blaming "capitalism" on the failure of government control is exactly like bleeding a medical patient, and blaming their death upon "insufficient bleeding"
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland, nicely put. I said something similar to a friend when I was trying to explain the problem with this line of reasoning. I recently stumbled upon these RSA videos. It's amazing that these people seem to think their ideology makes sense of the real world, and that capitalism is some sort of monster that we don't really understand. These are typical academic elitists who can't stand criticism.
Paintgonzo1 1 year ago
Very interresting. But did he open the interview with: "Thanks for that sir!" ?
thenoller 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's another talk about the paradox of choice on TED (w w w . t e d . c o m)
"Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice"
Ypthor 1 year ago 2
I would gladly watch few more hours of this ideology-toppling topic. And also, I would probably not be a college dropout if professors were like Renata. Ex-Yu excellence.
MarkoKraguljac 1 year ago 4
"I would prefer not to" -Bartleby
j00tube 1 year ago
Very interesting to think that choices can be scary for some.
dracir11 1 year ago 2
@dracir11 scary and anxiety different. See. Lindesmith et. al. 1999 'Social Psychology'.
CyberAthletethefirst 1 year ago
@dracir11 In 1992 several Russian scientists came to where I was working in California.
.
To the day they left two weeks later, they were CONVINCED that it was all a setup, that store shelves could not possibly be full everywhere, all the time.
.
They simply could not deal with it. They pulled back and going to the same places and eating the same things the entire two weeks, to keep their sanity.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland I hope you don't use that incident to damn all socialist or communist ideas. Russia was more totalitarian in it's approach to economics than communist, when the USSR collapsed many prominent Marxists reacted along the lines of "Thank God that abomination is dead" and as she says in the video, many people in Yugoslavia didn't even (or weren't allowed) to read Marx's writings, which she found illuminating.
RCLibra 1 year ago
@RCLibra Actually, I condemn all Socialist and Communist ideas because they don't work. They never have.
Such collective control requires coercion to exist. That means some rule while others get ruled.
I prefer individual liberty and individual responsibility. It is the only consistent conclusion that can be arrived at when one first assumes that coercion is wrong.
If coercion is "right", then it's just might makes right and the war of all against all.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland But that's such a sad viewpoint. To close yourself off from an entire school of thought because you don't agree with one part of it deprives you of the gems and insights it possess I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but his writings are important in pointing out the flaws in capitalism that need to be addressed if we don't want the devastation caused by market failures like the Great Depression or the 2008 crash.
RCLibra 1 year ago
@RCLibra "I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but his writings are important in pointing out the flaws in capitalism"
Marx's condemnations and identification of very real problems had nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production.
What Marx identified were the failings of Merchantilism, of Corporate/Govt partnerships.
To then assert that to solve the problems caused by govt intervention in markets can only be solved by completely eliminating markets is why Marxism fails.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland additionally, I don't want to assume things that you haven't said outright, but your line of thinking sounds much like libertarian or anarchist. My problem with the rejection of all control is that if you want to live that way you need to live away from all society. As long as we live together we need a means to manage personal dispute and cannot just assume everyone will act for society's best interest.
RCLibra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RCLibra "but your line of thinking sounds much like libertarian or anarchist."
Not "sounds like". Is.
"we need a means to manage personal dispute and cannot just assume everyone will act for society's best interest."
It's not a matter of assumption, it's how people interact right now when allowed to act as they voluntarily choose.
I suggest Roderick Long's "Informal talk on Anarchy":
youtube. com/watch?v=y42xiptJgbQ
and Stefbot:
youtube/user/Stefbot
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland That was the problem with the 2008 crash, everyone (bankers, home buyers, investors) knew what they were doing was wrong but they didn't care and there was no collective control in the form of regulation to stop them. We can't assume people will be angels, that's why American government was designed by the founders to have checks and balances.
RCLibra 1 year ago
@RCLibra "everyone knew what they were doing was wrong"
Nope. They were told it was working, just like they are told that stimulus and bailout are "working" when it's obviously not.
The central bank (a Marxist institution) screws with interest rates and confuses people into thinking that long term investment is more viable than it really is.
Then, when that mistake is discovered, the malinvestment must be liquidated. That liquidation is the "bust", the malinvestment, the mistake, is the "boom".
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Really? You didn't think that the homeowners taking 20% interest mortgages could pay them? That banks thought they could sell bad loans to consumers and then pass off the crap to investors?
In fact there are multiple records (and books written about said records) showing that the executives at pretty much every big bank knew what they were doing was wrong, they just thought they would get out of the game before people realized what was up and the economy crashed.
RCLibra 1 year ago
@RCLibra "You didn't think that the homeowners taking 20% interest mortgages could pay them?"
I knew they could not, because I knew it was a false boom. That's why I didn't get such a loan.
"That banks thought they could sell bad loans to consumers and then pass off the crap to investors?"
Isn't that EXACTLY what happened?
Except that the Fed and SEC were pressuring mortgage lenders to make those loans, and Fanny/Freddie were buying them up.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@RCLibra One more thing. Imagine the word "bailout", who was it who got bailed out?
Individuals who had gotten the loans? No.
Investors who through they were buying good stocks? No.
Big banks got bailed out, because it was the big banks who are able to screw with the interest rates to make over-investment in long term projects, like HOUSES, seem like a good idea when they're not.
Do a search for "housing bubble" on Mises. org and see how far back the Austrians were warning people about it. 2003!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland And please don't call the institution of central banks "Marxist". Central banks are the cornerstone of multiple schools of economic thought, the only economists that outright reject central banks (that I know of) are of the Austrian school. Calling any intervention in the "Marxist" is hyperbole. Even Keynes can be considered quite conservative in his approach to Economics, that capitalism at it's core works fine but needs a few tweaks here and there when it occasionally fails.
RCLibra 1 year ago
@RCLibra "And please don't call the institution of central banks "Marxist"."
Oh?
Communist Manifesto, plank 5:
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Maybe you don't realize that Keynes was a thorough Socialist.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Oh, she is Slovene! :)
Inaneen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
niggers.
nom9rouge 1 year ago
I didn't choose to second post.
raghna 1 year ago
i choose to first post
EVERYTHINGISINUSE 1 year ago
@EVERYTHINGISINUSE You didnt choose to, otherwise you wouldnt because you know that nobody likes a douchebag.
Of course you can be hated if you like, but its not a survival trait anywhere except online where its null since block lists typically have a limit to their practical size.
waltermh111 1 year ago