@ipconfigrenew Don't get me wrong, I'm a civil libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter. I like Tom Woods, he's a great historian but Austrian economics is just as inaccurate as mainstream economics. Professor Steve Keen is the only economist who can model the economy mathematically.
Gold is considered sound money because nobody can just print it or increase it by adding zeroes to one's account like central banks do today. Gold's annual increase is very low so it inflation won't be a concern & money retains its purchasing power over time. There's no point in talking about its volatility RIGHT NOW when it's NOT being used as money; to put things in perspective, guess what a $100 bill would be worth if it was NOT money.....right....it'd be used as toilet-paper.
@lomocan but what happens when we run out of gold? I am more for gold than a money system backed up by nothing... but isn't it time to move forward beyond money? The first step is sound money, but then after that, scarcity is still taken place, which results into economic inequality, thus violence occuring... how can we stop this with a gold standard? We can't.
Money (gold) is NOT wealth by itself so it's overall supply NEED NOT grow for people to become prosperous, it's a medium of exchange to facilitate smooth flow of trade & thereby creation of goods/services which is the REAL WEALTH. What it does though is ensure that your hard-earned money & its purchasing power can't be stolen by someone else without your knowledge as it can't be created out of nothing since it has significant real costs.
Scarcity is in nature, no one can wish it away; on the other hand, if you want a system where everyone earns according to their work then that'd automatically generate economic inequality because not everyone is equally skillful & capable.
Scarcity isn't cause of violence otherwise all poor would be criminals & all rich would never commit crime but that's obviously not true. Violence is caused by people who don't have respect for others' right to their life, liberty & property
@lomocan You are right. I did not mean to say that it is just scarcity that causes violence. There are many factors as to why humans create violence. The problem is our socioeconomic system. Thank you for not bashing me like many people on youtube! Hopefully, more people in our society can have more civil discussions.
@lomocan I just want to mention that what if one day, corporations will decide not to use human labor, because to earn more money, they can use machines.Technology is growing so rapidly, and the U.S.'s majority of jobs are in the service sector. What happens if companies decide to have the service sector replaced with machines. It is happening in the world today. What job's are going to replace the service sector? Do you think that technological unemployment is not happening?
Technological unemployment is a fleeting phenomenon, yes, some people lose their jobs as machines come but then there are always new jobs being created & guess who creates the machines that do other jobs faster - humans. If people had resisted agricultural machines because of momentary job losses, we would never've all the goods/services which improve our living standards because most people would've been engaged in agriculture. Again, even making machines creates human jobs.
@benandreas369 even if a dollar equal . 000000001 oz of gold, that would not devalue the dollar. The beauty of gold is it is divisible, unlike most commodities....
It takes god-powers to make all you need without trade. You require the work, materials and skills of others, so you require trade. "beyond money" = "all humans are dead".
Scarcity & inequality are nature, are GOOD. Violence happens to CAUSE inequality, also, more than to stop it.
Let's look at the numbers before Fed vs after Fed. Between 1871 and 1913, CPI decreased at an annualized rate of -0.50%. Unskilled wage grew at 0.55% and real per capita GDP great an annualized rate of 1.84%. Between 1913 and 1955, CPI increased at an annualized rate of 2.47%. The unskilled wage increased at an annualized rate of 5.33% while real per capita GDP increased at an annualized rate of 2.16%. Clearly inflation benefits the average worker and increases real output.
@worldnewsbbc1 if inflation increases output, why are we messing around with such piddly rates of inflation? Why not inflate the money supply by 5% per year, or 10%? Because it's obvious that more money does not equal more wealth, despite the best smoke and mirror tricks of Keynesians. The CPI data from 1913-1955 is largely meaningless because of the rationing, wage and price controls of WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2. Monetary inflation benefits the first receivers at the expense of others.
@mrzack888 Quite unlike the Keynesians, who aren't at all repeating the same old things again after again, even after the 1970s stagflation disproved them.
@tewj57 u mean like the chinese keynesians with their trillion dollar stimulus on building high speed railroads and infrastructure development and mining rare minerals, and investing into africa, europe, brazil, buying physical gold. all of which the mises peter schiff just loves?
@mrzack888 a trillion dollar stimulus spent on infrastructure is better than a multi trillion dollar stimulus spent on failing businesses, military imperialism and a social welfare state. the fact of the matter is that china doesn't hinder business the way the us does, nor does it squander its money (except on buying us bonds)
@Leofus1986 yes. i follow larouche, fuller, and venus project. not this simple minded everybody for themselves selfish selfish austrian libertarian economic views.
@mrzack888 - You should read Human Action. The fundamental principle of Austrian Economics is that humans act in order to alleviate conditions that are not satisfactory. No manner of central planning can ever replace the efficiency of the market in meeting the individual demands of human beings. The Venus Project has some good ideas, but they would replace the worlds oligarchs and bureaucrats with scientists and technocrats. Central planning doesn't work to alleviate poverty, capitalism does.
@sfiorare This proves how in over your head you are. Real wages rose by 20% in the 1880s alone. That alone smashes your position, so we'll be awaiting your apology for unjustly attacking people who are much more knowledgeable than you are, and who happen to be right.
@sfiorare in 1895, it took a lot more people and a higher price in energy to produce a bike. Also, 8 cents was worth $7.84 in today's dollar. Even if your facts were correct, they are irrelevant.
@sfiorare i accept that there is a higher standard of living but thats not what i asked. what i asked you is specifically what kind of progress you attribute it to. it seems like you can get mad about me using the word prove and call me a kid but so far you still have not answered any of my questions. if youre just going to keep avoiding my questions im simply going to stop asking them. thanks for all the views and comments on this video, boosting its search ranking :D
@sfiorare Higher standards of living are attributed to an increase in the availability of goods in services, which is a direct result of savings (which is why sound money is necessary to a sound economy), and capital investment (which increases productivity and output). If that's the progress you're talking about, then you're arguing the Austrian perspective unwittingly...
@sfiorare I did check it out and he talks about all of those panics in other videos. It wasn't so much volatility of the currency so much as volatility of the state steering the money supply and so on. If you want to refute the gold standard you can't substitute knowing your opponent's positions with covering your ears and spouting what you 'know' to be right. View the tom woods videos in the related, mises articles on the subject and then talk about volatility.
@sfiorare Yeah well it doesn't help when the people trying to inform me, like yourself, resort to ad hominem attacks instead of, you know, having a real argument.
@sfiorare Proves how clueless you are. When they ARE MONEY, they trade in every market by definition and are not volatile at all. Have you ever seen graphs of money's purchasing power in the 20th century? Quiz question: at what part of the graph do we see the greatest volatility? During the gold standard period? Quit while you're behind, buddy. You know nothing other than a few sentences about how out-of-the-mainstream gold is.
@kostas1x2 One thing I've noticed about people who make attack statements without any justification: They have no idea what they're talking about. You fit the bill sir.
3:40 "A frisbee owning scrambled egg wanter." First time in human history those words have ever been strung together. I think that should be the name of Tom's debut album: "Frisbee owning scrambled egg wanter"
Counterfeiting widgets(paper mediums) or money doesn't stimulate the economy.Cutting taxes which lets people save their money in banks allows banks to loan money to businesses to create production i.e.JOBS, which is the current intent of the Keynesian stimulus plan to create production and stimulate the economy.Confusing the two leads to inflation and possible hyperinflation.Monetary policy relates directly to fiscal policy which relates to foreign policy.CPI andGDP analysis are not accurate.
If I need to introduce someone to the essence of Austrian principle beliefs, this would be the clip I will use. Woods is my favorite speaker as an introduction to Libertarian, Austro Econ ideas. This guy is great.
Rich is for the Poor, while Wealth is for the laborer. Wealth is private so the public (poor) will buy wealth with riches. Why would any one sell they wealth to the poor for riches? What is the rich in poor? fiat money(faith). so the wealthy (private) ones exchange for poor people(public) riches (faith) or his faith can be turn into labor, which create wealth.
Fiat Money is for poor people. Poor is the lacking of skills to build upon the brain and mind.The poor is rich in finding wealth cause they lack the skill to create, which make them creepy crawler (socialist)creature.
Definitely Tom Woods is the best, most engaging and entertaining speaker of Mises Institute, I just love his sense of humour and witty anecdotes. I had the honour of seeing him live in action when he visited Poland in December 2007, and it was a mind-blowing experience :D
Exactly. The government says people can exchange goods and services for whatever they please, but when they pay taxes and when contracts are ruled on in court, legal tender laws state they must always be rendered in Federal Reserve Notes.
If we rebel against this rapacious abuse of our wealth, the government will send its armed goons to either kill or imprison.
In other words, we must never awaken from the fantasy of fiat, or we shall awaken with a gun to our brow.
The really messed up part is that it's impossible to fully understand exactly how it all works.
There are so many interactions with the monetary side (Fed, the individual banks and fractional reserves) and the consumer side (govt, taxpayers, "normal consumers") that there IS no predictive ability.
Which is supposed to be the big selling point of the Fed in the first place.
I say "supposed to be" because the real benefit of the Fed goes to its member banks.
That is true. You have millions of independently acting individuals in the US, plus the billions throughout the world. You cannot control this as a nation, you can only intervene. And, each intervention creates more imbalances and problems in a market economy.The only choice is between complete authoritarianism and individual liberty.The "third option" always causes havoc, and always tends toward authoritarianism.Except, it is incremental in its path to authoritarianism.The goal is the same.
That's a very good point, equating units of the currency to votes on economic activity. Inflating fiat money is morally tantamount to stuffing a ballot box.
Under a Fractional Reserve regime of savings and loans then the Banking Industry will unnaturally retain control of a disproportional amount of money thus "stuffing the ballot box" of consumer preference.
My intuitive, and rationally illogical, conclusion was that all players are harmed by devaluing currency. While the real world case demonstrates that's banks that can will create money regardless of it's effect on the value of the money itself.
FYI: this video/talk is essentially the case for sound money. This is not just for wonks. In fact, This piece does a good job of explaining this issue for those who are neither economists nor students of the subject.
That's like saying you hate food, clothing and a warm and dry shelter. Money is no different, it's just a better way to gain those things, and other things. You don't hate money. You hate 'fiat' money. Fiat money is what enables speculators and leveraged buyouts, conspicuous consumption, massive debt, wars of aggression, etc., etc..
Learn the word; 'Fiat' money. Paper money backed by nothing except a bureaucrat, who can make what money you do have worth less, so they can give more of that fiat money to their friends and the speculators. That is literally how it is that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Fiat money is the culprit. Fiat money is the problem. A 100% reserve, gold currency is the answer.
I like the fact that Tom addressed fractional reserve banking. Even if we get rid of the federal reserve, we should have a transition phase away from fractional banking. Put it into the Constitution that: only metal commodities can be money, no fractional reserve lending, and Congress cannot dictate the value of money. Money should be allowed to float freely. If we can do this, the world will experience the peace that it deserves.
i do agree that the biggest flaw with fiet money is that it can be printed at a whim, but i also think it is better to have a flexible imperfect form then a perfect static form. policies are the problem and how few people can inflict damage to a currency with out any moderation what so ever.
the gold standard is the only misen thought i disagree with. as long as one does not have a fool, like we do now, at the helm fiet money is with out limited growth over long periods of time. gold standards have never worked with rapidly growing populations and cant keep up with demand. i am not saying it is without merit but i dont think its an answer to the current problem. we have many bigger issues to address before thinking "we need to horde commodities(gold) before the end comes".
to the point where one gold coin in the 1600's would now be 1/10th of a sliver for the same job, or where one paper note in at that time could redeem 1 gold coin, but in today's money that would be .00001 gold coin. for a currency to be used as a common median it have some worth, its the same problem with fiet money on to a much lesser extent. if the whole globe adopted a gold standard and moneys around the world were pegged at where the countries thought today. a crash would come L#count met
it doesn't even have to be a "gold" standard. Just has to be any commodity backed money. Also, as others have pointed out, money supply does not need to rise, although with commodities, you would have some that do increase - thus inducing a natural inflation and remaining stable, or even diminishing wrt everything else causing natural deflation. None of those conditions is a problem. I suggest you understand the subjective value theory to understand why it is so.. according to austrian econ
currency has to have intrinsic value, otherwise it operates on 100% faith. You need faith and trust in free markets to work. If that is lost then you lose everything in a fiat system. With a commodity system if faith is lost, you can back out with whatever the currency is backed by.
What would you have the most faith to represent your work and wealth, paper that can be created out of nothing or commodities that cant be created from nothing? Dont tell me paper lol
One major flaw in the Constitution (in Article 1 Section 8) is the "borrowing on the credit of the United States", as well as the idea of "faith and credit" used since the days of Lincoln Greenbacks.
This was a bad idea. It opened up many cans of worms that gave rise to central banks and other such governmental banking institutions where only faith was needed and force was delivered when faith ran out.
Add something like what the "interstate commerce" clause was supposed to be, and I think the Articles would have done just fine.
...at least for a while. I think there would still have been the ratcheting effect of "crisis, program, program never goes away", but starting at a lower power point it would have taken longer to reach the present repulsive leviathan.
Ever read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach"?
are you freaking serious? Where do you think "not worth a continental" came from? You cannot have something represent value that has no value it self.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A currency or medium of exchange does not need to have an intrinsic value itself, just the goods or services exchanged and represented by the currency. Gold can serve that purpose, but people have historically stored it with goldsmiths or banks and used paper representations for daily transactions. Great, but the banks invariably start lending out more paper than they have gold. It would be helpful if Mr. Woods pointed out where money really comes from - banks, not the government.
Fraudulent banks go bust in a free market, just like fraudulent grocers or car salesman. However, with the power and violence of government they get to make institutionalised fraud LEGAL. No country has had a free market banking system, because all governments wish to control the supply of money (and inevitably grow large, more corrupt, they over-inflate, hyper-regulate, distort, etc).
Several American Colonial governments (like Pennsylvania) issued fiat currency and successfully controlled inflation, functioned nearly tax free, and had zero debt. They did this out of necessity because the commodity money systems failed as gold left the country to balance their trade deficits with Britain. The lack of currency created economic hardship, but this was artificial as prosperity lies with the productivity and industry of individuals, not the intrinsic value of a currency.
Wrong. The paper representations are like a receipt, and is payable to the barer on demand. The paper isn't the money; the gold is. And money doesn't come from the bank, it comes from the depositor. If the bank distributes more notes than deposits, it's called fractional reserve banking, and done so without the depositors permission is a breach of contract. Point is, money comes from the depositor, not the bank.
You are creating a false dichotomy.. money can come from anyone. Not just banks or govt. FIAT money comes from the two working together, but natural money comes from the individual preferences of those living in the society. i.e. the bank cannot by itself declare square stones to be money. But if individuals value square stones, it could become money.
> where money really comes from - banks, not the government.
Legal Tender laws are pure government. Without those laws, commodity money would be the rule.
It is only in an environment of legal tender laws that "bad money drives out good." Without those laws, good money drives out bad because bad can be REFUSED.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is misleading. We do not have a government-issued fiat paper money system. Less than 3% of our money supply consists of paper notes, and those are borrowed from the Fed, a private bank. The rest is digital money created from loans by banks. Gold, central banks, and fractional reserve lending are scams that allow bankers to manipulate and control governments and nations. Debt-free government issued fiat worked well in the American colonies and during the Civil War, and can again.
The Fed is not a true private bank. It's a corporatist model, not a capitalist one. They have an incestuous relationship with the US federal government.
Fiat currencies are far too easily manipulated to trust a government (or its Fed-like proxies) to use one.
"The Fed is private and we ought to get it back in the hands of congress!!"
Oh boy... I mean, some people seem to actually think the federal government would let such an institution like the Fed Reserve be free of political control... If the Fed was private an didn't do what congress wanted, the govt would just break in, kill everybody in the Eccles building and take over. Plain and simple.
I think you are mistaken in thinking that the elected figureheads we see are actually running our government, or that they have any power. The dictation of policy does not go from Congress to the Fed, but the other way around. Powerful international forces, primarily banking, are driving us to one world government ruled by central banks. Control of the currency is control of the nation, which is precisely why that power should be restored to the people and our Republic.
uhh yeah, they are in power. They're just using it to loot you and happen to like it. I know it's a little less edgy than the "ooooh international conspiracy corrupting the republic and it's good politician!! oooooh!" conspiracy theory, but reality isn't edgy like a movie... And if you think politicians in Washington have no power, you need to put down the crack pipe because more than 600,000 Iraqis have died and no one is in jail.. How's that for power ?
There are a bunch of people coming from the Alex Jones school of economics.. watching Zeitgeist, etc. Its hilarious and sad at the same time.. trying to reduce every complication in the real world to some conspiracy and trying to hold someone else responsible! It gets really weird when they go around asking people to "wake up". I can appreciate the enthusiasm, but please don't assume everyone else is an ignoramus..
FUCKING HELL!
The ENITRE - whole - EUROPEAN system is based upon paper.
Here is your RECEIPT. Here is your INVOICE. Here is your TICKET.
Here is your BIRTH CERTIFICATE that you DID NOT SIGN because you were a baby LOL.
The EUROPEAN mind is that of INSANITY. Lol.
waitingformusic 2 weeks ago
Anthropology disproves his theory of how money came to be.
KenMacMillan 2 weeks ago
@KenMacMillan Uhh...care to explain? Or do you prefer to make statements with nothing to support your claim?
ipconfigrenew 1 week ago
@ipconfigrenew Don't get me wrong, I'm a civil libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter. I like Tom Woods, he's a great historian but Austrian economics is just as inaccurate as mainstream economics. Professor Steve Keen is the only economist who can model the economy mathematically.
Steve Keen speaking at Cambridge
/watch?v=xfXimjtz4GA
Anthropologist David Graeber on Google Talks
/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
KenMacMillan 1 week ago
Another great video related to this is, "Dollars and Sense", available on Youtube.
BabysanBabysan 2 weeks ago
9 socialists watched this video.
CrawlingAxle 3 weeks ago
Tom Woods is a pimp! RON PAUL 2012!
SuperSneakySteve 1 month ago
Best explanation of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) starts at 15:48...
WideWorldOfWisdom 6 months ago
Gold is considered sound money because nobody can just print it or increase it by adding zeroes to one's account like central banks do today. Gold's annual increase is very low so it inflation won't be a concern & money retains its purchasing power over time. There's no point in talking about its volatility RIGHT NOW when it's NOT being used as money; to put things in perspective, guess what a $100 bill would be worth if it was NOT money.....right....it'd be used as toilet-paper.
lomocan 9 months ago
@lomocan but what happens when we run out of gold? I am more for gold than a money system backed up by nothing... but isn't it time to move forward beyond money? The first step is sound money, but then after that, scarcity is still taken place, which results into economic inequality, thus violence occuring... how can we stop this with a gold standard? We can't.
benandreas369 8 months ago
@benandreas369
Money (gold) is NOT wealth by itself so it's overall supply NEED NOT grow for people to become prosperous, it's a medium of exchange to facilitate smooth flow of trade & thereby creation of goods/services which is the REAL WEALTH. What it does though is ensure that your hard-earned money & its purchasing power can't be stolen by someone else without your knowledge as it can't be created out of nothing since it has significant real costs.
lomocan 8 months ago
@benandreas369
Scarcity is in nature, no one can wish it away; on the other hand, if you want a system where everyone earns according to their work then that'd automatically generate economic inequality because not everyone is equally skillful & capable.
Scarcity isn't cause of violence otherwise all poor would be criminals & all rich would never commit crime but that's obviously not true. Violence is caused by people who don't have respect for others' right to their life, liberty & property
lomocan 8 months ago
@lomocan You are right. I did not mean to say that it is just scarcity that causes violence. There are many factors as to why humans create violence. The problem is our socioeconomic system. Thank you for not bashing me like many people on youtube! Hopefully, more people in our society can have more civil discussions.
benandreas369 8 months ago
@lomocan I just want to mention that what if one day, corporations will decide not to use human labor, because to earn more money, they can use machines.Technology is growing so rapidly, and the U.S.'s majority of jobs are in the service sector. What happens if companies decide to have the service sector replaced with machines. It is happening in the world today. What job's are going to replace the service sector? Do you think that technological unemployment is not happening?
benandreas369 8 months ago
@benandreas369
Technological unemployment is a fleeting phenomenon, yes, some people lose their jobs as machines come but then there are always new jobs being created & guess who creates the machines that do other jobs faster - humans. If people had resisted agricultural machines because of momentary job losses, we would never've all the goods/services which improve our living standards because most people would've been engaged in agriculture. Again, even making machines creates human jobs.
lomocan 8 months ago 2
@benandreas369 even if a dollar equal . 000000001 oz of gold, that would not devalue the dollar. The beauty of gold is it is divisible, unlike most commodities....
polevaultrockstr 8 months ago
@benandreas369 we can't run out of gold.
We also can't move beyond money.
It takes god-powers to make all you need without trade. You require the work, materials and skills of others, so you require trade. "beyond money" = "all humans are dead".
Scarcity & inequality are nature, are GOOD. Violence happens to CAUSE inequality, also, more than to stop it.
ytgv3fc7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
legit way to make extra cash online /watch?v=BMPhsRN19Ms
RebecaFelin 10 months ago
Let's look at the numbers before Fed vs after Fed. Between 1871 and 1913, CPI decreased at an annualized rate of -0.50%. Unskilled wage grew at 0.55% and real per capita GDP great an annualized rate of 1.84%. Between 1913 and 1955, CPI increased at an annualized rate of 2.47%. The unskilled wage increased at an annualized rate of 5.33% while real per capita GDP increased at an annualized rate of 2.16%. Clearly inflation benefits the average worker and increases real output.
worldnewsbbc1 11 months ago
@worldnewsbbc1 if inflation increases output, why are we messing around with such piddly rates of inflation? Why not inflate the money supply by 5% per year, or 10%? Because it's obvious that more money does not equal more wealth, despite the best smoke and mirror tricks of Keynesians. The CPI data from 1913-1955 is largely meaningless because of the rationing, wage and price controls of WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2. Monetary inflation benefits the first receivers at the expense of others.
gergenheimer 11 months ago 3
8 people are pawns of the elite/agents.
TurboTurbulence22 1 year ago 2
thomas woods is very simple one dimensional. all these austrian followers spout the same thing over and over. no new ideas.
mrzack888 1 year ago
@mrzack888 Quite unlike the Keynesians, who aren't at all repeating the same old things again after again, even after the 1970s stagflation disproved them.
tewj57 1 year ago 3
@tewj57 u mean like the chinese keynesians with their trillion dollar stimulus on building high speed railroads and infrastructure development and mining rare minerals, and investing into africa, europe, brazil, buying physical gold. all of which the mises peter schiff just loves?
mrzack888 1 year ago
@mrzack888 a trillion dollar stimulus spent on infrastructure is better than a multi trillion dollar stimulus spent on failing businesses, military imperialism and a social welfare state. the fact of the matter is that china doesn't hinder business the way the us does, nor does it squander its money (except on buying us bonds)
Leofus1986 1 year ago 3
@mrzack888 i bet your ideas are top-knotch
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 yes. i follow larouche, fuller, and venus project. not this simple minded everybody for themselves selfish selfish austrian libertarian economic views.
mrzack888 1 year ago
@mrzack888 wow, top-knotch. bravo
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@mrzack888 - You should read Human Action. The fundamental principle of Austrian Economics is that humans act in order to alleviate conditions that are not satisfactory. No manner of central planning can ever replace the efficiency of the market in meeting the individual demands of human beings. The Venus Project has some good ideas, but they would replace the worlds oligarchs and bureaucrats with scientists and technocrats. Central planning doesn't work to alleviate poverty, capitalism does.
javerret 10 months ago
Comment removed
CytherLynx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Кредит 17%. М МО. Без справок и поручителей. Консалтинг 25%. Другие варианты. (495)2200660 2200660@mail.ru
tiblon1 1 year ago
lol at the dislikes
mumuchu99 1 year ago
@mumuchu99 - some people don't like propaganda and misinformation from mises bootlicking stooges
woods' biased rhetoric is aimed at know-nothings and miscreants, like most everything from the mises institute is
did i miss it or did woods neglect addressing the issue of falling wages and pay, in a deflationary economy?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare You do know that real wages rose consistently throughout the "deflationary" 19th century, right?
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@LibertyWins2012 - when you're near zero, one cent is a big rise
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare This proves how in over your head you are. Real wages rose by 20% in the 1880s alone. That alone smashes your position, so we'll be awaiting your apology for unjustly attacking people who are much more knowledgeable than you are, and who happen to be right.
tewj57 1 year ago 3
@tewj57 - i guess you didn't understand my previous answer, let me give you a specific example: a 20% rise for 8¢ per hour is 1.5¢
in 1895 an average worker had to work for over a month to earn enough to buy a bicycle, now it takes a day or less
you throw around the term 'proof' like a little boy that has no idea what it means
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare in 1895, it took a lot more people and a higher price in energy to produce a bike. Also, 8 cents was worth $7.84 in today's dollar. Even if your facts were correct, they are irrelevant.
Leofus1986 1 year ago 2
@Leofus1986 - the relevant thing is that the average person today a much more wealthy than in 1895
what do you think of the human rights situation, in china?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare relevant to what? what do you suppose that proves? what do you think of the human rights situation in North Korea?
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 - please don't throw around the term 'proves' like kid that has no idea what it means
the point is that the average person has more purchasing power & a better standard of living now, than in 1895
both north korea and china have poor human rights records
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare ok, so what do you attribute the higher standard of living to? yeah, countries have poor human rights records... so what?
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 - i attribute it to progress, so your arguments are crap
sfiorare 1 year ago
Comment removed
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@sfiorare what kind of progress specifically? so far i have only asked questions, none of which you have answered so what arguments do you refer to?
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 - which question do you think i didn't answer?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare i believe i said all of them
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 - progress in higher standards of living
it's really funny how you pretend that i don't answer questions, but it's really you that doesn't answer
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare me: to what do you attribute the progress in our standard of living? you: progress me: that doesn't answer my question
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@Leofus1986 - you're just not accepting the answer
sfiorare 1 year ago
Comment removed
Leofus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
Leofus1986 1 year ago
@sfiorare i accept that there is a higher standard of living but thats not what i asked. what i asked you is specifically what kind of progress you attribute it to. it seems like you can get mad about me using the word prove and call me a kid but so far you still have not answered any of my questions. if youre just going to keep avoiding my questions im simply going to stop asking them. thanks for all the views and comments on this video, boosting its search ranking :D
Leofus1986 1 year ago 2
@Leofus1986 - who's made, i think your stupidity is quite funny
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare Higher standards of living are attributed to an increase in the availability of goods in services, which is a direct result of savings (which is why sound money is necessary to a sound economy), and capital investment (which increases productivity and output). If that's the progress you're talking about, then you're arguing the Austrian perspective unwittingly...
javerret 10 months ago
@javerret - volatile commodities like gold and silver don't make for sound money, they make volatile money
sfiorare 10 months ago
@sfiorare You'd have to first convince people that they're volatile and that they wouldn't be able to adjust for their supposed volatility.
s0beit 10 months ago
@s0beit - check out the economic busts and booms in the 19th century for evidence of commodity money's volatility
sfiorare 10 months ago
@sfiorare I did check it out and he talks about all of those panics in other videos. It wasn't so much volatility of the currency so much as volatility of the state steering the money supply and so on. If you want to refute the gold standard you can't substitute knowing your opponent's positions with covering your ears and spouting what you 'know' to be right. View the tom woods videos in the related, mises articles on the subject and then talk about volatility.
s0beit 10 months ago 2
@s0beit - i've seen them
to begin with, the mises institute is a very politically biased source of information
they pander to know-nothings, miscreants and nut cases
google: "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?" and read about lew rockwell's scheme
sfiorare 10 months ago
@sfiorare Oh good, ad hominem. Well i guess that conversation is over, have fun with being a jackass.
s0beit 10 months ago 5
@s0beit - it's not surprising that you're afraid to see the truth about lew rockwell, ron paul and the mises institute
sfiorare 10 months ago
@sfiorare Yeah well it doesn't help when the people trying to inform me, like yourself, resort to ad hominem attacks instead of, you know, having a real argument.
s0beit 10 months ago
@s0beit - my argument is real, your excuses are what doesn't help
sfiorare 10 months ago
@sfiorare Proves how clueless you are. When they ARE MONEY, they trade in every market by definition and are not volatile at all. Have you ever seen graphs of money's purchasing power in the 20th century? Quiz question: at what part of the graph do we see the greatest volatility? During the gold standard period? Quit while you're behind, buddy. You know nothing other than a few sentences about how out-of-the-mainstream gold is.
tewj57 9 months ago 5
@tewj57 - it figures that you'd try to deny reality and economics 101
gold is a volatile commodity due to its inelastic supply
sfiorare 9 months ago
@sfiorare enjoy your brainwashing
BrettDunbar 7 months ago
@BrettDunbar - that's funny considering what the mises institute does
high-school indoctrination program
google: "economics for high school students mises"
sfiorare 7 months ago
@sfiorare - How do you define a deflationary economy?
javerret 10 months ago
@javerret - wikipedia does a good job of defining 'deflation'
take a look at it
sfiorare 10 months ago
a 5 Woods is worth more than 5 Dollars.
Maybe we should all get our paychecks in Woods'
It's All About the Woods Baby!
Panax07 1 year ago
@Panax07 I'm already invoicing my customers in Woods. I charge W59.99 for most services :p
Leofus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
kostas1x2 1 year ago
@kostas1x2 One thing I've noticed about people who make attack statements without any justification: They have no idea what they're talking about. You fit the bill sir.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
@kostas1x2 Unlike Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, who would never want to bamboozle anyone. Your confidence in authority is very sweet.
DRNevans 1 year ago
"The issue which has swept down the centuries
and which will have to be fought sooner or later
is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
therookiecynic 1 year ago
Thomas Woods, you're so money and you don't even know it!
TreachMarkets 1 year ago
3:40 "A frisbee owning scrambled egg wanter." First time in human history those words have ever been strung together. I think that should be the name of Tom's debut album: "Frisbee owning scrambled egg wanter"
jtropeano 1 year ago
Comment removed
jtropeano 1 year ago
Counterfeiting widgets(paper mediums) or money doesn't stimulate the economy.Cutting taxes which lets people save their money in banks allows banks to loan money to businesses to create production i.e.JOBS, which is the current intent of the Keynesian stimulus plan to create production and stimulate the economy.Confusing the two leads to inflation and possible hyperinflation.Monetary policy relates directly to fiscal policy which relates to foreign policy.CPI andGDP analysis are not accurate.
MsBusiness101 1 year ago
If I need to introduce someone to the essence of Austrian principle beliefs, this would be the clip I will use. Woods is my favorite speaker as an introduction to Libertarian, Austro Econ ideas. This guy is great.
antoniofsu 1 year ago 9
Rich is for the Poor, while Wealth is for the laborer. Wealth is private so the public (poor) will buy wealth with riches. Why would any one sell they wealth to the poor for riches? What is the rich in poor? fiat money(faith). so the wealthy (private) ones exchange for poor people(public) riches (faith) or his faith can be turn into labor, which create wealth.
SteveXnycperformance 1 year ago
Fiat Money is for poor people. Poor is the lacking of skills to build upon the brain and mind.The poor is rich in finding wealth cause they lack the skill to create, which make them creepy crawler (socialist)creature.
SteveXnycperformance 1 year ago
Woods is the bomb.
stater68 2 years ago 2
lots of respect to all the austrian mises instructors.
some of the most invaluable information around anywhere!
Artfryne 2 years ago
Educational and inspirational!
trekkerperson 2 years ago
Definitely Tom Woods is the best, most engaging and entertaining speaker of Mises Institute, I just love his sense of humour and witty anecdotes. I had the honour of seeing him live in action when he visited Poland in December 2007, and it was a mind-blowing experience :D
Arjozof 2 years ago
Isn't paper money , dollars, really backed by the U.S. military? It has value becuase "we" say it has value... any questions?
DigitalSkyline 2 years ago 2
Exactly. The government says people can exchange goods and services for whatever they please, but when they pay taxes and when contracts are ruled on in court, legal tender laws state they must always be rendered in Federal Reserve Notes.
If we rebel against this rapacious abuse of our wealth, the government will send its armed goons to either kill or imprison.
In other words, we must never awaken from the fantasy of fiat, or we shall awaken with a gun to our brow.
jerryandauntie 2 years ago 3
haha...unfortunately has some truth to it.
njrod2008 2 years ago
I love the explanation of higher order, lower order stages of production; the capital structure!
Estevinyo 2 years ago
Congrats to your 4th child, but be careful with inflation ;-)
a49614 2 years ago
Tom E. Woods is a handsome motherfucker~~!
falseangelwingx 2 years ago 7
The really messed up part is that it's impossible to fully understand exactly how it all works.
There are so many interactions with the monetary side (Fed, the individual banks and fractional reserves) and the consumer side (govt, taxpayers, "normal consumers") that there IS no predictive ability.
Which is supposed to be the big selling point of the Fed in the first place.
I say "supposed to be" because the real benefit of the Fed goes to its member banks.
mmaier2112 2 years ago 4
That is true. You have millions of independently acting individuals in the US, plus the billions throughout the world. You cannot control this as a nation, you can only intervene. And, each intervention creates more imbalances and problems in a market economy.The only choice is between complete authoritarianism and individual liberty.The "third option" always causes havoc, and always tends toward authoritarianism.Except, it is incremental in its path to authoritarianism.The goal is the same.
jaffijoe 2 years ago 3
That's a very good point, equating units of the currency to votes on economic activity. Inflating fiat money is morally tantamount to stuffing a ballot box.
-jcr
NSResponder 2 years ago 2
Glad I waited for Thom's explanation.
Under a Fractional Reserve regime of savings and loans then the Banking Industry will unnaturally retain control of a disproportional amount of money thus "stuffing the ballot box" of consumer preference.
My intuitive, and rationally illogical, conclusion was that all players are harmed by devaluing currency. While the real world case demonstrates that's banks that can will create money regardless of it's effect on the value of the money itself.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Thomas Woods Rocks, I always enjoy listening to his lectures and talks.
BachGuitar3 2 years ago 2
Tom's talk in "Economics for Highschool Students" received a standing ovation.
How many economics lecturers can say that?
CurtHowland 2 years ago
Ya, His lectures for Highschool Students are some of my favorites
BachGuitar3 2 years ago 2
@BachGuitar3
where are those ones?
moneynest 1 year ago
FYI: this video/talk is essentially the case for sound money. This is not just for wonks. In fact, This piece does a good job of explaining this issue for those who are neither economists nor students of the subject.
lizbuddie 2 years ago 2
excellent post, thanks!
lemmidos 2 years ago
Money? I hate it.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
That's like saying you hate food, clothing and a warm and dry shelter. Money is no different, it's just a better way to gain those things, and other things. You don't hate money. You hate 'fiat' money. Fiat money is what enables speculators and leveraged buyouts, conspicuous consumption, massive debt, wars of aggression, etc., etc..
Panpiper 2 years ago 2
Learn the word; 'Fiat' money. Paper money backed by nothing except a bureaucrat, who can make what money you do have worth less, so they can give more of that fiat money to their friends and the speculators. That is literally how it is that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Fiat money is the culprit. Fiat money is the problem. A 100% reserve, gold currency is the answer.
Panpiper 2 years ago 3
Money is utterly neutral. Like a knife or a stick, it can be used to harm or to do good.
Ancient Japanese saying, "There are two kinds of sword. There is the sword that kills, and the sword that gives life."
CurtHowland 2 years ago
I suspect that if Ron Paul could speak as well as Thomas Woods, he'd be president right now.
Panpiper 2 years ago 3
Maybe, we should, try and get... Woods to run for president? *crosses fingers*
zeo285 2 years ago
Just from watching these videos, I've learned more than most Economics students and so call 'professionals' understand.
imre1000 2 years ago 3
Yeah, they know everything about the system... that's a complete failure and is currently collapsing.
GompCelticPL 2 years ago
Excellent Speech. Its the economics class liberal colleges don't teach.
ManBearPigWolf 2 years ago 19
@ManBearPigWolf sounds like they have an identity crisis. this _is_ liberalism, "classical" or not.
jonathans8 1 year ago
@jonathans8 classical liberalism is now called libertarianism. the real identity crisis is with the republican and democratic parties
Leofus1986 1 year ago
I like the way this guy explains money.
Kingery4President 2 years ago 4
This guy is really an amazing speaker!! Thanks for posting the talk!
FightBadIdeas 2 years ago 22
Tom, I hope you debate with Steve Liesman on CNBC. He's all about "deflationary spirals!"
Estevinyo 2 years ago 3
I like the fact that Tom addressed fractional reserve banking. Even if we get rid of the federal reserve, we should have a transition phase away from fractional banking. Put it into the Constitution that: only metal commodities can be money, no fractional reserve lending, and Congress cannot dictate the value of money. Money should be allowed to float freely. If we can do this, the world will experience the peace that it deserves.
Tasadaru 2 years ago 3
if we returned to a metal standard (not paper) then fractional reserve would be fraud. No amendment necessary
thomaserossi 2 years ago
fractional reserve is fraud now and it will be fraud then.
slickbtk 2 years ago 3
FUCK tom woods is the shit!
bajoverga 2 years ago
I might've left an intelligent comment but then he used the word "discombobulates". :D
sharperguy 2 years ago
dis⋅com⋅bob⋅u⋅late verb (used with object), to confuse or disconcert
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago 3
BRILLIANT!!! I wish the morons in Washington would just read a few of misesDoTorg books
Daniel44125 2 years ago 7
i do agree that the biggest flaw with fiet money is that it can be printed at a whim, but i also think it is better to have a flexible imperfect form then a perfect static form. policies are the problem and how few people can inflict damage to a currency with out any moderation what so ever.
surrealnumber 2 years ago
the gold standard is the only misen thought i disagree with. as long as one does not have a fool, like we do now, at the helm fiet money is with out limited growth over long periods of time. gold standards have never worked with rapidly growing populations and cant keep up with demand. i am not saying it is without merit but i dont think its an answer to the current problem. we have many bigger issues to address before thinking "we need to horde commodities(gold) before the end comes".
surrealnumber 2 years ago
No, money supply doesn't have to grow with the population. If it remains constant it will simply increase in value when the population grows.
taubstumm 2 years ago 4
to the point where one gold coin in the 1600's would now be 1/10th of a sliver for the same job, or where one paper note in at that time could redeem 1 gold coin, but in today's money that would be .00001 gold coin. for a currency to be used as a common median it have some worth, its the same problem with fiet money on to a much lesser extent. if the whole globe adopted a gold standard and moneys around the world were pegged at where the countries thought today. a crash would come L#count met
surrealnumber 2 years ago
@taubstumm sorry i should have made that 2 posts, my grammar and spelling were Bernanke at the best....
surrealnumber 2 years ago
@surrealnumber
"gold standards have never worked with rapidly growing populations and cant keep up with demand"
I've studied 5000 years of monetary history and at no time does your statement appear to hold true. Can you provide an example?
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
it doesn't even have to be a "gold" standard. Just has to be any commodity backed money. Also, as others have pointed out, money supply does not need to rise, although with commodities, you would have some that do increase - thus inducing a natural inflation and remaining stable, or even diminishing wrt everything else causing natural deflation. None of those conditions is a problem. I suggest you understand the subjective value theory to understand why it is so.. according to austrian econ
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
Could we get a Ron Paul/Tom Woods ticket for POTUS in '12? Pretty please with sugar and gold coins on top?!
RationalDischarge 2 years ago 6
Leave the jokes to me Thomas :p
M3di3v4L 2 years ago
Yay!!! Tom Woods! This guy is amazing.
DarthKazi 2 years ago 3
currency has to have intrinsic value, otherwise it operates on 100% faith. You need faith and trust in free markets to work. If that is lost then you lose everything in a fiat system. With a commodity system if faith is lost, you can back out with whatever the currency is backed by.
What would you have the most faith to represent your work and wealth, paper that can be created out of nothing or commodities that cant be created from nothing? Dont tell me paper lol
ForTehNguyen 2 years ago
One major flaw in the Constitution (in Article 1 Section 8) is the "borrowing on the credit of the United States", as well as the idea of "faith and credit" used since the days of Lincoln Greenbacks.
This was a bad idea. It opened up many cans of worms that gave rise to central banks and other such governmental banking institutions where only faith was needed and force was delivered when faith ran out.
Not a good combination.
DarthKazi 2 years ago
The whole constitution was a mistake. I like the articles of confederation FAR better.
utubehayter 2 years ago 5
Agreed.
Add something like what the "interstate commerce" clause was supposed to be, and I think the Articles would have done just fine.
...at least for a while. I think there would still have been the ratcheting effect of "crisis, program, program never goes away", but starting at a lower power point it would have taken longer to reach the present repulsive leviathan.
Ever read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach"?
CurtHowland 2 years ago
are you freaking serious? Where do you think "not worth a continental" came from? You cannot have something represent value that has no value it self.
ForTehNguyen 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A currency or medium of exchange does not need to have an intrinsic value itself, just the goods or services exchanged and represented by the currency. Gold can serve that purpose, but people have historically stored it with goldsmiths or banks and used paper representations for daily transactions. Great, but the banks invariably start lending out more paper than they have gold. It would be helpful if Mr. Woods pointed out where money really comes from - banks, not the government.
Feanor1169 2 years ago
Fraudulent banks go bust in a free market, just like fraudulent grocers or car salesman. However, with the power and violence of government they get to make institutionalised fraud LEGAL. No country has had a free market banking system, because all governments wish to control the supply of money (and inevitably grow large, more corrupt, they over-inflate, hyper-regulate, distort, etc).
lukeev 2 years ago 4
The intrinsic value in gold is that it's value isn't controlled.
Hey...That rhymed.
caltrop69 2 years ago
LOL. Put a few more of those together, and you may have a poem on your hands.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Fine. Point out a SINGLE fiat currency that has EVER worked.
mmaier2112 2 years ago 5
Several American Colonial governments (like Pennsylvania) issued fiat currency and successfully controlled inflation, functioned nearly tax free, and had zero debt. They did this out of necessity because the commodity money systems failed as gold left the country to balance their trade deficits with Britain. The lack of currency created economic hardship, but this was artificial as prosperity lies with the productivity and industry of individuals, not the intrinsic value of a currency.
Feanor1169 2 years ago
Okay... And how long did that last?
mmaier2112 2 years ago
Wrong. The paper representations are like a receipt, and is payable to the barer on demand. The paper isn't the money; the gold is. And money doesn't come from the bank, it comes from the depositor. If the bank distributes more notes than deposits, it's called fractional reserve banking, and done so without the depositors permission is a breach of contract. Point is, money comes from the depositor, not the bank.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago 2
Feanor1169,
You are creating a false dichotomy.. money can come from anyone. Not just banks or govt. FIAT money comes from the two working together, but natural money comes from the individual preferences of those living in the society. i.e. the bank cannot by itself declare square stones to be money. But if individuals value square stones, it could become money.
utubehayter 2 years ago
> where money really comes from - banks, not the government.
Legal Tender laws are pure government. Without those laws, commodity money would be the rule.
It is only in an environment of legal tender laws that "bad money drives out good." Without those laws, good money drives out bad because bad can be REFUSED.
CurtHowland 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is misleading. We do not have a government-issued fiat paper money system. Less than 3% of our money supply consists of paper notes, and those are borrowed from the Fed, a private bank. The rest is digital money created from loans by banks. Gold, central banks, and fractional reserve lending are scams that allow bankers to manipulate and control governments and nations. Debt-free government issued fiat worked well in the American colonies and during the Civil War, and can again.
Feanor1169 2 years ago
Please!
The Fed is not a true private bank. It's a corporatist model, not a capitalist one. They have an incestuous relationship with the US federal government.
Fiat currencies are far too easily manipulated to trust a government (or its Fed-like proxies) to use one.
mmaier2112 2 years ago
Yeah, I keep hearing that one too
"The Fed is private and we ought to get it back in the hands of congress!!"
Oh boy... I mean, some people seem to actually think the federal government would let such an institution like the Fed Reserve be free of political control... If the Fed was private an didn't do what congress wanted, the govt would just break in, kill everybody in the Eccles building and take over. Plain and simple.
StrafingMoose 2 years ago
I think you are mistaken in thinking that the elected figureheads we see are actually running our government, or that they have any power. The dictation of policy does not go from Congress to the Fed, but the other way around. Powerful international forces, primarily banking, are driving us to one world government ruled by central banks. Control of the currency is control of the nation, which is precisely why that power should be restored to the people and our Republic.
Feanor1169 2 years ago
uhh yeah, they are in power. They're just using it to loot you and happen to like it. I know it's a little less edgy than the "ooooh international conspiracy corrupting the republic and it's good politician!! oooooh!" conspiracy theory, but reality isn't edgy like a movie... And if you think politicians in Washington have no power, you need to put down the crack pipe because more than 600,000 Iraqis have died and no one is in jail.. How's that for power ?
StrafingMoose 2 years ago
There are a bunch of people coming from the Alex Jones school of economics.. watching Zeitgeist, etc. Its hilarious and sad at the same time.. trying to reduce every complication in the real world to some conspiracy and trying to hold someone else responsible! It gets really weird when they go around asking people to "wake up". I can appreciate the enthusiasm, but please don't assume everyone else is an ignoramus..
utubehayter 2 years ago 2
The conspiracy is real, but I agree with Stefan Molyneux that it is also irrelevent. It doesn't change what is true, and what the solution is.
odigity 2 years ago
> Debt-free government issued fiat worked well in the American colonies and during the Civil War, and can again.
Ah! You saw "The Money Masters" and didn't notice how they went horribly wrong.
But now you've discovered the Mises Institute and can rectify that lack.
CurtHowland 2 years ago