Hayek was awesome. Keynes may have been popular, but Hayek was right in the end. He also lived to see the Soviet Union fall, which I'm sure put a big smile on his face.
some very good points.Not really a capitalist but I do vouch for self sufficiency in producing necessities with regards of food in terms of hydroponics,Recirculating aquaculture systems etc.So as I said Im not a capitalist(but I dont demonise it - you make very good points about its strengths) but its nice to here someone denounce the nonsense that is government control
Yep, Europe is not entirely socialist but unfortunately the European Union (which is, as UN, corrupt to the core and utterly ineffective) makes all the efforts to introduce (or re-introduce) communism.
There is an anecdote (coined in communist countries I believe) that "if communism was introduced to Sahara, soon there would be shortages of sand there". And it really tells you what kind of a system is communism/socialism.
@marcussecundus That's funny, I heard almost that same exact quote was said by Milton Friedman about the Federal government.
I think communism would work if people weren't almost naturally greedy, because it sounds pretty on paper, but because of corrupt tyrants fucking it up typically, it fails Irl. I think communism in its true nature would be a way better way of sustaining resources. Capitalism does essentially the exact opposite for sustainability, and capitalism is corrupt as well. so sad.
Hey Lee, I know he really he isn't worth talking about but do you ever listen to the idiot (j0hnwil11iams) who keeps posting Video Responses to your videos? He is a source of howling laughter at my work and I wonder if you ever are obliged to respond to him - I'd love to hear your take on him just once. I always see his face down there - LOL
The Government spending here is 5% greater than in USA (% GDP). And that is not measuring the USA private FED spending. And the spending is much more efficient than USA's, we actually see a lot of that money.
Population is 5 million and homogeneous, which makes majority rule much easier
I think the author is overlooking these facts a bit.
I'd just like to inform the Libertarian and Conservative community that I have been censored and blocked by The Young Turks. I have commented on their faulty logic and reasoning on numerous occasions and they have now blocked me from commenting. So much for "knowledge in Society," politics has been degraded to a war of propaganda, smear campaigning, and eliminating dissent.
Speaking as a Scandinavian, I'd like to offer an inside perspective. We have rule of law, private property, parliamentary democracy and a free market---what defines The Free World(TM). On top of that, we have a welfare state, just like in the US---primary school tuition is free, right? Ours is just bigger: socialized medicine, education, elder care, etc.
On scale: I don't think the difference between 5M and 300M is relevant---both exceed Dunbar's number, which seems relevant for TUoKiS.
Speaking as a Scandinavian, I'd like to offer an inside perspective. We have rule of law, private property, parliamentary democracy and a free market---what defines The Free World(TM). On top of that, we have a welfare state, just like in the US---primary school tuition is free, right? Ours is just bigger: socialized medicine, education, elder care, etc.
On scale: I don't think the difference between 5M and 300M is relevant---both exceed Dunbar's number, which seems relevant for TUoKiS.
really have a hard time understanding how people can debate you on any of these ideas. Capitalism and a free society is the only way to prosperity for all. It's basic common sense when you explore the different philosophies.
@LordSparkisvati Slot in where? And yes... We dont like to waste too much money and energy in Scandinavia so we dry our clothes outside. Stop manipulating.
Its very effective in helping people get what they want or do what they want. Granted. The problem is that this also stands for people wanting to do "bad things". And in a free market there only have to be one company profiting and getting advantages from doing "bad things" to create a system were one has to assort to the "bad things" to survive. This is why regulation is necessary. To settle the rools so every company can compete in a healthy environment. no?
We don't know what everybody wants at all time, fine, but what abou health care? Does anyone don't want to be covered at all time? Therefor it is a responsability of the goverment to provide healthcare, just like drinking watter or police, it is not that difficult, Lee. And by the way: There is not a single country in Europe which lives under socialism, don't say nonsense.
@Adlershof Actually, there are many people in this country who do not want to be covered by universal healthcare. Many people would rather pay on a case-by-case basis for such services, or purchase private insurance that only does what they need it to do. It might be hard for you to swallow, but you are wrong to assume otherwise.
@Adlershof Please elaborate on what you mean by "covered without health insurance." People don't want to pay for something that disproportionately benefits other people. And yes, many people, 38% of Americans according to a CNN poll, and that's only if taxes aren't involved. If taxes are raised for it the number jumps to 47%.
@BillyWillis89 They are covered by their earnings. Look, I know that far right wingers (I know it hurts, but that's what you are) are organized to jump into anyone who comments on youtube against them, you do it all the time, it is your strategy, but to say that 47% of Amricans don't want to be covered is ridicoulus, most of them aren't covered because they cannot pay and you know. Bye
@Adlershof You must be delusional if you think I have been told to comment against you. I only replied to your comment in the first place because you seemed like a reasonable person making an uninformed generalization. Now that you have shown your true colors I know better. It is sad that you wish to argue against a CNN poll, as is the general lack of cohesion in your counterarguments. If you can't defend yourself properly then you shouldn't comment in the first place.
@BillyWillis89 "So-called socialist countries"? Who calls them socialist? Far right wingers like HTWW and you. They are not socialist, period. Learn to define better
@Adlershof I did not call them socialist countries; "so-called" indicates that I am referencing a term others use. You are trying to make a ridiculous claim. Nor am I a "far right winger". You are so quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions.
Lee, another thing which Leftist always forget to bring up is that many of the "Socialist" Democracies in Europe don't have to shell out billions for self-defense since the US provides it for them so they are free to spend their money on these social programs. And, despite that, many of these countries are STILL going broke! I always ask folks on the Left but never get an answer, "When is enough, enough?"
Wait, so countries like Iran and North Korea have LOWER military budgets than many of these "socialist" European countries because the US provides defense for them too? Countries it labelled the "axis of evil"?
No, the reason these countries have low military budgets is because they don't have to fund a FUCKING EMPIRE dominating every corner of the globe like the US does. Nor do greedy defense contractors own their governments to the extent of the American political system.
@hellsyea22 This is a very misleading way of making your point. Yes, if you look at the raw number for Iran (I couldn't find data for North Korea) you will find their total spending less. However, this doesn't take into account the fact they are a MUCH poorer country. If you compare their military spending as it relates to GDP then things change radically. There are only two countries in Europe with higher spending as it relates to GDP (France & Greece).
@hellsyea22 Is it any wonder that Greece is going broke? If you look at where we have our greatest military presence (Germany) they spend MUCH less of a % of GDP than Iran.
Having clarified all this, I do agree that the US has NO business trying to be the "policeman of the world" or any other such nonsense. NATO is a supreme waste of money and those troops need to come home. In fact, we can bring them all home as far as I'm concerned.
COND: "NATO is a supreme waste of money." AMEN! It would save us tens of billions if we closed all our bases in these wealthy European (and Japan too) nations and made them spend their own $ to secure themselves. NATO is obsolete today anyways.
@hellsyea22 Finally, it's isn't completely the "greedy defense contractors" that are to blame. There have been instances where the Defense Department has asked for a certain amount and Congress has given them even more! If you truly want to start pointing the finger, point it where the money is dished out and that's Congress.
A fallacy because it rests on an assumption that value can be determined through a means of exchange. Value is created far beyond the manipulation of material things. Exchange based on placing value on material things results always in diminishment of everything but material things. Redistribution of the wealth on a large level will always lead to exploitation simply because such forms of trade can never represent the creation of value.
@kiminokami I agree that we make value which is a derivative of the intrinsic value. Before value is arbitrarily ascribled it contains its intrinsic value and the value added through the collective involvement of labor. The problem lies in the fact that the true and actual labor of a thing is not measurable empirically. The invalid lady through her power of love did more to make things happen then the accountant or entrepreneur. The free market will never measure value correctly.
A fallacy because it rests on an assumption that value can be determined through a means of exchange. Value is created far beyond the manipulation of material things. Exchange based on placing value on material things results always in diminishment of everything but material things. Redistribution of the wealth on a large level will always lead to exploitation simply because such forms of trade can never represent the creation of value.
Great Video. Also when people bring up "socialist" European countries that seem well off people often don't realize that there are American corporations whose profits are larger than the GDP's of 4 "socialist"countires combined.
@HowTheWorldWorks lol I love how the left always assumes that no one on the right ever reads anything else, but they never read (or acknowledge) anything on the right!
@HowTheWorldWorks This is very common on the left. You don't think like they do because your either dumb, or you haven't read (or in many cases been told about) the books they read.
To be honest, I think it would be fairly rare for you to read from people with you (you think you) disagree with
To prove to us that you've read The General Theory, please post a video explaining what it said such that those of us who have can understand that you've read and understood it too
It shouldn't take long if you have read it
It would be informative for viewers on either side of the political spectrum
@WSWarthog Then Keynes ideas should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage. His math is bad, how can you have an economic theory where the numbers don't add up? If the math behind the idea is bad, then the idea won't work in practice. It's a very simple problem really, but it is annoying because because it means that all Keynesian economics is faulty because his underlying mathematical calculations don't work.
@RealLiveDebates I can't say that ive read either of them! but im not making videos about economics. im just being a devil's advocate here you know? i feel like the vast majority if not the entire world runs on keynesian economics, so is everyone else just stupid and you guys are the one ones with a clue or what? i dont know. based on what i know about keynesian macroeconomics, it makes sense to me...i havent heard anyone besides milton friedman on the right, and hes got no idea. so yeah..
@captaincholera At one point people believed that women could only be proven to not be witches by burning them alive, and if they didn't burn properly: they were witches. Were those people stupid? no, they had political motives. They got to take those people's property.
Are people stupid because they advocate government spending other's wealth as a cure? not if they're the recepients of the theft.
I'm awfully curious in what way Keyne's macroeconomics makes sense to you.
@RealLiveDebate keynes' big thing is that you spend against the wind, in a recession you increase government spending and lower taxes in order to raise aggregate demand, which increases real output. I think the difference between "the left" and "the right" is the difference between using fiscal and monetary policy to regulate the economy...government spending isn't some kind of conspiracy theory, the government still has to borrow that money from people, and if theyprint it they doitfora reason.
@captaincholera "if they print they do it for a reason" that sounds like blind faith to me. I.E The experts must know what they're doing
If you go bankrupt does it make sense to start spending more? Spending would make your personal finances LOOK more healthy, since buying a lot of things creates the impression of wealth. I think you should watch Irwin Schiff's book here on Youtube "How an economy grows and why it doesn't"
Saving and investing creates wealth, not consumption
@RealLiveDebates they print money to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy to help pull out of a recession, that's the reason I was talking about, our federal reserve changes the money supply all the time to help decrease the adverse effects of the business cycle. Also, increasing aggregate demand and consumption does in fact increase output for the economy. Plus, when they increase the money supply, interest rates go down which leads to greater investment!
@captaincholera Okay. Increasing money supply, does it increase the ammount of wealth in society?
If I started counterfeiting dollars in my basement, I.E increasing the money supply, does that help the community I'm part of because I spend the money in the local shops? All I'm doing is robbing my fellow townsmen of their wealth, since I add nothing to production myself but merely spend other people's purchasing power instead of them: Theft
@RealLiveDebates Your town benefits relative to the country because of the influx of cash in the local economy, but the country ultimately is worse off because of the diminished trust in the value and stability of the dollar. For you, this is two steps forward, one step back; for your town this is one step forward, two steps back; for the country this is three steps back. Better to be a common man in a prosperous society than a king of savages, I say.
@RealLiveDebates haha okay first of all counterfeiting dollars is completely different than printing actual dollars, thats a bad straw man argument. And I do know what the broken window fallacy is, at least I think i do. How does it apply?
@captaincholera I'd like to know in what way counterfeiting is different from the government printing more money. The only difference is that they are believed to have the official right to do so, meanwhile the effect in reality is precisely the same. They are increasing money supply without adding any new goods or services. If you can explain to me the difference I'd like to know it.
The broken window fallacy applies to the idea that spending money on ANYTHING you are helping economically
@RealLiveDebates okay okay, this is like fundamental macroeconomics. when the fed increases the money supply, in the short run, before the economy adjusts to the new inflation, people have more wealth, which means they'll spend more money and therefore increase output in the economy. They do it in order to drive interest rates down, stimulate consumption and investing to pull the economy out of a recession. they also reduce the m. supply during times of uncontrolled growth, like the 90's.
@RealLiveDebates For the broken window fallacy, its a little different than that I think. government spending is the same kind of idea as bill gates going out and spending a whole bunch of money. that's going to help out the economy greatly because tons of businesses will be doing better as that money circulates through the economy. The government doesnt print money to spend, they borrow money and spend it to increase aggregate demand and stimulate the economy.
@captaincholera It takes very little time relatively to spend all of the money that Bill Gates has. Bill Gates with his entire fortune could barely make a dent in the kind of money the government spends yearly. Spending is easier than earning, makes sense right?
As people get used to the money being injected into the economy from borrowing, they produce less. The economy adapts to conditions like an organism. It becomes weak/incapable of sustaining itself. You can't keep stimulating forever
@captaincholera Don't forget that it's stimulating the economy that creates credit expansion and creates the bust in the first place. We allready had our stimulus in the 2002-2006. It was the lowering of interest rates by Greenspan all the way to 1%. That was a stimulus!
The collapse of 2007-2008 was the result. It was predicted perfectly by Austrian economists, I can link you the proof if you'd like. "stimulating" the economy with borrowed money and cheap credit is like taking steroids
@RealLiveDebates I don't think that was what caused the recession of 2008, I thought it was the housing market and the fact that tons of people were buying houses they shouldnt be buying, people sold risky mortgages on wall street, and other stuff like that, basically not enough oversite and regulation by the government and the federal reserve.
@captaincholera Hold on, you contradict yourself. You're saying that artificially "stimulating demand" is a good thing. Yet here you're looking at "housing market and the fact that tons of people were buying houses they shouldn't be buying"
Umm... That's the stimulus. That's what happens when you "stimulate demand" you get people to buy stuff they wouldn't buy if prices were left unhampered! Prices signal to people when resources get scarce, screw with prices (interest) and you get 2008
@RealLiveDebates i guess what i meant by that sentence you quoted me on was that people were buying houses because they had a low downpayment, but then they cant afford the mortgage, so the developer of the neighborhood will get his money for selling a new house, but the banks and the people who bought the house are screwed because they can't afford the mortgage....know what im sayin? its a general lack of oversight. But im curious, what is the alternative to the federal reserve altering the ms?
@captaincholera The alternative would be a currency which cannot be tampered with, such as a Gold standard.
We also didn't wrap up the question of what the difference is between a counterfeiter increasing the MS without adding production, and the Fed doing it. I'm curious if you still think there is a difference, and if Yes then what is that difference?
@RealLiveDebates I suppose if you were able to counterfeit billions of dollars, and they passed as real money and they were never figured out, then there wouldn't be a different, but if you made enough money to alter the money supply in a significant enough way to make an effect, the federal reserve would probably notice the changing interest rates and then alter the money supply again to make up for it...
@captaincholera If I counterfeited enough money to affect the interest rates, then the Fed would make more money to make up for it?
But if it's the same thing, then why would it "make up for it"? Seems to me it would "add to it", I.E add the same effect to what I allready did.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree there is no difference. So why do we lock up private individuals who increase the money supply without producing, but not Fed?
Do you think the counterfeiter improves the economy?
@RealLiveDebates buddy, the federal reserve alters the money supply to reach a target interest rate. They can increase the supply, or decrease the supply to regulate the economy, they dont just keep stimulating and stimulating to sustain it because it can't sustain itself. we lock up individuals when they get caught because they are creating money when they don't have the right to, says so in the constitution. You cant make and sell cookies and say they're oreos without getting in trouble either
@captaincholera This is why they removed us from the Gold standard, so they could raise interest rates at will or whim. Until we get back to the gold standard we will keep taking it in the financial shorts from the Monster from Jekyll Island! ;)
@Drumboy5165 well do you really think they are manipulating the money supply to affect interest rates just to give it to you in the financial shorts..?
@captaincholera I recommend reading about what centralized banking does for its benefactors and the Aldridge Bill, The Creature from Jekyll Island for starters.
@Drumboy5165 That's ONE founding father, Thomas Jefferson. I could just as easily quote Alexander Hamilton about central banks, and he would disagree completely. Hamilton was at least an economist...which Jefferson wasn't. Also, Jefferson was pissed about the English central bank at the time of that quote I believe, which HAD been giving it to them in the financial shorts. do say our's is doing the same just because it's a central bank is a logical fallacy isnt it?
@captaincholera You could also quote the fact that by using a central banking system that is not rooted into the gold standard as being able to control the interests and the route the economy takes by pushing a proverbial interest switch...YOU are not an economist, this is plain.
!000 years ago a one ounce coin of gold would buy you a full dress, a robe belt shoes etc., currently a one ounce coin will buy you a full suit shoes belt etc. same value, no high interest, simple economics. Check it.
@Drumboy5165 I may not be an economist, i might just be a student studying economics, but the gold standard is ridiculous in modern times. there's a reason why we are not on the gold standard anymore, and it's not a conspiracy either. Also by the way you have completely changed the subject here and avoided what we were talking about originally, that is that our federal reserve is out to get us, which it isn't...
@captaincholera Please don't go spin doctor here kiddo, The original content of why we were removed is so that interest rates can be manipulated at will, you can read into that what you want.
The fact remains that economically being on a financial system that has a solid backing, IE; Gold, Platinum, Silver, rocks w/e means that you can only go so far into debt or so far printing paper monies. This means that the value of said currencies remains stable and of specific worth.
@Drumboy5165 Our dollar doesnt have to be worth anything if the people agree to accept it as money. That's the definition of money. on the island of Yap, the use those big stone wheels as cash, it doesn't matter what it is. Also, the gold standard MIGHT have a stabalizing effect, but it also has a lot of other effects. First of all, it wouldn't be all that stable, and it also limits our economic growth.
@captaincholera Take a dollar out of your pocket and tell me what it is worth, if there is nothing behind it, it is NOTHING, what part of this is so difficult to understand? It is a piece of paper that without security behind it is worthless. I don't care if someone says it's money...with no backing it is toilet paper.
The only way being on a gold standard would limit economic growth is by limiting 'credit', if you want to increase what you print you must have a greater store of backing.
@Drumboy5165 Currently the US only has enough Gold for about 2K per person. That's not an income. That's all money in the US. That would make everyone worth roughly 5% of what they are now. Backing money is a good idea in principle, but we don't have enough Gold. We'd need to create a multi-comodity backed currency, or create multiple currencies backed by different comodities.
@captaincholera The most basic of economics is to have security, we have NONE. If the economy goes totally south, which is where obammy & congress are driving it, those little pieces of paper are worth nothing. Yet if I have some gold coins in my pocket, I have the ability to barter, buy & sell and survive. Look at the rate money is currently being printed, what is it's security?
@Drumboy5165 Are you an economist? you pointed out that I'm not one, as if to assert your credibility over me and imply that you yourself are an economist. If you were an economist you would understand how money works! The dollars in my pocket are worth 1 dollar each, thats just how it works. I can buy 1 dollar worth of things with it, whatever that might be because of prices or inflation. money doesn't need to be backed in anything for it to have value. maybe read an economics textbook...
@captaincholera The paper in your pocket is worth 0 if you have no security or backing, THAT'S how it works. The dollar is not worth a dollar due to interest rates. How much bread can you buy today against one year ago? Seriously? If the dollar was backed by something that did not change IE; Gold for instance, it would buy the same amount, basic common economics. Maybe you should stop reading the crap your being fed, eh? I believe you have no clue, truly.
@Drumboy5165 well I don't know how to explain it to you any better. Its just all relative. our dollar gains its value from the faith that we, and other economies put in it. Our money system works because we all agree to accept american dollars as money. It's called a fiat money system. the gov. creates money and we use it as currency. I'ts a medium of exchange. You didn't even answer my question about you being an economist by the way. but thats okay, i can see you're not already!!!
@Drumboy5165 You're making libertarians look awful, here. There are sophisticated critiques of the gold standard - you should learn about them. They probably won't convince you, but you may not act like such an ass about it after learning more. I don't want people confusing someone like you with someone like me.
@captaincholera If the Fed manipulates interest rates and it has been doing so all along including when Greenspan in 2002 per Krugman's recomendation lowered interst rates to stimulate a housing bubble, and all the Austrian economists immediately started predicting a collapse, doesn't that validate the Austrian theory of the boom and bust cycle?
If the prices of lending (interest rates) are manipulated by the government, shouldn't the crash in the LENDING SECTOR be blamed on them?
@RealLiveDebates they didn't lower interest rates to stimulate a housing bubble. its not their fault that the people who lent out the loans made bad, shady decisions. Loans can be cheap but bankers were loaning out sub-prime mortgages...which you may have heard about in the news.
@captaincholera If the government lowered the price of cars artificially, then people with poorer credit scores and lower income would buy cars than at the higher price. Lower prices means more people buy, in greater quantities, and less reliable people buy also. Since interest rates are prices on LENDING, it inevitably means that people with lower credit scores will get their hands on the credit which has been expanded for that purpose specifically: To make the economy LOOK better for a while
@RealLiveDebates Well, first of all when the fed increases the money supply to stimulate the economy, prices increase not decrease because of the increased demand in the short run, and the inflation in the long run. Did the affordable housing agenda require bankers to give out loans to people that clearly wouldn't be able to keep up with the payments? because that's what happened to create the boom and bust in the housing market. It also could have been jus to get more homeless ppl in homes...
@captaincholera "did the affordable housing agenda require bankers to give out loans to people that clearly wouldn't be able to keep up with the payments?"
YES. That's what it means to have an AFFORDABLE housing agenda. It would be meaningless to have an agenda to make homes affordable for those who could allready! The purpose was to make them affordable for people who COULDN'T afford them. Price manipulation affects behavior
Politicians care not for the long-run, only thier own terms.
Austrian economists knew beforehand that the distortion of lending prices will lead people to borrow more than they can afford. The natural profit-seeking self-interest of banks was stiffled with FDIC insurance and bailout promises. The government used every trick it could to get that money lent out.
To assume that bankers are so stupid that under normal conditions they'd lend money to people who couldn't pay back is elitism.
@RealLiveDebates I agree with you on the part about politicians.
What you're saying is this, at least this is how i understand it:
By the fed increasing the money supply, thereby RAISING prices, and LOWERING interest rates, combined with bailout promises and insurance, the housing market bubble came about because people were receiving loans that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford because of the interest rates
@captaincholera the problem is that if the loans had fixed interest rates, then the people who bought the mortgage are better off because infation will continuously make it easier to make payments. If theyre not fixed rates, then they got a subprime mortgage, and it's the bankers fault for lending it out to them after reviewing their income and things like that. Its not the fed's fault for lowering interest rates. It prob. had something to do with promised bailouts and things like that. youknow?
@captaincholera Yes. More money creates inflation but there is a lag. Before that lag comes about that money is handed to the banks who now have far more money to lent out than they otherwise would. The Fed does this by lending money to the banks at a very low rate.
The subsequent, gradual rise in prices is a further incentive for reckless lending, since the prices of houses going up made buying houses profitable even for those who couldn't afford it. It's a market distortion.
@captaincholera In the market prices tell people how they should behave. You can't expect the banks to know what's good for the economy as a whole. Nobody knows what's good for the economy as a whole, that's the whole point. It's too grand a mechanism for anyone to compute.
When prices are tampered with, people's behavior changes. People think they're richer, but the subsequent spending and building is a malinvestment (Mises' term). Mises' theory has explained every crash we've had
@captaincholera The "Affordable Housing" agenda, was an open and explicit agenda of the Bush administration.
Affordable for whom? it had to be for people who couldn't afford the houses before the expansion took place. I.E people with worse credit scores, lower incomes, more kids etc. To have an agenda of "affordable housing" can be nothing but the agenda of getting the sub-prime sector into the game to make the economy seem more prosperous, and make people happy and re-elect the leaders
@captaincholera How else do you explain the fact that free-market Austrians saw the collapse coming and Bernanke didn't? If you don't believe me search Austrian vs Keynsian economics video here on youtube.
@RealLiveDebates And they don't stimulate forever, like I said. They stimulate during a recessionary period in order to help reduce the adverse effects, they also contract the economy during periods of too much expansion like in the 1990's, and china is doing it right now as a matter of fact. Increasing the money supply doesn't lead to the economy being dependent on money being injected, its not like when they raise the money supply they just send out checks to every citizen...
@captaincholera only problem is that inflation can cause the business cycle as well. Before it was loans. It best to keep currency value constant. The problem is that not system have built has constant value. Gold standard has problem of deinflation were if population or economic growth would cause demand for unit increase. close system would relative system ware currency unit is held to gold and gold it self not used.
@RealLiveDebates Also, an expansionary fiscal policy would be to increase spending and lower taxes. this also increases aggregate demand, which stimulates the economy and increases real output.
CAPT: Which Krugman are you talking about? The hyperpartisan editorial writer or the one that promoted free trade economics and wasn't lukewarm to entitlement reform?
@UTubekookdetector the nobel prize winning economist who has a daily column in the New York Times, ive never heard of the other guy. its possible i spelled his last name wrong also. but its paul krugman
@captaincholera CAPT: Yup, that guy, The guy who once opined that free trade was good and was open to entitlement reform, but that would get him (politically-speaking) lynched by the Marxist readers of the Times. I'm sorry to you didn't get my facetious tone.
@captaincholera I was criticizing your spelling, not your grammar, and I wasn't doing it to be nit-picky. I was making the point that you shouldn't be chastising someone for not reading Krugman considering you don't read him yourself, as evidenced by your misspelling of his name.
If anyone doubts Lee's assertions about profit and efficient use of resources, look at how shitty our nationalized commuter rail system is. It operates at huge losses, but since it is a government-run institution that doesn't matter. Train stations are run-down and dirty, and so are many trains. Any private company that ran as poor an operation as Amtrak would have gone out of business decades ago, or found a more efficient and productive means of operating.
@hellsyea22 Is someone better off working for $5.15/hr (under the minimum wage) or unemployed, and making $0?
These wages are almost all earned by people with little job experience or education, who after gaining that experience soon make much more than minimum. But if the law forbids them to get that low-paying job, they never get the experience. If they can't afford to pay for the education, and it's illegal for them to earn the experience, how will they ever get anywhere?
I agree with Hayek and Sowell (and Mises) regarding their economic argument. The economic gains of freedom and respect for individual rights (aka Capitalism) are abundant and overwhelming compared to collectivist economic theories--which makes the argument almost unnecessary. However, the collectivist attempt to attack it on moral grounds, to which many "defenders" of capitalism have conceded the field. They must be willing to call the collectivists Evil, to argue for the Good--and live it.
Great lesson on economics. Your a gentlemen and a scholar. I wish information like this was taught in every school instead of the lefts material we see everywhere. Its such a simple concept that gets distorted by the left but has horrible consequences. May God protect our Republic and Constitution!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How can profits lead to a better future? Profit is the primary motivator in capitalism, with adverse environmental and ethical issues barely even rating. Take for example oil companies. They have profits of billions a year and pollute more than anyone (oil spills, drilling), squash green alternatives (eg. electric cars), and underpay 3rd world countries for the oil. Cigarette companies, selling a product that kills millions a year. Finance companies charging interest on money that doesnt exist.
@daphreeek Okay, so take any society in history where profit was removed. What was the result? More environmental disasters, spills and resource depletion. You're both economically and historically illiterate.
@daphreeek You aren't historically and economically illiterate. You are confusing problems caused by humans with problems caused by capitalism. Humans will never know exactly the best way to use resources to create the greatest utility for society. Capitalism is simply a means to mitigate the errors that are inevitable due to inherent human ignorance. The point is, adverse effects of capitalism are actually inherent in humanity and exist under socialism but at a much larger scale.
@daphreeek you should read Hayek before attempting to put holes in his theories. there are some, but none so obvious as your assertion pretends to make it
@daphreeek Underpay 3rd world countries for their oil? Are you going to try and convince us that Gulf Arabs are being plundered? Emirs in the region build 100 million dollar yachts, and can provide free education, and free medical care to their citizens without taxing them! and you're saying it's the oil companies that are charging too much? It's in fact nationalized (government-controlled) oil, the exact thing you'd advocate that causes oil prices to be so high.
@daphreeek Please name a society where the profit motive is removed that you'd like to emulate?? Soviet Union? East Germany? North Korea? Yugoslavia? Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Albania in the 1970's??? Great Leap Forward period China???? Those are all nightmares that killed millions and spent more energy trying to prevent people fleeing the nightmare than investing in developing. Why so you want to destroy society and emulate historical complete failures?????
That is nothing anyone with a 2 year associated degree in accounting can tell you.
This is why I keep saying we need to elect accountants. If your sick you do not go to a mechanic. If you want the economy and debt fixed, elect an accountants.
I read the article before watching the video and, not being an econ major, some of the language in the article was a bit illusive. You're explanation of the article was so eloquently portrayed that it really helped me piece it together and understand, not just the broader message, but the intricate details behind it. Please make more videos like this. I loved it.
@chaosprite What you call fail. I call correction from fail investment. If when business misallocate resources, they go bankrupt and only those who invested, work in those areas are affected. When government mis allocate resources, entire society are affected - plus theres no escape.
@chaosprite Theres a profit and loss system that tells individual whether what they're doing is what society want. A profit means they're doing things correctly. If a lost it means they're doing it incorrect. When government are involved, they don't care if theres a lost, they still go ahead and do it anyway. Imagine if government decided everyone have a human right to have a personal helicopter (green cars). Huge loses, but they don't care.
@outforsushi Just because there is no profit does not mean there is no benefit.Does a mother make money when she spends some quality time with her child?SHe might actually lose money the benefits are long term and pronounced.Take public education in a country like finland or japan,education is a loss, and the benefits are obvious.Countries that do use a profit system for public education are all third world countries,third world countries are no longer third world because education went public.
@chaosprite some benefit, yes, but not the most efficient use of limited resources. Of course if you throw a trillion dollar into a problem, you will get some benefit, but there is a huge cost to this benefit that you think is very important. Maybe you get a few more ppl educated, but at a cost of a few more ppl who starve. And no it was not public education that brought the western world out of poverty. This could be achieved just as well with private education, but alot cheaper too.
@outforsushi Really? There are a number of countries that have used the privitized system, all of them are third world countries, and all of them have low literacy, and education rates. Were your assumption correct the oppisite would be true. Second the US does not spend a trillion on education, not even close, they spend a trillion on the military, and on that rather stupid war, but not education. And nobody starves because of an increase in education. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
@chaosprite you confuse cause and effect. You think high high literacy and education rates equal richer country. Wouldn't your argument be shattered if we could find examples of this yet the country remain poor e.g soviet, cuba, north korea. You will also have to ignore western history before we had public education. Also you accumulated the cost of war over several years yet want to ignore the accumulation cost of education (in favor of per year) which does run in the trillions as well.
@outforsushi I confuse nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that there is not one single nation on the planet with privatized education that is wealthy. What I am saying is that a well educated populace is necessary for a wealthy country, not that it guarantees it. Robber barons, in Russia, economic embargo in Cuba, despotic dictators in North Korea have a strong mitigating factor in opportunities. education costs are 900 billion per year, plus associated costs. Education is nowhere close.
@chaosprite As for my example of ppl would starve. Its really common sense. If you give resource more to one area, it means you have less resource for another. You want to ignore the negative cost. More resources for education, means less resources for health. More resources for environment, means less resources for education. You will have to decide which is more important and how do you know where the demand is more needed? Profit and lost system
@chaosprite Actually it isn't as vulnerable as you might think. Failure is healthy to the economy. It's analogous to your body fighting off an infection. When a private business is producing goods and services that consumers don't want/need or they are doing it in an inefficient manner, they are essentially an ailment to the economic system. When they fail, they are replaced by a more profitable business. Shocks to the system often arise out of tampering with this basic economic function.
@ThoseWhoStayUofM Shocks to the system also cause enormous harm to the humans involved. Wars, social unrest and famines have happened because of shocks to the system and economic failure. Do you risk human harm for an ideology that minimizes human rights?
@chaosprite I just finished explaining that capitalism is less prone to what you call "shocks" than what you are giving it credit for. Centrally planed governments cause much more devastating shocks as they often create bubbles to prop up an economy that hasn't allowed the bad companies to fail. We are witnessing a similar bubble effect in China right now. Because of this fact, the rest of your comment is completely moot If you aren't going to read then why should i bother replying?
@mr82769 it is.... the central gov't sets a goal for GDP and then tells local gov'ts what to do in order to meet that goal. There is no free market there. Citizens aren't even allowed to freely invest their own money. The government tells them what they can invest in and what they can not.
I am seeing this rather late, but this is a GREAT video. This should be required viewing.
dockdrumming 1 week ago
Hayek was awesome. Keynes may have been popular, but Hayek was right in the end. He also lived to see the Soviet Union fall, which I'm sure put a big smile on his face.
DaDestroyer1986 2 months ago
Ssssslllooow down
quinnrin 4 months ago
some very good points.Not really a capitalist but I do vouch for self sufficiency in producing necessities with regards of food in terms of hydroponics,Recirculating aquaculture systems etc.So as I said Im not a capitalist(but I dont demonise it - you make very good points about its strengths) but its nice to here someone denounce the nonsense that is government control
oreolvrs 9 months ago
Yep, Europe is not entirely socialist but unfortunately the European Union (which is, as UN, corrupt to the core and utterly ineffective) makes all the efforts to introduce (or re-introduce) communism.
There is an anecdote (coined in communist countries I believe) that "if communism was introduced to Sahara, soon there would be shortages of sand there". And it really tells you what kind of a system is communism/socialism.
marcussecundus 9 months ago 7
@marcussecundus That's funny, I heard almost that same exact quote was said by Milton Friedman about the Federal government.
I think communism would work if people weren't almost naturally greedy, because it sounds pretty on paper, but because of corrupt tyrants fucking it up typically, it fails Irl. I think communism in its true nature would be a way better way of sustaining resources. Capitalism does essentially the exact opposite for sustainability, and capitalism is corrupt as well. so sad.
fuckifacation123 2 weeks ago
There was no theme song.
MelvinThe42 9 months ago
Hey Lee, I know he really he isn't worth talking about but do you ever listen to the idiot (j0hnwil11iams) who keeps posting Video Responses to your videos? He is a source of howling laughter at my work and I wonder if you ever are obliged to respond to him - I'd love to hear your take on him just once. I always see his face down there - LOL
lladnarg 9 months ago
I think Beck needs a bullet in his head.
yackon4game 9 months ago
@yackon4game
WTF? - Yeah man, like right on dude! Was that a 'drive-by spewing'?
lladnarg 9 months ago
Greetings from finland.
The Government spending here is 5% greater than in USA (% GDP). And that is not measuring the USA private FED spending. And the spending is much more efficient than USA's, we actually see a lot of that money.
Population is 5 million and homogeneous, which makes majority rule much easier
I think the author is overlooking these facts a bit.
Keyguya 10 months ago
@Keyguya
Are you arguing in favour of free markets or against them?
Ilikemustard 10 months ago
I'd just like to inform the Libertarian and Conservative community that I have been censored and blocked by The Young Turks. I have commented on their faulty logic and reasoning on numerous occasions and they have now blocked me from commenting. So much for "knowledge in Society," politics has been degraded to a war of propaganda, smear campaigning, and eliminating dissent.
MyDormantSoul 10 months ago
Now, if only every anti-capitalist would watch this video, maybe we could move forward as a species...
Ilikemustard 10 months ago
Speaking as a Scandinavian, I'd like to offer an inside perspective. We have rule of law, private property, parliamentary democracy and a free market---what defines The Free World(TM). On top of that, we have a welfare state, just like in the US---primary school tuition is free, right? Ours is just bigger: socialized medicine, education, elder care, etc.
On scale: I don't think the difference between 5M and 300M is relevant---both exceed Dunbar's number, which seems relevant for TUoKiS.
jonaskoelker 10 months ago
Speaking as a Scandinavian, I'd like to offer an inside perspective. We have rule of law, private property, parliamentary democracy and a free market---what defines The Free World(TM). On top of that, we have a welfare state, just like in the US---primary school tuition is free, right? Ours is just bigger: socialized medicine, education, elder care, etc.
On scale: I don't think the difference between 5M and 300M is relevant---both exceed Dunbar's number, which seems relevant for TUoKiS.
jonaskoelker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
really have a hard time understanding how people can debate you on any of these ideas. Capitalism and a free society is the only way to prosperity for all. It's basic common sense when you explore the different philosophies.
fishblades 10 months ago
Comment removed
fishblades 10 months ago
@LordSparkisvati Slot in where? And yes... We dont like to waste too much money and energy in Scandinavia so we dry our clothes outside. Stop manipulating.
mr82769 10 months ago
I think you should take over for Beck!!
mcoop221 10 months ago 6
Its very effective in helping people get what they want or do what they want. Granted. The problem is that this also stands for people wanting to do "bad things". And in a free market there only have to be one company profiting and getting advantages from doing "bad things" to create a system were one has to assort to the "bad things" to survive. This is why regulation is necessary. To settle the rools so every company can compete in a healthy environment. no?
taratasarar 10 months ago
8:22 I went to places like that in China once, its a pretty strange feeling
yourass117 10 months ago
We don't know what everybody wants at all time, fine, but what abou health care? Does anyone don't want to be covered at all time? Therefor it is a responsability of the goverment to provide healthcare, just like drinking watter or police, it is not that difficult, Lee. And by the way: There is not a single country in Europe which lives under socialism, don't say nonsense.
Adlershof 10 months ago
@Adlershof Actually, there are many people in this country who do not want to be covered by universal healthcare. Many people would rather pay on a case-by-case basis for such services, or purchase private insurance that only does what they need it to do. It might be hard for you to swallow, but you are wrong to assume otherwise.
BillyWillis89 10 months ago
@BillyWillis89 In those cases they are actually covered without health insurance. Are they "many people"? No, they are very few people
Adlershof 10 months ago
@Adlershof Please elaborate on what you mean by "covered without health insurance." People don't want to pay for something that disproportionately benefits other people. And yes, many people, 38% of Americans according to a CNN poll, and that's only if taxes aren't involved. If taxes are raised for it the number jumps to 47%.
BillyWillis89 10 months ago
@BillyWillis89 They are covered by their earnings. Look, I know that far right wingers (I know it hurts, but that's what you are) are organized to jump into anyone who comments on youtube against them, you do it all the time, it is your strategy, but to say that 47% of Amricans don't want to be covered is ridicoulus, most of them aren't covered because they cannot pay and you know. Bye
Adlershof 10 months ago
@Adlershof You must be delusional if you think I have been told to comment against you. I only replied to your comment in the first place because you seemed like a reasonable person making an uninformed generalization. Now that you have shown your true colors I know better. It is sad that you wish to argue against a CNN poll, as is the general lack of cohesion in your counterarguments. If you can't defend yourself properly then you shouldn't comment in the first place.
BillyWillis89 10 months ago
@Adlershof Plus, he says in the video that so-called socialist countries in Europe do not practice true socialism. Learn to listen better. 7:10
BillyWillis89 10 months ago
@BillyWillis89 "So-called socialist countries"? Who calls them socialist? Far right wingers like HTWW and you. They are not socialist, period. Learn to define better
Adlershof 10 months ago
@Adlershof I did not call them socialist countries; "so-called" indicates that I am referencing a term others use. You are trying to make a ridiculous claim. Nor am I a "far right winger". You are so quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions.
BillyWillis89 10 months ago
This video was kind of hard to follow. I had trouble wrapping my brain around it
sabersaw5611 10 months ago
Lee, another thing which Leftist always forget to bring up is that many of the "Socialist" Democracies in Europe don't have to shell out billions for self-defense since the US provides it for them so they are free to spend their money on these social programs. And, despite that, many of these countries are STILL going broke! I always ask folks on the Left but never get an answer, "When is enough, enough?"
conductus 10 months ago
@conductus
Wait, so countries like Iran and North Korea have LOWER military budgets than many of these "socialist" European countries because the US provides defense for them too? Countries it labelled the "axis of evil"?
No, the reason these countries have low military budgets is because they don't have to fund a FUCKING EMPIRE dominating every corner of the globe like the US does. Nor do greedy defense contractors own their governments to the extent of the American political system.
hellsyea22 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 This is a very misleading way of making your point. Yes, if you look at the raw number for Iran (I couldn't find data for North Korea) you will find their total spending less. However, this doesn't take into account the fact they are a MUCH poorer country. If you compare their military spending as it relates to GDP then things change radically. There are only two countries in Europe with higher spending as it relates to GDP (France & Greece).
conductus 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 Is it any wonder that Greece is going broke? If you look at where we have our greatest military presence (Germany) they spend MUCH less of a % of GDP than Iran.
Having clarified all this, I do agree that the US has NO business trying to be the "policeman of the world" or any other such nonsense. NATO is a supreme waste of money and those troops need to come home. In fact, we can bring them all home as far as I'm concerned.
conductus 10 months ago
COND: "NATO is a supreme waste of money." AMEN! It would save us tens of billions if we closed all our bases in these wealthy European (and Japan too) nations and made them spend their own $ to secure themselves. NATO is obsolete today anyways.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 Finally, it's isn't completely the "greedy defense contractors" that are to blame. There have been instances where the Defense Department has asked for a certain amount and Congress has given them even more! If you truly want to start pointing the finger, point it where the money is dished out and that's Congress.
conductus 10 months ago
A fallacy because it rests on an assumption that value can be determined through a means of exchange. Value is created far beyond the manipulation of material things. Exchange based on placing value on material things results always in diminishment of everything but material things. Redistribution of the wealth on a large level will always lead to exploitation simply because such forms of trade can never represent the creation of value.
donsdigitaldig 10 months ago
@donsdigitaldig Nothing has intrinsic value. Value is literally, by definition, what we make it.
kiminokami 10 months ago
@kiminokami I agree that we make value which is a derivative of the intrinsic value. Before value is arbitrarily ascribled it contains its intrinsic value and the value added through the collective involvement of labor. The problem lies in the fact that the true and actual labor of a thing is not measurable empirically. The invalid lady through her power of love did more to make things happen then the accountant or entrepreneur. The free market will never measure value correctly.
donsdigitaldig 10 months ago
A fallacy because it rests on an assumption that value can be determined through a means of exchange. Value is created far beyond the manipulation of material things. Exchange based on placing value on material things results always in diminishment of everything but material things. Redistribution of the wealth on a large level will always lead to exploitation simply because such forms of trade can never represent the creation of value.
donsdigitaldig 10 months ago
Great Video. Also when people bring up "socialist" European countries that seem well off people often don't realize that there are American corporations whose profits are larger than the GDP's of 4 "socialist"countires combined.
JamesDBlanc 10 months ago
@JamesDBlanc That comment really made me smile. Which countries are you saying are having profits?
mr82769 10 months ago
@mr82769 The European countries I was refering to was Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Netherlands
JamesDBlanc 10 months ago
@JamesDBlanc Ooooohhh..... How much of it will go to stock dividens? Or will it just be used to prop up the stocks you think?
mr82769 10 months ago
@mr82769 Either way the point I was trying to make was that a single corporation can be wealthier than an entire country
JamesDBlanc 10 months ago
Mr. Doren have you ever read paul krugeman or Keynes, or do you ONLY read people like milton friedman, thomas sowell or FA Hayek??
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera Well, since I started off on the Left....what do you think?
HowTheWorldWorks 10 months ago 48
@HowTheWorldWorks What do you mean you started off on the left?
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera He means he thought he was a Liberal until he grew up.
hotfudgemoney 10 months ago
@captaincholera See his earlier video "Dear Young Liberals on You Tube"
aivanther 10 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks lol I love how the left always assumes that no one on the right ever reads anything else, but they never read (or acknowledge) anything on the right!
Donnievil 10 months ago 2
@HowTheWorldWorks This is very common on the left. You don't think like they do because your either dumb, or you haven't read (or in many cases been told about) the books they read.
gaunt006 10 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
What about Das Kapital?
[Don't shoot me, I haven't read it!]
WSWarthog 9 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks
To be honest, I think it would be fairly rare for you to read from people with you (you think you) disagree with
To prove to us that you've read The General Theory, please post a video explaining what it said such that those of us who have can understand that you've read and understood it too
It shouldn't take long if you have read it
It would be informative for viewers on either side of the political spectrum
qm1qm1 9 months ago
@captaincholera Keynes math was bad and Paul Krugman has a fetish for dictatorships. Why should we listen to either of them?
pittland44 10 months ago 14
@pittland44
Only for one possible reason which would be the strength of their ideas, and conversely they should be dismissed if their ideas are weak.
WSWarthog 9 months ago
@WSWarthog Then Keynes ideas should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage. His math is bad, how can you have an economic theory where the numbers don't add up? If the math behind the idea is bad, then the idea won't work in practice. It's a very simple problem really, but it is annoying because because it means that all Keynesian economics is faulty because his underlying mathematical calculations don't work.
pittland44 9 months ago
@captaincholera And do you Mr. Captaincholera regularly read Mises, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard, Bastiat and so on?
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates I can't say that ive read either of them! but im not making videos about economics. im just being a devil's advocate here you know? i feel like the vast majority if not the entire world runs on keynesian economics, so is everyone else just stupid and you guys are the one ones with a clue or what? i dont know. based on what i know about keynesian macroeconomics, it makes sense to me...i havent heard anyone besides milton friedman on the right, and hes got no idea. so yeah..
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera At one point people believed that women could only be proven to not be witches by burning them alive, and if they didn't burn properly: they were witches. Were those people stupid? no, they had political motives. They got to take those people's property.
Are people stupid because they advocate government spending other's wealth as a cure? not if they're the recepients of the theft.
I'm awfully curious in what way Keyne's macroeconomics makes sense to you.
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebate keynes' big thing is that you spend against the wind, in a recession you increase government spending and lower taxes in order to raise aggregate demand, which increases real output. I think the difference between "the left" and "the right" is the difference between using fiscal and monetary policy to regulate the economy...government spending isn't some kind of conspiracy theory, the government still has to borrow that money from people, and if theyprint it they doitfora reason.
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera "if they print they do it for a reason" that sounds like blind faith to me. I.E The experts must know what they're doing
If you go bankrupt does it make sense to start spending more? Spending would make your personal finances LOOK more healthy, since buying a lot of things creates the impression of wealth. I think you should watch Irwin Schiff's book here on Youtube "How an economy grows and why it doesn't"
Saving and investing creates wealth, not consumption
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates they print money to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy to help pull out of a recession, that's the reason I was talking about, our federal reserve changes the money supply all the time to help decrease the adverse effects of the business cycle. Also, increasing aggregate demand and consumption does in fact increase output for the economy. Plus, when they increase the money supply, interest rates go down which leads to greater investment!
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera Okay. Increasing money supply, does it increase the ammount of wealth in society?
If I started counterfeiting dollars in my basement, I.E increasing the money supply, does that help the community I'm part of because I spend the money in the local shops? All I'm doing is robbing my fellow townsmen of their wealth, since I add nothing to production myself but merely spend other people's purchasing power instead of them: Theft
Do you know what the broken window fallacy is?
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates Your town benefits relative to the country because of the influx of cash in the local economy, but the country ultimately is worse off because of the diminished trust in the value and stability of the dollar. For you, this is two steps forward, one step back; for your town this is one step forward, two steps back; for the country this is three steps back. Better to be a common man in a prosperous society than a king of savages, I say.
koahzvika 10 months ago
@koahzvika Well I agree with the last part of your statement.
So the town takes one step forward two steps back, the country: three steps back. So everybody loses except you, correct?
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates Not at all, quite to the contrary, you lose too because you live in a country that took three steps back.
koahzvika 10 months ago
@koahzvika That I agree with. Too bad my original debater didn't.
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates haha okay first of all counterfeiting dollars is completely different than printing actual dollars, thats a bad straw man argument. And I do know what the broken window fallacy is, at least I think i do. How does it apply?
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera I'd like to know in what way counterfeiting is different from the government printing more money. The only difference is that they are believed to have the official right to do so, meanwhile the effect in reality is precisely the same. They are increasing money supply without adding any new goods or services. If you can explain to me the difference I'd like to know it.
The broken window fallacy applies to the idea that spending money on ANYTHING you are helping economically
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates okay okay, this is like fundamental macroeconomics. when the fed increases the money supply, in the short run, before the economy adjusts to the new inflation, people have more wealth, which means they'll spend more money and therefore increase output in the economy. They do it in order to drive interest rates down, stimulate consumption and investing to pull the economy out of a recession. they also reduce the m. supply during times of uncontrolled growth, like the 90's.
captaincholera 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates For the broken window fallacy, its a little different than that I think. government spending is the same kind of idea as bill gates going out and spending a whole bunch of money. that's going to help out the economy greatly because tons of businesses will be doing better as that money circulates through the economy. The government doesnt print money to spend, they borrow money and spend it to increase aggregate demand and stimulate the economy.
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera It takes very little time relatively to spend all of the money that Bill Gates has. Bill Gates with his entire fortune could barely make a dent in the kind of money the government spends yearly. Spending is easier than earning, makes sense right?
As people get used to the money being injected into the economy from borrowing, they produce less. The economy adapts to conditions like an organism. It becomes weak/incapable of sustaining itself. You can't keep stimulating forever
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@captaincholera Don't forget that it's stimulating the economy that creates credit expansion and creates the bust in the first place. We allready had our stimulus in the 2002-2006. It was the lowering of interest rates by Greenspan all the way to 1%. That was a stimulus!
The collapse of 2007-2008 was the result. It was predicted perfectly by Austrian economists, I can link you the proof if you'd like. "stimulating" the economy with borrowed money and cheap credit is like taking steroids
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates I don't think that was what caused the recession of 2008, I thought it was the housing market and the fact that tons of people were buying houses they shouldnt be buying, people sold risky mortgages on wall street, and other stuff like that, basically not enough oversite and regulation by the government and the federal reserve.
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera Hold on, you contradict yourself. You're saying that artificially "stimulating demand" is a good thing. Yet here you're looking at "housing market and the fact that tons of people were buying houses they shouldn't be buying"
Umm... That's the stimulus. That's what happens when you "stimulate demand" you get people to buy stuff they wouldn't buy if prices were left unhampered! Prices signal to people when resources get scarce, screw with prices (interest) and you get 2008
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates i guess what i meant by that sentence you quoted me on was that people were buying houses because they had a low downpayment, but then they cant afford the mortgage, so the developer of the neighborhood will get his money for selling a new house, but the banks and the people who bought the house are screwed because they can't afford the mortgage....know what im sayin? its a general lack of oversight. But im curious, what is the alternative to the federal reserve altering the ms?
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera The alternative would be a currency which cannot be tampered with, such as a Gold standard.
We also didn't wrap up the question of what the difference is between a counterfeiter increasing the MS without adding production, and the Fed doing it. I'm curious if you still think there is a difference, and if Yes then what is that difference?
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates I suppose if you were able to counterfeit billions of dollars, and they passed as real money and they were never figured out, then there wouldn't be a different, but if you made enough money to alter the money supply in a significant enough way to make an effect, the federal reserve would probably notice the changing interest rates and then alter the money supply again to make up for it...
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera If I counterfeited enough money to affect the interest rates, then the Fed would make more money to make up for it?
But if it's the same thing, then why would it "make up for it"? Seems to me it would "add to it", I.E add the same effect to what I allready did.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree there is no difference. So why do we lock up private individuals who increase the money supply without producing, but not Fed?
Do you think the counterfeiter improves the economy?
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates buddy, the federal reserve alters the money supply to reach a target interest rate. They can increase the supply, or decrease the supply to regulate the economy, they dont just keep stimulating and stimulating to sustain it because it can't sustain itself. we lock up individuals when they get caught because they are creating money when they don't have the right to, says so in the constitution. You cant make and sell cookies and say they're oreos without getting in trouble either
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera This is why they removed us from the Gold standard, so they could raise interest rates at will or whim. Until we get back to the gold standard we will keep taking it in the financial shorts from the Monster from Jekyll Island! ;)
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 haha yeah! its a big conspiracy they are just trying to ruin the economy. that sleezy bernanke and his fiat money...
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera Maybe, just maybe you should read a bit more and be less sarcastic, you might actually learn something.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 well do you really think they are manipulating the money supply to affect interest rates just to give it to you in the financial shorts..?
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera Well, let's review how the Founding Fathers felt about it shall we?
"The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@captaincholera I am
an enemy to all banks, discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. If the American people allow private banks to control the
issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will
deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
--Thomas Jefferson
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@captaincholera I recommend reading about what centralized banking does for its benefactors and the Aldridge Bill, The Creature from Jekyll Island for starters.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 That's ONE founding father, Thomas Jefferson. I could just as easily quote Alexander Hamilton about central banks, and he would disagree completely. Hamilton was at least an economist...which Jefferson wasn't. Also, Jefferson was pissed about the English central bank at the time of that quote I believe, which HAD been giving it to them in the financial shorts. do say our's is doing the same just because it's a central bank is a logical fallacy isnt it?
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera You could also quote the fact that by using a central banking system that is not rooted into the gold standard as being able to control the interests and the route the economy takes by pushing a proverbial interest switch...YOU are not an economist, this is plain.
!000 years ago a one ounce coin of gold would buy you a full dress, a robe belt shoes etc., currently a one ounce coin will buy you a full suit shoes belt etc. same value, no high interest, simple economics. Check it.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 I may not be an economist, i might just be a student studying economics, but the gold standard is ridiculous in modern times. there's a reason why we are not on the gold standard anymore, and it's not a conspiracy either. Also by the way you have completely changed the subject here and avoided what we were talking about originally, that is that our federal reserve is out to get us, which it isn't...
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera Please don't go spin doctor here kiddo, The original content of why we were removed is so that interest rates can be manipulated at will, you can read into that what you want.
The fact remains that economically being on a financial system that has a solid backing, IE; Gold, Platinum, Silver, rocks w/e means that you can only go so far into debt or so far printing paper monies. This means that the value of said currencies remains stable and of specific worth.
Our dollar is worth 0
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 Our dollar doesnt have to be worth anything if the people agree to accept it as money. That's the definition of money. on the island of Yap, the use those big stone wheels as cash, it doesn't matter what it is. Also, the gold standard MIGHT have a stabalizing effect, but it also has a lot of other effects. First of all, it wouldn't be all that stable, and it also limits our economic growth.
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera Take a dollar out of your pocket and tell me what it is worth, if there is nothing behind it, it is NOTHING, what part of this is so difficult to understand? It is a piece of paper that without security behind it is worthless. I don't care if someone says it's money...with no backing it is toilet paper.
The only way being on a gold standard would limit economic growth is by limiting 'credit', if you want to increase what you print you must have a greater store of backing.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago 8
@Drumboy5165 it wouldn't actually limit "credit" it would just ensure that those who elected to issue credit were far more prudent.
wizgak 7 months ago
@Drumboy5165 Currently the US only has enough Gold for about 2K per person. That's not an income. That's all money in the US. That would make everyone worth roughly 5% of what they are now. Backing money is a good idea in principle, but we don't have enough Gold. We'd need to create a multi-comodity backed currency, or create multiple currencies backed by different comodities.
TheAJOlding 3 days ago
@captaincholera The most basic of economics is to have security, we have NONE. If the economy goes totally south, which is where obammy & congress are driving it, those little pieces of paper are worth nothing. Yet if I have some gold coins in my pocket, I have the ability to barter, buy & sell and survive. Look at the rate money is currently being printed, what is it's security?
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 Are you an economist? you pointed out that I'm not one, as if to assert your credibility over me and imply that you yourself are an economist. If you were an economist you would understand how money works! The dollars in my pocket are worth 1 dollar each, thats just how it works. I can buy 1 dollar worth of things with it, whatever that might be because of prices or inflation. money doesn't need to be backed in anything for it to have value. maybe read an economics textbook...
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera The paper in your pocket is worth 0 if you have no security or backing, THAT'S how it works. The dollar is not worth a dollar due to interest rates. How much bread can you buy today against one year ago? Seriously? If the dollar was backed by something that did not change IE; Gold for instance, it would buy the same amount, basic common economics. Maybe you should stop reading the crap your being fed, eh? I believe you have no clue, truly.
Drumboy5165 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 well I don't know how to explain it to you any better. Its just all relative. our dollar gains its value from the faith that we, and other economies put in it. Our money system works because we all agree to accept american dollars as money. It's called a fiat money system. the gov. creates money and we use it as currency. I'ts a medium of exchange. You didn't even answer my question about you being an economist by the way. but thats okay, i can see you're not already!!!
captaincholera 9 months ago
@Drumboy5165 You're making libertarians look awful, here. There are sophisticated critiques of the gold standard - you should learn about them. They probably won't convince you, but you may not act like such an ass about it after learning more. I don't want people confusing someone like you with someone like me.
vNorilor 2 months ago
@captaincholera If the Fed manipulates interest rates and it has been doing so all along including when Greenspan in 2002 per Krugman's recomendation lowered interst rates to stimulate a housing bubble, and all the Austrian economists immediately started predicting a collapse, doesn't that validate the Austrian theory of the boom and bust cycle?
If the prices of lending (interest rates) are manipulated by the government, shouldn't the crash in the LENDING SECTOR be blamed on them?
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates they didn't lower interest rates to stimulate a housing bubble. its not their fault that the people who lent out the loans made bad, shady decisions. Loans can be cheap but bankers were loaning out sub-prime mortgages...which you may have heard about in the news.
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera If the government lowered the price of cars artificially, then people with poorer credit scores and lower income would buy cars than at the higher price. Lower prices means more people buy, in greater quantities, and less reliable people buy also. Since interest rates are prices on LENDING, it inevitably means that people with lower credit scores will get their hands on the credit which has been expanded for that purpose specifically: To make the economy LOOK better for a while
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates Well, first of all when the fed increases the money supply to stimulate the economy, prices increase not decrease because of the increased demand in the short run, and the inflation in the long run. Did the affordable housing agenda require bankers to give out loans to people that clearly wouldn't be able to keep up with the payments? because that's what happened to create the boom and bust in the housing market. It also could have been jus to get more homeless ppl in homes...
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera "did the affordable housing agenda require bankers to give out loans to people that clearly wouldn't be able to keep up with the payments?"
YES. That's what it means to have an AFFORDABLE housing agenda. It would be meaningless to have an agenda to make homes affordable for those who could allready! The purpose was to make them affordable for people who COULDN'T afford them. Price manipulation affects behavior
Politicians care not for the long-run, only thier own terms.
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@captaincholera Please watch this: watch?v=INvKPYdTs3E&NR=1
Austrian economists knew beforehand that the distortion of lending prices will lead people to borrow more than they can afford. The natural profit-seeking self-interest of banks was stiffled with FDIC insurance and bailout promises. The government used every trick it could to get that money lent out.
To assume that bankers are so stupid that under normal conditions they'd lend money to people who couldn't pay back is elitism.
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates I agree with you on the part about politicians.
What you're saying is this, at least this is how i understand it:
By the fed increasing the money supply, thereby RAISING prices, and LOWERING interest rates, combined with bailout promises and insurance, the housing market bubble came about because people were receiving loans that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford because of the interest rates
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera the problem is that if the loans had fixed interest rates, then the people who bought the mortgage are better off because infation will continuously make it easier to make payments. If theyre not fixed rates, then they got a subprime mortgage, and it's the bankers fault for lending it out to them after reviewing their income and things like that. Its not the fed's fault for lowering interest rates. It prob. had something to do with promised bailouts and things like that. youknow?
captaincholera 9 months ago
@captaincholera Yes. More money creates inflation but there is a lag. Before that lag comes about that money is handed to the banks who now have far more money to lent out than they otherwise would. The Fed does this by lending money to the banks at a very low rate.
The subsequent, gradual rise in prices is a further incentive for reckless lending, since the prices of houses going up made buying houses profitable even for those who couldn't afford it. It's a market distortion.
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@captaincholera In the market prices tell people how they should behave. You can't expect the banks to know what's good for the economy as a whole. Nobody knows what's good for the economy as a whole, that's the whole point. It's too grand a mechanism for anyone to compute.
When prices are tampered with, people's behavior changes. People think they're richer, but the subsequent spending and building is a malinvestment (Mises' term). Mises' theory has explained every crash we've had
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@captaincholera The "Affordable Housing" agenda, was an open and explicit agenda of the Bush administration.
Affordable for whom? it had to be for people who couldn't afford the houses before the expansion took place. I.E people with worse credit scores, lower incomes, more kids etc. To have an agenda of "affordable housing" can be nothing but the agenda of getting the sub-prime sector into the game to make the economy seem more prosperous, and make people happy and re-elect the leaders
RealLiveDebates 9 months ago
@captaincholera How else do you explain the fact that free-market Austrians saw the collapse coming and Bernanke didn't? If you don't believe me search Austrian vs Keynsian economics video here on youtube.
RealLiveDebates 10 months ago
@RealLiveDebates And they don't stimulate forever, like I said. They stimulate during a recessionary period in order to help reduce the adverse effects, they also contract the economy during periods of too much expansion like in the 1990's, and china is doing it right now as a matter of fact. Increasing the money supply doesn't lead to the economy being dependent on money being injected, its not like when they raise the money supply they just send out checks to every citizen...
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera only problem is that inflation can cause the business cycle as well. Before it was loans. It best to keep currency value constant. The problem is that not system have built has constant value. Gold standard has problem of deinflation were if population or economic growth would cause demand for unit increase. close system would relative system ware currency unit is held to gold and gold it self not used.
spark300c 9 months ago
@RealLiveDebates Also, an expansionary fiscal policy would be to increase spending and lower taxes. this also increases aggregate demand, which stimulates the economy and increases real output.
captaincholera 10 months ago
CAPT: Which Krugman are you talking about? The hyperpartisan editorial writer or the one that promoted free trade economics and wasn't lukewarm to entitlement reform?
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@UTubekookdetector the nobel prize winning economist who has a daily column in the New York Times, ive never heard of the other guy. its possible i spelled his last name wrong also. but its paul krugman
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera CAPT: Yup, that guy, The guy who once opined that free trade was good and was open to entitlement reform, but that would get him (politically-speaking) lynched by the Marxist readers of the Times. I'm sorry to you didn't get my facetious tone.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@captaincholera he does. do you? someone who reads krugman would probably spell his name right....
Trimbler00 10 months ago
@Trimbler00 Oh yeah buddy? someone who's attack someone else's grammar should probably make sure he capitalized at the beginning of sentences...
captaincholera 10 months ago
@captaincholera I was criticizing your spelling, not your grammar, and I wasn't doing it to be nit-picky. I was making the point that you shouldn't be chastising someone for not reading Krugman considering you don't read him yourself, as evidenced by your misspelling of his name.
Trimbler00 10 months ago
If anyone doubts Lee's assertions about profit and efficient use of resources, look at how shitty our nationalized commuter rail system is. It operates at huge losses, but since it is a government-run institution that doesn't matter. Train stations are run-down and dirty, and so are many trains. Any private company that ran as poor an operation as Amtrak would have gone out of business decades ago, or found a more efficient and productive means of operating.
BurnBeforeEating 10 months ago
Some have maxed out all their credit cards
Some are working 2 jobs and living in cars
Minimum wage won't pay for a roof
Won't pay for a drink, if you gotta have proof
Just try it yourself, Mr. CEO
See how far $5.15 an hour will go
Take a part time job at one of your stores
I bet you can't make it here anymore
hellsyea22 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 Minimum wage is $7.25, but nice try though. And how about you try getting a job without any CEOs to create them.
BurnBeforeEating 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 Is someone better off working for $5.15/hr (under the minimum wage) or unemployed, and making $0?
These wages are almost all earned by people with little job experience or education, who after gaining that experience soon make much more than minimum. But if the law forbids them to get that low-paying job, they never get the experience. If they can't afford to pay for the education, and it's illegal for them to earn the experience, how will they ever get anywhere?
SumErgoMonstro 10 months ago
@hellsyea22 Minimum wage is a bad idea.
hotfudgemoney 10 months ago
I agree with Hayek and Sowell (and Mises) regarding their economic argument. The economic gains of freedom and respect for individual rights (aka Capitalism) are abundant and overwhelming compared to collectivist economic theories--which makes the argument almost unnecessary. However, the collectivist attempt to attack it on moral grounds, to which many "defenders" of capitalism have conceded the field. They must be willing to call the collectivists Evil, to argue for the Good--and live it.
DireHippo 10 months ago
@DireHippo Collectivism REQUIRES that people are moral, capitalism does not ask anyone to do anything.
hotfudgemoney 10 months ago
People don't realize that Scandinavian countries are not perfect :)
arcanekrusader 10 months ago
Great lesson on economics. Your a gentlemen and a scholar. I wish information like this was taught in every school instead of the lefts material we see everywhere. Its such a simple concept that gets distorted by the left but has horrible consequences. May God protect our Republic and Constitution!
pup171 10 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can profits lead to a better future? Profit is the primary motivator in capitalism, with adverse environmental and ethical issues barely even rating. Take for example oil companies. They have profits of billions a year and pollute more than anyone (oil spills, drilling), squash green alternatives (eg. electric cars), and underpay 3rd world countries for the oil. Cigarette companies, selling a product that kills millions a year. Finance companies charging interest on money that doesnt exist.
daphreeek 10 months ago
@daphreeek Okay, so take any society in history where profit was removed. What was the result? More environmental disasters, spills and resource depletion. You're both economically and historically illiterate.
HowTheWorldWorks 10 months ago 72
@daphreeek You aren't historically and economically illiterate. You are confusing problems caused by humans with problems caused by capitalism. Humans will never know exactly the best way to use resources to create the greatest utility for society. Capitalism is simply a means to mitigate the errors that are inevitable due to inherent human ignorance. The point is, adverse effects of capitalism are actually inherent in humanity and exist under socialism but at a much larger scale.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 10 months ago
@daphreeek you should read Hayek before attempting to put holes in his theories. there are some, but none so obvious as your assertion pretends to make it
LeGioNoFZioN 10 months ago
@daphreeek Lol. Was that embarrassing?
friendlyfire53 10 months ago
@daphreeek Underpay 3rd world countries for their oil? Are you going to try and convince us that Gulf Arabs are being plundered? Emirs in the region build 100 million dollar yachts, and can provide free education, and free medical care to their citizens without taxing them! and you're saying it's the oil companies that are charging too much? It's in fact nationalized (government-controlled) oil, the exact thing you'd advocate that causes oil prices to be so high.
Re5Publica 10 months ago 2
@daphreeek Please name a society where the profit motive is removed that you'd like to emulate?? Soviet Union? East Germany? North Korea? Yugoslavia? Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Albania in the 1970's??? Great Leap Forward period China???? Those are all nightmares that killed millions and spent more energy trying to prevent people fleeing the nightmare than investing in developing. Why so you want to destroy society and emulate historical complete failures?????
Siegetower 10 months ago
That is nothing anyone with a 2 year associated degree in accounting can tell you.
This is why I keep saying we need to elect accountants. If your sick you do not go to a mechanic. If you want the economy and debt fixed, elect an accountants.
hillbillyhatfield72 10 months ago 6
Will you be my professor please.... thank you.
I read the article before watching the video and, not being an econ major, some of the language in the article was a bit illusive. You're explanation of the article was so eloquently portrayed that it really helped me piece it together and understand, not just the broader message, but the intricate details behind it. Please make more videos like this. I loved it.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 10 months ago
Comment removed
outforsushi 10 months ago
watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc
Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno
Have you seen this? This was the best speech I ever heard on why Socialism ALWAYS fail, not just inefficient
outforsushi 10 months ago
@outforsushi Capitalism also always fails. Lazzie fair capitalism is extremely vulnerable to shocks to the system.
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite What you call fail. I call correction from fail investment. If when business misallocate resources, they go bankrupt and only those who invested, work in those areas are affected. When government mis allocate resources, entire society are affected - plus theres no escape.
outforsushi 10 months ago
@outforsushi Entire societies can fail just because a business fails, look at the economic collapse of 1909 for example.
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite Theres a profit and loss system that tells individual whether what they're doing is what society want. A profit means they're doing things correctly. If a lost it means they're doing it incorrect. When government are involved, they don't care if theres a lost, they still go ahead and do it anyway. Imagine if government decided everyone have a human right to have a personal helicopter (green cars). Huge loses, but they don't care.
outforsushi 10 months ago
@outforsushi Just because there is no profit does not mean there is no benefit.Does a mother make money when she spends some quality time with her child?SHe might actually lose money the benefits are long term and pronounced.Take public education in a country like finland or japan,education is a loss, and the benefits are obvious.Countries that do use a profit system for public education are all third world countries,third world countries are no longer third world because education went public.
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite some benefit, yes, but not the most efficient use of limited resources. Of course if you throw a trillion dollar into a problem, you will get some benefit, but there is a huge cost to this benefit that you think is very important. Maybe you get a few more ppl educated, but at a cost of a few more ppl who starve. And no it was not public education that brought the western world out of poverty. This could be achieved just as well with private education, but alot cheaper too.
outforsushi 10 months ago
@outforsushi Really? There are a number of countries that have used the privitized system, all of them are third world countries, and all of them have low literacy, and education rates. Were your assumption correct the oppisite would be true. Second the US does not spend a trillion on education, not even close, they spend a trillion on the military, and on that rather stupid war, but not education. And nobody starves because of an increase in education. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite you confuse cause and effect. You think high high literacy and education rates equal richer country. Wouldn't your argument be shattered if we could find examples of this yet the country remain poor e.g soviet, cuba, north korea. You will also have to ignore western history before we had public education. Also you accumulated the cost of war over several years yet want to ignore the accumulation cost of education (in favor of per year) which does run in the trillions as well.
outforsushi 10 months ago
@outforsushi I confuse nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that there is not one single nation on the planet with privatized education that is wealthy. What I am saying is that a well educated populace is necessary for a wealthy country, not that it guarantees it. Robber barons, in Russia, economic embargo in Cuba, despotic dictators in North Korea have a strong mitigating factor in opportunities. education costs are 900 billion per year, plus associated costs. Education is nowhere close.
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite As for my example of ppl would starve. Its really common sense. If you give resource more to one area, it means you have less resource for another. You want to ignore the negative cost. More resources for education, means less resources for health. More resources for environment, means less resources for education. You will have to decide which is more important and how do you know where the demand is more needed? Profit and lost system
outforsushi 10 months ago
Comment removed
outforsushi 10 months ago
@chaosprite Actually it isn't as vulnerable as you might think. Failure is healthy to the economy. It's analogous to your body fighting off an infection. When a private business is producing goods and services that consumers don't want/need or they are doing it in an inefficient manner, they are essentially an ailment to the economic system. When they fail, they are replaced by a more profitable business. Shocks to the system often arise out of tampering with this basic economic function.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 10 months ago
@ThoseWhoStayUofM Shocks to the system also cause enormous harm to the humans involved. Wars, social unrest and famines have happened because of shocks to the system and economic failure. Do you risk human harm for an ideology that minimizes human rights?
chaosprite 10 months ago
@chaosprite I just finished explaining that capitalism is less prone to what you call "shocks" than what you are giving it credit for. Centrally planed governments cause much more devastating shocks as they often create bubbles to prop up an economy that hasn't allowed the bad companies to fail. We are witnessing a similar bubble effect in China right now. Because of this fact, the rest of your comment is completely moot If you aren't going to read then why should i bother replying?
ThoseWhoStayUofM 10 months ago
@ThoseWhoStayUofM ´Cause China is obviously a centrally planned economy... Bleh.
mr82769 10 months ago
@mr82769 it is.... the central gov't sets a goal for GDP and then tells local gov'ts what to do in order to meet that goal. There is no free market there. Citizens aren't even allowed to freely invest their own money. The government tells them what they can invest in and what they can not.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 10 months ago