@hromi Very educative? This i just Friedman spewing his bull about a system does not even understand.He treats economics as a pure science instead of a social science and thinks that everything in the economy can be explaine in a mathmatical equation (specificly his, which has proven a failure in all real world tests, and those where on the scale of the whole economy of nations). Anyone who has a degree in economics will tell you this man should be ignored.
@dave19941000 You've done nothing but spew baseless proclamations (with some rather silly typos and missing words at that), put forth a straw man that capitalism has failed (capitalism is what you're arguing against here) when true capitalism hasn't been utilized in a very long time, and asserted that because some keynesian professors and economists (who couldn't even predict the real estate bubble, and in fact assertively argued it would never occur) dislike Friedman's ideas, -
@Ixandius I dont think Friedman wasnt predicting the problems like mortgage crisis. Even in this video he is talking about inflation and economy problems thx to Federal Reserve actions made since great depression. I think its in the tidal gravity of the money creation and one easy logic: before real estate bubble people had a lot of money they were almost loosing their value and then something failed and we had opposite. I think creating a keeping balance in money value is the way togo
@dave19941000 (cont.) we should disregard him altogether. You sir, are a rube. Youtube "Peter Schiff was right", and then follow the trail of videos it will lead you along. There is plenty instances of him owning stuttering, nonsensical keynesian professors and economists who flip flop on their own ideas and what they've said in the past. As an aside, the coming sovereign debt crisis that the U.S will face (in 1-2 years) is proof enough that keynesian economics DOES NOT work.
@Ixandius So because a system, which I was not even defending, does not work, that means we need to addopt the same one which stalled the Chilean economy for 10 years and brought about record high income inequality? The same system that put Russia into economic freefall in the 90s? The one that in Poland the people who put it into place where kicked out in thier first election they had because it was such a failure? You want us to just go from one proven failed system to another?
@H1TMANactual The history of the economy is WHY I reject Freidmans ideas, because they do not work. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, minimum wage laws brought about the creation of the middle class, labour laws created an economy where exploitation was less commonplace, safty laws made it so that losing your hand on the job was not a death sentance, and child labour laws, combined with public education, created a well educated population. Friedman wants to destroy all that.
@dave19941000 The other way around sunshine. Enough wealth was created in the market which enabled us to adopt such laws. If your theory is correct all we have to do is go Bangladesh and other poor countries and tell them to pass a bunch of laws and they'll rich like us.
@H1TMANactual Considering it was protectionism, combined with industrialism, which turned the west into what it is today, it will turn them rich in about 40-50 years (that is about how long it took us) and will do them much better then free trade with us will. The status quo right now is us telling 3ed world nations, do as we say, not as we did.
And even if it was the other way around, that is even more reason to not reverse 100 years of progress for the 99% of us.
@dave19941000 Good Lord! Mercantilism and protectionism were debunked a long time ago. Not even Keynesians argue that garbage.
What protectionism existed in Hong Kong from 1963-97, when it's per capita went up 87 fold and turned a slum into a first world? You think it's protectionism that's growing India and China at near double digits?
No offense bro, you might want to try reading actual economics instead of wasting my time.
@H1TMANactual (Part 1) Hong Kong grew becuase of British development, while China is where it is today because of State-Capitalism (i.e. the state controls the capitalist economy). China may have been growing fast (about 8-12% from 1992-2007, with a fall to 6% in 2008 and 7% in 2009-10) but most of its GDP growth comes from flochuating exports, and infrustructor progects that are unneeded AND plunged the municiple governments into a dept crisis.
@H1TMANactual Protectionism allowed US industry to exsist, because free trade would have allowed the British to crush it at the time. And with how the trade between the US and China is these days, without protectionism the only way to compet it to revert to a 3ed world economy, with a few rich and a mojority in poverty. Protectioniom was never debunked (but free trade is good when only between 1st world nations) it was only dismised, just like the fact the Friedmanism has failed.
@dave19941000 Nothing is perfect and theory will always look better than the reality, thats just how it is. What I agree with Friedman and his ideas is that through the history there wasnt stronger global force to do similar actions and connect with people all around the world than business made by free market and free enterprise. Yes capitalism not always worked, but r we doing better to understand why? DEFINITELY YES! Socialism or any government intervention system is a disaster!
@hromi But th lack of government intervention is what caused the great depretion, and in 2008 in the US an Europe, even though it created a dept crisis, another depretion was prevented from occuring. The current capitalist economic system sees on avarage 4 years of recession every 10 years, compared to less then 1 for the Scandinavian Social-Democracies. No system is perfect, but democratic socialism has nations that prove it is better. Friedmanism has nations which prove its failure.
"lack of government intervention is what caused the great depretion"
Exactly the opposite. Govts around the world massively increased MS during WWI, it continued in US with "Roaring 20s" but it was inevitable that the frenzy would end disastrously & it did. The CAUSE of depression was govts creating way more money than they'd gold which is why DESPITE deflation, dollar was revalued to $35 from $20. Depression won't've happened if govt hadn't overexpanded moneysupply
You're mistaken, there's hardly any country on the planet practising "capitalism", what most countries have is more or less socialism-corporatism but it's NOT "capitalism" because free market capitalism entails no "regulation" & people having right to their life, liberty & property.
@tjtomkins110% agreed on this one! Just looking on the communism and socialism what it did to Czechoslovakia when it came to power so u all who have never lived in socialism and completely government owned system can imagine. When it came to power it made all the people who were mostly farmers and industrialist completely a corporations of state with government ownership. My grandparents lost land, cattle and were made a supporters of big state agricultural corporations and...
@tjtomkins r still missing the land and all that self made capital they had for them selves. My grandfather end up being persecuted because of some crazy conspiracy he is against the regime and ultimately the family became from very known and very respected to poor and anti government. Even after 22 years after we got rid of it we r where we were and to be completely honest its not a big change if u look on the economy system we incorporated from US. People r still slaves and they r
@tjtomkins having less what they had in the beginning. Slowly they r picking up, but prices r now so high and jobs so hard to find as they have been moved to China and third world countries that life is very tough and complicated. Marriage has been lowered, less and less children r being born, people work more than before and have less time to truly value the life. We all became some kind of slave to the system for few. I wish that one day I say enough, enough of being slave to money!
Most people posting here are fools. Friedman is talking about how the bank failures caused a huge contraction in the money supply and this lead to Great Depression. Inflation is a printing press problem, not a "fiat money" problem. Inflation is a problem to do with rapid growth in the quantity of money. When the Spanish brought back tons or "hard currency" from the new world, the rapid monetization of this gold caused terrible inflation all over Europe.
And yet if you look what he has to say on the Federal Reserve, he disagrees with the system because it is dependent on having the "right man" for the job.
If the Federal Reserve system is insufficient to safeguard a stable rate of inflation, what will be?
If the Federal Reserve had a qualified track record on containing inflation, that would be one thing!
What institution is he proposing as an alternative? You realize you cannot have fiat money without a central bank?
"Inflation is a printing press problem, not a "fiat money" problem"
Aside from the fact that money is now mostly "created" on computers, when you call it "printing press problem", it means it's a "fiat money problem" because those who "print" it are fallible, self-interested individuals (as Milton himself would say) so just like any system that depends "right people doing right things", the fiat money system is doomed to failure without having any restriant in place.
@Civsuccess2 Um... No. Fiat money has failed every time since it was first used in China over a thousand years ago. I have no idea where you get your facts from but you cant just make stuff up and expect it to be true.
@WhistlingTube Totally disagree! Fiat money is as good as backed by silver or gold money. What about the greenbackers or colonial script? The only difference which makes the difference between successful economy and failing economy is who issues the currency. If it's government you have thriving success. If it's private banks you have money as debt and inevitable economic collapse. That's the reason why the FED is the biggest mistake in America's political history.
@tchujdenetza The paper money during the Revolution failed. Have you ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"? It arose because Continentals (paper money printed by the Continental Congress) were worthless. Greenbacks also caused many economic problems after the Civil War due to their fiat nature, and were eventually phased out entirely to solve those problems. Inflation is an inherent problem with fiat money, and fiat money's issues are only worsened with fractional reserve banking.
@tchujdenetza The problem is, if someone (whoever it is) can create money from nothing - i.e with no cost to them, they will ALWAYS do it. Which leads to unnatural inflation, which means as time goes on money loses value, which leads to a whole array of other problems. Fiat money has been tried and failed every time since the 14th century. Surely if there was a way, we could have got it right by now? its not going to happen, it can only be propped with debt up for so long.
"The problem is, if someone (whoever it is) can create money from nothing - i.e with no cost to them, they will ALWAYS do it"
You hit the nail on the head, sir. Yup, that's THE problem, as people are self-interested, they can't be trusted with such power & history demonstrates that quite ably & that's why creating money out of thin air will always fail & that's exactly why gold, silver , etc were used as money for thousands of years.
@peng1110 Yes, I am a young guy and was in high school when Dr. Friedman died. At the time I had no interest in economics and the event meant nothing to me. It is just kind of depressing to think that such a brilliant mind is now lost to the world.
For all Gold Bugs: Gold based or Fiat money makes no difference! By lending and re-lending out, banks create more money in accounts all the time. The interest they charge, they do NOT create. More debt is created than there is money! When people can't pay their debts, banks go broke just the same and savings in accounts are lost. Please see: /watch?v=7kk6fplyLTI and /watch?v=UG5luKfGjU0
Churchill reverted the pound sterling back to the gold standard in the 1920's. The result was catastrophic. He later said it was the greatest mistake of his life.
I see the flaws of fractional reserve banking but the gold standard will be catastrophic.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The reason it failed was because of the enormous amount of currency that was printed during world war one to pay for the war. When Churchill remonetized gold, he fixed it at the pre war price, which caused deflation. Thats why it failed.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH A full conversion overnight would cause teething problems I agree, but simply allowing people their right to use gold and silver as legal tender would not. Eventually gold and silver would take over the fiat money and people would return to sound economics once again. Catastrophe is inevitable if we all continue doing what we are at the moment, the USA is $15,000,000,000,000 and growing, and the Euro is about to collapse too, this is not what I call sound economics.
@dave19941000 I would rather "society" set the value of a commodity based on natural supply and demand than the federal reserve with its printing presses running 24/7.
If you have 1oz of silver today, and you can get 100 widgets for that 1oz- then "society says" its not worth as much any more, how many widgets do you think you will be able to buy? Yeah still 100, because unless you have a massive influx of silver into the hands of everyone, "society" e.g. "everyone"- still values 1oz the same.
@WhistlingTube yeah, look where keynesian economics has taken this country so far... none the less, whether it be silver or gold, they have always retained their value, and have so for the past 6,000+ years, Microsoft, google, etc, was NOT around during that time.
Brilliant re-write of history. It's so brilliant, it's almost believable, if it weren't for the history, which is pretty much opposite. The real question is why very intelligent people spend so much time, re-writing the facts of history, to make everyone think they were really the opposite of what they were? Gold rush precipitated the crisis, as wealth left currency, and went into commodity, leaving the dollar worthless. Stock piles of gold were created as a result of the confiscation act.
@ObamaComma People re-write history because its the only way that Libertarianism can look like it works in practice and the only way for Social-Democrcy to look like it does not work better then Communism and ultra-Capitalism. Friedmans own policies have only survived to this day because people ignore what they have done to the countries they have been used in.
once again i must ask,"how much is a U.S dollar bill really worth"? thats the question..see lets say for example a dollar is really only worth 50 cents and i make $1300 per week salary, shouldnt i be getting 2600 physical dollars on my paycheck? i say this because the $1300 im getting is ONLY REALLY WORTH $650!.. we all need to understand that a dollar is not that green thing in your pocket, it is a measurement that = 371 &1/4 grain of pure silver or 24.057grams.
Milton, what about the inflation of the 20's that was supposed to cheapen USD to help GBP get back on gold at the old rate? What about fractional reserve banking and supposed convertibility of newly printed notes into gold? What about FED's monetary expansion after 1929 that counter-inflated shrinking money supply?
Milton Friedman was a pirate and many of the pirates work under the Temple Crown and its Switzerland division headed by the Universal Postal Union which controls the whole commerce World for the Temple and its controller the Knights of Malta. For example both George Soros and Alan Greenspan are Knights of Malta. These are known as 'The Greatest Merchants on Earth'. Chancery Lane is controlled by St John's Wood.
@sidecar771 Nice to see people like yourself are still ignorant and of no worth to myself. For those wishing to understand this pirate please check out Dr John Coleman's lecture and also study the Mont Pelerin Society of Switzerland. Funny enough Mont Pelerin Society comes from the vessel where the Universal Postal Union comes from, Switzerland. 'Sidecar' is yet another prime example of either an ignorant being of today or FBI Division #5 working here since August 2009 still with no videos.
Great depression: Doubling the tax rates, hiking trade barriers, changing rules to stifle new business and keeping wages stiff instead of flexible (to clear markets and direct labor) probably were the main causes of stopping the recovery again and again. In 1919 and 1946 it was handled much better. And thus, these were only recessions.
This is all bs. Gold is not needed at all for a system of monetary success, and instead is a tool that allows a powerful banking elite to control a monetary system. Script is a system that works, but only if it is controlled by a government of honest elected servants with one term of office. A centralized bank run by elite foreigners who have no loyalty to any country will ALWAYS implode the system because that's how they steal the wealth of the land and reduce the people to slavery.
The Federal Reserve at the time denied that it had sufficient gold reserves to conduct open market operations sufficient for a reflation. Is it possible that the currency/reserve ratio grew so much that the amount of high powered money that would have been necessary to hit the needed quantity of M2 could not be supported by the amount of gold available?
The real crisis with inflation and deflation is when either creates uncertainty in the market, specifically when prices becomes volatile. Uncertainty breeds more uncertainty, and the economy retracts as investors feel uncertain about future values, or worse, about future liabilities, like taxation, employer side pension liabilities, etc., and stability is as much a positive as anything. "Stagflation" is actually a good term because it's the stagnancy of activity that attends frenetic change.
the day the american white man, white anglo-saxon protestant white americans let this nation fall down, turn their backs on their own nation, and dont put gold and silver back in their money, then we are all doomed to destruction. every other foreign born hispanic mexican, african, asian ,immigrants hindus, all standing by to take over this country.
however, i do think friedman is very intelligent and reading his books has taught me a lot - but if anything it has led me away from any talk of returning to the gold standard.
There seems to be ony two choices if we go with the mainstream narrow thinking monetary system. Go with gold standard which leads to Deflation. Go with the credit/debt system(which we've got nw) which leads to inflation. What a fucked up system either way. There are better choices but if I bring themup I will be shot down and rediculed so why bother bringing them up to the sheepe.
There are a number of problems with deflation. The problem with falling prices is that workers in particular are very resistant to lower wages. The problem with lack of money means that it is harder to pay back debt. These lead to business failures, foreclosures, and lack of trust in the system. This is compounded by the fact that people hold on to their money thinking that it will be worth more in the future.
Why would the gold standard lead to deflation? You can stretch the restraints on the standard, and we find new gold all of the time. Plus with gold standard, you still have money creation by the lending process, so inflation occurs by loans as well. Not that I think the fractional reserve system is a good system in any respect, but inflation and deflation don't necessarily have to be a part of it, its just really difficult to make it not the case.
See the YouTube post of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech, which opposed the "Crime of (18)73" demonetization of silver, greatly contracting the money supply, and hurting the people and farmers in favor of internationalist bankers. After this, Friedman shows us here the next gambit - moving us into delinking precious metals and creating FIAT "dollars" (against the LAWFUL Constitutional standard of a dollar in terms of silver and its equivalent in gold). Bi-metallism is the answer.
Yea Yea Yea all a bunch of Goddam geniuses all Nobel prize winning economists. Still say a child selling lemonade on the side walk has a better grasp of economics than these over educated morons. Look where the collective intelligence of all the Ivy league idiots has gotten us now. Funny government still turns to these idiots. The whole thing is simple who gives a shit what system is used if people in power are honest it works if not they bail out themselves by illegally taxing everyone.
Whoever posted this video should be banned from youtube.
If you're going to post videos like these please post the date the video came out with some other basic info. Otherwise please take it down, it just adds to misunderstandings and internet noise.
Nice video, but the conclusion as to who or what caused the depression is not clear.
I think If there was a fixed amount of money in the system, and fractional reserve banking would be considered counterfeiting (which it is) - the artificial boom would have never happened, and the depression would have not have occurred at all.
I never really understood what Friedman's position was on the Fed, and on the money supply.
Like it or not, this is the natural outcome of any proxy currency. Unless you prefer a barter system or carrying around Gold in your pocket, you store the Gold and issue exchange notes. Soon, the notes become THE instrument of exchange, even if still redeemable for real Gold. After a while, the Factor in charge of the Gold realizes that rather than just store Gold (a cost), it would be prudent to put more certificates into circulation than gold stored.
After a while, the ratio (fraction) increases from a float of 10% to 90% leveraging (creating derivatives). It's only when the first ounce of gold can't be redeemed that any one (except the Factor who skips town) worries, but then there's a rush on the bank that collapses the value of ALL certificates and depending on the actors, war breaks out and the economy retreats to pre-certificate levels or worse. Years later, tired of holes in their pockets, society accept a new proxy system.
My point being that it's neither Gold nor money, nor any combination that destroys or builds an economy. Look deeper - it's trust and if the Factor was transparent, there would never be a rush on the bank. Conversely, the transactional efficiencies that arise from credit; that aren't hobbled by the arduous weight of heavy metal bartering, take us from medieval stagnation to modern day wealth building. But it has to be backed by trust and most of that from rule (and observance) of law.
@seismedia, it may be the outcome in all cases so far but it is still the real cause of the problem - so I think it should get a lot more focus.
In the 19th century there was very little monetary inflation, and prices actually fell over a period of 100 years. The economy boomed at the same time, and people could save money for the future without having to speculate on stock markets / real estate.
@imre1000 "In the 19th century there was very little monetary inflation, and prices actually fell over a period of 100 years."
You are buying into the "One Button" approach of Keynsian Economics, failing to see the problem or solution because of your focus on the symptom of inflation. It's not inflation or deflation, it's stability and equilibrium which fosters growth. Mild inflation reflects growth while the market adjusts its equilibrium. Deflation on the other hand denotes stagnancy.
And I'm glad or there would be no advancement of this debate.
In turn, I disagree with your statement. First, you assume by the very pronouncement that "speculation" is evil and harmful, when in fact, it is the best forecaster we have because the people placing intelligent bets have money at stake.
Second, on savings "accounts", no wealth is produced by a people that stashes their money away. You want to keep the money circulating, employed as capital.
When people see their pension money losing it's value over time (inflation) they buy shares / property. If you look at share dividends and PE ratios since the 70s - they have been in decline, which indicates most of the share value is pure speculation.
If their money kept it's value - they could just put it in the bank - and then THE BANK would lend to productive businesses.
This video is related: /watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k (if you have the time)
Investing by its very nature is speculation, literally "looking ahead". Perhaps the distinction is between moderate and high risk speculation, and whether someone is speculating with THEIR OWN MONEY. Combined with fiat contrivances to spur lending to high risk borrowers, this is what clobbered the financial sector in 2008, traders using faulty risk models in place of good old common sense, and doing it with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in bad faith.
@seismedia, I'll try to explain but it's not simple.
There's a difference between buying $10m worth of property, hoping that it's value will rise - and between setting up a $10m shoe factory / coal mine that benefits society and returns profits.
If people lose their savings via inflation - they are pushed into non-productive investments, like property, which don't provide a return. This creates a long term bubble.
The bubble eventually pops - and they are left with an asset worth a lot less.
Does this betray your position? Rule of Law benefits society, abiding the law benefits society, but it's not the job of the market other than to enrich individuals. I don't invest for any other reason than to increase my equity and regardless of pretense, that's the way the market functions as a whole. Of course, with rule of law and an unfettered market, societal benefit is a nice side effect, but it's a consequence, not a driving force.
@imre1000 "If people lose their savings via inflation - they are pushed into non-productive investments, like property."
No matter where you put your money it is at risk. You can put it in the bank, in Gold, under your mattress, in real estate. It's always subject to relative value fluctuations, against the yen, against commodities, one location vs another, this fund or that fund. NO ONE is pushed except by the heavy hand of BIG GOVERNMENT.
@imre1000 "But why are you saying a little inflation is ok?"
I didn't say it was either "ok" or "not ok". Stop looking at the market in terms of good and bad, it just is. It's the vilification of market functions that get us in trouble. Inflation is merely an abstracted broad market indicator, sometimes reflecting growth and expansion, sometimes betraying profligate manipulation of currency, (reducing sovereign debt through"monetization"). Rather, look at key indicators like productivity.
@imre1000 "by 'inflation' I mean central banks printing money / artificially lowering interest rates."
Completely different concept. You're referring to "monetizing the debt" and "manipulating interest rates". Basically interfering with the market forces. It will eventually kick whoever tries in the teeth, so I'm betting that any denturist with offices down the street from the NY Fed is going to be raking it in soon. Perhaps in Washington DC as well.
@imre1000 "agreed! Big Government is the key here."
Government isn't inherently bad - again, it just is. But too much power concentrated and it becomes a behemoth, intrusive at best, tyrannical and oppressive at worst. That's the magic of the American Republic as long as the Constitution remains play - balance of power keeps each branch in check. Grid lock is actually good and rather than "social justice" that some think is the purpose of the Constitution, it's actually to limit the government.
@imre1000 "My view is that inflation of the money supply is theft."
Any fiat act of government other than preserving rule of law and protecting the weak from the would-be oppressor is criminal. Currency manipulation does not protect the weak, but ask yourself if it really steals from EVERYONE or who it steals from. If you have a big mortgage, lots of debt, you'll actually be a benefactor in the short term, because your wages go up but your debt doesn't, all thanks to inflation.
@imre1000 @0:50 "Unfortunately none of those (founding principles) have anything to do with the modern American economy"
As proven in 2008 and, in spite of a reticent antagonism to market realities by the academic elite, continues to be proven today, is those principles have EVERYTHING to do with the economy. Rule of law/freedom of choice are the foundations of modern wealth, and the reason why it has rapidly surpassed every other period of history and why it's so concentrated in the West.
@imre1000 "If their money kept it's value - they could just put it in the bank - and then THE BANK would lend to productive businesses."
Money is fungible/liquid and will always move towards it's best use because people are going to act in their best interest, whether a bank or a simple customer. The key of the social compact as it relates to economics is to keep the money moving, out of the hands of wasters like governments, away from fraudsters, and let the market do it's "invisible magic."
@imre1000 "it is still the real cause of the problem"
The liquidity and availability of capital afforded by a token currency, even leveraged by multiples against reserves, has a positive economic impact that far far outweighs a reduction in savings or the absence of risk. The problem is not the monetary system, it is the malfeasance of bad actors within the market that destroys the faith upon which a monetary system works, and works well it does when law and order prevail.
@geotopia The gold standard is what keeps the bad actors in check. There is no benefit to devaluing the currency. Devaluing savings makes real recovery impossible. The problem is our fiat monetary system that allows people with access to the printing presses to pick winners and losers and make sure no one will ever be able to save enough to compete. The burden of proof is on you looking back on 30 years of economic decline caused by our monetary system.
@imre1000 In "Capitalism and Freedom" he clearly blames The Fed for causing the Great Depression by contracting the money supply. He touches on that in this video when he shows the gold in cages. The monetarist view on money supply, is that you contract and expand the money supply to control inflation. The Keynesian view is to control inflation by raising and lowering interest rates, which is the SOP for The Fed these days.
This current recession shows that government can fail its investment. Also, big rich business owners can make fetal mistake that destroys the economy. The role of the government is to make sure money is spend wisely. Any government that initiate projects that is wasteful will drag down the economy.
This argument of Keynesian, Monetarism, and Austrian economics is stupid.
Government is a big corporation. If it invest well and invest better than you and me. The economy will be better. If it doesn't invest well, it's better off to have small government. Money should go to individual.
Milton Friedman in reaily is keynesian...he is a monetary keynesian......he beleives in central monetary planning as Keynes believed in central economic planning.....Friedman doesnt beleive in the gold standard...he talks about money as though they are pieces of paper conjured out of thin air
Milton Friedman was a good economist. He may have been a little fanatical about government, but his work on inflation was seminal, and he communicated economics to people in a way that few have ever been able. We need more people like him today in the public forum.
Friedman is as much an economist as me being a nuclear physicist!
There are only a few people who can come close to Murray Rothbard's understanding of economics. In my view, the man is even better than Mises! But that's just my preference!
Friedman was an elitist and a proto egalitarian. Didn't understand zipzap about monetary phenomena and went to bed with the banking elites and dictators all his life! And he dared to present himself as a Libertarian! What an insult!
You again! Did you ever read "The End of Laissez Fair"? But about Friedman, I am not that familiar with his work, I know he is considered one of the greatest economists of all time. As a Keynesian, he's not my favorite, but he's as good an economist as the neoclassical school has ever had. But if Rothbard is so great, how come he's not mainstream?
Dude, you need to understand the historical context within which Austrian economics and proto neoclassical economics affronted each others. Austrian economics, child of the classical schools ruled from the industrial revolution up until ww1; the rise of fascism and socialism ( of all sorts) gave birth to Keynesianism and Monetarism. Rothbard appears at a time when "laissez faire", even in the US, is an anathema! It is not a question of quality of ideas but historical contextualization!
Quality of ideas is always what it is, or should be, about. But I think you are confusing the classical school with the Austrian school. The reigning economists from the industrial revolution to WWI were Ricardo, JS Mill, and Alfred Marshall, neoclassicalists, not the Austrians.
The essential difference beween the Chicago shool and that of the Keynesian is that the Keynesian prefers fiscal policy of money vs that of the Chicago school with monetary policy. Otherwise, there really isn't much difference. In terms of why something isn't mainstream, the same could be asked when some thought the Earth was round or that the universe revolved around the Earth. I ask you, can you counter any Austrian theories? Specifically?
I think that distinction is questionable, as Keynesian thought focuses a lot of monetary policy. A lot of what Keynes said was the sometimes even monetary policy is impotent, as is the case right now with the ZIRP, then fiscal policy is needed. And the classical, non-Keynesian economics used to be the mainstream, then Keynes re Copernicus, came along to correct the orthodoxy.
There is one problem with your Keynes/Copernicus analogy. Copernicus' theory has stood the test of time, whereas Keynesian economics failed miserably in the 70s and will more than likely fail in this decade, as well. While Austrians do have roots in classical theory, Mises didn't write Human Action until 1949. So, you cannot call Austrian theory "classical" because 'Human Action' was a totally new way of looking at economics. And, Austrians have proven correct in almost all cases posed.
You forget the external problems of the 1970s, especially the oil crisis, which had nothing to do with monetary or fiscal policies. And you are right, the classical school is actually scientific and legitimate, whereas Austrianism is a fringe doctrine. What they say is so vague they can claim vindication at any turn, because it cannot be checked.
Read 'Human Action' and you will understand. No, we don't use empirical measures, because we know that individual actions and values cannot be measured and plotted to a graph, because humans have reason. They do not always act and react in the same manner, or at the same time. I do believe that Peter Schiff (a follower of Austrian economics) called the last two recessions with crystal clarity. He was not vague at all. Either was Misis during the 20s, or Rothbard during the 70s; Crystal clear.
Doubt that. All of it. What did Schiff actually say, what did he "predict"? Probably not at all. If you want a good authority on the Depression, read Keynes. Austrianism is not real economics, it is a crank doctrine, more of a philosophy than an economic model. I will investigate Human Action if you investigate the General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.
Schiff isn't an economist, he is merely a broker that follows Austrian theory. But, watch the video called "Peter Schiff mortgage bankers" and you will see that he called this last recession perfectly and many of the things he said would happen afterward are happening today. I actually do plan on reading the "General Theory", but it is third in line behind two other books on economics. I have read parts online and have read plenty of Keyenes other works, so I am not completely in the dark.
Oh, I think that I should mention that what he was saying in regard to China continuing to buy our treasuries, that in 2009 the Fed bought 80% of our debt through it QE function. How anybody can look at that and not see double digit interest rates and a currency crisis in the future is beyond me. Not to mention that this debt still falls on the American people. Keynesians are trying to keep credit expanding, but what happens when the only buyer is the Fed? Complete collapse of the dollar.
We do not have a currency crisis, and that is the problem with what you are saying. And the only buyer is not the Fed, many people around the world still want to buy Treasuries because they are safe in this bad environment. Yields are still very low, and prices to buy them high, because demand is still there.
The numbers coming out are not backing that story up. Foreigners bought less than 20% of our debt in 2009. And, the Fed's security holding for 2009 match within 5% of the total deficit for 2009. No we don't have a currency crisis yet. But, if demand for our securities keeps souring overseas, and the Fed has to continually absorb that shortfall in order to meet budget outlays, then there will be one. In fact, the only reason there was demand overseas was due to the trade deficit we hold.
Fair enough, I certainly know what its like to have a ton of books waiting in the wings. And I will check out the video. But remember this, a lot of people predicted the housing bubble, including famous Keynesian Paul Krugman, you can read his August 16 2002 column and see for yourself.
Why would he not have? Throughout much of 2001 he was actually calling for the Fed to lower rates to keep housing starts going. Then, a year later he says "oh, we might be seeing a small bubble growing". No shit! Then, 6 years later he conveniently forgets everything he said in 2001 and 2002, and instead states that "nobody could have seen this coming". Come on, now. Maybe most Americans have a short memory, but I don't. He didn't call it, he helped create it.
Here's a nice little Krugman quote from early 2002: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Yeah, sure this whole thing caught you by surprise, Paul.
Krugman predicted the crisis, he also helped to create the crisis when he was advising to lower interest rates and spend spend spend US out of their recession after 2001.
Lower rates and spending are the textbook (and correct) remedies for a recession. IT had nothing to do with the housing bubble, central banks have been using rate adjustments since after the Depression. Lax lending standards and "animal spirits" re: irrational exuberance caused this mess.
You pretty much have everything backwards. Austrian economics is the only real approach that is sustainable...Economic "models" have proven to be failures pretty much 100%, particularly Keynes.
Austrian Economics is a pseudoscience t hat offers simple explanations to people who have a limited understanding of real economics. The reason that the Austrian School has seen a resurgence in popularity is that it's view of history is compatible with the view offered by wingnut conspiracy theorists.
No, the reason it has seen a resurgence of popularity is that it is correct. You don't have to take my word, just wait and see what happens in the next 2-3 years and get back to me. Everything the Austrians have been saying to deaf ears in the last 3 years has come to pass.
@jumpoutatree in what way? you think von hayek, mises and rothbard were conspiracy theorists? also its funny how the monetarist and the austrians predicted the stagflation in 70s which was supposed to be impossible according to keynes. also it is funny how so many austrians predicted the housing bubble crash while keynesianists like ben steine were scratching their heads. i have a lot more respect for monetarists then keynesianists who are discredited repeatedly.
@bonfirejovi This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Keynesian economics. It is part of the Austrian school mythology that Keynesianism necessitates an inflexible inverse correlation between unemployment and inflation. It doesn't. No mainstream economic scholar ever said as much. It's also false that Keynesians were dumbfounded by the housing bubble.
@jumpoutatree no economic mainstream economist has said that? wasnt that what the phillips curve was all about? you know the curve that paul samuelson (a keynesian disciple) developed? werent they the ones that said when inflation is high then unemployment is low and vice versa?
the massive majority of people are keynesianists and everyone time I read an article from the mainstream (apart from krugman) or watch CNBC it is always 'no one saw this coming'.
@bonfirejovi The Phillips Curve posits an inverse relationship, but it doesn't mandate such a relationship, and it certainly doesn't come close to being the test of Keynesian economic theory. As far as the housing bubble was concerned, I simply have the opposite experience than you do, I guess... and don't forget that Austrians have established a cottage industry in predicting economic disaster for longer than we've been alive.
@jumpoutatree of course it does, thats why every one was so taken a back by stagflation and main reason people like reagan and thatcher won. it meant that the politicians would either have to strive low inflation or low unemployment, of course it mandates it. phillips noticed the negative correlation between wages and unemployment however keynesian disciples like paul samuelson developed it to include inflation. and the austrians were right, they knew inflation and debt would bite us in the ass
@pretorious700 Maybe in the Bizarro World that Austrians live in. Prior to the Keynesian contraction-expansion money supply approach, the United States experienced several major depressions and bank panics. Since Keynes, no market economy in the world has experienced a depression. Keynesianism has been an unmitigated success.
@YourNameHere1212 It's refreshing when someone flat out tells you that they don't need to supply a counterargument. Everything I said was correct. The Keynesian economic model was never meant to usher in a Utopia. It was meant to prevent bank panics and depression, which it has done so with complete success.
@jumpoutatree The facts you stated were incorrect. Keynesian economics has not stopped bank panics or depressions, there are plenty of them since it has been used after the great depression. The mere fact that a depression as deep as the worst economic depression in history is not evidence that Keynesian economics works. What Keynesianism has done, however, is lead the world into spending itself into oblivion with many countries around the world on the verge of collapse under the debt. You fail.
@AFRIKTODAY Professor Milton Friedman have nothing to learn from a nutjob as Murray Rothbard.Your a wellknown nutcase your self,with zero knowledge in economics.
@treddas851 Thank you, I take this as a compliment! Milton Friedman was a statist wearing a veil of libertarianism. He was just an opportunist; he had seen what had been done to Mises and other " radicals" and did not want to share their fate ( financially). He wanted fame and glory and acceptance to the powers and therefore made sure not to be too " extreme" in his position. A sell-out basically!
@AFRIKTODAY U mean taking care of his best interest as any person who values their own well being would do? Not "selling out", just not being foolish. I ain't for a state myself tho.
Well, at the time, Milton Friedman was seen as an apostle for Libertarianism; thus influencing generations of young minds and leaders with his false monetary ideas. That's the problem! He used the veil of Free market while in fact supporting the State monopolies ( in monetary policy in particular.) He is one of the reason why many people distrust libertarianism and it is important that free market and libertarianism been seen from a Misesian paradigm, not MF!
Moore is the biggest idiot I ever met. He thinks that a Socialist system where everyone makes the same is good. Nobody will bother working to create new ideas or business. I hope your right about the Jedi thing so he can come back and beat up Moore and the Amazing Atheist.
Moore is quit an idiot on most things. I don't know much about the amazing atheist. All I know is that I'm atheist, and I do not agree with a socialist america. I'm atheist and I'm for lesser government and a free market! Just makin sure people know that there are atheists out there that aren't total hippies, liberals, and/or socialists.
Friedman was a Zionist Jew which disqualifies him automatically.
indiereplicant 22 hours ago
Whats the name of the documentary its very educative? Thx for the vid!
hromi 3 weeks ago
@hromi free to choose
FrankiePoker 3 weeks ago
@FrankiePoker thank u!
hromi 2 weeks ago
@hromi Very educative? This i just Friedman spewing his bull about a system does not even understand.He treats economics as a pure science instead of a social science and thinks that everything in the economy can be explaine in a mathmatical equation (specificly his, which has proven a failure in all real world tests, and those where on the scale of the whole economy of nations). Anyone who has a degree in economics will tell you this man should be ignored.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 You've done nothing but spew baseless proclamations (with some rather silly typos and missing words at that), put forth a straw man that capitalism has failed (capitalism is what you're arguing against here) when true capitalism hasn't been utilized in a very long time, and asserted that because some keynesian professors and economists (who couldn't even predict the real estate bubble, and in fact assertively argued it would never occur) dislike Friedman's ideas, -
Ixandius 2 weeks ago
@Ixandius I dont think Friedman wasnt predicting the problems like mortgage crisis. Even in this video he is talking about inflation and economy problems thx to Federal Reserve actions made since great depression. I think its in the tidal gravity of the money creation and one easy logic: before real estate bubble people had a lot of money they were almost loosing their value and then something failed and we had opposite. I think creating a keeping balance in money value is the way togo
hromi 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 (cont.) we should disregard him altogether. You sir, are a rube. Youtube "Peter Schiff was right", and then follow the trail of videos it will lead you along. There is plenty instances of him owning stuttering, nonsensical keynesian professors and economists who flip flop on their own ideas and what they've said in the past. As an aside, the coming sovereign debt crisis that the U.S will face (in 1-2 years) is proof enough that keynesian economics DOES NOT work.
Ixandius 2 weeks ago
@Ixandius So because a system, which I was not even defending, does not work, that means we need to addopt the same one which stalled the Chilean economy for 10 years and brought about record high income inequality? The same system that put Russia into economic freefall in the 90s? The one that in Poland the people who put it into place where kicked out in thier first election they had because it was such a failure? You want us to just go from one proven failed system to another?
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 Might want to read the ACTUAL economic history than spew the idiocy that you read in the Shock Doctrine.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual The history of the economy is WHY I reject Freidmans ideas, because they do not work. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, minimum wage laws brought about the creation of the middle class, labour laws created an economy where exploitation was less commonplace, safty laws made it so that losing your hand on the job was not a death sentance, and child labour laws, combined with public education, created a well educated population. Friedman wants to destroy all that.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 The other way around sunshine. Enough wealth was created in the market which enabled us to adopt such laws. If your theory is correct all we have to do is go Bangladesh and other poor countries and tell them to pass a bunch of laws and they'll rich like us.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual Considering it was protectionism, combined with industrialism, which turned the west into what it is today, it will turn them rich in about 40-50 years (that is about how long it took us) and will do them much better then free trade with us will. The status quo right now is us telling 3ed world nations, do as we say, not as we did.
And even if it was the other way around, that is even more reason to not reverse 100 years of progress for the 99% of us.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 Good Lord! Mercantilism and protectionism were debunked a long time ago. Not even Keynesians argue that garbage.
What protectionism existed in Hong Kong from 1963-97, when it's per capita went up 87 fold and turned a slum into a first world? You think it's protectionism that's growing India and China at near double digits?
No offense bro, you might want to try reading actual economics instead of wasting my time.
H1TMANactual 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual (Part 1) Hong Kong grew becuase of British development, while China is where it is today because of State-Capitalism (i.e. the state controls the capitalist economy). China may have been growing fast (about 8-12% from 1992-2007, with a fall to 6% in 2008 and 7% in 2009-10) but most of its GDP growth comes from flochuating exports, and infrustructor progects that are unneeded AND plunged the municiple governments into a dept crisis.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@H1TMANactual Protectionism allowed US industry to exsist, because free trade would have allowed the British to crush it at the time. And with how the trade between the US and China is these days, without protectionism the only way to compet it to revert to a 3ed world economy, with a few rich and a mojority in poverty. Protectioniom was never debunked (but free trade is good when only between 1st world nations) it was only dismised, just like the fact the Friedmanism has failed.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000 Nothing is perfect and theory will always look better than the reality, thats just how it is. What I agree with Friedman and his ideas is that through the history there wasnt stronger global force to do similar actions and connect with people all around the world than business made by free market and free enterprise. Yes capitalism not always worked, but r we doing better to understand why? DEFINITELY YES! Socialism or any government intervention system is a disaster!
hromi 2 weeks ago
@hromi But th lack of government intervention is what caused the great depretion, and in 2008 in the US an Europe, even though it created a dept crisis, another depretion was prevented from occuring. The current capitalist economic system sees on avarage 4 years of recession every 10 years, compared to less then 1 for the Scandinavian Social-Democracies. No system is perfect, but democratic socialism has nations that prove it is better. Friedmanism has nations which prove its failure.
dave19941000 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000
"lack of government intervention is what caused the great depretion"
Exactly the opposite. Govts around the world massively increased MS during WWI, it continued in US with "Roaring 20s" but it was inevitable that the frenzy would end disastrously & it did. The CAUSE of depression was govts creating way more money than they'd gold which is why DESPITE deflation, dollar was revalued to $35 from $20. Depression won't've happened if govt hadn't overexpanded moneysupply
tjtomkins 2 weeks ago
@dave19941000
"The current capitalist economic system"
You're mistaken, there's hardly any country on the planet practising "capitalism", what most countries have is more or less socialism-corporatism but it's NOT "capitalism" because free market capitalism entails no "regulation" & people having right to their life, liberty & property.
tjtomkins 2 weeks ago
@tjtomkins110% agreed on this one! Just looking on the communism and socialism what it did to Czechoslovakia when it came to power so u all who have never lived in socialism and completely government owned system can imagine. When it came to power it made all the people who were mostly farmers and industrialist completely a corporations of state with government ownership. My grandparents lost land, cattle and were made a supporters of big state agricultural corporations and...
hromi 2 weeks ago
@tjtomkins r still missing the land and all that self made capital they had for them selves. My grandfather end up being persecuted because of some crazy conspiracy he is against the regime and ultimately the family became from very known and very respected to poor and anti government. Even after 22 years after we got rid of it we r where we were and to be completely honest its not a big change if u look on the economy system we incorporated from US. People r still slaves and they r
hromi 2 weeks ago
@tjtomkins having less what they had in the beginning. Slowly they r picking up, but prices r now so high and jobs so hard to find as they have been moved to China and third world countries that life is very tough and complicated. Marriage has been lowered, less and less children r being born, people work more than before and have less time to truly value the life. We all became some kind of slave to the system for few. I wish that one day I say enough, enough of being slave to money!
hromi 2 weeks ago
Most people posting here are fools. Friedman is talking about how the bank failures caused a huge contraction in the money supply and this lead to Great Depression. Inflation is a printing press problem, not a "fiat money" problem. Inflation is a problem to do with rapid growth in the quantity of money. When the Spanish brought back tons or "hard currency" from the new world, the rapid monetization of this gold caused terrible inflation all over Europe.
MrSaemisch 1 month ago 6
@MrSaemisch
And yet if you look what he has to say on the Federal Reserve, he disagrees with the system because it is dependent on having the "right man" for the job.
If the Federal Reserve system is insufficient to safeguard a stable rate of inflation, what will be?
If the Federal Reserve had a qualified track record on containing inflation, that would be one thing!
What institution is he proposing as an alternative? You realize you cannot have fiat money without a central bank?
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
@MrSaemisch
"Inflation is a printing press problem, not a "fiat money" problem"
Aside from the fact that money is now mostly "created" on computers, when you call it "printing press problem", it means it's a "fiat money problem" because those who "print" it are fallible, self-interested individuals (as Milton himself would say) so just like any system that depends "right people doing right things", the fiat money system is doomed to failure without having any restriant in place.
tjtomkins 2 weeks ago
@MrSaemisch sounds like the spanish didn't know what they were doing.
sniped101 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For anyone interested in Austrian economics, I have comedic video series that I am starting which is on my channel. Ron Paul 2012
CommonSenseLako 1 month ago
may all say with this name the Truth.
It just depends on the grammar.
Milton Friedman is not same as Benjamin Freedman
spoekenkieker1 2 months ago
Gold Standard failed. Fiat currency will always defeat gold currency.
Civsuccess2 2 months ago
@Civsuccess2 Um... No. Fiat money has failed every time since it was first used in China over a thousand years ago. I have no idea where you get your facts from but you cant just make stuff up and expect it to be true.
WhistlingTube 2 months ago 2
@WhistlingTube Totally disagree! Fiat money is as good as backed by silver or gold money. What about the greenbackers or colonial script? The only difference which makes the difference between successful economy and failing economy is who issues the currency. If it's government you have thriving success. If it's private banks you have money as debt and inevitable economic collapse. That's the reason why the FED is the biggest mistake in America's political history.
tchujdenetza 1 month ago
@tchujdenetza The paper money during the Revolution failed. Have you ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"? It arose because Continentals (paper money printed by the Continental Congress) were worthless. Greenbacks also caused many economic problems after the Civil War due to their fiat nature, and were eventually phased out entirely to solve those problems. Inflation is an inherent problem with fiat money, and fiat money's issues are only worsened with fractional reserve banking.
mtanousable 1 month ago
@tchujdenetza The problem is, if someone (whoever it is) can create money from nothing - i.e with no cost to them, they will ALWAYS do it. Which leads to unnatural inflation, which means as time goes on money loses value, which leads to a whole array of other problems. Fiat money has been tried and failed every time since the 14th century. Surely if there was a way, we could have got it right by now? its not going to happen, it can only be propped with debt up for so long.
WhistlingTube 1 month ago
@WhistlingTube
"The problem is, if someone (whoever it is) can create money from nothing - i.e with no cost to them, they will ALWAYS do it"
You hit the nail on the head, sir. Yup, that's THE problem, as people are self-interested, they can't be trusted with such power & history demonstrates that quite ably & that's why creating money out of thin air will always fail & that's exactly why gold, silver , etc were used as money for thousands of years.
tjtomkins 2 weeks ago
anniversary since Dr. Friedman passed away... very nice vedio... helps a lot
peng1110 2 months ago
@peng1110 Yes, I am a young guy and was in high school when Dr. Friedman died. At the time I had no interest in economics and the event meant nothing to me. It is just kind of depressing to think that such a brilliant mind is now lost to the world.
MrSaemisch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For all Gold Bugs: Gold based or Fiat money makes no difference! By lending and re-lending out, banks create more money in accounts all the time. The interest they charge, they do NOT create. More debt is created than there is money! When people can't pay their debts, banks go broke just the same and savings in accounts are lost. Please see: /watch?v=7kk6fplyLTI and /watch?v=UG5luKfGjU0
Adriaan1950 2 months ago
Comment removed
IGOTTHESHAKESBAD 2 months ago
Seperate government and economy - let banks create whatever currency they want to use.
hermoda 2 months ago
@hermoda Are you from space?
Tobriep81 2 months ago
@hermoda agreed. If you did, the ones who chose to use gold would do the best :P
natritious1 2 months ago
@hermoda They have lol. Thats why we are all in this mess.
But you are half right, separate the government from the markets, and stop the government from providing bail out funds to private companies.
WhistlingTube 2 months ago 2
Churchill reverted the pound sterling back to the gold standard in the 1920's. The result was catastrophic. He later said it was the greatest mistake of his life.
I see the flaws of fractional reserve banking but the gold standard will be catastrophic.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The reason it failed was because of the enormous amount of currency that was printed during world war one to pay for the war. When Churchill remonetized gold, he fixed it at the pre war price, which caused deflation. Thats why it failed.
GalaktikNinjA 2 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH A full conversion overnight would cause teething problems I agree, but simply allowing people their right to use gold and silver as legal tender would not. Eventually gold and silver would take over the fiat money and people would return to sound economics once again. Catastrophe is inevitable if we all continue doing what we are at the moment, the USA is $15,000,000,000,000 and growing, and the Euro is about to collapse too, this is not what I call sound economics.
WhistlingTube 2 months ago 6
Money is only worth as much as sociaty sais it is, it doesnt matter if it has a standard, be it gold, platnum, titanium, or copper.
dave19941000 3 months ago
@dave19941000 true true
runhorun 3 months ago
@runhorun false false
Cornampoo 2 months ago
@dave19941000 but a standard can prevent inflation.
Cornampoo 2 months ago
@dave19941000 I would rather "society" set the value of a commodity based on natural supply and demand than the federal reserve with its printing presses running 24/7.
If you have 1oz of silver today, and you can get 100 widgets for that 1oz- then "society says" its not worth as much any more, how many widgets do you think you will be able to buy? Yeah still 100, because unless you have a massive influx of silver into the hands of everyone, "society" e.g. "everyone"- still values 1oz the same.
WhistlingTube 2 months ago 2
@WhistlingTube yeah, look where keynesian economics has taken this country so far... none the less, whether it be silver or gold, they have always retained their value, and have so for the past 6,000+ years, Microsoft, google, etc, was NOT around during that time.
sr71ablackbird 1 month ago
Brilliant re-write of history. It's so brilliant, it's almost believable, if it weren't for the history, which is pretty much opposite. The real question is why very intelligent people spend so much time, re-writing the facts of history, to make everyone think they were really the opposite of what they were? Gold rush precipitated the crisis, as wealth left currency, and went into commodity, leaving the dollar worthless. Stock piles of gold were created as a result of the confiscation act.
ObamaComma 3 months ago
@ObamaComma People re-write history because its the only way that Libertarianism can look like it works in practice and the only way for Social-Democrcy to look like it does not work better then Communism and ultra-Capitalism. Friedmans own policies have only survived to this day because people ignore what they have done to the countries they have been used in.
dave19941000 3 months ago
@dave19941000 this is either a lie or every piece of historic evidence I have ever seen is false.
Cornampoo 2 months ago
once again i must ask,"how much is a U.S dollar bill really worth"? thats the question..see lets say for example a dollar is really only worth 50 cents and i make $1300 per week salary, shouldnt i be getting 2600 physical dollars on my paycheck? i say this because the $1300 im getting is ONLY REALLY WORTH $650!.. we all need to understand that a dollar is not that green thing in your pocket, it is a measurement that = 371 &1/4 grain of pure silver or 24.057grams.
qwezzie 4 months ago
Milton, what about the inflation of the 20's that was supposed to cheapen USD to help GBP get back on gold at the old rate? What about fractional reserve banking and supposed convertibility of newly printed notes into gold? What about FED's monetary expansion after 1929 that counter-inflated shrinking money supply?
Dishonest monetarist.
Read Rothbard's American's Great Depression.
rumco 5 months ago
@rumco apparently you didn't hear. Milton is dead so he wont be getting your message.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
Watch the vid of his called The Great Depression Myth.
kuchek 6 months ago
U of C. LOL.
SuperIlluminaughty 8 months ago
Milton Friedman was a pirate and many of the pirates work under the Temple Crown and its Switzerland division headed by the Universal Postal Union which controls the whole commerce World for the Temple and its controller the Knights of Malta. For example both George Soros and Alan Greenspan are Knights of Malta. These are known as 'The Greatest Merchants on Earth'. Chancery Lane is controlled by St John's Wood.
anunnaki2006 11 months ago
@anunnaki2006 Nice to see they haven't closed the roads to Crazyland.
sidecar771 11 months ago
@sidecar771 Nice to see people like yourself are still ignorant and of no worth to myself. For those wishing to understand this pirate please check out Dr John Coleman's lecture and also study the Mont Pelerin Society of Switzerland. Funny enough Mont Pelerin Society comes from the vessel where the Universal Postal Union comes from, Switzerland. 'Sidecar' is yet another prime example of either an ignorant being of today or FBI Division #5 working here since August 2009 still with no videos.
anunnaki2006 11 months ago
Nobody would miss one of those bars....
amemy1 11 months ago
Great depression: Doubling the tax rates, hiking trade barriers, changing rules to stifle new business and keeping wages stiff instead of flexible (to clear markets and direct labor) probably were the main causes of stopping the recovery again and again. In 1919 and 1946 it was handled much better. And thus, these were only recessions.
nkristianschmidt 1 year ago
This is all bs. Gold is not needed at all for a system of monetary success, and instead is a tool that allows a powerful banking elite to control a monetary system. Script is a system that works, but only if it is controlled by a government of honest elected servants with one term of office. A centralized bank run by elite foreigners who have no loyalty to any country will ALWAYS implode the system because that's how they steal the wealth of the land and reduce the people to slavery.
bellatruth 1 year ago
@bellatruth
did you listen? friedman argues AGAINST a gold standard :P idiot.
BONDMATT007 1 year ago
@BONDMATT007: Actually no he did not. What he is decrying is not the Gold Standard but the Central bank that kept it locked and out of the economy...
bannedbyMusloons 1 year ago
@BONDMATT007 Not necessarily. Watch it again "idiot"
MinGophers 10 months ago
@bellatruth: You have it backwards Gold is not the problem Central Banking is the problem...
bannedbyMusloons 1 year ago
The Federal Reserve at the time denied that it had sufficient gold reserves to conduct open market operations sufficient for a reflation. Is it possible that the currency/reserve ratio grew so much that the amount of high powered money that would have been necessary to hit the needed quantity of M2 could not be supported by the amount of gold available?
hoodoo961 1 year ago
So its the feds fault gold failed..... hence why T Jefferson made his statement years back about who coins our money....
Fuck you Jekyll Island Barons and fuck you Mr Wilson
ORACLE063 1 year ago
The real crisis with inflation and deflation is when either creates uncertainty in the market, specifically when prices becomes volatile. Uncertainty breeds more uncertainty, and the economy retracts as investors feel uncertain about future values, or worse, about future liabilities, like taxation, employer side pension liabilities, etc., and stability is as much a positive as anything. "Stagflation" is actually a good term because it's the stagnancy of activity that attends frenetic change.
seismedia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the day the american white man, white anglo-saxon protestant white americans let this nation fall down, turn their backs on their own nation, and dont put gold and silver back in their money, then we are all doomed to destruction. every other foreign born hispanic mexican, african, asian ,immigrants hindus, all standing by to take over this country.
Rico8458 1 year ago
however, i do think friedman is very intelligent and reading his books has taught me a lot - but if anything it has led me away from any talk of returning to the gold standard.
boing3887 1 year ago
There seems to be ony two choices if we go with the mainstream narrow thinking monetary system. Go with gold standard which leads to Deflation. Go with the credit/debt system(which we've got nw) which leads to inflation. What a fucked up system either way. There are better choices but if I bring themup I will be shot down and rediculed so why bother bringing them up to the sheepe.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect Deflation means lowers prices, what is wrong with that?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
There are a number of problems with deflation. The problem with falling prices is that workers in particular are very resistant to lower wages. The problem with lack of money means that it is harder to pay back debt. These lead to business failures, foreclosures, and lack of trust in the system. This is compounded by the fact that people hold on to their money thinking that it will be worth more in the future.
Keeban3 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect
Why would the gold standard lead to deflation? You can stretch the restraints on the standard, and we find new gold all of the time. Plus with gold standard, you still have money creation by the lending process, so inflation occurs by loans as well. Not that I think the fractional reserve system is a good system in any respect, but inflation and deflation don't necessarily have to be a part of it, its just really difficult to make it not the case.
Keeban3 1 year ago
See the YouTube post of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech, which opposed the "Crime of (18)73" demonetization of silver, greatly contracting the money supply, and hurting the people and farmers in favor of internationalist bankers. After this, Friedman shows us here the next gambit - moving us into delinking precious metals and creating FIAT "dollars" (against the LAWFUL Constitutional standard of a dollar in terms of silver and its equivalent in gold). Bi-metallism is the answer.
pathenryprolife 1 year ago
Yea Yea Yea all a bunch of Goddam geniuses all Nobel prize winning economists. Still say a child selling lemonade on the side walk has a better grasp of economics than these over educated morons. Look where the collective intelligence of all the Ivy league idiots has gotten us now. Funny government still turns to these idiots. The whole thing is simple who gives a shit what system is used if people in power are honest it works if not they bail out themselves by illegally taxing everyone.
jobedied 1 year ago
Whoever posted this video should be banned from youtube.
If you're going to post videos like these please post the date the video came out with some other basic info. Otherwise please take it down, it just adds to misunderstandings and internet noise.
d7a7n9 1 year ago
i bet he put a goldbar in his pocket
sproeipoepje 1 year ago
Nice video, but the conclusion as to who or what caused the depression is not clear.
I think If there was a fixed amount of money in the system, and fractional reserve banking would be considered counterfeiting (which it is) - the artificial boom would have never happened, and the depression would have not have occurred at all.
I never really understood what Friedman's position was on the Fed, and on the money supply.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "fractional reserve banking"
Like it or not, this is the natural outcome of any proxy currency. Unless you prefer a barter system or carrying around Gold in your pocket, you store the Gold and issue exchange notes. Soon, the notes become THE instrument of exchange, even if still redeemable for real Gold. After a while, the Factor in charge of the Gold realizes that rather than just store Gold (a cost), it would be prudent to put more certificates into circulation than gold stored.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000
After a while, the ratio (fraction) increases from a float of 10% to 90% leveraging (creating derivatives). It's only when the first ounce of gold can't be redeemed that any one (except the Factor who skips town) worries, but then there's a rush on the bank that collapses the value of ALL certificates and depending on the actors, war breaks out and the economy retreats to pre-certificate levels or worse. Years later, tired of holes in their pockets, society accept a new proxy system.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000
My point being that it's neither Gold nor money, nor any combination that destroys or builds an economy. Look deeper - it's trust and if the Factor was transparent, there would never be a rush on the bank. Conversely, the transactional efficiencies that arise from credit; that aren't hobbled by the arduous weight of heavy metal bartering, take us from medieval stagnation to modern day wealth building. But it has to be backed by trust and most of that from rule (and observance) of law.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, it may be the outcome in all cases so far but it is still the real cause of the problem - so I think it should get a lot more focus.
In the 19th century there was very little monetary inflation, and prices actually fell over a period of 100 years. The economy boomed at the same time, and people could save money for the future without having to speculate on stock markets / real estate.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "In the 19th century there was very little monetary inflation, and prices actually fell over a period of 100 years."
You are buying into the "One Button" approach of Keynsian Economics, failing to see the problem or solution because of your focus on the symptom of inflation. It's not inflation or deflation, it's stability and equilibrium which fosters growth. Mild inflation reflects growth while the market adjusts its equilibrium. Deflation on the other hand denotes stagnancy.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, I totally disagere.
I see a stable money supply as a very important factor for an economy.
"Mild" inflation pushes people into speculation on shares & real estate, instead of savings accounts.
It makes it very difficult for most people to save for retirement.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "I totally disagree (sic)"
And I'm glad or there would be no advancement of this debate.
In turn, I disagree with your statement. First, you assume by the very pronouncement that "speculation" is evil and harmful, when in fact, it is the best forecaster we have because the people placing intelligent bets have money at stake.
Second, on savings "accounts", no wealth is produced by a people that stashes their money away. You want to keep the money circulating, employed as capital.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, some speculation is harmful, not all.
When people see their pension money losing it's value over time (inflation) they buy shares / property. If you look at share dividends and PE ratios since the 70s - they have been in decline, which indicates most of the share value is pure speculation.
If their money kept it's value - they could just put it in the bank - and then THE BANK would lend to productive businesses.
This video is related: /watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k (if you have the time)
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "some speculation is harmful"
Investing by its very nature is speculation, literally "looking ahead". Perhaps the distinction is between moderate and high risk speculation, and whether someone is speculating with THEIR OWN MONEY. Combined with fiat contrivances to spur lending to high risk borrowers, this is what clobbered the financial sector in 2008, traders using faulty risk models in place of good old common sense, and doing it with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in bad faith.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, I'll try to explain but it's not simple.
There's a difference between buying $10m worth of property, hoping that it's value will rise - and between setting up a $10m shoe factory / coal mine that benefits society and returns profits.
If people lose their savings via inflation - they are pushed into non-productive investments, like property, which don't provide a return. This creates a long term bubble.
The bubble eventually pops - and they are left with an asset worth a lot less.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "BENEFITS SOCIETY and returns profits."
Does this betray your position? Rule of Law benefits society, abiding the law benefits society, but it's not the job of the market other than to enrich individuals. I don't invest for any other reason than to increase my equity and regardless of pretense, that's the way the market functions as a whole. Of course, with rule of law and an unfettered market, societal benefit is a nice side effect, but it's a consequence, not a driving force.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000 "If people lose their savings via inflation - they are pushed into non-productive investments, like property."
No matter where you put your money it is at risk. You can put it in the bank, in Gold, under your mattress, in real estate. It's always subject to relative value fluctuations, against the yen, against commodities, one location vs another, this fund or that fund. NO ONE is pushed except by the heavy hand of BIG GOVERNMENT.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia - agreed! Big Government is the key here.
But why are you saying a little inflation is ok?
My view is that inflation of the money supply is theft.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "But why are you saying a little inflation is ok?"
I didn't say it was either "ok" or "not ok". Stop looking at the market in terms of good and bad, it just is. It's the vilification of market functions that get us in trouble. Inflation is merely an abstracted broad market indicator, sometimes reflecting growth and expansion, sometimes betraying profligate manipulation of currency, (reducing sovereign debt through"monetization"). Rather, look at key indicators like productivity.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, to clarity, by 'inflation' I mean central banks printing money / artificially lowering interest rates.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 "by 'inflation' I mean central banks printing money / artificially lowering interest rates."
Completely different concept. You're referring to "monetizing the debt" and "manipulating interest rates". Basically interfering with the market forces. It will eventually kick whoever tries in the teeth, so I'm betting that any denturist with offices down the street from the NY Fed is going to be raking it in soon. Perhaps in Washington DC as well.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000 "agreed! Big Government is the key here."
Government isn't inherently bad - again, it just is. But too much power concentrated and it becomes a behemoth, intrusive at best, tyrannical and oppressive at worst. That's the magic of the American Republic as long as the Constitution remains play - balance of power keeps each branch in check. Grid lock is actually good and rather than "social justice" that some think is the purpose of the Constitution, it's actually to limit the government.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000 "My view is that inflation of the money supply is theft."
Any fiat act of government other than preserving rule of law and protecting the weak from the would-be oppressor is criminal. Currency manipulation does not protect the weak, but ask yourself if it really steals from EVERYONE or who it steals from. If you have a big mortgage, lots of debt, you'll actually be a benefactor in the short term, because your wages go up but your debt doesn't, all thanks to inflation.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia what happens wages do not go up like it has been happening in u.s. for 20 years.
spark300c 5 months ago
@imre1000 @0:50 "Unfortunately none of those (founding principles) have anything to do with the modern American economy"
As proven in 2008 and, in spite of a reticent antagonism to market realities by the academic elite, continues to be proven today, is those principles have EVERYTHING to do with the economy. Rule of law/freedom of choice are the foundations of modern wealth, and the reason why it has rapidly surpassed every other period of history and why it's so concentrated in the West.
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000 "If their money kept it's value - they could just put it in the bank - and then THE BANK would lend to productive businesses."
Money is fungible/liquid and will always move towards it's best use because people are going to act in their best interest, whether a bank or a simple customer. The key of the social compact as it relates to economics is to keep the money moving, out of the hands of wasters like governments, away from fraudsters, and let the market do it's "invisible magic."
seismedia 1 year ago
@imre1000 "it is still the real cause of the problem"
The liquidity and availability of capital afforded by a token currency, even leveraged by multiples against reserves, has a positive economic impact that far far outweighs a reduction in savings or the absence of risk. The problem is not the monetary system, it is the malfeasance of bad actors within the market that destroys the faith upon which a monetary system works, and works well it does when law and order prevail.
geotopia 5 months ago
@geotopia The gold standard is what keeps the bad actors in check. There is no benefit to devaluing the currency. Devaluing savings makes real recovery impossible. The problem is our fiat monetary system that allows people with access to the printing presses to pick winners and losers and make sure no one will ever be able to save enough to compete. The burden of proof is on you looking back on 30 years of economic decline caused by our monetary system.
Quinvarius 4 months ago
@imre1000 In "Capitalism and Freedom" he clearly blames The Fed for causing the Great Depression by contracting the money supply. He touches on that in this video when he shows the gold in cages. The monetarist view on money supply, is that you contract and expand the money supply to control inflation. The Keynesian view is to control inflation by raising and lowering interest rates, which is the SOP for The Fed these days.
EricShermansChannel 1 year ago
This current recession shows that government can fail its investment. Also, big rich business owners can make fetal mistake that destroys the economy. The role of the government is to make sure money is spend wisely. Any government that initiate projects that is wasteful will drag down the economy.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
This argument of Keynesian, Monetarism, and Austrian economics is stupid.
Government is a big corporation. If it invest well and invest better than you and me. The economy will be better. If it doesn't invest well, it's better off to have small government. Money should go to individual.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
Milton Friedman in reaily is keynesian...he is a monetary keynesian......he beleives in central monetary planning as Keynes believed in central economic planning.....Friedman doesnt beleive in the gold standard...he talks about money as though they are pieces of paper conjured out of thin air
layishevik 1 year ago
@layishevik
Friedman is not Keynesian. He is monetarist. Look up for definition.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
The antichrist incarnate.
kurackurackurac 2 years ago
Milton Friedman was a good economist. He may have been a little fanatical about government, but his work on inflation was seminal, and he communicated economics to people in a way that few have ever been able. We need more people like him today in the public forum.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
This whole idea of 'creating' and 'destroying' money is silly.
I think money issued by governments will just be phased out by the markets.
My guess is it will start when oil producers will simply accept physical gold or silver only.
imre1000 2 years ago
Never going to happen.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
I think it's inevitable actually. BRIC countries are already hoarding gold and buying big.
imre1000 2 years ago
The Gold Standard keeps government small and inflation low. No great nation has being able to stay great without a Gold Standard.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
Murray Rothbard has a better understanding of the origins and causes of the great depression than friedman.
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago 7
Impossible. Friedman is a real economist.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Friedman is as much an economist as me being a nuclear physicist!
There are only a few people who can come close to Murray Rothbard's understanding of economics. In my view, the man is even better than Mises! But that's just my preference!
Friedman was an elitist and a proto egalitarian. Didn't understand zipzap about monetary phenomena and went to bed with the banking elites and dictators all his life! And he dared to present himself as a Libertarian! What an insult!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
You again! Did you ever read "The End of Laissez Fair"? But about Friedman, I am not that familiar with his work, I know he is considered one of the greatest economists of all time. As a Keynesian, he's not my favorite, but he's as good an economist as the neoclassical school has ever had. But if Rothbard is so great, how come he's not mainstream?
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Dude, you need to understand the historical context within which Austrian economics and proto neoclassical economics affronted each others. Austrian economics, child of the classical schools ruled from the industrial revolution up until ww1; the rise of fascism and socialism ( of all sorts) gave birth to Keynesianism and Monetarism. Rothbard appears at a time when "laissez faire", even in the US, is an anathema! It is not a question of quality of ideas but historical contextualization!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
Quality of ideas is always what it is, or should be, about. But I think you are confusing the classical school with the Austrian school. The reigning economists from the industrial revolution to WWI were Ricardo, JS Mill, and Alfred Marshall, neoclassicalists, not the Austrians.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
The essential difference beween the Chicago shool and that of the Keynesian is that the Keynesian prefers fiscal policy of money vs that of the Chicago school with monetary policy. Otherwise, there really isn't much difference. In terms of why something isn't mainstream, the same could be asked when some thought the Earth was round or that the universe revolved around the Earth. I ask you, can you counter any Austrian theories? Specifically?
jaffijoe 2 years ago
I think that distinction is questionable, as Keynesian thought focuses a lot of monetary policy. A lot of what Keynes said was the sometimes even monetary policy is impotent, as is the case right now with the ZIRP, then fiscal policy is needed. And the classical, non-Keynesian economics used to be the mainstream, then Keynes re Copernicus, came along to correct the orthodoxy.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
There is one problem with your Keynes/Copernicus analogy. Copernicus' theory has stood the test of time, whereas Keynesian economics failed miserably in the 70s and will more than likely fail in this decade, as well. While Austrians do have roots in classical theory, Mises didn't write Human Action until 1949. So, you cannot call Austrian theory "classical" because 'Human Action' was a totally new way of looking at economics. And, Austrians have proven correct in almost all cases posed.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
You forget the external problems of the 1970s, especially the oil crisis, which had nothing to do with monetary or fiscal policies. And you are right, the classical school is actually scientific and legitimate, whereas Austrianism is a fringe doctrine. What they say is so vague they can claim vindication at any turn, because it cannot be checked.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Read 'Human Action' and you will understand. No, we don't use empirical measures, because we know that individual actions and values cannot be measured and plotted to a graph, because humans have reason. They do not always act and react in the same manner, or at the same time. I do believe that Peter Schiff (a follower of Austrian economics) called the last two recessions with crystal clarity. He was not vague at all. Either was Misis during the 20s, or Rothbard during the 70s; Crystal clear.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
Doubt that. All of it. What did Schiff actually say, what did he "predict"? Probably not at all. If you want a good authority on the Depression, read Keynes. Austrianism is not real economics, it is a crank doctrine, more of a philosophy than an economic model. I will investigate Human Action if you investigate the General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Schiff isn't an economist, he is merely a broker that follows Austrian theory. But, watch the video called "Peter Schiff mortgage bankers" and you will see that he called this last recession perfectly and many of the things he said would happen afterward are happening today. I actually do plan on reading the "General Theory", but it is third in line behind two other books on economics. I have read parts online and have read plenty of Keyenes other works, so I am not completely in the dark.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
Oh, I think that I should mention that what he was saying in regard to China continuing to buy our treasuries, that in 2009 the Fed bought 80% of our debt through it QE function. How anybody can look at that and not see double digit interest rates and a currency crisis in the future is beyond me. Not to mention that this debt still falls on the American people. Keynesians are trying to keep credit expanding, but what happens when the only buyer is the Fed? Complete collapse of the dollar.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
We do not have a currency crisis, and that is the problem with what you are saying. And the only buyer is not the Fed, many people around the world still want to buy Treasuries because they are safe in this bad environment. Yields are still very low, and prices to buy them high, because demand is still there.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
The numbers coming out are not backing that story up. Foreigners bought less than 20% of our debt in 2009. And, the Fed's security holding for 2009 match within 5% of the total deficit for 2009. No we don't have a currency crisis yet. But, if demand for our securities keeps souring overseas, and the Fed has to continually absorb that shortfall in order to meet budget outlays, then there will be one. In fact, the only reason there was demand overseas was due to the trade deficit we hold.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
Fair enough, I certainly know what its like to have a ton of books waiting in the wings. And I will check out the video. But remember this, a lot of people predicted the housing bubble, including famous Keynesian Paul Krugman, you can read his August 16 2002 column and see for yourself.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Why would he not have? Throughout much of 2001 he was actually calling for the Fed to lower rates to keep housing starts going. Then, a year later he says "oh, we might be seeing a small bubble growing". No shit! Then, 6 years later he conveniently forgets everything he said in 2001 and 2002, and instead states that "nobody could have seen this coming". Come on, now. Maybe most Americans have a short memory, but I don't. He didn't call it, he helped create it.
jaffijoe 2 years ago
Here's a nice little Krugman quote from early 2002: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Yeah, sure this whole thing caught you by surprise, Paul.
jaffijoe 2 years ago 2
Krugman predicted the crisis, he also helped to create the crisis when he was advising to lower interest rates and spend spend spend US out of their recession after 2001.
rumco 1 year ago
Lower rates and spending are the textbook (and correct) remedies for a recession. IT had nothing to do with the housing bubble, central banks have been using rate adjustments since after the Depression. Lax lending standards and "animal spirits" re: irrational exuberance caused this mess.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
You are so clueless with your animal spirits.
rumco 1 year ago
You pretty much have everything backwards. Austrian economics is the only real approach that is sustainable...Economic "models" have proven to be failures pretty much 100%, particularly Keynes.
pretorious700 1 year ago
Nope. Keynes was right. Say it with me slowly, "We...Are...All...Keynesians...Now..."
hoodoo961 1 year ago
Austrian Economics is a pseudoscience t hat offers simple explanations to people who have a limited understanding of real economics. The reason that the Austrian School has seen a resurgence in popularity is that it's view of history is compatible with the view offered by wingnut conspiracy theorists.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
No, the reason it has seen a resurgence of popularity is that it is correct. You don't have to take my word, just wait and see what happens in the next 2-3 years and get back to me. Everything the Austrians have been saying to deaf ears in the last 3 years has come to pass.
pretorious700 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree in what way? you think von hayek, mises and rothbard were conspiracy theorists? also its funny how the monetarist and the austrians predicted the stagflation in 70s which was supposed to be impossible according to keynes. also it is funny how so many austrians predicted the housing bubble crash while keynesianists like ben steine were scratching their heads. i have a lot more respect for monetarists then keynesianists who are discredited repeatedly.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Keynesian economics. It is part of the Austrian school mythology that Keynesianism necessitates an inflexible inverse correlation between unemployment and inflation. It doesn't. No mainstream economic scholar ever said as much. It's also false that Keynesians were dumbfounded by the housing bubble.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree no economic mainstream economist has said that? wasnt that what the phillips curve was all about? you know the curve that paul samuelson (a keynesian disciple) developed? werent they the ones that said when inflation is high then unemployment is low and vice versa?
the massive majority of people are keynesianists and everyone time I read an article from the mainstream (apart from krugman) or watch CNBC it is always 'no one saw this coming'.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi The Phillips Curve posits an inverse relationship, but it doesn't mandate such a relationship, and it certainly doesn't come close to being the test of Keynesian economic theory. As far as the housing bubble was concerned, I simply have the opposite experience than you do, I guess... and don't forget that Austrians have established a cottage industry in predicting economic disaster for longer than we've been alive.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree of course it does, thats why every one was so taken a back by stagflation and main reason people like reagan and thatcher won. it meant that the politicians would either have to strive low inflation or low unemployment, of course it mandates it. phillips noticed the negative correlation between wages and unemployment however keynesian disciples like paul samuelson developed it to include inflation. and the austrians were right, they knew inflation and debt would bite us in the ass
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@pretorious700 Maybe in the Bizarro World that Austrians live in. Prior to the Keynesian contraction-expansion money supply approach, the United States experienced several major depressions and bank panics. Since Keynes, no market economy in the world has experienced a depression. Keynesianism has been an unmitigated success.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree lol, you are simply incorrect. I don't have to get to any arguments because the facts you state are simply incorrect.
YourNameHere1212 1 year ago
@YourNameHere1212 It's refreshing when someone flat out tells you that they don't need to supply a counterargument. Everything I said was correct. The Keynesian economic model was never meant to usher in a Utopia. It was meant to prevent bank panics and depression, which it has done so with complete success.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree The facts you stated were incorrect. Keynesian economics has not stopped bank panics or depressions, there are plenty of them since it has been used after the great depression. The mere fact that a depression as deep as the worst economic depression in history is not evidence that Keynesian economics works. What Keynesianism has done, however, is lead the world into spending itself into oblivion with many countries around the world on the verge of collapse under the debt. You fail.
YourNameHere1212 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree it has replaced bank runs with recessions. it didnt fix anything.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Try it replaced bank runs and depressions with recessions... which sounds pretty successful to me.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree ok if depressions and recessions are your measure of success then you can keep it.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree nonsense
doughtymqan 1 year ago
@doughtymqan What a well contstructed argument.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY
Friedman is social Libertarian. His economical theory is more left winged. I would say Greenspan and Bernanke share his economic philosophies.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
@Civsuccess2 lol friedman "economical theory" is anything but left wing
tetleydidley 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY Professor Milton Friedman have nothing to learn from a nutjob as Murray Rothbard.Your a wellknown nutcase your self,with zero knowledge in economics.
treddas851 1 year ago
@treddas851 Thank you, I take this as a compliment! Milton Friedman was a statist wearing a veil of libertarianism. He was just an opportunist; he had seen what had been done to Mises and other " radicals" and did not want to share their fate ( financially). He wanted fame and glory and acceptance to the powers and therefore made sure not to be too " extreme" in his position. A sell-out basically!
Amen!
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY U mean taking care of his best interest as any person who values their own well being would do? Not "selling out", just not being foolish. I ain't for a state myself tho.
mmamolina 1 year ago
@mmamolina
Well, at the time, Milton Friedman was seen as an apostle for Libertarianism; thus influencing generations of young minds and leaders with his false monetary ideas. That's the problem! He used the veil of Free market while in fact supporting the State monopolies ( in monetary policy in particular.) He is one of the reason why many people distrust libertarianism and it is important that free market and libertarianism been seen from a Misesian paradigm, not MF!
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY
this is the most accurate thing I've heard all day, no need to even comment on this video any more. Mises + Hayek all the way.
BONDMATT007 1 year ago
milton friedman was a jedi. i wish he was still around to school michael moore
MrXZodiacInfinitY 2 years ago 11
Moore is the biggest idiot I ever met. He thinks that a Socialist system where everyone makes the same is good. Nobody will bother working to create new ideas or business. I hope your right about the Jedi thing so he can come back and beat up Moore and the Amazing Atheist.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
Moore is quit an idiot on most things. I don't know much about the amazing atheist. All I know is that I'm atheist, and I do not agree with a socialist america. I'm atheist and I'm for lesser government and a free market! Just makin sure people know that there are atheists out there that aren't total hippies, liberals, and/or socialists.
MrXZodiacInfinitY 2 years ago