Economics in One Lesson: Part 3 | Jeffrey M. Herbener

[cashmore30]

the interviewer looks like a creep

[RKAddict101]

So basically all taxes are income taxes in the sense that they discourage production. Is the point they were trying to make after that that (regardless of the previous statement) some taxes are better than others if they are more revenue-neutral?

[SuperGuitarman69]

If everyone would read Hazlitt's economics in one lesson, carefully examined their personal political views, open their mind to the possibility that indeed they have been wrong all of their lives, submit to the truth and logistics if it? There would only be conservatives and libertarians left in the United States. I am a graduate of economics. I was hammered in economic theory. In reality, this book in essence is all anyone needs to understand how economics works in a nutshell. It's beautiful

[stealthswimmer]

does anyone know the name of the song at the beginning and end?

:-)

[falseangelwingx]

I take it you didn't actually watch the video. Music:

"Thaxted" by Gustav Holst arranged by Kevin MacCleod.

[stealthswimmer]

yeah, i was doin somethin else so I just had the vid loud so I could listen to it but i didn't actually watch it, lol.

Anyways, thx very much.

:-)

[falseangelwingx]

You're very welcome sir.

[OctoBox]

Herbener is a Rothbardian.

All Taxes (no matter how clever) fall on the "consumer"

The producer must first 'consume' resources before he can produce.

Consumption: To use, to waste (diminish), and to transform.

Workers are consumers (they transform)

Owners are consumers (they use and waste)

All costs on production are rolled into the pricing schema and thus paid by the consumer.

Corporatists will seek tax hikes to get tax loopholes -- tax-cheat last year to profit-take this.

[stealthswimmer]

You're wrong on transforming. To transform is to produce.

Agreed with the rest of what you said(even changed my mind that all taxes are on consumers because you can pick a fruit, and that's not necessarily production if it's a wild fruit, and you can be taxed on that, which would be taxing consumption). However, when you consume, you are an owner. You own the resources you consume (unless you stole them).

[OctoBox]

When I "consume" I transform the good, thus the value changes.

I eat apple -- apple transformed

I consume knowledge -- I transform myself

You are correct production "transforms" because to produce you must consume first (knowledge for entrepreneurialism, techniques for machining -- on and on)

"ownership" implies a "right"

You protect your possession -- that's righteous.

Since there are no force-agents to stop you, you don't need "rights" (permission)

Permission-Free Society

[stealthswimmer]

Consumption isnt considered transformation in the economic sense.Its transformation when you eat something in the chemical sense.

secondly,rights aren't permission.Theyre just a social construct to define ownership or entitlement

I dont see how there could be a permission-free society.If someone wants to shoot you and they dont need permission, then they can just shoot you and you can't object. If you shoot someone that pulls a gun on you, it implies you don't grant them permission to shoot you

[OctoBox]

Rights give Permission (to steal) -- They most certainly do.

If I lobby for an industry advantage -- I have a "right" (permission) to take that cost from the consumer and my competitors. Opportunity Cost and Direct Costs.

Yes of course permission can be used in many ways -- language is very imperfect.

If a person has a gun -- the permission is granted if I can't stop them. If I convince them or shoot them I have denied them permission.

To be a slave you must give permission.

[stealthswimmer]

Rights don't give permission to steal. I'm pretty sure you're thinking of positive rights. Positive rights would do so and that's why they're logically invalid (cus they necessarily mean that some people have their rights infringed on and thus can't be universally applied). Negative rights are ownership and thus are to limit coercion.

Permission is not granted to someone with a gun because they are using violence which overrides the voluntary nature and thus eliminates permission

[OctoBox]

From Websters

Con-sump-tion

Date: 14th century

1 a : the disease

2 a : the act or process of consuming consumption of food consumption of resources b : use by or exposure to a particular group or audience the document was not intended for public consumption

3 : the utilization of economic goods in the satisfaction of wants or in the process of production resulting chiefly in their destruction, deterioration, or transformation

[stealthswimmer]

darn, well I just got pwned, lol

[OctoBox]

:-)

The definition test always comes up -- don't feel bad you are in good company. I had a Rothbardian tell me consumption was not transformation, smile.

[stealthswimmer]

well there you go, lol

[OctoBox]

Stealth: There are no such thing as "positive" or "negative" rights in a free-society.

Where do "rights" come from, who grants them, and who enforces them?

A right is a protection or a permission.

Just think about it a little more profoundly in our present society -- then once you've had that "full" conceptualization meditate on how they are kept, maintained, or enforced in a free-society with ZERO force-agents or authority.

Rights exist in full or partial slavery

[stealthswimmer]

Rights come from your humanity. They're just a social construct. They don't necessarily require enforcement.

[OctoBox]

Stealth: A "product" of humanity.

We "consume" before we "produce" -- hahahahaha.

You proved my point again, smile.

Use - Waste - Transform

Once God shot his creative wad into the universe all "production" stopped. From that point on it's Use - Waste - Transform.

Meditate on that one.

[stealthswimmer]

If transformation is a type of consumption, that doesn't change the fact that things must be produced before they can be consumed. It simply means some consumption is subsumed within the production process. Much like collectivism is subsumed within individualis/capitalism.

[OctoBox]

Stealth: No -- "production" is a subset of consumption.

To "produce" you must consume assets (trasform), to pay the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur must "consume" knowledge to come up with the innovation. The raw inputs to create the end must be "consumed" (transformed).

Man consumes (use, waste, diminish, transform). Production is the "end" of a long line of consumption and the beginning of a whole new line of consumptive-profit or transformation.

[stealthswimmer]

transformation itself is subsumed within production. In the economic sense, transformation itself is not consumption because you don't gain utility from it. You gain utility when someone pays for it and when it only has value because it's going some end product that has value for people.

Furthermore, you must own what you consume or rent the services of others to consume(if such consumption is transformation) the things you need to be transformed. People are owners more often than consumers.

[OctoBox]

Yes a Right is a Permission.

If I lobby against you for an advantage I will be given a right (permission) to steal from you (less advantaged). Either direct theft on purchasing power or an indirect theft by fiat credit (purchasing power).

Meaning you will see it or you will not (direct vs hidden taxes).

Permssion by abdication of self-rule is very real.

We take rights or ask for them -- either case impotence to defend or granting is permission.

[stealthswimmer]

That's a positive right, not a negative right. When I use the word "rights" i'm speaking of negative rights because positive rights are logically invalid.

[OctoBox]

Your understanding of "rights" comes from someone else -- they gave it to you.

On an island alone there is no grantor or extractor of rights save yourself.

It's better to think of a free-society as a series of islands (people) -- autonomous and self-authorized without the ability to abdicate or steal by force-agency (gov't or authority)

[stealthswimmer]

No, my understanding of "rights" don't require that someone give you rights. You're a self-owner, which is where your rights come from.

[OctoBox]

Consumption is transformation -- making it exclusive to economics makes no sense at all.  Who said this?

Regardless consumption is "waste, use (to diminish), and transform"

[stealthswimmer]

To waste/use is correct....but consumption is not the same as transformation. Sometimes it diminishes/wastes the thing and sometimes it doesn't. Unless you simply are using the word "consumption" as a synonym for the word "use" in all cases...which I have never heard anyone use the word "consumption" as.

[chrysaureus]

...great video series!

....pity the sound is so poor...

[sbuttgereit]

Your premise is false. The government doesn't 'spend' on tax cuts because the money didn't belong to it in the first place; unless you mean to say we're really all slaves/serfs to a ruling elite and that, by their graciousness, we either are allowed to keep some portion of our production or receive a hand out to reward our patronage. Feudalism, even when democratically sanctioned, is an immoral system. It seems to me the moral burden is yours to justify taking the property of others by force.

[bobdeep1]

taxes are a cost of doing business. taxes are an explicit cost associated with and implicit gain.

[delatroy]

That's fine, but the point is that the gain provided by taxes spent is by in large grossly inefficient when governments interfere with free markets.

[bobdeep1]

"By and Large"??

[sbuttgereit]

Taxes are an artificial cost of doing business for which very little of value is returned compared to the outlay.  There is no expectation of gain associated with taxes explicit or implicit. If there was expectation of gain businesses would pay them willingly, without coercion and threat of force. Many businesses can't even rely on the benefit of the police for security, a valid purpose of government, with their taxes and pay for private security to get value.

[bobdeep1]

The need for private security is an argument for higher taxes.

[sbuttgereit]

No argument for higher taxes there, it shows the reluctance of government in allocating scarce resources to government's legitimate purposes in favor of propping up it's illegitimate purposes. This is an old politician's tactic to argue for more taxes: spend tax dollars on the wasteful and unnecessary first, the cry there isn't enough for 'necessities'. Really we should spend on law enforcement first, then debate the legitimacy of government's social role.

[bobdeep1]

"This is an old politician's tactic to argue for [less] taxes: spend tax dollars on the wasteful and unnecessary first), like tax cuts, then cry that the inability to provide "necessities" is proof that "government doesn't work".

[gnuochtapir]

lordmetroid: In Sweden, the tax on food are12,5 percent.

The tax on strong liquor is around 200 percent.

On average, a Swedish citizen pays between 50 and 60 percent of all income in taxes.

[delatroy]

Similar here in Ireland. 20 smokes in Ireland are now €8.45. In turkey: €1.95.

[harryogre]

I watched this series when it first came out. I gave each video 5 stars.

It inspired me to order and re-read the book.

Then last week with all the BS being spewed at us by the government and the media over Obama's bail-outs and stimulus package, I picked up the book and read it again.

Its less than 200 pages and can be easily read in two settings.I read it in a couple hours.

Wow.

Its like Hazlitt wrote it last week.

[TatalVost]

Romania has both an income tax and a consumption tax (16% of the product's price goes to the state).

[Aristotle100]

Wow thats nuts

[SanguiniusX]

The UK has consumption tax of 17.5% in the form of VAT. It also has income taxes of up to 40% and another income tax that we call National Insurance but its a seperate income tax and government pretends it's not an income tax.

[lordmetroid]

Nuts, in Sweden all sales have 25% tax on them except for food and literature which has 5% and gas which has around 900%