And by the way the FED doesn’t actually print money (the Treasury does that) But the Fed does control the “monetary base,” the sum of bank reserves and currency in circulation.So when people talk about Mr. Bernanke printing money,what they really mean is that the Fed expanded the monetary base.So Ron Paul could use Big Goverment to FORCE to abandon Private Fed,but Treasury could flood the US with Fiat Currence throw other agencies.
The root problem in banking is long-term debt. Inflation is a symptom of debt, yes, but it can also be a symptom of many other causes, some good (for example, rising wages for skilled workers, rising prices for scarce items) and some bad (like health insurance and mortgage loans). By the same token, deflation is a symptom of both good and bad causes. This is what the last questioner might have been trying to point out: that the true villain is debt and not inflation.
@cpklapper price inflation caused by rising wages is a bad thing, it means production is less efficient than before. Or that an asset is less available than it was before. It's always better to have deflation, because that means things are more readily available to the general public.
You can create money without creating debt, that is a very bad thing, so it's not debt that's the villian it is inflation. It's the creation and distribution of new money that generates tremendous moral hazard.
@AndrewLLFrazier price inflation is just an increase in prices, thus price inflation in wages may be caused by increases in productivity. In the classical free market case, that is the only cause. The better income is, in any event, a very good thing for the economy because it keeps demand flowing and, with increased productivity muting any inflation in goods, enriches the worker.
Deflation, on the other hand, rewards people for sitting on cash, a distinctly unproductive behavior.
@cpklapper Its a good idea to separate out deflation from productivity deflation, because productivity deflation when allowed to work will spread more evenly if left alone. When they try to inflate over and above the productivity deflation it doesn't transfer it equitably. Most economist agree that we need an increasing money supply to combat population growth.
@tadaa11 "Most economists agree that we need an increasing money supply to combat population growth"
Yeah the dumb ones. Increasing the money supply because more people are earning wages is perfectly fine, but it's important to make a distinction between that type of increase, and one that is done disproportionally and far beyond the population many thousands of times over. 4 trillion dollars in new money printed in a four year period when the population is around 300 million?
@MattQB1990 Yeah, they are working on a model that is total crap. They have this idea that some government spending is good for the economy therefore a lot has to be great for the economy. What they fail to recognize is that their model has limits. They're going to destroy the US economy. If we went back only 40 years our money supply, given population growth, should be(2012) 750 billion, but instead its close to 10 trillion now.
@cpklapper Nothing brings out the pro-state trolling like discussions of sound money and inflation. Inflation in market prices can be caused by multiple things such as a reduction in supply of market goods. Or it can be caused by the inflation of the dollar itself. What most people really care about is real wages, or their salary relative to the price of goods in the market place. To what "classical free market case" are you referring? You have productivity and demand backwards.
@MattQB1990 The bottom line is that all market intervention by a central bank, becuase of it's inherent power and temptation for greed, leads to bubbles and inevitable crashes. There is no perfect solution because nature and people aren't perfect. So the best system is the one that does the least, that uses currency backed by natural resources that cannot be "produced" in droves on a computer screen. Natural laws of productivity, supply and demand with a stable exchange medium cpk.
@MattQB1990 A judicial bank, run by the book by nitpicking bureaucrats and given neither the authority nor the incentive to take positions, would be free from greed and imagination. The bubbles and inevitable crashes, however, are caused by debt, so that prohibition would have to be in place as well. A fiat money supplied by a cumulative fiscal deficit would be one where inflation and deflation would be immediate, transparent and directly attributable to Congress.
@cpklapper Why do we need a central bank in the first place? The stated goals of central bank advocates are to "control inflation" and "manage the economy, make it more stable". If you look at the record of the Federal Reserve, it should be abolished on the grounds alone that it has failed utterly to achieve those stated goals.
@MattQB1990 I am not one of those "central bank advocates". I see no point in controlling inflation, prices, money supply or the economy through the banking system. Rather, I am advocating banks solely as adjudicators of financial contracts. The structure of the banking system I advocate would therefore be part of the federal structure of our judicial system. I would abolish the Federal Reserve, the private banking system and all debt beyond very short term, non-revolving loans.
@cpklapper Are you an economics major? Who are you trying to impress with nonsencial sentences like "cumulative fiscal deficit"? Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense but further validates the problem with "scholarship" when it comes to finance. There is a library of fancy sounding words and names for central banking activity, things like "quantitative easing" when it's really just "print out a bunch of money and give it to our insider friends".
@MattQB1990 I am an economist. "Cumulative fiscal deficit" is not a sentence, nor even a catchphrase, but a functional description of the federal debt. A deficit is a negative balance. A fiscal deficit is a deficit which a government has in its finances. The cumulative fiscal deficit is therefore the negative balance a government accumulates over time by postponing with debt what they could clear with fiat money. That is, the federal debt is an accumulation of prior years' deficits.
@cpklapper Oh my god buddy I know what cumulative fiscal deficit is. I was referring to the needlessly complex or otherwise euphemistic sounding terms "economists" use to refer to bank activities. I'm referring to the manipulation of the errant but unfortunately common perception that complexity leads to validity. You either know that and are being deliberately obfuscatory or you are ignorant. Either one makes you less than useless to talk to about economics.
@MattQB1990 finds me useless to talk TO about economics because I don't blithely accept what he and other libertarians say about it. Then he ascribes my failure to adhere to the libertarian economics creed to what he believes -- I hope solely for the sake of argument -- to be the "deliberate obfuscation" of economists. This, mind you, after I explain the term he was complaining about. Go figure!
@cpklapper I clearly explained what my complaint was concerning the terms you used, and they had nothing to do with my lack of understanding about them on their face, yet not once but twice now you have demonstrated arrogance by a presumed need to explain your terms as though I needed your instruction. So who indeed is talking "TO" whom? I never said I was an ascribed Libertarian. Was your last post first, second or third person narrative? Who were you talking to indirectly? Bizarre.
@AndrewLLFrazier I did not say rising wages in general, I said rising wages for "skilled workers". The good which such a wage rise accomplishes is to encourage workers to acquire those skills and, if such labor is no forthcoming, the replacement of that skill by other factors. Not allowing those wages to increase compounds an existing shortage. Similarly for a scarce item, the rising price enables a market to move toward equilibrium. Lower prices make goods less available.
@AndrewLLFrazier Debts allows the borrower to bid up prices (directed inflation) on the goods they are trying to buy with the borrowed funds. When those funds are deposited by the seller at a bank, which then lends out a multiple of it, the inflation circulates around the economy and becomes general. This is VERY BAD!!! The ability to repay those loans is dependent on the creation of more new money because of interest, thus turning the economy into a Pnnzi scheme.
@AndrewLLFrazier Creating money by fiat is much to be preferred, especially if it is directly related to budget deficits because it does not require additional money creation. Fiat money would be destroyed by budget surpluses, thus providing an equilibrating mechanism. The presence of federal debt works counter to this balancing device because it makes surpluses harder to achieve. Liquidating the debt while increasing the reserve ratio can remove that barrier with stable prices.
The guy's elocution sounds like vulgar snarling to me.
The Fed is a privately owned criminal organization. People can spend a lifetime studying "business cycles" and "economic theory" but if they don't get this, they're really wasting their time.
@suddenlyitsobvious I think Rothbard realizes the Fed is a criminal organization. He considers all forms of fractional reserve banking to be fraudulent, and therefore criminal(see The Mystery of Banking). Whether the Fed is privately owned or not makes no difference honestly. The way you phrase your comment make its sound as if making the Fed "public" would fix the fundamental problems with it. At the very least, it leaves that type of interpretation open. Of course, that won't fix the problem.
' Whether the Fed is privately owned or not makes no difference honestly'
Of course it makes all the difference in the world!! Your comment shows you do not understand the situation at all. It means all decisions affecting the world are taken by individuals that own government and everything else. It means democracy is a complete farce.
@suddenlyitsobvious Oh, I understand. The concept of the state is a complete farce, not jut democracy. Business cycles would still occur if the Fed wasn't "private", because power hungry politicians would still print money to buy votes. This is why the theory is important. It allows you to look past superficial issues like the level of the central bank's independence and allows you to cut deep to the heart of the economic problems: the artificial expansion of credit.
@suddenlyitsobvious Did you not notice I said "See The Mystery of Banking"? That is a book he published around the same time as this lecture that makes his views quite clear. I don't know how more public you can get than a book that is available on the internet for free.
What's relevant is that he largely ignores its relevance, and certainly does so in this lecture.
What's relevant is NOT what he thinks or knows but what he puts out to the public.
If you want to argue that in named book he focuses on the relevance of private ownership of the Fed and the catastrophic implications of this fact, please go ahead: I'm listening.
While Rothbard indeed denounces fractional reserve banking, ...
...he actually has the gall to promote free and competitive banking and keeping the control of money out of the hands of the state.
Obviously, this notion must automatically end up generating EXACTLY the situation we have today: through competition and concentation ultimately big bank cartels would emerge and AGAIN, the power to issue money would be in PRIVATE HANDS.
'superficial issues like the level of the central bank's independence'
Now really, why is it 'a superficial issue' that your government, IN THE NAME of the taxpayer, has TRILLIONS of debt to private individuals, who's obvious interest is to maximize debt -public, private, ALL DEBT-, and who promote and finance a jungle of theories except awareness of the most obvious?
...that issuing power over and over again for the past 100 years, and have CREATED depressions and crises for their own gain?
Why can't you see the exceedingly obvious implications of this power being in private hands? It's not a matter of fussing over the 'DEGREE of private ownership': it's a matter that determines EVERYTHING happening in the economy, including of course 'business cycles', inflation, depression, crisis, booms and busts, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
@suddenlyitsobvious It has nothing to do with "private hands". It has everything to do with the fact that there is a violently imposed monopoly on currency that allows these financial criminals to get away with all their BS. See the Feds raid on the Liberty Dollar if you want proof of this. If people didn't accept this and started using alternative currencies, the power would be stripped from these odious criminals in a heartbeat. Though the guns of the state would likely come out to stop it.
It furthermore determines all the significant parameters of the system we live in, in other words, the implications completely EXCEED economic theory.
Yet in this 1 hour lecture Rothbard is clearly talking around the issue of private ownership and its implications. ECONOMIC THEORY is worthless when PURPOSIVE AGENCY is excluded from the analysis.
Everything happening in the economy is ENGINEERED by people that HAVE NOT been democratically elected,...
... that are NOT being significantly controlled or regulated, and whose interests are NOT convergent with the interests of the nation or the people.
All economic theory of the 20th century has been walking around this massive elephant in the room, and incredibly, students will spend YEARS learning theory without being made aware of this fact .
The entire discussion is controlled charade since ages.
'because power hungry politicians would still print money to buy votes'
But who would the debt be owed to if the government itself issued money? Hmm?
Isn't it rather strange to promote this power be given to private individuals you apparently know nothing of, rather than government? Have you really thought this through?
Again, note Rothbard speaks out against fractional reserve banking,...
@suddenlyitsobvious I have thought this through, it seems you are misunderstanding me. I promote this power to be given to the users of currency. They should be able to choose to use what they want. I don't advocate a private monopoly on money. It is not strange that I advocate this if you actually understood how markets and competitive forces would stop your boogieman cartels from gaining any foothold. Cartels only last due to state interventions to limit competition.
... BUT HE PROMOTES the banking be in PRIVATE HANDS!! This really says it all!
Really, I find it unimaginable that you cannot see the relevance of full control over money, and it is very certain that those owning the Fed aren't quite as shortsighted...
Haven't you read at least the dirty basics of the struggle for issuing power all throughout the 19th century?
People with issuing power own the nation. This means government is owned by them.
Also, hasn't it ever struck you as BIZARRE that all the WEALTHY, INDUSTRIALIZED countries (as well as the poor of course), after centuries of exploitation and imperialism are swimming in debt?
Do you think it's 'natural' or 'inevitable' to generate debt?
WHY?
Bottom line for you is this:
' to cut deep to the heart of the economic problems: the artificial expansion of credit. '
But no, you haven't cut to the heart, you stopped at the periphery, ...
...presumably because the implications were too dark, real & problematic to be assimilated into your theoretical mindframe. (See? THAT'S the purpose of economic theory).
Sure, the artificial expansion of credit is a massive problem, but obviously the REAL PROBLEM is that this expansion is A MEANS to gaining control, it is DESIRED, ENGINEERED by those private individuals, who's SOLE BUSINESS is gaining control through their control over money.
@suddenlyitsobvious Interesting, but you really haven't thought this through properly. For instance, an issuer of money does not by default own a nation. I'm also confused by the line you draw between the private owners and the public. Saying that the private owners accumulate and the public are left with the dregs... but who is this 'public'? It's composed of private owners, you muppet. Your argument is full of half thought-through logic, but it did give me something amusing to read.
'an issuer of money does not by default own a nation'
Unfortunately, I can only address this sentence, since the rest is unintelligible and confused.
Well the issuer DOES own a nation to the extent he has a monopoly on the issuing power, such as the Fed has.
Surely you'll realize that in a world revolving around money, where everything and everyone is bought and sold, the individual who has the privelege of fabricating money out of thin air ...
...and lending it to other individuals as well as their government, THAT OF COURSE BORROWS IN THE NAME OF SOCIETY'S MEMBERS, acquires full control over everybody?
How long would it take YOU to take a fair amount of control over others if you could freely produce all the money you wanted, buying whatever you wished and lending it to others UNDER THE OBLIGATION THEY PAY IT BACK?
it's not the "take a fair amount" that would give control, it is the total quantity of physical dollars that are currently in circulation that would give control over a nation. ...so if your the one that dictates that quantity of cash out there, you are the monopoly of all monopoles. Thats why there are recessions. Fewer dollars in the market makes commerce grind to a halt. It happend in the 1930's... find W.J.BRYAN. HE FOUGHT IT. The worst thing about the FED's system is INTEREST ON DEPT.
'it's not the "take a fair amount" that would give control',
Obviously. I was merely putting it euphemistically to try to transmit the general idea.
I don't think controlling the quantity of dollars in circulation is by itself a sufficient condition for control over a nation, or if it is, then numerous other mechanisms can be taken to be also, such as control over the press, or control over corporations, over the army...anything basically that is used to advance the goals...
It is quite imaginable that if the control of the money supply would be in hands of honest people intending to defend collective interests -of the nation & world economy later- that it would be a rather technical issue nobody took too much care of, because all the principles were figured out to guide the economy intelligently.
Of course, this is not being done ON PURPOSE.
The real problem is that the entire economy is owned and that everybody...
...Is simply pretending with monopoly-money, while all the freedoms that money supposedly can buy are increasingly blatantly transferred to people who have taken such full control over society that they can soon eliminate money altogether. The reason for this is that we are playing with fake money on a gameboard of which they already have acquired ownership
They have acquired ownership of the collective and the circulation of money is merely their way of allocating resources...
' I'm also confused by the line you draw between the private owners and the public. Saying that the private owners accumulate and the public are left with the dregs... but who is this 'public'? It's composed of private owners, you muppet. Your argument is full of half thought-through logic, but it did give me something amusing to read.'
I suggest you be a bit less amused in your posts and apply some minimal standards of rigour.
Fucking brilliant.. this dude is saying all the shit I had always thought and felt but never put it together this well... churches forming people into state lovers, establishing cartels to ruin capitalism.... Brilliant.
@AshNaz87 Infaltion begets deflation. In other words, when people are forced to pay a larger percentage of their income for basics, they have less "disposable" income. "Basics" has become debt obligation.
@pretorious700 I agree with Rothbard's definition of deflation, which is the substantial fall in the cost of living, which also occurs due to the decrease in the money supply. Inflation is the opposite. Not sure if you are a Keynesian, but if it is the case, me and you will disagree over many economic matters.
In solidarity with the American people -- & all people -- I call on the current president, his surviving predecessors, Congress, and all U.S. & intl. media; on all who spoke/wrote yesterday to honor President Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration: to speak/write now to honor & examine, for the benefit of the American people -- & all people -- his Executive Order 11110 & its fate. President Kennedy stood up for all of you. Now who of you will stand up for President Kennedy? Who?????
Abolish the private jewish federal reserve.Since 1913 they have destroy the country.They have create wars,depressions and brought poverty to America,their final goal in total destruction.
Read this book for free on internet to understand all the problem America is facing.
Yawn, the more things change the more they remain the same Austrian Economics is bourgeois economics. The decline of capitalism was inevitable & Rothbard is just another hair brained liberal reformer defending a 2 centuries old class pyramid representing property. Until the class Rothbard represents has its claims to power & authority reexamined, we will live in a world where 5% at the top control 40% of the resources. The Fed is nothing more or less than a red herring. Who owns is who rules.
I am not advocating an alternative much less a philosophy. My opinion accords with many who dismiss Austrian Economics as a failed political ideology that in and of itself represented an attempt to fashion a model of a world that no longer exists. It seems to me that Libertarianism is another branch on the dead tree of liberalism from which it gets its name.
Capitalism represents the historical emergence of a revolutionary elite & the overthrow of democracy. The predicament of the majority deteriorates at the whim of ownership; collective bargaining is voided, plants are off shored, production is out sourced, temps are subcontracted. wages decline, unemployment rises as prisons multiply & police are deployed w/ hi-tech military hardware all the while we are promised a return to "values ". Such is the progression of inverted totalitarianism.
It is usually convenient to blame one institution for the failures of capitalism. At bottom the issue seems to be one of a disinclination to recognize that capitalism works almost as poorly when regulated as when unregulated. Capitalism is a failed 19th century Utopian economic theory that imposes a system of collectivized misery at the bottom fit to a feudal monarchy controlled by an elite at the top of a class pyramid. This situation is the outcome of the consolidation of power via wealth..
@jazzbo66zz capitalism goes even beyond that!!!. not only is a fraud,it Does Not Exist.the terms capitalism and socialism are madison ave,sales and marketing terms.stated Simply it is about the Tyranny of Power,they have it,and they have made sure u don't.
Monopoly Capitalism today retains the structural remnants of feudalism despite having set out at the end of the middle ages to transfer social power down a couple of tiers into the hands of a revolutionary bourgeoisie. The inevitable problems of accumulation and expansion carry forward the imprint of empire as well. In a shrinking world capitalists begin to behave like drunks who cannot cover their bar tabs. Borrowing more might signal a terminal crisis of legitimacy.
Rothbard doesn't blame the existence of the business cycle on central banking, he blames the extreme exacerbation of the new "business cycle" on central banking. Even in Austrian economics, there are moderate recessions and inflation. But as central bankers attempt to replicate what the market does naturally, they disrupt the natural process.
This man is very knowledgeable, but very hard to listen to. He simply does not pronounce every constant, requiring one to constantly fill in the gaps based on guesswork. For someone like me, who is not especially familiar with the material, this is quite confusing and draining.
Wow, I've always heard people rave about Rothbard. But After listening to this drivel, all I hear is unsupported, anti-intellectual, historical revisionism.
@verstwo2 You know enough about economic history that you can spot revisionism in what Rothbard is saying, but you don't know enough to know who Rothbard is.
@sparsematrix - I said I've heard of Rothbard, I've read some of his stuff, but after listening to him talk for an hour +....my comment stands. Rothbard is on the fringe, stuck in 19th century idealism, and has not contributed anything to modern economics. So yes, it is entirely possible to have some knowledge of economic history and not be intimately familiar with Rothbard's thoughts on it.
@sparsematrix - I've read excerpts of the book, not the entire thing. What does it matter? Did he fundamentally change the inherently flawed premise of Austrian school of economics? Did he go back in time and change the course of history? I think not.
@verstwo2 It matters because if you had read anything by the man, you wouldn't have needed to "listen to this drivel" to know what he was going to say. Rothbard *is* the Austrian school, as much as Mises, Hayek or Menger.
Re: time machines: "New news is old news happening to new people."
The course of history, especially our current situation, has been a vindication of Rothbard, Hayek, MIses and Menger. Interventionism, on its best day, is a poor approximation to the free market.
@sparsematrix - From what I've read about Rothbard is that he combined Austrian school economics to Anarchism - coining the term anrcho-capitalism. I don't believe his predecessors could be considered anarchists; while they were against state intervention in the economy, they weren't against all forms of the state (as far as I know). To have no disagreement in a school of thought over the course of centuries, speaks volumes. I'm sure a anrcho-capitalist 'state' would be a utopia.
@verstwo2 1) The Austrian school started with Menger in the late 19th century and has been disagreeing over the proper role of the state and the specifics of political economy since then. Quite vigorously.
2) No political economy is a utopia. There are only viable and nonviable political economies. Socialism is nonviable, period. Social democracy (interventionism) is only viable to the extent it is directed by information coming from the free market w.r.t consumer wants in the form of prices.
@sparsematrix - I only meant to post a comment here, not start a debate.
however,
1) I was trying to point that no one person can define a respectable ideology. A very minor point I think we agree on.
2) Agreed. Except I'm not willing to write off all possible forms of Socialism completely. Like all other possible forms of government, it is only as 'good' or 'bad' as the inherently flawed humans it is comprised of....none are perfect.
Capitalism is ordered under a hierarchy that ensures that those with the most are at "liberty" to care for those with the least. One of the premises of Capitalist myth is a blind faith that those with the most are entitled to wield a range of powers based on expertise wisdom & virtue. Historical experience would suggest that this material ownership class accords with a revolutionary political class both of which are in fact devoid of any semblance of expertise wisdom or virtue.
@furyofbongos LOL. Without a state there could be no private property, rent or interest (usury) IE capitalism. At no time in human history has a capitalist market/society (call it free market if you wish) existed without the state apparatus nor can it ever. Before you give some silly example of the west coat in America during the 1700/1800's keep in mind what it took to 'clear the way' for the settlers. The state military. Those pesky natives had to be eliminated somehow.
@crud4 "pesky natives"? I suppose you think highly of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and the like. Those pesky Jews. Maybe one day you will realize that your views advocate violence and coercion against innocent freely associating people.
@furyofbongos LOL. No, thats what capitalism has done in reality. Hitler was a capitalist, a fascist really and kept the precious private property of capitalists in tact. This mean the means of production was in private hands. Nazi Germany was capitalist. Educate yourself. No one is advocating a purge of humanity back to year one, all I advocate is expropriation. Worker controlled means of production. You will call it theft. You lack vision, education and honesty. Nor am I a Maoist or Marxist.
@iaintnocupcake What you write about rates is not an Austrian School invention,it was made by Swedish Economist Knut Wicksell's (1851-1926) in his cumulative process analysis, in which cumulative inflation occurs when banks hold the loan rate of interest below the natural rate of interest (at which saving out of full-employment income is equal to investment), resulting in a high level of investment demand.
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then.The result is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma.Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, t provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections
NBER :"Rothbard blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis. US had free banking from the Jackson Administration to the Civil War and that didn't stop the business cycle "
@zsylvana There was no "free banking" in the US after the Jackson administration. It is true the Van Buren admin instituted what was arguably the best monetary system the US ever had. However, we've had several "central banks" prior to the fed. The first was during the revolutionary war that destroyed the Continental, the 2nd was chartered by Madison around 1816 and was dismantled by Jackson, and the third was instituted as the National Currency Act in the 1860s; a precursor to the FED.
Except you forget about Europe, where central banks had been established for centuries. Mises lived in Austria when he first warned about the business cycle being created by the banks.
Also you don't need a central bank to fool investors by artificially expanding credit and cause a business cycle. A central bank just makes it easier, because all the banks can now do it together instead of some banks remaining honest and slowing the process.
@zsylvana LOL. The busness cycle is one of overproduction and no one to buy the product either because the workers don't want it or cannot afford it. Best way to tame the "business cycle" is cheap easy credit....or so they thought....that simply fed more bubbles which have burst one by one due to overproduction on main St or empty pyramid schemes on Wall St. Next up? Green tech bubble. Hopefully when that scam bursts capitalism will be ready to be overthrown in favor of workers democracy.
@zsylvana Rothbard has many writings that explain in great detail how the business cycle came about before the Fed. Credit expansion due to government privileges to banks. The claim that the US has free banking before the fed actually a myth.
@zsylvana You got it wrong. Business cycle is not primarily about central banking. It's about expanding credit beyond available capital. Central bank facilitates this. Rothbard has done many studies of recessions prior to existence of FED and explained why they occurred.
Good point. We cannot forget that fractional reserve banking also expands the money supply. But you are not correct in adding "beyond available capital." If capital is increasing, money should not be increasing with it. Everything should just be getting cheaper. If money increases with it, the problems of money supply expansion still exist, they are just harder to see.
@rumco "Rothbard has done many studies of recessions prior to existence of FED and explained why they occurred". Crisis's were actually quite frequent before the FED arose in 1913 but the FED can't even control the market. Most of the crisis before the creation of the FED and since have centered around overproduction- the 2008 and ongoing crisis is a different beast partly due to overproduction and partly due to people making money on Wall St without creating any commodities.
@crud4 Prior to cartelized banking of 20th century, financial panicks were common due to fractional reserve banking being allowed and encouraged by the State. This provide the State with cheap money. Many so called recessions were not actual economic downturns but market lowering prices as production increased.
FED should not control the market. Market is voluntary. I would rather speak of mis-allocation of resources rather than "overproduction". Markets clear.
@rumco That's as A-historical as it can get but it's nothing new with Rothbard- he also warped the individualist anarchists views to fit that of capitalism. It's funny how that post from zsylvana was marked as spam when in reality he/she is right. I wonder why there's 48 thumbs up? The Austrian theory of the business cycle isn't universal. Perhaps with the Panic of 1847 but many examples of overproduction can be sighted (1819-Panic of 1857-1873-1890-1893 Australia-1907-Shanghai 1920's etc...
" he also warped the individualist anarchists views to fit that of capitalism"
How did he? In fact he was very critical of both Tucker and Spooner and made (in my view a failed) critique of their mutual banking ideas. However he was very sympathetic to their joint belief in laissez faire.
@crud4 Yeah, there's no free lunch. They try to soften the blows of recession, just to multiply it at the end. I would love to see them try and finagle their way out of this one. They can't have high inflation because that would raise interest rates and kill housing stocks and bonds. They cant have deflation, because that goes against everything they believe in.Theres to much credit in the market,so theyre over spending 1.5 trillion on the fiscal side,which ends with rising interest rates
@zsylvana What you said is nothing more than bankster hegemony. Those business cycles were impossed by a cartel, a cabal, of banksters. Their actions then were no different than what central banks do now. The difference: Central banking makes it much easier. Laid out bare it looks like this: Usury, fractional reserve banking, monopolizing the medium of exchange from a backroom agreement or from central banking has the same effect. It destroys freedom and lives.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@zsylvana We did not have debt. The standard of living in the United States was of the highest order over all countries due to low production costs and competition. The currency was sound. Now the Federal Reserve is in control of the cycles and they are worse. Remember the great depression? That was a direct cause of the Federal Reserve. It would have never happened if we would have been operating under the Austrian theology. I am an economist. Trust me I have forgotten more than you even know.
Central banking does not predate the business cycle.
Let me share with you that central banking has been in place since nations have issued money to their people. It has evolved to the fiat, debt based systems nations use today to enslave others with fractional reserve lending. We use to call those running the nations central money supplies money changers, gold smiths but they all centrally controlled the money supply for the nation which made them the central banks of the time.
That's absurd. Rothbard did not blame the business cycle on central banking, he claims that trying to control the cycle causes far more problems. And it does. 1913 the FED was created to ensure economic stability, a few years later America was in the grips of he great depression. Great Job bankers.
@zsylvana See Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the United States. In fact, the panics of the nineteenth century were all linked to inflationary associated with centralized banking or monetary intervention. His book chronicles all of this. The independent treasury system referred to in the quote was not perfect (there was intervention and banking regulation at the state level) but was far more stable than other periods.
"If Christians refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence." [Cf. Mordechai Nisan, Kivunim (official publication of the World Zionist Organization), August, 1984, pp. 151-156].
I can't believe it. People are still accusing other people of being evil just becaues they are from another tribe, race, colour, creed. People let me remind you of what Al Capone said, "Money's religion is Profit" In the West people accuse Jews as being money hungry, in the sub-continent Sindhis are accused of money greedy. I think people have this virus of accusing and mistrusting others.
@MrBrozinsky Property is simply the acquisition of resources not previously acquisited. Humans take part in the creation of property in order to serve their ends. Since these resources tend to be scarce, humans have to both compete for these resources and co-operate via trade for them. If property is slavery, property is simply slavery to the human condition of wants (keep in mind that "needs" are a form of want). Humans cannot live if they do not try to acquire what they want.
@Nellsing What anarcho-capitalists advocate is a scrapping of cheating--real cheating, which involves force and fraud as well as slavery. To say property is slavery is to say that nature itself is a condition of slavery. As an existentialist, suicide is not a way to solve the absurdity that is life. Consequently, defining such as slavery makes the name meaningless since it does not discern between consensual and coercive actions. Pure ideal private property is not acquisited via coercion.
@Nellsing no, property means exploitation of a mam other another man. I'm not talking about personal property i'm talking about property of the production's instruments. When a child have a toy he wants 2, when he has 2 he wants 3.... this is the human nature but when is the society doing this you only create classes of rich and pour. Capitalism is destroing this planet aqnd you want to make it more powerfull, substitution of the state oppression with the oppression of capitalist manors.
@MrBrozinsky capitalist manors do not cooperate each other except in searching ways to exploit proletarians. Instruments of production have to be in the hand of the people, not in the hand of capitalists. Property is not nature cause is an invention of human beens.
@MrBrozinsky lol, if human nuts wanna live in property-less totalitarian state, they should be allowed to do so, but they must not drag property-respecting human beans with them :) Even more, since they hate property so much, let them build their society in antarcic - only place where no property have so far been created by beens :)
@MrBrozinsky it is true. slavery is the way this world is build. There simply is no other way. The only relieve of slavery was made trhough technological prograss, and it is completely thatnks to capitalism. Any socialist attempt ended with technological regress and thus increasing of opression.
This man is so correct. I'm surprised that he hasn't been shot yet by some Israeli monetary establishment, namely the Bankers. We must strive to eliminate the Federal Serve system NOW!
@VirtuaSaturn There isn't? That 's funny. Perhaps you can explain why all but one of the banks that own the Federal Reserve are Jewish owned? The Federal Reserve banks are of a Zionist entity. That's been a well known fact for decades. Why don't you watch Zeitgeist sometime? It's 4 hours long, with the addendum, but it will teach you something.
@cadrolls1okay, it happens that there are disproportionate number of Jews in the financial industry. so yes, inevitably a good amount of Jews will be involved with the Fed.. the Greenspan and Bernanke (NOT Volcker) for example.but to say any of them are intellectually dishonest or anything is a stretch. they have bad economic beliefs. to blame an entire religious group (of whom most of the foremost critics of the Fed belong too) or a foreign nation that didn't exist in 1913 is really something.
@VirtuaSaturn Never, never, never did I "blame" a whole group of people. The Federal Reserve Bank is a Zionist entity though. The Federal Reserve Bank should be abolished whether it is Jewish owned, Christian owned, or Martian owned. It is UNSUSTAINABLE regardless of WHO owns it. To say otherwise be contradicting EVERY economist and mathematician. Also, just so you'll know: I am related to the Rockefellers who own 1/8 of the Federal Reserve Bank. I suppose I am against that whole family too?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There's rumors among the Mises Inner Circle that Rothbard was heavily addicated to Cocaine-- a sheer dependency. Its hard to argue given his paradoxical writing.
Remember that this lecture was given in 1984, not 2009. "Current events" means something very different - the world wasn't, in 1984, what it is today.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This man teaches history,But does not understand present events.He has no idea the system is collapsed and the most weathly will try to keep control.But first every ones life time labor will go to 000$ History will teach this in the next chapter.Look at your life`s Wealth you see the rich burning it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God leave it to the Murray guy to complicate something as simple as the Founding of the Federal Reserve system!! Everybody forget this guy and go listen to G. Edward Griffin!!! He's 1000 times better & clearer!! This guy sucks!! Period!! It amazes me how some big f'ing intellectual can make something so complicated!! This totally sucks!! He is taking something very interesting & turning it into cardboard!! This guy has the right thing in mind but is a horrible teacher!!
I'm going to end all my sentences in exclamation points!!! Apparently it makes any ridiculous argument with no substance believable!!! I can never lose again!!! IT"S LIKE HAVING CAPS LOCK ON ALL THE TIME!!! AND IS EQUALLY AS IRRITATING!!!
TL;DR
TouKxiePie 1 week ago
RON PAUL
ElJefer 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And by the way the FED doesn’t actually print money (the Treasury does that) But the Fed does control the “monetary base,” the sum of bank reserves and currency in circulation.So when people talk about Mr. Bernanke printing money,what they really mean is that the Fed expanded the monetary base.So Ron Paul could use Big Goverment to FORCE to abandon Private Fed,but Treasury could flood the US with Fiat Currence throw other agencies.
zsylvana 1 month ago
15 people are misinformed or evil.
MrWakethesheeple 3 months ago 18
@MrWakethesheeple
15 supporters of Keynes actually
RSG132 2 months ago 8
There is a modesty to Murray Rothbard's delivery that is refreshing.
TheOmanJam 5 months ago 6
Awesome lecture! Very nice!
Now Kazakstan get some education!
Sincerely, Borat
someonedanya2011 5 months ago
Murray always reminded me of Burgess Meredith as the penguin
pretorious700 7 months ago
The root problem in banking is long-term debt. Inflation is a symptom of debt, yes, but it can also be a symptom of many other causes, some good (for example, rising wages for skilled workers, rising prices for scarce items) and some bad (like health insurance and mortgage loans). By the same token, deflation is a symptom of both good and bad causes. This is what the last questioner might have been trying to point out: that the true villain is debt and not inflation.
cpklapper 8 months ago
@cpklapper price inflation caused by rising wages is a bad thing, it means production is less efficient than before. Or that an asset is less available than it was before. It's always better to have deflation, because that means things are more readily available to the general public.
You can create money without creating debt, that is a very bad thing, so it's not debt that's the villian it is inflation. It's the creation and distribution of new money that generates tremendous moral hazard.
AndrewLLFrazier 8 months ago
@AndrewLLFrazier price inflation is just an increase in prices, thus price inflation in wages may be caused by increases in productivity. In the classical free market case, that is the only cause. The better income is, in any event, a very good thing for the economy because it keeps demand flowing and, with increased productivity muting any inflation in goods, enriches the worker.
Deflation, on the other hand, rewards people for sitting on cash, a distinctly unproductive behavior.
cpklapper 4 months ago
@cpklapper Its a good idea to separate out deflation from productivity deflation, because productivity deflation when allowed to work will spread more evenly if left alone. When they try to inflate over and above the productivity deflation it doesn't transfer it equitably. Most economist agree that we need an increasing money supply to combat population growth.
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11 "Most economists agree that we need an increasing money supply to combat population growth"
Yeah the dumb ones. Increasing the money supply because more people are earning wages is perfectly fine, but it's important to make a distinction between that type of increase, and one that is done disproportionally and far beyond the population many thousands of times over. 4 trillion dollars in new money printed in a four year period when the population is around 300 million?
MattQB1990 1 week ago
@MattQB1990 Yeah, they are working on a model that is total crap. They have this idea that some government spending is good for the economy therefore a lot has to be great for the economy. What they fail to recognize is that their model has limits. They're going to destroy the US economy. If we went back only 40 years our money supply, given population growth, should be(2012) 750 billion, but instead its close to 10 trillion now.
tadaa11 20 hours ago
@cpklapper Nothing brings out the pro-state trolling like discussions of sound money and inflation. Inflation in market prices can be caused by multiple things such as a reduction in supply of market goods. Or it can be caused by the inflation of the dollar itself. What most people really care about is real wages, or their salary relative to the price of goods in the market place. To what "classical free market case" are you referring? You have productivity and demand backwards.
MattQB1990 1 week ago
@MattQB1990 The bottom line is that all market intervention by a central bank, becuase of it's inherent power and temptation for greed, leads to bubbles and inevitable crashes. There is no perfect solution because nature and people aren't perfect. So the best system is the one that does the least, that uses currency backed by natural resources that cannot be "produced" in droves on a computer screen. Natural laws of productivity, supply and demand with a stable exchange medium cpk.
MattQB1990 1 week ago
@MattQB1990 A judicial bank, run by the book by nitpicking bureaucrats and given neither the authority nor the incentive to take positions, would be free from greed and imagination. The bubbles and inevitable crashes, however, are caused by debt, so that prohibition would have to be in place as well. A fiat money supplied by a cumulative fiscal deficit would be one where inflation and deflation would be immediate, transparent and directly attributable to Congress.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@cpklapper Why do we need a central bank in the first place? The stated goals of central bank advocates are to "control inflation" and "manage the economy, make it more stable". If you look at the record of the Federal Reserve, it should be abolished on the grounds alone that it has failed utterly to achieve those stated goals.
MattQB1990 1 week ago
@MattQB1990 I am not one of those "central bank advocates". I see no point in controlling inflation, prices, money supply or the economy through the banking system. Rather, I am advocating banks solely as adjudicators of financial contracts. The structure of the banking system I advocate would therefore be part of the federal structure of our judicial system. I would abolish the Federal Reserve, the private banking system and all debt beyond very short term, non-revolving loans.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@cpklapper Are you an economics major? Who are you trying to impress with nonsencial sentences like "cumulative fiscal deficit"? Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense but further validates the problem with "scholarship" when it comes to finance. There is a library of fancy sounding words and names for central banking activity, things like "quantitative easing" when it's really just "print out a bunch of money and give it to our insider friends".
MattQB1990 1 week ago
@MattQB1990 I am an economist. "Cumulative fiscal deficit" is not a sentence, nor even a catchphrase, but a functional description of the federal debt. A deficit is a negative balance. A fiscal deficit is a deficit which a government has in its finances. The cumulative fiscal deficit is therefore the negative balance a government accumulates over time by postponing with debt what they could clear with fiat money. That is, the federal debt is an accumulation of prior years' deficits.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@cpklapper Oh my god buddy I know what cumulative fiscal deficit is. I was referring to the needlessly complex or otherwise euphemistic sounding terms "economists" use to refer to bank activities. I'm referring to the manipulation of the errant but unfortunately common perception that complexity leads to validity. You either know that and are being deliberately obfuscatory or you are ignorant. Either one makes you less than useless to talk to about economics.
MattQB1990 13 hours ago
@MattQB1990 finds me useless to talk TO about economics because I don't blithely accept what he and other libertarians say about it. Then he ascribes my failure to adhere to the libertarian economics creed to what he believes -- I hope solely for the sake of argument -- to be the "deliberate obfuscation" of economists. This, mind you, after I explain the term he was complaining about. Go figure!
cpklapper 12 hours ago
@cpklapper I clearly explained what my complaint was concerning the terms you used, and they had nothing to do with my lack of understanding about them on their face, yet not once but twice now you have demonstrated arrogance by a presumed need to explain your terms as though I needed your instruction. So who indeed is talking "TO" whom? I never said I was an ascribed Libertarian. Was your last post first, second or third person narrative? Who were you talking to indirectly? Bizarre.
MattQB1990 11 hours ago
@MattQB1990 I am pro-local in both government and industry so I don't know you came up with that impression or the others in your comment.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@AndrewLLFrazier I did not say rising wages in general, I said rising wages for "skilled workers". The good which such a wage rise accomplishes is to encourage workers to acquire those skills and, if such labor is no forthcoming, the replacement of that skill by other factors. Not allowing those wages to increase compounds an existing shortage. Similarly for a scarce item, the rising price enables a market to move toward equilibrium. Lower prices make goods less available.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@AndrewLLFrazier Debts allows the borrower to bid up prices (directed inflation) on the goods they are trying to buy with the borrowed funds. When those funds are deposited by the seller at a bank, which then lends out a multiple of it, the inflation circulates around the economy and becomes general. This is VERY BAD!!! The ability to repay those loans is dependent on the creation of more new money because of interest, thus turning the economy into a Pnnzi scheme.
cpklapper 1 week ago
@AndrewLLFrazier Creating money by fiat is much to be preferred, especially if it is directly related to budget deficits because it does not require additional money creation. Fiat money would be destroyed by budget surpluses, thus providing an equilibrating mechanism. The presence of federal debt works counter to this balancing device because it makes surpluses harder to achieve. Liquidating the debt while increasing the reserve ratio can remove that barrier with stable prices.
cpklapper 1 week ago
Fabri Fibra's song called Spara al Diavolo...just reminds me of the Fed....if you understand Italian...check it out!!
ronpauleducates 8 months ago
This was recorded before I was born!
zxcv73 8 months ago
14 people dislike freedom
AroundSun 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
AroundSun 9 months ago
Hi I´m Ben Bernanke and I print Money as much as I want
Salihovicable 9 months ago
@Salihovicable
LMAO!
Rorschach65 9 months ago
The guy's elocution sounds like vulgar snarling to me.
The Fed is a privately owned criminal organization. People can spend a lifetime studying "business cycles" and "economic theory" but if they don't get this, they're really wasting their time.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I think Rothbard realizes the Fed is a criminal organization. He considers all forms of fractional reserve banking to be fraudulent, and therefore criminal(see The Mystery of Banking). Whether the Fed is privately owned or not makes no difference honestly. The way you phrase your comment make its sound as if making the Fed "public" would fix the fundamental problems with it. At the very least, it leaves that type of interpretation open. Of course, that won't fix the problem.
RadiantMirage 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
' Whether the Fed is privately owned or not makes no difference honestly'
Of course it makes all the difference in the world!! Your comment shows you do not understand the situation at all. It means all decisions affecting the world are taken by individuals that own government and everything else. It means democracy is a complete farce.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Oh, I understand. The concept of the state is a complete farce, not jut democracy. Business cycles would still occur if the Fed wasn't "private", because power hungry politicians would still print money to buy votes. This is why the theory is important. It allows you to look past superficial issues like the level of the central bank's independence and allows you to cut deep to the heart of the economic problems: the artificial expansion of credit.
RadiantMirage 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
' I think Rothbard realizes the Fed is a criminal organization. '
It is irrelevant what Rothbard realizes privately. What's relevant is the information he puts out in the public arena.
And he is obviously not putting out the information that matters most.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Did you not notice I said "See The Mystery of Banking"? That is a book he published around the same time as this lecture that makes his views quite clear. I don't know how more public you can get than a book that is available on the internet for free.
RadiantMirage 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
' That is a book he published around the same time as this lecture that makes his views quite clear.'
And what are these specific views?
It's rather easy I FIND to simply refer me to books without getting even slightly specific about the point at issue.
Why do you mention this book?
To make clear that you THINK Rothbard is aware of private ownership of the Fed?
Again, this is besides the point.
Who cares whether he's aware of it?
Of course he is aware of it.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(2)
What's relevant is that he largely ignores its relevance, and certainly does so in this lecture.
What's relevant is NOT what he thinks or knows but what he puts out to the public.
If you want to argue that in named book he focuses on the relevance of private ownership of the Fed and the catastrophic implications of this fact, please go ahead: I'm listening.
While Rothbard indeed denounces fractional reserve banking, ...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(3)
...he actually has the gall to promote free and competitive banking and keeping the control of money out of the hands of the state.
Obviously, this notion must automatically end up generating EXACTLY the situation we have today: through competition and concentation ultimately big bank cartels would emerge and AGAIN, the power to issue money would be in PRIVATE HANDS.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(4)
Amazingly, you state:
'superficial issues like the level of the central bank's independence'
Now really, why is it 'a superficial issue' that your government, IN THE NAME of the taxpayer, has TRILLIONS of debt to private individuals, who's obvious interest is to maximize debt -public, private, ALL DEBT-, and who promote and finance a jungle of theories except awareness of the most obvious?
Do you realize these individuals have abused ...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(5)
...that issuing power over and over again for the past 100 years, and have CREATED depressions and crises for their own gain?
Why can't you see the exceedingly obvious implications of this power being in private hands? It's not a matter of fussing over the 'DEGREE of private ownership': it's a matter that determines EVERYTHING happening in the economy, including of course 'business cycles', inflation, depression, crisis, booms and busts, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious It has nothing to do with "private hands". It has everything to do with the fact that there is a violently imposed monopoly on currency that allows these financial criminals to get away with all their BS. See the Feds raid on the Liberty Dollar if you want proof of this. If people didn't accept this and started using alternative currencies, the power would be stripped from these odious criminals in a heartbeat. Though the guns of the state would likely come out to stop it.
RadiantMirage 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(6)
It furthermore determines all the significant parameters of the system we live in, in other words, the implications completely EXCEED economic theory.
Yet in this 1 hour lecture Rothbard is clearly talking around the issue of private ownership and its implications. ECONOMIC THEORY is worthless when PURPOSIVE AGENCY is excluded from the analysis.
Everything happening in the economy is ENGINEERED by people that HAVE NOT been democratically elected,...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(7)
... that are NOT being significantly controlled or regulated, and whose interests are NOT convergent with the interests of the nation or the people.
All economic theory of the 20th century has been walking around this massive elephant in the room, and incredibly, students will spend YEARS learning theory without being made aware of this fact .
The entire discussion is controlled charade since ages.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(8)
On the one hand you have a 'Keynesian'-type discourse obviously designed to justify and maximize debt through state intervention
And the other side of the debate promoting 'laissez-faire'.
And all that time nobody is addressing that a bunch of crooks have full power to shape and destroy economies as they see fit.
So you really don't see a problem, because after all 'everybody is bad' so government...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(9)
... would do a bad job too,
'because power hungry politicians would still print money to buy votes'
But who would the debt be owed to if the government itself issued money? Hmm?
Isn't it rather strange to promote this power be given to private individuals you apparently know nothing of, rather than government? Have you really thought this through?
Again, note Rothbard speaks out against fractional reserve banking,...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I have thought this through, it seems you are misunderstanding me. I promote this power to be given to the users of currency. They should be able to choose to use what they want. I don't advocate a private monopoly on money. It is not strange that I advocate this if you actually understood how markets and competitive forces would stop your boogieman cartels from gaining any foothold. Cartels only last due to state interventions to limit competition.
RadiantMirage 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(10)
... BUT HE PROMOTES the banking be in PRIVATE HANDS!! This really says it all!
Really, I find it unimaginable that you cannot see the relevance of full control over money, and it is very certain that those owning the Fed aren't quite as shortsighted...
Haven't you read at least the dirty basics of the struggle for issuing power all throughout the 19th century?
People with issuing power own the nation. This means government is owned by them.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(11)
Also, hasn't it ever struck you as BIZARRE that all the WEALTHY, INDUSTRIALIZED countries (as well as the poor of course), after centuries of exploitation and imperialism are swimming in debt?
Do you think it's 'natural' or 'inevitable' to generate debt?
WHY?
Bottom line for you is this:
' to cut deep to the heart of the economic problems: the artificial expansion of credit. '
But no, you haven't cut to the heart, you stopped at the periphery, ...
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(12)
...presumably because the implications were too dark, real & problematic to be assimilated into your theoretical mindframe. (See? THAT'S the purpose of economic theory).
Sure, the artificial expansion of credit is a massive problem, but obviously the REAL PROBLEM is that this expansion is A MEANS to gaining control, it is DESIRED, ENGINEERED by those private individuals, who's SOLE BUSINESS is gaining control through their control over money.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@RadiantMirage
(13)
Who collects during booms? Those private owners, and the public collects some crumbs that fell to the floor..
Who collects during busts? Those private owners, and the public loses everything.
The heart of the problem is, that the interests of those with issuing power are ANTINOMICAL with those of the people and of the nation.
Economic theory is largely meaningless in its totality because the theory is based on observations derived from a FLAWED, RIGGED 'experiment'.
suddenlyitsobvious 10 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Interesting, but you really haven't thought this through properly. For instance, an issuer of money does not by default own a nation. I'm also confused by the line you draw between the private owners and the public. Saying that the private owners accumulate and the public are left with the dregs... but who is this 'public'? It's composed of private owners, you muppet. Your argument is full of half thought-through logic, but it did give me something amusing to read.
ralliart2000 8 months ago
@ralliart2000
'an issuer of money does not by default own a nation'
Unfortunately, I can only address this sentence, since the rest is unintelligible and confused.
Well the issuer DOES own a nation to the extent he has a monopoly on the issuing power, such as the Fed has.
Surely you'll realize that in a world revolving around money, where everything and everyone is bought and sold, the individual who has the privelege of fabricating money out of thin air ...
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
@ralliart2000
(2)
...and lending it to other individuals as well as their government, THAT OF COURSE BORROWS IN THE NAME OF SOCIETY'S MEMBERS, acquires full control over everybody?
How long would it take YOU to take a fair amount of control over others if you could freely produce all the money you wanted, buying whatever you wished and lending it to others UNDER THE OBLIGATION THEY PAY IT BACK?
See? The bottom line is really perfectly simple.
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
it's not the "take a fair amount" that would give control, it is the total quantity of physical dollars that are currently in circulation that would give control over a nation. ...so if your the one that dictates that quantity of cash out there, you are the monopoly of all monopoles. Thats why there are recessions. Fewer dollars in the market makes commerce grind to a halt. It happend in the 1930's... find W.J.BRYAN. HE FOUGHT IT. The worst thing about the FED's system is INTEREST ON DEPT.
gojumpin2 8 months ago
@gojumpin2
'it's not the "take a fair amount" that would give control',
Obviously. I was merely putting it euphemistically to try to transmit the general idea.
I don't think controlling the quantity of dollars in circulation is by itself a sufficient condition for control over a nation, or if it is, then numerous other mechanisms can be taken to be also, such as control over the press, or control over corporations, over the army...anything basically that is used to advance the goals...
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
@gojumpin2
(2)
...of the controllers.
It is quite imaginable that if the control of the money supply would be in hands of honest people intending to defend collective interests -of the nation & world economy later- that it would be a rather technical issue nobody took too much care of, because all the principles were figured out to guide the economy intelligently.
Of course, this is not being done ON PURPOSE.
The real problem is that the entire economy is owned and that everybody...
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
@gojumpin2
(3)
...Is simply pretending with monopoly-money, while all the freedoms that money supposedly can buy are increasingly blatantly transferred to people who have taken such full control over society that they can soon eliminate money altogether. The reason for this is that we are playing with fake money on a gameboard of which they already have acquired ownership
They have acquired ownership of the collective and the circulation of money is merely their way of allocating resources...
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gojumpin2
(4)
...a way that no doubt will soon be obsolete...
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ralliart2000
What's this?
' I'm also confused by the line you draw between the private owners and the public. Saying that the private owners accumulate and the public are left with the dregs... but who is this 'public'? It's composed of private owners, you muppet. Your argument is full of half thought-through logic, but it did give me something amusing to read.'
I suggest you be a bit less amused in your posts and apply some minimal standards of rigour.
suddenlyitsobvious 8 months ago
Fucking brilliant.. this dude is saying all the shit I had always thought and felt but never put it together this well... churches forming people into state lovers, establishing cartels to ruin capitalism.... Brilliant.
Lukeor 10 months ago
he looks like kissinger? aw their all crooks,may they all get it in the end!
mr1uponu 11 months ago
Rothbard and his cohorts are correct. Love his comment about 'changing linguistics!'.
Has anyone else noticed how the definitions of inflation and deflation have gradually changed over time???
AshNaz87 11 months ago
@AshNaz87 Infaltion begets deflation. In other words, when people are forced to pay a larger percentage of their income for basics, they have less "disposable" income. "Basics" has become debt obligation.
pretorious700 11 months ago
@pretorious700 I agree with Rothbard's definition of deflation, which is the substantial fall in the cost of living, which also occurs due to the decrease in the money supply. Inflation is the opposite. Not sure if you are a Keynesian, but if it is the case, me and you will disagree over many economic matters.
AshNaz87 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Breaking your habit naughty women benaughtyman.info
deenajuliette 1 year ago
In solidarity with the American people -- & all people -- I call on the current president, his surviving predecessors, Congress, and all U.S. & intl. media; on all who spoke/wrote yesterday to honor President Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration: to speak/write now to honor & examine, for the benefit of the American people -- & all people -- his Executive Order 11110 & its fate. President Kennedy stood up for all of you. Now who of you will stand up for President Kennedy? Who?????
20jan1961 1 year ago
the fed is a criminal organisation under rule of the bilderberggroup
osirishawkseye 1 year ago
@osirishawkseye
the government doesnt declare it criminal so it isnt. yay for being fucked :)
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abolish the private jewish federal reserve.Since 1913 they have destroy the country.They have create wars,depressions and brought poverty to America,their final goal in total destruction.
Read this book for free on internet to understand all the problem America is facing.
Who Is Esau-Edom...Who Is Esau-Edom..
MsMihailescu 1 year ago
Yawn, the more things change the more they remain the same Austrian Economics is bourgeois economics. The decline of capitalism was inevitable & Rothbard is just another hair brained liberal reformer defending a 2 centuries old class pyramid representing property. Until the class Rothbard represents has its claims to power & authority reexamined, we will live in a world where 5% at the top control 40% of the resources. The Fed is nothing more or less than a red herring. Who owns is who rules.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz lol. Keep preaching your time and time again dis-proven philosophy.
atm2462 1 year ago
@atm2462
I am not advocating an alternative much less a philosophy. My opinion accords with many who dismiss Austrian Economics as a failed political ideology that in and of itself represented an attempt to fashion a model of a world that no longer exists. It seems to me that Libertarianism is another branch on the dead tree of liberalism from which it gets its name.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Austrian Economics FTW!!!
WhatThePiano 1 year ago 18
Capitalism represents the historical emergence of a revolutionary elite & the overthrow of democracy. The predicament of the majority deteriorates at the whim of ownership; collective bargaining is voided, plants are off shored, production is out sourced, temps are subcontracted. wages decline, unemployment rises as prisons multiply & police are deployed w/ hi-tech military hardware all the while we are promised a return to "values ". Such is the progression of inverted totalitarianism.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
It is usually convenient to blame one institution for the failures of capitalism. At bottom the issue seems to be one of a disinclination to recognize that capitalism works almost as poorly when regulated as when unregulated. Capitalism is a failed 19th century Utopian economic theory that imposes a system of collectivized misery at the bottom fit to a feudal monarchy controlled by an elite at the top of a class pyramid. This situation is the outcome of the consolidation of power via wealth..
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz capitalism goes even beyond that!!!. not only is a fraud,it Does Not Exist.the terms capitalism and socialism are madison ave,sales and marketing terms.stated Simply it is about the Tyranny of Power,they have it,and they have made sure u don't.
myleftnutts 1 year ago
@myleftnutts
Monopoly Capitalism today retains the structural remnants of feudalism despite having set out at the end of the middle ages to transfer social power down a couple of tiers into the hands of a revolutionary bourgeoisie. The inevitable problems of accumulation and expansion carry forward the imprint of empire as well. In a shrinking world capitalists begin to behave like drunks who cannot cover their bar tabs. Borrowing more might signal a terminal crisis of legitimacy.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Damn.....Jazz that's deep dude,thanx.
myleftnutts 1 year ago
it's funny how zsylvana's misrepresentation of Rothbard's view gets 54... yet MrBlakskwrl gets no recognition.
interestingperson121 1 year ago 9
jekyll island. read it
lebiew 1 year ago
@zsylvana
Rothbard doesn't blame the existence of the business cycle on central banking, he blames the extreme exacerbation of the new "business cycle" on central banking. Even in Austrian economics, there are moderate recessions and inflation. But as central bankers attempt to replicate what the market does naturally, they disrupt the natural process.
petersantamaria477 1 year ago 2
This man is very knowledgeable, but very hard to listen to. He simply does not pronounce every constant, requiring one to constantly fill in the gaps based on guesswork. For someone like me, who is not especially familiar with the material, this is quite confusing and draining.
7beers 1 year ago
How central banking takes your wealth and leaves you in debt is the subject of the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT. Highly recommended.
SilentNoMorePubs 1 year ago 3
I've listened to this about 50 times and it just gets better.
pretorious700 1 year ago
Wow, I've always heard people rave about Rothbard. But After listening to this drivel, all I hear is unsupported, anti-intellectual, historical revisionism.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 You know enough about economic history that you can spot revisionism in what Rothbard is saying, but you don't know enough to know who Rothbard is.
Curious.
sparsematrix 1 year ago
@sparsematrix - I said I've heard of Rothbard, I've read some of his stuff, but after listening to him talk for an hour +....my comment stands. Rothbard is on the fringe, stuck in 19th century idealism, and has not contributed anything to modern economics. So yes, it is entirely possible to have some knowledge of economic history and not be intimately familiar with Rothbard's thoughts on it.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 Have you read Man Economy and State? Or just "stuff"?
sparsematrix 1 year ago
@sparsematrix - I've read excerpts of the book, not the entire thing. What does it matter? Did he fundamentally change the inherently flawed premise of Austrian school of economics? Did he go back in time and change the course of history? I think not.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 It matters because if you had read anything by the man, you wouldn't have needed to "listen to this drivel" to know what he was going to say. Rothbard *is* the Austrian school, as much as Mises, Hayek or Menger.
Re: time machines: "New news is old news happening to new people."
The course of history, especially our current situation, has been a vindication of Rothbard, Hayek, MIses and Menger. Interventionism, on its best day, is a poor approximation to the free market.
sparsematrix 1 year ago
@sparsematrix - From what I've read about Rothbard is that he combined Austrian school economics to Anarchism - coining the term anrcho-capitalism. I don't believe his predecessors could be considered anarchists; while they were against state intervention in the economy, they weren't against all forms of the state (as far as I know). To have no disagreement in a school of thought over the course of centuries, speaks volumes. I'm sure a anrcho-capitalist 'state' would be a utopia.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 1) The Austrian school started with Menger in the late 19th century and has been disagreeing over the proper role of the state and the specifics of political economy since then. Quite vigorously.
2) No political economy is a utopia. There are only viable and nonviable political economies. Socialism is nonviable, period. Social democracy (interventionism) is only viable to the extent it is directed by information coming from the free market w.r.t consumer wants in the form of prices.
sparsematrix 1 year ago 3
@sparsematrix - I only meant to post a comment here, not start a debate.
however,
1) I was trying to point that no one person can define a respectable ideology. A very minor point I think we agree on.
2) Agreed. Except I'm not willing to write off all possible forms of Socialism completely. Like all other possible forms of government, it is only as 'good' or 'bad' as the inherently flawed humans it is comprised of....none are perfect.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@sparsematrix
Capitalism is ordered under a hierarchy that ensures that those with the most are at "liberty" to care for those with the least. One of the premises of Capitalist myth is a blind faith that those with the most are entitled to wield a range of powers based on expertise wisdom & virtue. Historical experience would suggest that this material ownership class accords with a revolutionary political class both of which are in fact devoid of any semblance of expertise wisdom or virtue.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Well jizz i get part of your argument,however i'm at a lost as to why u lump revolution,with capitalism???.
myleftnutts 1 year ago
To vilify the bankers for creating the fed would be like blaming capitalism for the current financial crisis.
Without the violence of government (yes, violence; taxation is coercion, coercion is violence) there could be no "central bank" or fed.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
@furyofbongos LOL. Without a state there could be no private property, rent or interest (usury) IE capitalism. At no time in human history has a capitalist market/society (call it free market if you wish) existed without the state apparatus nor can it ever. Before you give some silly example of the west coat in America during the 1700/1800's keep in mind what it took to 'clear the way' for the settlers. The state military. Those pesky natives had to be eliminated somehow.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4 "pesky natives"? I suppose you think highly of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and the like. Those pesky Jews. Maybe one day you will realize that your views advocate violence and coercion against innocent freely associating people.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
@furyofbongos LOL. No, thats what capitalism has done in reality. Hitler was a capitalist, a fascist really and kept the precious private property of capitalists in tact. This mean the means of production was in private hands. Nazi Germany was capitalist. Educate yourself. No one is advocating a purge of humanity back to year one, all I advocate is expropriation. Worker controlled means of production. You will call it theft. You lack vision, education and honesty. Nor am I a Maoist or Marxist.
crud4 1 year ago
@iaintnocupcake What you write about rates is not an Austrian School invention,it was made by Swedish Economist Knut Wicksell's (1851-1926) in his cumulative process analysis, in which cumulative inflation occurs when banks hold the loan rate of interest below the natural rate of interest (at which saving out of full-employment income is equal to investment), resulting in a high level of investment demand.
zsylvana 1 year ago 2
such a brilliant mind its a shame he passed away relatively young at 68
DeanApril14 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then.The result is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma.Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, t provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NBER :"Rothbard blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis. US had free banking from the Jackson Administration to the Civil War and that didn't stop the business cycle "
zsylvana 1 year ago 46
@zsylvana There was no "free banking" in the US after the Jackson administration. It is true the Van Buren admin instituted what was arguably the best monetary system the US ever had. However, we've had several "central banks" prior to the fed. The first was during the revolutionary war that destroyed the Continental, the 2nd was chartered by Madison around 1816 and was dismantled by Jackson, and the third was instituted as the National Currency Act in the 1860s; a precursor to the FED.
ambientsummer 1 year ago
@zsylvana
This was because of restrictions on branch banking. Read Hugh Rockoff.
randyguitarman13 1 year ago
@zsylvana
Except you forget about Europe, where central banks had been established for centuries. Mises lived in Austria when he first warned about the business cycle being created by the banks.
Also you don't need a central bank to fool investors by artificially expanding credit and cause a business cycle. A central bank just makes it easier, because all the banks can now do it together instead of some banks remaining honest and slowing the process.
ivorgasi 1 year ago
@zsylvana LOL. The busness cycle is one of overproduction and no one to buy the product either because the workers don't want it or cannot afford it. Best way to tame the "business cycle" is cheap easy credit....or so they thought....that simply fed more bubbles which have burst one by one due to overproduction on main St or empty pyramid schemes on Wall St. Next up? Green tech bubble. Hopefully when that scam bursts capitalism will be ready to be overthrown in favor of workers democracy.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4 Yes.But demand are excluded from the Austrian buisness cycle.Don´t ask me why.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana watch?v=DzwbF8q6O94
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4
Are you a workman ?
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@zsylvana Rothbard has many writings that explain in great detail how the business cycle came about before the Fed. Credit expansion due to government privileges to banks. The claim that the US has free banking before the fed actually a myth.
19TEC85 1 year ago
Comment removed
cjkillmer 1 year ago
Comment removed
cjkillmer 1 year ago
@zsylvana You got it wrong. Business cycle is not primarily about central banking. It's about expanding credit beyond available capital. Central bank facilitates this. Rothbard has done many studies of recessions prior to existence of FED and explained why they occurred.
rumco 1 year ago 30
@rumco
Good point. We cannot forget that fractional reserve banking also expands the money supply. But you are not correct in adding "beyond available capital." If capital is increasing, money should not be increasing with it. Everything should just be getting cheaper. If money increases with it, the problems of money supply expansion still exist, they are just harder to see.
tubo222555 8 months ago
@rumco "Rothbard has done many studies of recessions prior to existence of FED and explained why they occurred". Crisis's were actually quite frequent before the FED arose in 1913 but the FED can't even control the market. Most of the crisis before the creation of the FED and since have centered around overproduction- the 2008 and ongoing crisis is a different beast partly due to overproduction and partly due to people making money on Wall St without creating any commodities.
crud4 7 months ago
@crud4 Prior to cartelized banking of 20th century, financial panicks were common due to fractional reserve banking being allowed and encouraged by the State. This provide the State with cheap money. Many so called recessions were not actual economic downturns but market lowering prices as production increased.
FED should not control the market. Market is voluntary. I would rather speak of mis-allocation of resources rather than "overproduction". Markets clear.
rumco 7 months ago
@rumco That's as A-historical as it can get but it's nothing new with Rothbard- he also warped the individualist anarchists views to fit that of capitalism. It's funny how that post from zsylvana was marked as spam when in reality he/she is right. I wonder why there's 48 thumbs up? The Austrian theory of the business cycle isn't universal. Perhaps with the Panic of 1847 but many examples of overproduction can be sighted (1819-Panic of 1857-1873-1890-1893 Australia-1907-Shanghai 1920's etc...
crud4 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crud4
" he also warped the individualist anarchists views to fit that of capitalism"
How did he? In fact he was very critical of both Tucker and Spooner and made (in my view a failed) critique of their mutual banking ideas. However he was very sympathetic to their joint belief in laissez faire.
SpectacularNumanist 4 months ago
@crud4 Yeah, there's no free lunch. They try to soften the blows of recession, just to multiply it at the end. I would love to see them try and finagle their way out of this one. They can't have high inflation because that would raise interest rates and kill housing stocks and bonds. They cant have deflation, because that goes against everything they believe in.Theres to much credit in the market,so theyre over spending 1.5 trillion on the fiscal side,which ends with rising interest rates
tadaa11 1 month ago
@zsylvana-Rothbard holds that the central bank is responsible for the severity of the business cycle.
Fractional banking was always a factor. Rothbard was for 100% banking reserve requirement and 100% Gold standard.
edwardpf123 1 year ago
@zsylvana What you said is nothing more than bankster hegemony. Those business cycles were impossed by a cartel, a cabal, of banksters. Their actions then were no different than what central banks do now. The difference: Central banking makes it much easier. Laid out bare it looks like this: Usury, fractional reserve banking, monopolizing the medium of exchange from a backroom agreement or from central banking has the same effect. It destroys freedom and lives.
redcorona14 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@zsylvana We did not have debt. The standard of living in the United States was of the highest order over all countries due to low production costs and competition. The currency was sound. Now the Federal Reserve is in control of the cycles and they are worse. Remember the great depression? That was a direct cause of the Federal Reserve. It would have never happened if we would have been operating under the Austrian theology. I am an economist. Trust me I have forgotten more than you even know.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@zsylvana
Central banking does not predate the business cycle.
Let me share with you that central banking has been in place since nations have issued money to their people. It has evolved to the fiat, debt based systems nations use today to enslave others with fractional reserve lending. We use to call those running the nations central money supplies money changers, gold smiths but they all centrally controlled the money supply for the nation which made them the central banks of the time.
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago 3
@zsylvana
That's absurd. Rothbard did not blame the business cycle on central banking, he claims that trying to control the cycle causes far more problems. And it does. 1913 the FED was created to ensure economic stability, a few years later America was in the grips of he great depression. Great Job bankers.
MrBlakskwrl 1 year ago 3
@zsylvana USA has never had free banking system.
smartass270 1 year ago 3
@zsylvana See Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the United States. In fact, the panics of the nineteenth century were all linked to inflationary associated with centralized banking or monetary intervention. His book chronicles all of this. The independent treasury system referred to in the quote was not perfect (there was intervention and banking regulation at the state level) but was far more stable than other periods.
BenLS1975 1 year ago
the greatest genius of our time.
2012Ronpaul2012 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"If Christians refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence." [Cf. Mordechai Nisan, Kivunim (official publication of the World Zionist Organization), August, 1984, pp. 151-156].
cadrolls1 1 year ago
I can't believe it. People are still accusing other people of being evil just becaues they are from another tribe, race, colour, creed. People let me remind you of what Al Capone said, "Money's religion is Profit" In the West people accuse Jews as being money hungry, in the sub-continent Sindhis are accused of money greedy. I think people have this virus of accusing and mistrusting others.
tociph 1 year ago
anarco-capitalism= false anarchism, substitution of the state oppression with the oppression of the major; property=slavery
MrBrozinsky 1 year ago
@MrBrozinsky Property is simply the acquisition of resources not previously acquisited. Humans take part in the creation of property in order to serve their ends. Since these resources tend to be scarce, humans have to both compete for these resources and co-operate via trade for them. If property is slavery, property is simply slavery to the human condition of wants (keep in mind that "needs" are a form of want). Humans cannot live if they do not try to acquire what they want.
Nellsing 1 year ago 2
@Nellsing What anarcho-capitalists advocate is a scrapping of cheating--real cheating, which involves force and fraud as well as slavery. To say property is slavery is to say that nature itself is a condition of slavery. As an existentialist, suicide is not a way to solve the absurdity that is life. Consequently, defining such as slavery makes the name meaningless since it does not discern between consensual and coercive actions. Pure ideal private property is not acquisited via coercion.
Nellsing 1 year ago
@Nellsing no, property means exploitation of a mam other another man. I'm not talking about personal property i'm talking about property of the production's instruments. When a child have a toy he wants 2, when he has 2 he wants 3.... this is the human nature but when is the society doing this you only create classes of rich and pour. Capitalism is destroing this planet aqnd you want to make it more powerfull, substitution of the state oppression with the oppression of capitalist manors.
MrBrozinsky 1 year ago
@MrBrozinsky capitalist manors do not cooperate each other except in searching ways to exploit proletarians. Instruments of production have to be in the hand of the people, not in the hand of capitalists. Property is not nature cause is an invention of human beens.
MrBrozinsky 1 year ago
@MrBrozinsky lol, if human nuts wanna live in property-less totalitarian state, they should be allowed to do so, but they must not drag property-respecting human beans with them :) Even more, since they hate property so much, let them build their society in antarcic - only place where no property have so far been created by beens :)
coturnix19 1 year ago
@MrBrozinsky it is true. slavery is the way this world is build. There simply is no other way. The only relieve of slavery was made trhough technological prograss, and it is completely thatnks to capitalism. Any socialist attempt ended with technological regress and thus increasing of opression.
coturnix19 1 year ago
Only 5 second in and i ready know that the guy is a jew from his name roth and im sure he is super pro central bank. But im one 5 second in.
andrewrosso 1 year ago
@andrewrosso YOU SHOULD KEEP WATCHING DO NOT ASSUME OTHERWISE YOU MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME
mattbaldea 1 year ago
@mattbaldea Your right he is notpro central bank but he is a a jew.
andrewrosso 1 year ago
END THE FED !
Fike2308 1 year ago
This man is so correct. I'm surprised that he hasn't been shot yet by some Israeli monetary establishment, namely the Bankers. We must strive to eliminate the Federal Serve system NOW!
cadrolls1 1 year ago
@cadrolls1 pretty sure he dies around 1995
noogie123 1 year ago
@cadrolls1 uh.. there's no connection between central banking and israel, idiot
VirtuaSaturn 1 year ago
@VirtuaSaturn There isn't? That 's funny. Perhaps you can explain why all but one of the banks that own the Federal Reserve are Jewish owned? The Federal Reserve banks are of a Zionist entity. That's been a well known fact for decades. Why don't you watch Zeitgeist sometime? It's 4 hours long, with the addendum, but it will teach you something.
cadrolls1 1 year ago
@cadrolls1okay, it happens that there are disproportionate number of Jews in the financial industry. so yes, inevitably a good amount of Jews will be involved with the Fed.. the Greenspan and Bernanke (NOT Volcker) for example.but to say any of them are intellectually dishonest or anything is a stretch. they have bad economic beliefs. to blame an entire religious group (of whom most of the foremost critics of the Fed belong too) or a foreign nation that didn't exist in 1913 is really something.
VirtuaSaturn 1 year ago
@VirtuaSaturn Never, never, never did I "blame" a whole group of people. The Federal Reserve Bank is a Zionist entity though. The Federal Reserve Bank should be abolished whether it is Jewish owned, Christian owned, or Martian owned. It is UNSUSTAINABLE regardless of WHO owns it. To say otherwise be contradicting EVERY economist and mathematician. Also, just so you'll know: I am related to the Rockefellers who own 1/8 of the Federal Reserve Bank. I suppose I am against that whole family too?
cadrolls1 1 year ago
@cadrolls1 zeitgeist is more Bs than fact. Especially the part about the fed raking in all this money on interest.
2012Ronpaul2012 1 year ago
Rothbard is the man!
JamesBlakeWilliams 1 year ago
Good speech. Conspiracy of the century.
poviladzas 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's rumors among the Mises Inner Circle that Rothbard was heavily addicated to Cocaine-- a sheer dependency. Its hard to argue given his paradoxical writing.
kitycalifornia 1 year ago
Forever the State's Greatest Enemy!!!
truevoice08 1 year ago
Remember that this lecture was given in 1984, not 2009. "Current events" means something very different - the world wasn't, in 1984, what it is today.
musicman703 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man teaches history,But does not understand present events.He has no idea the system is collapsed and the most weathly will try to keep control.But first every ones life time labor will go to 000$ History will teach this in the next chapter.Look at your life`s Wealth you see the rich burning it.
2zr1 2 years ago
Rothbard's speech went right over your head.
HapaLife 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God leave it to the Murray guy to complicate something as simple as the Founding of the Federal Reserve system!! Everybody forget this guy and go listen to G. Edward Griffin!!! He's 1000 times better & clearer!! This guy sucks!! Period!! It amazes me how some big f'ing intellectual can make something so complicated!! This totally sucks!! He is taking something very interesting & turning it into cardboard!! This guy has the right thing in mind but is a horrible teacher!!
pishdad 2 years ago
I'm going to end all my sentences in exclamation points!!! Apparently it makes any ridiculous argument with no substance believable!!! I can never lose again!!! IT"S LIKE HAVING CAPS LOCK ON ALL THE TIME!!! AND IS EQUALLY AS IRRITATING!!!
syghur 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes it does! Just like your ridiculous, inconsequential, pointless thoughts! Advise: DON'T QUIT YOUR 7-11 SECURITY OFFICER JOB!!!! :)
pishdad 1 year ago
@syghur
LOL!
sanatrus 1 year ago
If by weird and distorted, you mean it is a distorted view of a traditionally misrepresented history....then yes, I suppose it is.
mjirasek07 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is such a weird, distorted view of history, it hardly makes any sense at all.
hoodoo961