HEY YOU WANT A HINT ON ECONOMICS PROFESSOR RETARD THEY OVERFLOW THE SYSTEM WITH MONEY THATS A GOOD ECONOMY THEY TAKE THE MONEY OUT THATS A BAD ECONOMY WAKE UP SHEEPLE
The monetary serfdom of the WORLD WORKING CLASS in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
SHANEDK is a neo Malthusian and Keynesian hack, a Black Propagandist, a charlatan, and a fraud. He does not understand Classical Economics AT ALL, and all he does is spout Talking Points that his banker masters that he is whoring for, want him to spout.
@shanedk "Shanedk is a Malthusian and Keynesian hack"
Didn't Thomas Malthus predict the world would be dangerously overpopulated back in the early 1800's? And did you not make a video showing exactly how overpopulation doesn't work?
@donttreadonmyass He believed that famine and disease would check the population. I consider the success of vaccines to be a great middle finger to Malthus.
The population is limited by resources, but economic progress lets us make more efficient use of our resources, allowing us to sustain a MUCH larger population than we otherwise would.
This in my opinion is a great video. It's always great to break down common sense and see it from all types of views. Most people know how and why to spend money, but very few would think that they "valued the coke more than the dollar" so to say. It was good to hear something that makes sense of daily life and activitys. Good job sir.
What you really-really need to understand is all those utter lies in those economics textbooks, have nothing to do with the REALITY that is the American economy.
The Federal Reserve System and the God damn BANKERS control everything in a new Soviet style command economy. The BANKERS have stolen EVERYTHING, including the entirety of each individual’s labor contribution.
There is no money, and what you think you are being paid is a tiny fraction of what has already been stolen from you.
@EvanGaryMoss A groundless accusation using a term that prejudices demonstrable evidence or Self Evident Truth does not fit a civil discussion. Conspiracy Theory is a derisive term to label people that present truth in contravention to Political Correctness.
@EvanGaryMoss I submit to you as evidence an extortion, the General Theory by Keynes. As truth I submit, An Inquiry Into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Doctor Adam Smith, and On the Principles of Political Economy & Taxation by David Ricardo.
@EvanGaryMoss I am saying that the General Theory of Keynes is a disgusting pack of lies designed to defraud the public of the entire planet, to pay for a succession of Total Wars, to place everyone into fictitious debt, and to be used kill us off.
I agree with Doctor Adam Smith & Mister David Ricardo. If there are any flaws in those 2, I am unaware of it.
M. Say had some things nice and correctly, but he had important concepts wrong too.
@EvanGaryMoss I am not exaggerating. Keynes picked up where Malthus left off, and both of them were & are lying bigots.
ALL of the General Theory of Keynes, is a lie & false. Start on page 1, by page 3 after a tirade of lies against Classical Economics he draws his first grandiose bogus conclusion.
His formulation is an obvious fallacy. A fraud. A hoax. Bogus.
@EvanGaryMoss Chapter 1 Part II he states a LIE, “They [classical economists] do not seem to have realized that, unless the supply of labor is a function of real wages alone, their supply curve for labor will shift bodily with every movement in prices.”
The supply curve of labor shifts bodily by every movement of DISCOUNT Rate, based on the Bills of Exchange representing the bulk of the goods or services in transit in a Free Market toward final delivery to a paying customer.
Thank you for refering to Prof. Mankiw's book. I think I will purchase it.
From what I've seen economist refer to 3 factors in the production function: Labor, Capital and Land. He even does in the beginning.
2 Qs 4u:
1) At what point in his book does he replace Land with "natural resources", and why does he do it? Natural resources seems to be raw materials, which are a part of real capital.
2) Also, why do you begin your primer with Production? He saves it for after 200 pages.
@EvanGaryMoss I don't know; I was looking for something in Google results that covered what you asked for. I haven't read the book all the way through.
There are lots of different ways to cover this material.
@EvanGaryMoss IDK about this book. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, doesn't include land as a commodity it includes it as a component of price called 'Rent'. Smith breaks value into 1.) Labor (Time, Hardship, Ingenuity) 2.)Profit of Stock (profit of ownership) and 3.)Rent (price payed to owner of land). The only way to "own" land is to defend it. Thus the government starts with the land, and sells it to citizens. That defense is the labor which rent is ultimately reducible to.
@shanedk I bet. I've been reading through TWON and making notes, but I figured its abit outdated. Maybe you could make some recommendations. My original plan was to start at the beginning and make my way forward. Thanks for the videos shane. Very beneficial.
@thirdcreed That's not a bad way to do it. Be sure you don't miss Bastiat and Say. Although if you don't mind going non-chronological, Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is a great one to read early on.
@centurion180ad Well, there's the Wisdom of Crowds, for one. There's the relationship between the money supply and inflation for another. There's the different types of unemployment and what causes them. There's Say's Law. There's Business Cycle Theory. I can keep going if you want.
@shanedk What money? There is no money in general circulation anywhere in the world. Irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system is not money.
Keynes theory is a fraud, and excuse for extortion, and quoting his measurements of ongoing crime is an alchemy. Smith & Ricardo both agree by personal observation that unemployment ought to be shallow, temporary & localized. Say's law is incomplete. Smith & Ricardo fully quote M. Say, and complete his theory.
@shanedk Say's law did not //originate// with J. B. Say. It was accredited to him much later on, as a way to remember it. It is like saying Faraday's Law, when he did not discover induction, he was just the first to write down certain mathematical conclusions that in his case turned out to be true.
Smith & Ricardo agreed with Say in many respects, hashed over his ideas and quoted him often, but refuted some of his important conclusions.
@shanedk Say was the last to die in 1832. Ideas dear to him and later attributed to him were in circulation long before him. Smith & Ricardo went back & fourth on several rounds, and after Smith's death Ricardo published a Magnum Opus in 1817. In that book Ricardo agrees with Smith, quotes Smith & Say, and takes Smith's side with some amplification & clarification.
This is all chicken shit. The important FACT is the Keynes is a fraud.
@shanedk@shanedk You were the one that brough up Business Cycles, apparently without knowing that they do not exist in a classical economy. I quote you, "there's Business Cycles, I can keep going if you want."
@shanedk von Mises was writing at a time when irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system was being used to plunder the planet to pay to wage countless slaughters & enslavements. OBVIOUSLY he’d comment on that, but a classical economy does not behave that way.
This is off topic, and we got off on the wrong foot.
Let's discuss why there are not supposed to be business cycles or chronic unemployemt.
There are two fundamental principles of economics: 1) desires are unlimited; 2) resources are limited.
So then, there should never be ANY unemployment because there should always be someone willing to hire people to use the limited resources to satisfy as many unlimited desires as possible.
@shanedk I agree with you on 2 points. The unemlpoyment conumdrum is easy, and that there should never be any unemployment as defined as involuntary & chronic. There will always be //some// voluntary unemployment as labor realigns itself to new means or walks out in a protest of a bad wage.
Doctor Adam Smith went over this point for point, and David Ricardo amplified & agreed.
@shanedk In our disgusting modern thinking we have been brainwashed into disagreeing, have forgotten, or both, that........ [drum roll] [trumpet flourish]
LABOR IS CAPITAL
That alone is wholly sufficient to explain why there should never be chronic involuntary unemployment, because people’s efforts is what is valuable. All that stuff that you can kick, is tangible WEALTH generated by human creativity.
@centurion180ad No, labor and capital are two different components of the production function. I have YET to see a theory of economics that treats the two as the same.
(Of course, you can have "capital labor," but that's not the same thing.)
@shanedk Malthus makes that same argument, to justify the plundering of the laboring classes of the value of their labor.
Classical Economics is unified in its observation that wealth is labeled as capital when it is mobilized for production, but ALL wealth is generated by human creativity & effort, therefore labor being the motive force behind generation of wealth is capital itself when it is employed in production.
There is no distinction between a machine, and its operator.
@shanedk Doctor Adam Smith is VERY specific on this point and he laboriously describes the relationship, in An Inquiry Into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations. LABOR IS CAPITAL, and no distinction between labor or capital plant & equipment may be drawn.
If you care to disagree with Doctor Adam Smith on this point, we have no basis for further discussion.
@shanedk I understand the ACCESS function that gatekeepers wield against people that know the truth.
All good references are kept tucked away. I am unable to afford going stack diving in America anymore, much less live there on a fulltime basis thanks to the God damn bankers and all their sick-O minions.
Labor is separated out from plant & equipment on a ledger, because maintenance & replacement is obviously handled different than hiring, promotions & pensions. Labor is still capital.
@centurion180ad I'm not talking about business ledgers; I'm talking about production functions in economic theory. Now stop evading and answer the question!
@shanedk Second, Mr Friedman revolutionised how economists and policymakers treated money and inflation. Until he showed otherwise, post-war governments seemed able to trade off unemployment and inflation: a long-term statistical link between the two, known as the Phillips curve.You should spend your time better than present this type of tacit knowledge based,long passed away ideas from the Austrian school.
@treddas851 " Until he showed otherwise, post-war governments seemed able to trade off unemployment and inflation: a long-term statistical link between the two, known as the Phillips curve."
It was only they Keynesians who claimed that. Austrian economists such as Hayek had been critical of it all along.
You show greater and greater ignorance with every post.
@shanedk Hayek and Keynes where much the same.They were close friends and used the same basic ideas
and framework,rejected both the great positivist Neo-Classical tradition of Freemarket developed at the University of Chicago by such as Simons,Friedman,Lucas and the Rational Expectation Theory!Why Shane waiste your time on Hayek-Keynes.Friedman was the greatest Free-market economist of all time!
@centurion180ad The Business Cycle is a bit weirder. As we know it, business cycles happen through credit expansion, either through government or a central bank, which results in malinvestment. This is unsustainable, and when everything hits the fan the economy contracts to try and redistribute resources to where they're actually needed.
In a free market, this happens, but only slightly and in the very short term--and other places in the economy cover for it.
@shanedk There were NO business cycles in America prior to 1913. There were no business cycles in Germany prior to the end of World War One. I agree that a business cycle is wholly attributable to government intervention with a central bank, because that is what God damn bankers OWN & PAY GRAFT to a government FOR, to bust the people, plunder and have an excuse murder them all.
In an //actual// free market meaning the Free Enterprise of Doctor Adam Smith, there is no cycle.
@shanedk I have only read Antal E. Fekete’s remarks & lecture notes with respect to Von Mises. Von Mises conclusions WRT convertible banknotes are incomplete, as he died before his last publication.
@shanedk You should read up on economics.Friedman laid the foundation of modern theories of consumption.Keynes had posited that as income rose,so would the proportion that was saved.Economic data bore this out only up to a point:though the rich had higher saving rates than the poor,aggregate saving rates did not rise as countries became richer.It´s effect the price.Friedman resolved this apparent paradox with a theory known as the permanent income hypothesis.Austrian school is junkfood economics
@treddas851 You've done nothing to show you even UNDERSTAND economics, much less are qualified to judge the Austrian school. Especially when you base it on an INCORRECT rant which, EVEN IF CORRECT, wouldn't have anything to do with Austrian economics anyway!
The Permanent Income Hypothesis has to do with people's long-term expectations of income, and is based on the person's real wealth, NOT current disposable income!
Nonscence.You mezz it up.The basic confusion between descriptive accuracy and analytical relevance that underlies most criticisms of economic theory on the grounds that its assumptions are unrealistic as well as the plausibility of the views that lead to this confusion are both strikingly illustrated by a seemingly innocuous remark in an article on business-cycle theory that Friedman so wisely wrote in 1961.
@shanedk I don´t want to be rude Shane.Excuse me it was not my intention.We disagree on economics but i really like your videos about Bogus very much.Very welldone.Thanks!
@shanedk You have a true good outspoken voice for freemarket,and i agree in most of what you say.But i would be glad if you could do a video about the differenece between the the Austrian school and the Chicago school of economics.Remember that Friedrich von Hayek was a professor at Chicago and in high degree inspired Milton Friedman.Let´s talk in civil manor and just tell what in the Chicago school you find so upsetting.I don´t get upset if you have critique of Friedman and Lucas.
@shanedk You have a true good outspoken voice for freemarket,and i agree in most of what you say.But i would be glad if you could do a video about the differenece between the the Austrian school and the Chicago school of economics.Remember that Friedrich von Hayek was a professor at Chicago and in high degree inspired Milton Friedman.Let´s talk in civil manor and just tell what in the Chicago school you find so upsetting.I don´t get upset if you have critique of Friedman and Lucas.
@shanedk Milton Friedman said "Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails. (b) Austrian economists have often nderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it."
You text, "how could they have refuted some of his important conclusions when they both died before he published them."
Say had some wrong theories after the fact, that Smith had already been over and Ricardo republished.
Smith died just as Say was making a name for himself. Ricardo lived plenty when Say began dabbling with the publishings of Smith, and they did not agree. Ricardo quoted Smith in his 1817 work, quoted Say to show how it was wrong, and further amplified Smith's theory.
@centurion180ad You know what you're doing? It's like you're taking people who critiqued Darwin earlier when he was writing about coral reefs and volcanic geology and trying to make them relevant to the Origin of Species.
You are attempting to come off like a professor, when what you are doing is putting out lies, 1/2 truths, distortions, and propaganda. You don't go over the facts of the theories, you nitpick small insignificant details and spout TALKING POINTS.
In the military that is called being a Chicken Shit.
@shanedk M. Say is HEAVILY quoted in Ricardo's 1817 publication which is an amplification & critique of Smith. If you can read, go read for yourself. If you won’t read it or discuss it, then forget it.
@shanedk There is no business cycle in a classical economy, as observed and defined. Genghis Khan had business cycles. That is when his horde rode through murdering, plundering & enslaving.
A few lucky & free survivors had to start over with nothing. That is a business cycle.
@thirdcreed David Ricardo greatly enhanced our understanding of Doctor Adam Smith, in his 1817 response, enhancement & rebuttle of Smith's commentary. Smith is dead-on all the way!
@EvanGaryMoss Mankiws is a keynsian of no value.I read that book.A new-keynsian he says.No difference in my view.Read Milton Friedman on positive Economics is my advise.
Great. Your source certainly doesn't take anything for granted like you have! It distinguishes between human capital and physical capital. You should also clarify in your lecture.
@EvanGaryMoss Different economists distinguish them in different ways. Some make distinctions such as capital goods and labor capital. There's no one way to do it, but they all fundamentally boil down to the same thing.
@shanedk Fine. But it certainly doesn't seem like SUCH a simple concept. You said it in a word in your lecture, then just moved on.
Also, there is a difference between the common term "capital" which means "money", and economic "capital". I think, in the future, you should be more sensitive to that ambiguity. (No, no one would ever think "capital" means "Jelly sandwiches", but "money"...)
@EvanGaryMoss I only had (as it was then) 10 minutes to get it all out. Be fair.
Money itself isn't really capital; it's the wealth that it represents, and the ability to do things with it. 500 years ago, lots of people had lots of money, but none of them had access to the capital that even the poor have access to today.
@EvanGaryMoss Think about if I'm a poor person running a business and wanting to advertise. Then, I'd have to do up individual fliers and bills by hand and post them; now, I just go to Kinko's and run off a few hundred. Even the richest person in the world back before the invention of the printing press had to do them by hand, or hire others to do it by hand.
@shanedk But, in a way, didn't the capital have the same "relative" value? In other words, even though he couldn't print as many up at once, no one else could either... so in a free market, the competition is even.
That one actually separates physical capital from human capital (the book goes into the difference), but you can still see the same point: Natural resources are a separate component (N) from capital (K and H).
What's it worth to you to have this extra thing that you want? This is how the finite resources are managed in the economy: because if there's only so much, then you've got to manage it somehow, andthe price is how you do it."
Again, "capital" in general refers to any "input in the production function".
This refers to resources, labor, and what you called "capital", "the actual means to take the labor and use it to turn the natural resources into a product".
The means to take the human capital and use it to turn the capital resources is plainly called "capital", which is money.
@shanedk Your definition of "capital" as, "anything that's not labor or natural resources. It's know-how, it's structure, it's other forms of wealth that have been created in other ways...just think of all the things you would have to go through to turn resources into a product.
I think is unclear.
If you could give me source, perhaps I will concede. Maybe there the context and explanation will make things clearer.
I actually brought you a source saying something differently:
"In a fundamental sense, capital consists of anything that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work - a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. As such, capital is an input in the production function."
And I revealed the source: Wikipedia entry "capital (economics)".
@EvanGaryMoss Because, like labor, it's a separate component of the production function. Capital is what you use to allow the labor to take natural resources and turn it into a product that fulfills someone's needs or desires.
Shane, when you say "capital" i think you are ONLY referring to money... or more coarsely, bullion.
There are, indeed, different types of capital... labor, for instance is called "human capital". When you used it, though, I think it means, only money.
If not please explain, and give me a source for your explanation.
@EvanGaryMoss Let's say on my hypothetical planet you decide to make wooden spoons. You've got plenty of trees, but you need to cut them down. To cut them down, you need saws, so you start figuring out where to get the metal, how to turn it into sheet metal, how to sharpen it, etc. At the end of it all, you end up with a saw.
The metal etc. that went into making the saw is capital resources. The saw itself is a capital good.
@EvanGaryMoss Well, no, it could be a service, it could be a charity, it could be anything that's of benefit to someone. The defining aspect of it is that it's not the end result you wish to achieve; it's something you obtain or use or whatever on the way to achieving that end.
"In a fundamental sense, capital consists of anything that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work - a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. As such, capital is an input in the production function." (Wikipedia entry "capital (economics)")
@EvanGaryMoss Capital is anything that's not labor or natural resources. It's know-how, it's structure, it's other forms of wealth that have been created in other ways...just think of all the things you would have to go through to turn resources into a product.
@EvanGaryMoss Let's say you want to make something. Anything: pencils. Coffee cups. Napkin holders. Anything.
I have a planet identical to Earth except for the people and technology: it has trees, water, fish, animals, gold, uranium, coal, etc. All of the natural resources on the planet. I drop you there and tell you to make your product.
You say you need workers. I send you as many people as you ask for, but none of them know how to make your product. But they're ready to do labor, whatever you tell them to.
Could you make the product now? Of course not. You're still missing the actual means to take the labor and use it to turn the natural resources into a product. Everything you're missing is capital.
@EvanGaryMoss Something isn't "a" stock; it's just stock. As in, something that's going to be used for something.
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it comes from the Old Norse "stokkr" meaning "tree trunk," since it's the part that everything else branches out from. But how is that important?
Well then, for that matter, would Adam Smith's definition of "capital" be different than Karl Marx's, just as Ptolemy conception of the Solar System is different than Copernicus's?
While were at it, could comment on the other foundational terms you sought to define here.
@EvanGaryMoss I don't see why it would be: that definition has been in use since the 1600s. The concepts about the role it plays in the economy might change, and of course it has to adapt to current technology and situations, but the fundamental meaning describing a stock for the means of production has always been the same.
@EvanGaryMoss Everything's debatable. Just consider what that means: the shape of the Earth is debatable (how oblate and irregular a spheroid is it?), but that doesn't mean it could be a cube.
dude you are a genious. I am starting university in september, was really nervous, but these 5 parts are really going to help me out, thank you very much for doing this. One thing is that i am from the U.K but i'm thinking it won't make any difference will it and all the basic essentials are the same as the U.S? Thanks for your help.
May I suggest that you go and listen, carefully to the proven theories of "MAthematically Perfected Economics". It should be clear to ay reader here, that the current paradigm is designed to cyclically implode and as it does, destroy the lives of the vulnerable.
@shanedk Are you a believer of usury and the undeniable take over of your equity by fraudulaent practices. As for conspiracy theories, those of us that see how the conspirors operate have as yet to be proven wrong.
Usury and debt is slavery and allowing the control of its issuance ensures the demise of all that is good. Only a callous and deluded mind would allow for his family to be raped and disposessed by such evils
@pondman27 That's a completely separate question that has nothing to do with the conspiracy. So, you're telling me that, if the Fed had been created by politicians debating it, all of a sudden that would make it good?
What makes the Fed bad is what it is and what it does, not how it formed. The whole thing is a Genetic Fallacy.
@shanedk The Fed was created not by politicians, but fraudsters whose ambition was to take over the entire country. They work as agents for the global hegemony. Check your history, there was no debate, the people were not asked and now the plight of millions of your own people reside at the whim of the offspring of terrorists.
Sorry, I waited to find out whether you are going anywhere worthwhile with the direction and ideas. May I respectfully suggest that you go and look at how others have managed to retain equilibrium for tens of thousands of years without going hungry or running out of resources. You will find that this also impacts upon time itself, since once achieved (and it has been) the systems become balanced and in equelibrium.
@shanedk Consider if you will, that any system where energy is extracted without return to either require ever increasing inputs for its sustenance or it diminishes. Now consider the same where as much energy is returned within the orbits of its sphere of influence, this will lead to growth and not require the chronic feeding that is so prelevant within these modern economics of extinction. In other words, eliminate usury & the printing of fictional energy units & recycle all things.
@pondman27 "Consider if you will, that any system where energy is extracted without return to either require ever increasing inputs for its sustenance or it diminishes."
In other words, any system in the universe.
"Now consider the same where as much energy is returned"
That would be perpetual motion, which cannot happen in this universe.
@shanedk Oh dear. Perhaps I see the flaws within your paradigm. The universe is in perpetual motion and its energy infinite, nothing ceases in movement, transformation or existence, it merely moves from one set of frequencies into another. It is perhaps the rediculous notion of entropy that defies the way the forest grows from bare rock, that you too are locked into a false paradigm.
The trick my friend is to ensure that nothing or as little as possible escapes from your system.
@pondman27 "The universe is in perpetual motion and its energy infinite"
Incorrect. The net energy in the universe is actually zero, and it's inevitably winding down to entropic equilibrium. What you're saying violates basic physics.
What I am stating is provable within all the living entities. Great ommissions have been set into the matrix of your mainstream physics and I can show you many. The maintenance of limited knowledge serves greater powers whose continued illusory control over our minds has led to such destruction that we witness.
The universe is not mechanistic it is living & its form is found in all movement, rythmic & harmonious
@pondman27 "What I am stating is provable within all the living entities."
Nope, it happens there, too. Why do you think we need to eat food? What do you think photosynthesis is all about? Life does NOT violate the laws of physics, and is NOT perpetual motion.
@shanedk The energy that passes through me does not end when I take in nourishmnet. For the energies that depart my vessel are food for other life in gaseous, liquid and solid forms. Your comment underlines how you have lost the truth as to what you are just a part of.
@pondman27 The energy ends when it's extracted from the ATP in your cells, leaving ADP that then needs to be "recharged." This is basic biology. Maybe you should go back to middle school.
@shanedk If that were the case, then your excrement would be void of energy and your urine would be without its rich compliment of stimulating salts. Your breath sweetens and fertilises the plants and the skin that is constantly sloughing from your exterior, along with that hair you keep trimming, rich in nitrogen. Like I say, the indocrination system has left you ignorant of what you are.
And plants DO NOT GET ENERGY FROM YOUR BREATH. They get CO2, and they then use THE SUN'S ENERGY to break it apart and get the carbon atom, leaving the O2 in the atmosphere for us to breathe again. The energy comes from the SUN, NOT us.
@shanedk CO2 (your breath) you fool is for the plants what oxygen is for you. WIthout this, they would not thrive. It is not sunlight alone, if it were then plants would grow at the tops of mountains, they do not becasue the CO2 you exhale is heavy and of the earth.
Entropy is only applicable in the mechanistic construct, in life forms, the cycle of birth and death is just that.
@pondman27 Not even CLOSE. For us, O2 is used to oxidize the food we eat and give us energy. CO2 is the byproduct of this; getting energy from CO2 is like trying to burn ashes. Once again, it is the ENERGY FROM THE SUN that is used to reverse the process.
I NEVER said CO2 wasn't part of the process; just the opposite. But it is NOT WHERE THE ENERGY COMES FROM.
And entropy very much applies to life forms. Life forms are engines of entropy!
@shanedk I am well aware of oxidation processes but you are unaware of condensing processes. The CO2 is split through photosynthesis and the carbon combined with water to form carbo-hydrates. This is what you regard as energy storage, but to those that see a little deeper and not from the reductionist perspective, the energy is both levitative and reproductive.
And so it is that the Oxygen is vital for the animal and the carbon is vital for the plant.
@shanedk What I I suppose really affirming, is that the form of physics you are asserting is both false and the cause for the dire condition that this sphere is in today. You will not know what I mean when I speak of astrality any more than you will know how the fish sit almost motionless in a fast flowing river. You will not know the form of the hairs on the wings of a wasp, for such things were never shown to you.
@shanedk Like I have said, you only know but a part of these laws. Poor old Newton should have put his mind to how the apple got into the tree rather than how it plumetted when ripe.
I am still waiting for your explanation as to the fish in the fast stream!
And how it is that through life forces, we can watch as bare rock over time, becomes high forest. This is where the secrets of levitation are to be found, but they never taught you that.
@shanedk The apple tree storing energy! This is not an answer and ignores the levitational forces at play. These energies require non of the destructive forces, inste4ad they operate silently, condensing and cooling.
You do not know how the fish remains in place, your physics cannot explain it either, until other subtelties known to those of us that move with these forces show you.
@pondman27 Yes, it IS an answer; we know why apples and other fruits evolved.
And we DO know how the fish remains in place: it swims against the current at the same speed of the current and the velocities cancel out. They'll often rest at the bottom during this process so that friction can do most of the work and they don't have to swim as hard.
We DO know these things. You're just a pathetic ignoramus.
@shanedk The fish does not swim against the current, another force exists. This is further demonstrated when the fish is disturbed, it accelerates at levels beyond your reductionist technological capabilities INTO the current.
This is the result of the indoctrinated advocates that have become so self important as to condone the unnatural impositions of usury. As I have said before, such a system is nothing more than parasitic, where energy & payment is demanded and taken for nothing in return.
HEY YOU WANT A HINT ON ECONOMICS PROFESSOR RETARD THEY OVERFLOW THE SYSTEM WITH MONEY THATS A GOOD ECONOMY THEY TAKE THE MONEY OUT THATS A BAD ECONOMY WAKE UP SHEEPLE
MegaWhitesox05 4 weeks ago
@MegaWhitesox05 Based on this comment you seem like an extremely ignorant human.
OverseerJames 3 days ago in playlist Economic Basics
where are you from, i love your accent
unfad1ng 2 months ago in playlist Economic Basics
This has been flagged as spam show
The monetary serfdom of the WORLD WORKING CLASS in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
arzoyan 4 months ago
@centurion180ad How is shanedk a Keynesian?
schwerinthegreat 7 months ago
To the listeners & viewers of this video blog:
SHANEDK is a neo Malthusian and Keynesian hack, a Black Propagandist, a charlatan, and a fraud. He does not understand Classical Economics AT ALL, and all he does is spout Talking Points that his banker masters that he is whoring for, want him to spout.
BEWARE!
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad "SHANEDK is a neo Malthusian and Keynesian hack"
Well, that should be enough to have regular viewers rolling with laughter...
shanedk 7 months ago
@centurion180ad
"SHANEDK is a neo Malthusian and Kyensian hack..."
Trollolololololololololololl
vspqbd 7 months ago
@vspqbd He posted the exact same comment, VERBATIM, several other times in different videos. I blocked him for flooding.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk "Shanedk is a Malthusian and Keynesian hack"
Didn't Thomas Malthus predict the world would be dangerously overpopulated back in the early 1800's? And did you not make a video showing exactly how overpopulation doesn't work?
What is Neo-Malthusianism anyway?
donttreadonmyass 7 months ago
@donttreadonmyass He believed that famine and disease would check the population. I consider the success of vaccines to be a great middle finger to Malthus.
The population is limited by resources, but economic progress lets us make more efficient use of our resources, allowing us to sustain a MUCH larger population than we otherwise would.
shanedk 7 months ago
This in my opinion is a great video. It's always great to break down common sense and see it from all types of views. Most people know how and why to spend money, but very few would think that they "valued the coke more than the dollar" so to say. It was good to hear something that makes sense of daily life and activitys. Good job sir.
iSortcoins 8 months ago
The economy is all about jobs that determine social prosperity.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
What you really-really need to understand is all those utter lies in those economics textbooks, have nothing to do with the REALITY that is the American economy.
The Federal Reserve System and the God damn BANKERS control everything in a new Soviet style command economy. The BANKERS have stolen EVERYTHING, including the entirety of each individual’s labor contribution.
There is no money, and what you think you are being paid is a tiny fraction of what has already been stolen from you.
centurion180ad 10 months ago
@centurion180ad You sound like a wacko conspiracy theorist.
Please assert your opinions with evidence. I'll listen, then.
EvanGaryMoss 8 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss A groundless accusation using a term that prejudices demonstrable evidence or Self Evident Truth does not fit a civil discussion. Conspiracy Theory is a derisive term to label people that present truth in contravention to Political Correctness.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss I submit to you as evidence an extortion, the General Theory by Keynes. As truth I submit, An Inquiry Into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Doctor Adam Smith, and On the Principles of Political Economy & Taxation by David Ricardo.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad what in the world are you saying?
You are saying that those three classic works on economy were
written with the intent to deceive the public into a accepting "new Soviet Style command"
of the economy, so that the "FRS and the... bankers control everything"?
And criticize me for not accepting that as "Self Evident Truth?
If you are a rational person, explain yourself.
EvanGaryMoss 8 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss I am saying that the General Theory of Keynes is a disgusting pack of lies designed to defraud the public of the entire planet, to pay for a succession of Total Wars, to place everyone into fictitious debt, and to be used kill us off.
I agree with Doctor Adam Smith & Mister David Ricardo. If there are any flaws in those 2, I am unaware of it.
M. Say had some things nice and correctly, but he had important concepts wrong too.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad "M Say"??? It's J. B. Say you ignorant moron!!!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk God DAMN you are a hard headed bastard!
I was being lazy. "M." is short for Monsieur. M. Say means Monsieur Say.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad please cite, specifically, a concept which Keynes writes which you disagree with, and why.
EvanGaryMoss 7 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss I am not exaggerating. Keynes picked up where Malthus left off, and both of them were & are lying bigots.
ALL of the General Theory of Keynes, is a lie & false. Start on page 1, by page 3 after a tirade of lies against Classical Economics he draws his first grandiose bogus conclusion.
His formulation is an obvious fallacy. A fraud. A hoax. Bogus.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss Chapter 1 Part II he states a LIE, “They [classical economists] do not seem to have realized that, unless the supply of labor is a function of real wages alone, their supply curve for labor will shift bodily with every movement in prices.”
The supply curve of labor shifts bodily by every movement of DISCOUNT Rate, based on the Bills of Exchange representing the bulk of the goods or services in transit in a Free Market toward final delivery to a paying customer.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
Was there a votebot or did that many people really thumb-down the equivalent of day one of any economics 101 course.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker Vote-bot. Creationist. Hit my whole channel.
shanedk 1 year ago
Thank you for refering to Prof. Mankiw's book. I think I will purchase it.
From what I've seen economist refer to 3 factors in the production function: Labor, Capital and Land. He even does in the beginning.
2 Qs 4u:
1) At what point in his book does he replace Land with "natural resources", and why does he do it? Natural resources seems to be raw materials, which are a part of real capital.
2) Also, why do you begin your primer with Production? He saves it for after 200 pages.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss I don't know; I was looking for something in Google results that covered what you asked for. I haven't read the book all the way through.
There are lots of different ways to cover this material.
shanedk 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss IDK about this book. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, doesn't include land as a commodity it includes it as a component of price called 'Rent'. Smith breaks value into 1.) Labor (Time, Hardship, Ingenuity) 2.)Profit of Stock (profit of ownership) and 3.)Rent (price payed to owner of land). The only way to "own" land is to defend it. Thus the government starts with the land, and sells it to citizens. That defense is the labor which rent is ultimately reducible to.
thirdcreed 8 months ago
@thirdcreed Adam Smith was brilliant, but we've learned a thing or two in the intervening centuries.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I bet. I've been reading through TWON and making notes, but I figured its abit outdated. Maybe you could make some recommendations. My original plan was to start at the beginning and make my way forward. Thanks for the videos shane. Very beneficial.
thirdcreed 8 months ago
@thirdcreed That's not a bad way to do it. Be sure you don't miss Bastiat and Say. Although if you don't mind going non-chronological, Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is a great one to read early on.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I'll bite.
What would be that thing or 2 that we've learned since those 235 years gone by when Doctor Adam Smith published his last Magnum Opus?
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad Well, there's the Wisdom of Crowds, for one. There's the relationship between the money supply and inflation for another. There's the different types of unemployment and what causes them. There's Say's Law. There's Business Cycle Theory. I can keep going if you want.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk What money? There is no money in general circulation anywhere in the world. Irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system is not money.
Keynes theory is a fraud, and excuse for extortion, and quoting his measurements of ongoing crime is an alchemy. Smith & Ricardo both agree by personal observation that unemployment ought to be shallow, temporary & localized. Say's law is incomplete. Smith & Ricardo fully quote M. Say, and complete his theory.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad "Smith & Ricardo fully quote M. Say, and complete his theory."
Adam Smith died in 1790. David Ricardo died in 1823. Say didn't publish his Practical Political Economy until 1828.
You FAIL.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Say's law did not //originate// with J. B. Say. It was accredited to him much later on, as a way to remember it. It is like saying Faraday's Law, when he did not discover induction, he was just the first to write down certain mathematical conclusions that in his case turned out to be true.
Smith & Ricardo agreed with Say in many respects, hashed over his ideas and quoted him often, but refuted some of his important conclusions.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad How could they have "refuted some of his important conclusions" when they both died before he published them?
Why don't you just admit you don't know what you're talking about?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Say was the last to die in 1832. Ideas dear to him and later attributed to him were in circulation long before him. Smith & Ricardo went back & fourth on several rounds, and after Smith's death Ricardo published a Magnum Opus in 1817. In that book Ricardo agrees with Smith, quotes Smith & Say, and takes Smith's side with some amplification & clarification.
This is all chicken shit. The important FACT is the Keynes is a fraud.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad What the FUCK does Keynes have to do with this conversation? You're getting desperate now.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk @shanedk You were the one that brough up Business Cycles, apparently without knowing that they do not exist in a classical economy. I quote you, "there's Business Cycles, I can keep going if you want."
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad Business Cycles are VERY MUCH a part of classical economics! Read Mises.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk von Mises was writing at a time when irredeemable debt currency sieved through a fractional reserve system was being used to plunder the planet to pay to wage countless slaughters & enslavements. OBVIOUSLY he’d comment on that, but a classical economy does not behave that way.
This is off topic, and we got off on the wrong foot.
Let's discuss why there are not supposed to be business cycles or chronic unemployemt.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad Well, the unemployment conundrum is easy:
There are two fundamental principles of economics: 1) desires are unlimited; 2) resources are limited.
So then, there should never be ANY unemployment because there should always be someone willing to hire people to use the limited resources to satisfy as many unlimited desires as possible.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk I agree with you on 2 points. The unemlpoyment conumdrum is easy, and that there should never be any unemployment as defined as involuntary & chronic. There will always be //some// voluntary unemployment as labor realigns itself to new means or walks out in a protest of a bad wage.
Doctor Adam Smith went over this point for point, and David Ricardo amplified & agreed.
Keynes lied about it.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad And Mises and Hayek did a very good job of describing unemployment as it pertains to the business cycle.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk In our disgusting modern thinking we have been brainwashed into disagreeing, have forgotten, or both, that........ [drum roll] [trumpet flourish]
LABOR IS CAPITAL
That alone is wholly sufficient to explain why there should never be chronic involuntary unemployment, because people’s efforts is what is valuable. All that stuff that you can kick, is tangible WEALTH generated by human creativity.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad No, labor and capital are two different components of the production function. I have YET to see a theory of economics that treats the two as the same.
(Of course, you can have "capital labor," but that's not the same thing.)
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Malthus makes that same argument, to justify the plundering of the laboring classes of the value of their labor.
Classical Economics is unified in its observation that wealth is labeled as capital when it is mobilized for production, but ALL wealth is generated by human creativity & effort, therefore labor being the motive force behind generation of wealth is capital itself when it is employed in production.
There is no distinction between a machine, and its operator.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@shanedk Doctor Adam Smith is VERY specific on this point and he laboriously describes the relationship, in An Inquiry Into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations. LABOR IS CAPITAL, and no distinction between labor or capital plant & equipment may be drawn.
If you care to disagree with Doctor Adam Smith on this point, we have no basis for further discussion.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad Fine: show me ONE production function (WITH references) that doesn't have labor as a separate component from capital.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk I understand the ACCESS function that gatekeepers wield against people that know the truth.
All good references are kept tucked away. I am unable to afford going stack diving in America anymore, much less live there on a fulltime basis thanks to the God damn bankers and all their sick-O minions.
Labor is separated out from plant & equipment on a ledger, because maintenance & replacement is obviously handled different than hiring, promotions & pensions. Labor is still capital.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad I'm not talking about business ledgers; I'm talking about production functions in economic theory. Now stop evading and answer the question!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Second, Mr Friedman revolutionised how economists and policymakers treated money and inflation. Until he showed otherwise, post-war governments seemed able to trade off unemployment and inflation: a long-term statistical link between the two, known as the Phillips curve.You should spend your time better than present this type of tacit knowledge based,long passed away ideas from the Austrian school.
treddas851 5 months ago
@treddas851 " Until he showed otherwise, post-war governments seemed able to trade off unemployment and inflation: a long-term statistical link between the two, known as the Phillips curve."
It was only they Keynesians who claimed that. Austrian economists such as Hayek had been critical of it all along.
You show greater and greater ignorance with every post.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Hayek and Keynes where much the same.They were close friends and used the same basic ideas
and framework,rejected both the great positivist Neo-Classical tradition of Freemarket developed at the University of Chicago by such as Simons,Friedman,Lucas and the Rational Expectation Theory!Why Shane waiste your time on Hayek-Keynes.Friedman was the greatest Free-market economist of all time!
treddas851 5 months ago
@centurion180ad The Business Cycle is a bit weirder. As we know it, business cycles happen through credit expansion, either through government or a central bank, which results in malinvestment. This is unsustainable, and when everything hits the fan the economy contracts to try and redistribute resources to where they're actually needed.
In a free market, this happens, but only slightly and in the very short term--and other places in the economy cover for it.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk There were NO business cycles in America prior to 1913. There were no business cycles in Germany prior to the end of World War One. I agree that a business cycle is wholly attributable to government intervention with a central bank, because that is what God damn bankers OWN & PAY GRAFT to a government FOR, to bust the people, plunder and have an excuse murder them all.
In an //actual// free market meaning the Free Enterprise of Doctor Adam Smith, there is no cycle.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad "There were NO business cycles in America prior to 1913."
Then how was Mises able to publish "The Theory of Money and Credit" in 1912?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk I have only read Antal E. Fekete’s remarks & lecture notes with respect to Von Mises. Von Mises conclusions WRT convertible banknotes are incomplete, as he died before his last publication.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad Irrelevant hand-waving.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Doctor Adam Smith is not irrelevant, and he did not hand wave.
Good bye.
centurion180ad 7 months ago
@centurion180ad No, YOU are the one doing the hand-waving. But thanks for showing us how dishonest you are as well.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk You should read up on economics.Friedman laid the foundation of modern theories of consumption.Keynes had posited that as income rose,so would the proportion that was saved.Economic data bore this out only up to a point:though the rich had higher saving rates than the poor,aggregate saving rates did not rise as countries became richer.It´s effect the price.Friedman resolved this apparent paradox with a theory known as the permanent income hypothesis.Austrian school is junkfood economics
treddas851 5 months ago
@treddas851 You've done nothing to show you even UNDERSTAND economics, much less are qualified to judge the Austrian school. Especially when you base it on an INCORRECT rant which, EVEN IF CORRECT, wouldn't have anything to do with Austrian economics anyway!
The Permanent Income Hypothesis has to do with people's long-term expectations of income, and is based on the person's real wealth, NOT current disposable income!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Nonscence.You mezz it up.The basic confusion between descriptive accuracy and analytical relevance that underlies most criticisms of economic theory on the grounds that its assumptions are unrealistic as well as the plausibility of the views that lead to this confusion are both strikingly illustrated by a seemingly innocuous remark in an article on business-cycle theory that Friedman so wisely wrote in 1961.
treddas851 5 months ago
@shanedk I don´t want to be rude Shane.Excuse me it was not my intention.We disagree on economics but i really like your videos about Bogus very much.Very welldone.Thanks!
treddas851 5 months ago
@shanedk You have a true good outspoken voice for freemarket,and i agree in most of what you say.But i would be glad if you could do a video about the differenece between the the Austrian school and the Chicago school of economics.Remember that Friedrich von Hayek was a professor at Chicago and in high degree inspired Milton Friedman.Let´s talk in civil manor and just tell what in the Chicago school you find so upsetting.I don´t get upset if you have critique of Friedman and Lucas.
treddas851 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk You have a true good outspoken voice for freemarket,and i agree in most of what you say.But i would be glad if you could do a video about the differenece between the the Austrian school and the Chicago school of economics.Remember that Friedrich von Hayek was a professor at Chicago and in high degree inspired Milton Friedman.Let´s talk in civil manor and just tell what in the Chicago school you find so upsetting.I don´t get upset if you have critique of Friedman and Lucas.
treddas851 5 months ago
@shanedk Milton Friedman said "Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails. (b) Austrian economists have often nderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it."
treddas851 4 months ago
You text, "how could they have refuted some of his important conclusions when they both died before he published them."
Say had some wrong theories after the fact, that Smith had already been over and Ricardo republished.
Smith died just as Say was making a name for himself. Ricardo lived plenty when Say began dabbling with the publishings of Smith, and they did not agree. Ricardo quoted Smith in his 1817 work, quoted Say to show how it was wrong, and further amplified Smith's theory.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad You know what you're doing? It's like you're taking people who critiqued Darwin earlier when he was writing about coral reefs and volcanic geology and trying to make them relevant to the Origin of Species.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk You text, "You FAIL."
You are attempting to come off like a professor, when what you are doing is putting out lies, 1/2 truths, distortions, and propaganda. You don't go over the facts of the theories, you nitpick small insignificant details and spout TALKING POINTS.
In the military that is called being a Chicken Shit.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@centurion180ad Yeah, nitpick "small insignificant details" like the fact that they were DEAD at the time...
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk M. Say is HEAVILY quoted in Ricardo's 1817 publication which is an amplification & critique of Smith. If you can read, go read for yourself. If you won’t read it or discuss it, then forget it.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@shanedk There is no business cycle in a classical economy, as observed and defined. Genghis Khan had business cycles. That is when his horde rode through murdering, plundering & enslaving.
A few lucky & free survivors had to start over with nothing. That is a business cycle.
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@thirdcreed David Ricardo greatly enhanced our understanding of Doctor Adam Smith, in his 1817 response, enhancement & rebuttle of Smith's commentary. Smith is dead-on all the way!
centurion180ad 8 months ago
@EvanGaryMoss Mankiws is a keynsian of no value.I read that book.A new-keynsian he says.No difference in my view.Read Milton Friedman on positive Economics is my advise.
treddas851 4 months ago
Great. Your source certainly doesn't take anything for granted like you have! It distinguishes between human capital and physical capital. You should also clarify in your lecture.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Different economists distinguish them in different ways. Some make distinctions such as capital goods and labor capital. There's no one way to do it, but they all fundamentally boil down to the same thing.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Fine. But it certainly doesn't seem like SUCH a simple concept. You said it in a word in your lecture, then just moved on.
Also, there is a difference between the common term "capital" which means "money", and economic "capital". I think, in the future, you should be more sensitive to that ambiguity. (No, no one would ever think "capital" means "Jelly sandwiches", but "money"...)
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss I only had (as it was then) 10 minutes to get it all out. Be fair.
Money itself isn't really capital; it's the wealth that it represents, and the ability to do things with it. 500 years ago, lots of people had lots of money, but none of them had access to the capital that even the poor have access to today.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh, now your talking... Capital AND money need to be understood...
This is interesting... and i think important to clarify in primer...
This last thing you said... could you please elaborate?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Think about if I'm a poor person running a business and wanting to advertise. Then, I'd have to do up individual fliers and bills by hand and post them; now, I just go to Kinko's and run off a few hundred. Even the richest person in the world back before the invention of the printing press had to do them by hand, or hire others to do it by hand.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk But, in a way, didn't the capital have the same "relative" value? In other words, even though he couldn't print as many up at once, no one else could either... so in a free market, the competition is even.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody there had anywhere near the amount of capital that we do today.
shanedk 1 year ago
You didn't define capital.
And now I am asking you for a source for your definition and you aren't supplying one.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Check ANY macroeconomics textbook that covers the production function. This is BASIC.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk It might be basic but, I think you are mistaken. Please quote the relevant statements, citing the source appropriately.
Thank you for your patience.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss One example: gooDOTgl/Kjoej
That one actually separates physical capital from human capital (the book goes into the difference), but you can still see the same point: Natural resources are a separate component (N) from capital (K and H).
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk How can I find that source?
You certainly did not make it clear that Capital does not mean money in your basic economics primer.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Replace the DOT with a period and put it in your address bar.
I also didn't make it clear that capital does not mean jelly sandwiches. So what?
shanedk 1 year ago
At what price?
What's it worth to you to have this extra thing that you want? This is how the finite resources are managed in the economy: because if there's only so much, then you've got to manage it somehow, andthe price is how you do it."
I think you were very unclear there.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss What's unclear about that?
shanedk 1 year ago
You said: "The free market always tends towards full employment
There are actually three different things that go into this:
resources,
labor, which is what you use the people for, that's employment,
capital.
Capital is what brings us to the fourth one and that is:
cont'd
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
Again, "capital" in general refers to any "input in the production function".
This refers to resources, labor, and what you called "capital", "the actual means to take the labor and use it to turn the natural resources into a product".
The means to take the human capital and use it to turn the capital resources is plainly called "capital", which is money.
What else could it be?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss "Again, "capital" in general refers to any "input in the production function"."
No, because labor and natural resources are separate variables.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The word "capital" can be used in different ways.
That is ALL I am saying.
I wanted you to define the way YOU were using it.
That's all.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Have done, a long time ago.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@shanedk Your definition of "capital" as, "anything that's not labor or natural resources. It's know-how, it's structure, it's other forms of wealth that have been created in other ways...just think of all the things you would have to go through to turn resources into a product.
I think is unclear.
If you could give me source, perhaps I will concede. Maybe there the context and explanation will make things clearer.
cont'd.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
I actually brought you a source saying something differently:
"In a fundamental sense, capital consists of anything that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work - a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. As such, capital is an input in the production function."
And I revealed the source: Wikipedia entry "capital (economics)".
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@shanedk But, from where do you learn that "capital" does not include natural resources?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Because, like labor, it's a separate component of the production function. Capital is what you use to allow the labor to take natural resources and turn it into a product that fulfills someone's needs or desires.
shanedk 1 year ago
Shane, when you say "capital" i think you are ONLY referring to money... or more coarsely, bullion.
There are, indeed, different types of capital... labor, for instance is called "human capital". When you used it, though, I think it means, only money.
If not please explain, and give me a source for your explanation.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss "Shane, when you say "capital" i think you are ONLY referring to money."
Since I've specifically told you otherwise, this can only be a lie.
(Interesting, not two minutes ago I had to say the exact same thing to a creationist. Once again, I'm amazed at the similarities...)
Again, labor is a separate variable in the production function.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
IN SUMMARY:
I am trying to clarify what "capital" means if not "economic assets" or simply "bullion".
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Capital is AN economic asset, labor and natural resources being the other two.
Bullion refers to a metal (usually precious metal) of a certain weight that's been melted down and molded into ingots.
shanedk 1 year ago
When you say "to turn resources into a product" you don't mean capital resources, obviously. But isn't capital also a "resource".
I just want a clear definition of terms... and a source for those definitions.
Thank you for your time and patience.
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Let's say on my hypothetical planet you decide to make wooden spoons. You've got plenty of trees, but you need to cut them down. To cut them down, you need saws, so you start figuring out where to get the metal, how to turn it into sheet metal, how to sharpen it, etc. At the end of it all, you end up with a saw.
The metal etc. that went into making the saw is capital resources. The saw itself is a capital good.
shanedk 1 year ago
So,
"Something that enhances a person's power to perform economically useful work" =
(what you said) "all the things you would have to go through to turn resources into a product."
So therefore, "turning resources into a product" = "economically useful work."
Is it true that the only economically useful work is turning a resource into a product?
Is it debatable?
Could you kindly answer ALL my queries ONE BY ONE?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Well, no, it could be a service, it could be a charity, it could be anything that's of benefit to someone. The defining aspect of it is that it's not the end result you wish to achieve; it's something you obtain or use or whatever on the way to achieving that end.
shanedk 1 year ago
I think you are saying that
"In a fundamental sense, capital consists of anything that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work - a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. As such, capital is an input in the production function." (Wikipedia entry "capital (economics)")
Right?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
Physical capital, any non-human asset made by humans and then used in production
Political capital, means by which a politician or political party may gain support or popularity
Social capital, the value of social networks to society and the human economy
Working capital, short term capital needed by the company to finance its operations
Which ones are we talking about?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
Here are the forms of capital listed on the Wikipedia (entry "capital"):
Financial capital, any form of wealth capable of being employed in the production of more wealth
Human capital, workers' skills and abilities as regards their contribution to an economy
Infrastructural capital, means of production other than natural capital.
Natural capital, the resources of an ecosystem that yields a flow of goods and services into the future
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
"Capital" is "economic force"?
Could it be the whip?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
Your are saying that "know-how" is the only capital?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Capital is anything that's not labor or natural resources. It's know-how, it's structure, it's other forms of wealth that have been created in other ways...just think of all the things you would have to go through to turn resources into a product.
shanedk 1 year ago
You defined "capital" as "stock for the means for production".
I want to have a CLEAR understanding...
Could you please elaborate for us neophytes to economics!?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Let's say you want to make something. Anything: pencils. Coffee cups. Napkin holders. Anything.
I have a planet identical to Earth except for the people and technology: it has trees, water, fish, animals, gold, uranium, coal, etc. All of the natural resources on the planet. I drop you there and tell you to make your product.
(cont'd)
shanedk 1 year ago
You say you need workers. I send you as many people as you ask for, but none of them know how to make your product. But they're ready to do labor, whatever you tell them to.
Could you make the product now? Of course not. You're still missing the actual means to take the labor and use it to turn the natural resources into a product. Everything you're missing is capital.
shanedk 1 year ago
Yes, excuse my ignorance for this subject...
What exactly is a "stock for the means for production"?
What is a "stock"? How did the term originate? How is it related and/or different from the term as it is used today, as in "stock" market?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Something isn't "a" stock; it's just stock. As in, something that's going to be used for something.
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it comes from the Old Norse "stokkr" meaning "tree trunk," since it's the part that everything else branches out from. But how is that important?
shanedk 1 year ago
Thank you for your speedy answer!
Well then, for that matter, would Adam Smith's definition of "capital" be different than Karl Marx's, just as Ptolemy conception of the Solar System is different than Copernicus's?
While were at it, could comment on the other foundational terms you sought to define here.
Thank you again!
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss I don't see why it would be: that definition has been in use since the 1600s. The concepts about the role it plays in the economy might change, and of course it has to adapt to current technology and situations, but the fundamental meaning describing a stock for the means of production has always been the same.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
Hello. After corresponding with you a bit privately, I decided to go public. I just hope you respond just as soon!
Are the basics of economics debatable?
EvanGaryMoss 1 year ago
@EvanGaryMoss Everything's debatable. Just consider what that means: the shape of the Earth is debatable (how oblate and irregular a spheroid is it?), but that doesn't mean it could be a cube.
shanedk 1 year ago
thanks for english subtitles
sebek23b 1 year ago
dude you are a genious. I am starting university in september, was really nervous, but these 5 parts are really going to help me out, thank you very much for doing this. One thing is that i am from the U.K but i'm thinking it won't make any difference will it and all the basic essentials are the same as the U.S? Thanks for your help.
sexualsense 1 year ago
superbly explained
wellhard11 1 year ago
May I suggest that you go and listen, carefully to the proven theories of "MAthematically Perfected Economics". It should be clear to ay reader here, that the current paradigm is designed to cyclically implode and as it does, destroy the lives of the vulnerable.
pondman27 1 year ago
Anyone, that supports the insane acceptance of the monster from Gekyl Island (Fed Res) understands little or othing as to its true form and design.
I do not mean to insult or denigrate your efforts, but seriously, our remedy will not be found in such a deluded and limited perspective.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 JEKYLL Island. If you're going to proffer a conspiracy theory, at least SPELL it correctly!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Are you a believer of usury and the undeniable take over of your equity by fraudulaent practices. As for conspiracy theories, those of us that see how the conspirors operate have as yet to be proven wrong.
Usury and debt is slavery and allowing the control of its issuance ensures the demise of all that is good. Only a callous and deluded mind would allow for his family to be raped and disposessed by such evils
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 That's a completely separate question that has nothing to do with the conspiracy. So, you're telling me that, if the Fed had been created by politicians debating it, all of a sudden that would make it good?
What makes the Fed bad is what it is and what it does, not how it formed. The whole thing is a Genetic Fallacy.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The Fed was created not by politicians, but fraudsters whose ambition was to take over the entire country. They work as agents for the global hegemony. Check your history, there was no debate, the people were not asked and now the plight of millions of your own people reside at the whim of the offspring of terrorists.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Funny; there's extensive debate in the Congressional Record...
shanedk 1 year ago
Sorry, I waited to find out whether you are going anywhere worthwhile with the direction and ideas. May I respectfully suggest that you go and look at how others have managed to retain equilibrium for tens of thousands of years without going hungry or running out of resources. You will find that this also impacts upon time itself, since once achieved (and it has been) the systems become balanced and in equelibrium.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Tens of thousands of years???
Gonna need a source on that one.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I am about to post a video on the very same subject.
The truth is we have all been duped into beleiving in a system that was designed to KILL
The real elders left us all we need to know. Stay in touch if you really want to assist in providing remedy
pondman27 1 year ago
@shanedk Consider if you will, that any system where energy is extracted without return to either require ever increasing inputs for its sustenance or it diminishes. Now consider the same where as much energy is returned within the orbits of its sphere of influence, this will lead to growth and not require the chronic feeding that is so prelevant within these modern economics of extinction. In other words, eliminate usury & the printing of fictional energy units & recycle all things.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 "Consider if you will, that any system where energy is extracted without return to either require ever increasing inputs for its sustenance or it diminishes."
In other words, any system in the universe.
"Now consider the same where as much energy is returned"
That would be perpetual motion, which cannot happen in this universe.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh dear. Perhaps I see the flaws within your paradigm. The universe is in perpetual motion and its energy infinite, nothing ceases in movement, transformation or existence, it merely moves from one set of frequencies into another. It is perhaps the rediculous notion of entropy that defies the way the forest grows from bare rock, that you too are locked into a false paradigm.
The trick my friend is to ensure that nothing or as little as possible escapes from your system.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 "The universe is in perpetual motion and its energy infinite"
Incorrect. The net energy in the universe is actually zero, and it's inevitably winding down to entropic equilibrium. What you're saying violates basic physics.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
What I am stating is provable within all the living entities. Great ommissions have been set into the matrix of your mainstream physics and I can show you many. The maintenance of limited knowledge serves greater powers whose continued illusory control over our minds has led to such destruction that we witness.
The universe is not mechanistic it is living & its form is found in all movement, rythmic & harmonious
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 "What I am stating is provable within all the living entities."
Nope, it happens there, too. Why do you think we need to eat food? What do you think photosynthesis is all about? Life does NOT violate the laws of physics, and is NOT perpetual motion.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The energy that passes through me does not end when I take in nourishmnet. For the energies that depart my vessel are food for other life in gaseous, liquid and solid forms. Your comment underlines how you have lost the truth as to what you are just a part of.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 The energy ends when it's extracted from the ATP in your cells, leaving ADP that then needs to be "recharged." This is basic biology. Maybe you should go back to middle school.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If that were the case, then your excrement would be void of energy and your urine would be without its rich compliment of stimulating salts. Your breath sweetens and fertilises the plants and the skin that is constantly sloughing from your exterior, along with that hair you keep trimming, rich in nitrogen. Like I say, the indocrination system has left you ignorant of what you are.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Salt is energy???
BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHHAHHAAAA!!!
You DEFINITELY need to go back to school...
And plants DO NOT GET ENERGY FROM YOUR BREATH. They get CO2, and they then use THE SUN'S ENERGY to break it apart and get the carbon atom, leaving the O2 in the atmosphere for us to breathe again. The energy comes from the SUN, NOT us.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk CO2 (your breath) you fool is for the plants what oxygen is for you. WIthout this, they would not thrive. It is not sunlight alone, if it were then plants would grow at the tops of mountains, they do not becasue the CO2 you exhale is heavy and of the earth.
Entropy is only applicable in the mechanistic construct, in life forms, the cycle of birth and death is just that.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Not even CLOSE. For us, O2 is used to oxidize the food we eat and give us energy. CO2 is the byproduct of this; getting energy from CO2 is like trying to burn ashes. Once again, it is the ENERGY FROM THE SUN that is used to reverse the process.
I NEVER said CO2 wasn't part of the process; just the opposite. But it is NOT WHERE THE ENERGY COMES FROM.
And entropy very much applies to life forms. Life forms are engines of entropy!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I am well aware of oxidation processes but you are unaware of condensing processes. The CO2 is split through photosynthesis and the carbon combined with water to form carbo-hydrates. This is what you regard as energy storage, but to those that see a little deeper and not from the reductionist perspective, the energy is both levitative and reproductive.
And so it is that the Oxygen is vital for the animal and the carbon is vital for the plant.
Entropy is a phallacy in the living
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 "The CO2 is split through photosynthesis"
Yes, AS I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!! It's split through PHOTOsynthesis--what do you think the "photo" part means?
This is the process for storing energy from the sun. FROM THE SUN!!!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk What I I suppose really affirming, is that the form of physics you are asserting is both false and the cause for the dire condition that this sphere is in today. You will not know what I mean when I speak of astrality any more than you will know how the fish sit almost motionless in a fast flowing river. You will not know the form of the hairs on the wings of a wasp, for such things were never shown to you.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 I don't accept things that violate basic laws of physics that have been confirmed again and again, no.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Like I have said, you only know but a part of these laws. Poor old Newton should have put his mind to how the apple got into the tree rather than how it plumetted when ripe.
I am still waiting for your explanation as to the fish in the fast stream!
And how it is that through life forces, we can watch as bare rock over time, becomes high forest. This is where the secrets of levitation are to be found, but they never taught you that.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 The apple got onto the tree because of the apple tree storing energy it got from the sun. We KNOW that.
Fish stay motionless against the current because it helps them breathe in the oxygen in the water through their gills. We KNOW that.
And you need a LOT more than bare rock to make a forest. We KNOW that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The apple tree storing energy! This is not an answer and ignores the levitational forces at play. These energies require non of the destructive forces, inste4ad they operate silently, condensing and cooling.
You do not know how the fish remains in place, your physics cannot explain it either, until other subtelties known to those of us that move with these forces show you.
pondman27 1 year ago
@pondman27 Yes, it IS an answer; we know why apples and other fruits evolved.
And we DO know how the fish remains in place: it swims against the current at the same speed of the current and the velocities cancel out. They'll often rest at the bottom during this process so that friction can do most of the work and they don't have to swim as hard.
We DO know these things. You're just a pathetic ignoramus.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The fish does not swim against the current, another force exists. This is further demonstrated when the fish is disturbed, it accelerates at levels beyond your reductionist technological capabilities INTO the current.
This is the result of the indoctrinated advocates that have become so self important as to condone the unnatural impositions of usury. As I have said before, such a system is nothing more than parasitic, where energy & payment is demanded and taken for nothing in return.
pondman27 1 year ago