How 'Mainstream' Economics Miseducates About Money and the Fed | Thomas DiLorenzo

[tabletalk33]

'Mainstream' Economics'=dumbing down the people. Part of the road to serfdom.

[DEATHSxxRATTLE]

The mainstream economists "drove" the economy off a cliff!

[j4ck2234]

@deficithawker

dude, neither the industrial revolution nor the enlightenment were created by a central banker.(altough France sure looked like it was going through a political boom and bust cycle)

I think going to the moon was a much, much smaller step in the 20th century than the mechanization of industry was in the centuries before. To suggest that this epic human achievement was one of the oh so many blessings of monopoly money, is absurd.

[synestheticmonotony]

@deficithawker I most assuredly understand the contrast between statutory and case law. Societies had created law long before governments entered the picture, and it doesn't take a lot of thought to understand that statutes would reflect those laws. I don't understand what your problem is. I never said that this wasn't the case, nor did I present an alternative case. What exactly is your argument here?

[synestheticmonotony]

@deficithawker Does a constitution not represent the "supreme law" of a nation (i.e. the writ by which all laws and state actions must conform with)? Of course, I know that there is no such thing as a supreme law in general, because all laws are constructs of society itself, and are thus subject to change. Please, don't nitpick a small irrelevance that presented itself due to character-count restrictions. You know what context I was referring to.

[worldofdraculas]

@synestheticmonotony "...endowed by their Creator..."

I disagree.

[synestheticmonotony]

@worldofdraculas "endowed by their Creator"

Which one?

[j4ck2234]

@deficithawker

lol you don't even consider that technichal innovation had anything to do with that? (haven't checked your numbers btw) You know shifting from donkey carts to heavy machinery and stuff like that.

[Rensune]

Joe Montegna? (I know it's not him, but it sounds just like him)

[NimaSepassi]

Does this guy know the difference between a casual conversation and a formal speech?

[NicosMind]

The article that he mentions is watch?v=2dm7ZAN4iiQ

[NicosMind]

40:25 onwards 41:31 Makes great points about WW1 and a great Mises point. 42.44, 42.46, 43.08 is awesome, 

[pankskink]

Once a law is made it is up to the regulators of the executive to pick and choose how it wants to apply it. it's not likely a president is going to doctor the federal government of America, but if You run for local office that might create a little time for those people you care about. until you have a plane load of cash dumped in your lap or die from an unfortunate car fire.

[successfulbuild]

It's only a logical fallacy if you say "since no bank uses the full-reserve system, its useless/futile/whatever..." But that's not what he said. He asked a QUESTION, and it was not loaded. A fallacy comes when you make a statement.

+

Austrians fail logic 101 yet again.

[sfiorare]

@successfulbuild - yea, he and his bogus buddies seem to like to throw out the fallacy accusation instead of making real arguments

@Arjozof - you continue to avoid answering a simple question

what bank, in operation today, uses full-reserve banking?

just admit that it's not used because it's an archaic practice

i understand quite well that you make ludicrous false accusations and refuse to face facts

[Virgil0211]

@successfulbuild 'He asked a QUESTION, and it was not loaded.'

Argument by assertion. Any honest look at the context and sfiorare's behavior will indicate that the question was loaded. Nice try.

[synestheticmonotony]

@successfulbuild I take it that you haven't read much Aristotle. Fallacies DO NOT only appear in statements, they can also appear in questioning, as well. A good example of such is the fallacy of many questions. The question posed was obviously rhetorical and has a fallacious presupposition. Yet, the primary fallacy is found in the proposition immediately following the question. Essentially, he shows his fallacious presupposition found in the question, by stating it in the proposition.

[LordDyhalto]

I'm always torn between Tarpley/Still and the Von Mises economic systems.

But then, the debate itself is healthy.

[93msinclair]

I thinlk you mean "diseducates" rather than "miseducates"

[synestheticmonotony]

@93msinclair Diseducation isn't a word in the English language. However, I understand your intention (applying the difference between misinformation and disinformation to the idea of education).

[93msinclair]

@synestheticmonotony Ya you're right, I was just making the point that it's intentionaly misleading.

[sfiorare]

@cchessmaster - what a hypocrite you are

thomas dilorenzo is just another bootlicking mises institute prostitute; look at who sponsors this little speech: atlantic bullion and coin

dilorenzo is also a creepy 'league of the south' stooge, what a joke

the mises institute is so politically biased that almost everything from them is propaganda and misinformation

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare yeah, right, like objective reasoning is impossible, because it is an Aristotelian propaganda. Kill yourself

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - what grade are you in?

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare I am a Polish Austrian economist, fought literally thousands of intellectual battles with such creepos like you, who could only smear their opponents - never engage them in a rational debate.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - why did the bank of amsterdam go out of business?

@brown55061 - show me one fed practice that is illegal and what law it violates

@CytherLynx - that's funny considering the connections between libertarianism and creationism

@PanzerDivisionBOM - the spin dilorenzo puts on the fed policies are ludicrous

for example the 1930's depression; hoover didn't allow the fed to inject liquidity, like we did recently, and the money supply shrank by 27% between 1929 & '33

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare Bank of Amsterdam went out of business because it engaged in fractional reserve banking, that is: FRAUD, after several hundred years of successful 100% reserve deposit banking, that is: honest banking practice. The lesson is: don't steal money from your clients' deposits.

As for FED, it operates within the legal framework, but as the whole legal framework is already fraudulent (private property rights are not protected), the argument for legality is idiotic.

Hoover wasn't FED chairman

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - hoover was essentially the fed chairman's boss

Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. He feared intervention by the government would harm self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values.

the bank of amsterdam went out of business because it couldn't compete with more profitable banks that didn't require a nonviable full-reserve

you don't have a clear understanding constitutional law if you think the federal reserve act is fraudulent

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare Bank Of Amsterdam was profitable since the very beginning, while keeping 100% reserve on demand deposits. Read Jesus Huerta de Soto's book "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles". The bank made profit by charging fees for deposits and clearing operations, and was applauded as a very honest and reliable bank, which attracted clients from all of Europe. It was precisely the abandonment of honest banking that led to its demise, as was with ALL BANKS which were not bailed out.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - i have read it, huerta de soto is one of the mises institute's bootlickers; his views are extremely politically biased

the primary reason boa failed was because full-reserve banking is archaic

hoover intervened by not allowing the fed to inject the liquidity that could have saved the financial system

look at what was done over the last few years; if the fed had been prevented from acting (by congress and the president) we would have seen the dominos fall and money supply shrink

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare If being a libertarian is a political bias, then every sane freedom-loving person on Earth is biased. It is a non-argument.

Full-reserve banking is just as archaic, as is prudency in business, honesty in dealing with other people, and all-round decency. I see you prefer being a modern unarchaic scoundrel. Good luck with that.

Shrinking of artificial money supply is the reaction of the market to previous inflated boom, and it should have happened in 2008, instead we get QE2...bollocks!

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - it's pretty simple; this time the fed was allowed to expand the money supply and prevent a domino effect

if hoover had allowed expansion of the money supply, the depression of the 1930's would not have occurred

the mises institute helps economists, historians and etc to make money if they espouse their views and propaganda; it's an extremely politically biased organization

[Moragauth]

This is a non-argument. It is an assertion.

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare Haha, how stupid can you get, seriously? If Hoover had allowed the same 'quantitative easing' as in 2008 and bailed out banks, the depression would just be postponed, and struck even harder later (there was an another recession in 1937-38, though). Your flawed monetary theory prevents you from seeing the boom as the cause of economic misconduct, and the credit contraction as the necessary market reaction to rectify it.

Always let the market work!

Governments help Keynesian economists.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof your comments are nothing but illogical libertarian propaganda

[betodesign101]

@sfiorare your face is illogical.

[sfiorare]

@betodesign101 - are you afraid to show your face?

[betodesign101]

@sfiorare your mother wears combat boots.

[sfiorare]

@betodesign101 - that just goes to show how little you know

@Moragauth - my comments against dilorenzo's assertions are based on economic principles, documented history and hoover's memoirs

[betodesign101]

@sfiorare i know you are but what am i?

[sfiorare]

@betodesign101 - what grade are you in?

[betodesign101]

@sfiorare lets just say way above your pay grade.

[Moragauth]

So far, your own comments strike me as the illogical propaganda.

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare my comments are based on objective reality, historical data and logical reasoning, as all good theory is. You have no grasp of basic economics, monetary theory or Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle (which Hayek got Nobel Prize for), and you conflate fraud with business practice, calling 100% reserve banking "archaic". How retarded can you get? Well, you can, by throwing mud instead of logical counterarguments, which you do.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - i studied economics for years at university & have an advanced degree

what bank, in operation today, uses full-reserve banking?

@FletchforFreedom - even tom woods agrees with what i said about the president's ability to influence the fed chairman

35:00 - 39:00 - if you [fed chairman] want to keep your job… you do what the boss [president] wants

@betodesign101 - i'll just say, you don't know what you're talking about

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare Mainstream economics is not economics but mathematical modeling and ad hoc mixed-up a priori propositions with "empirical" or econometric "proof", which does not tell anything about economy. That's why an Austrian economist can always outsmart a mainstream zombie, and I really love to indulge in it when I come across a Keynesian or similar dimwit.

Modern banking is not banking, but institutionalized fraud backed by government priviledges. Your arguments are simply misfit.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - i see that haven't answered my simple question to you

"what bank, in operation today, uses full-reserve banking?"

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare I see that you haven't understood a simple fact:

Today there is no banking industry, but a banking cartel, backed by government coercion. When force enters the scene - market and liberty ends. You cannot talk about banking when government puts a gun to your head and forces you to accept its fiduciary medium of exchange, and banks are free to embezzle demand deposits as they wish.

[sfiorare]

@Arjozof - you continue to avoid answering a simple question

what bank, in operation today, uses full-reserve banking?

just admit that it's not used because it's an archaic practice

i understand quite well that you make ludicrous false accusations and refuse to face facts

[Virgil0211]

@sfiorare 1.Argument from authority, argument from common practice, straw-man.

2. He's talking about the fed chairman's position right now. It doesn't have anything to do with the banking system at the time of the great depression. Nice try, though.

3. Says the guy who's demonstrated economic and logical ignorance time and time again, on the bogosity.tv forums, shanedk's channel, Fletchforfreedom's channel, etc.

[sfiorare]

@Virgil0211 - presidents influenced the fed from day one, through appointments and other means

"Several administrations used appointments to influence Federal Reserve decisions"

source: ‪History Of The Federal Reserve‬ By Allan H. Meltzer p 21

"monetary policy is quite responsive to political climate, especially as represented by the preferences of the President"

source: 'Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve' by Irwin L Morris p 9

[Virgil0211]

@sfiorare You've made no comments addressing the discussion itself about the federal reserve system and the federal reserve bank of New York before the great depression.

[sfiorare]

@Virgil0211 - you can pretend presidents didn't have influence over the fed prior to the depression, but hoover changed the fed chairman in 1930

the power to appoint or not, is an influential power, whether it's convenient for you to admit it or not

what would you like to know about the federal reserve bank of new york?

[Virgil0211]

@sfiorare you still haven't addressed the argument.

[FletchforFreedom]

Of course in the real world, Hoover had no control over the amount of liquidity the Fed could inject, the Fed actually tried very hard to inject more liquidity, but just as is happening right now, the government created uncertainty undermined the Fed's ability to do so and Hoover so vastly increased governmnet expenditures and interventions that FDR ran against those things. History is against you.

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - if you think the president and congress don't have influence over the fed, you're not living in the real world, otherwise, why would bernanke spend so much time in front of congressional committees?

if you read hoover's memoirs you'll get the story straight from the horse's mouth

your misunderstanding is against you

by the time hoover realized he'd made a mistake in not allowing the liquidity injection, the dominos had already fallen & spending came as too little, too late

[FletchforFreedom]

The issue is not whether or not govt can influence the Fed (of course they can, it's one of the reasons it's appropriate to blame Fed failure on govt. Hoover's ability to influence the relatively young Fed is another issue entirely and consistent with what I have said (as are Hoover's memoirs which are frequently misinterpreted as what he did rather than what he WANTED to do. Your interpretation is inconsistent with what was actually said (including by Hoover) AT THE TIME, rather than later.

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - you're dreaming

Hoover supported volunteerism. He feared government intervention might destroy self-reliance. Hoover did little while the economy eroded. & declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only later did he support legislative solutions.

[fringeelements]

I believe Hoover pioneered some interventions prior to the period of the stock market crash, and I know Roosevelt ran against Hoover's big government policies.

Volunteerism failed of course because Hoover's economic theories were faulty and so required legislation to force them to artificially keep up wages and prices.

[FletchforFreedom]

No, I'm educated on the subject. Yes, Hoover supported volunteerism (not that his efforts to have businesses voluntarily keep wages from falling were any less economically disastrous. The assertion that Hoover "did little while the economy eroded" is factually wrong on every level. The pro-union legislation he forwarded and passed actually pre-sated the crash and the massive increase in governmnet outlays began early, not late.

Do a little actual research.

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - pro-union legislation didn't directly inject liquidity into the economy; the fact remains that hoover didn't allow the fed to act

@fringeelements - what particular interventions are you referring to?

[FletchforFreedom]

The fact is you are spouting ahistorical nonsense. In fact, Hoover could not have exercised such power if he tried. Until well into FDR's term, the individual Federal Reserve Banks maintained a great deal of autonomy and the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (not subject the the threat of presidential ouster) was more powerful than the Fed Chairman. This did not change until long after Hoover was out of office.

The pro-union legislation was merely economically harmful.

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - here are the facts:

hoover opposed expanding the money supply

the fed didn't expand the money supply

the money supply shrank and led to deflation

so, you can pretend that hoover had no influence over the federal reserve, but hoover's way was the path that was taken; coincidence you say, not according to hoover himself woods is just using the mises institute's pandering strategy to sell books to know-nothings and miscreants

[FletchforFreedom]

here are the facts:

1) Hoover opposed expanding the money supply

2) the Fed tried DESPERATELY to expand the money supply

3) the money supply shrank (Austrians point out that this was due to the intervention and uncertainty, Keynesians called this failure to succeed in expansion the "liquidity trap")

4) Hoover had no influence over the Federal Reserve (and your reasoning collapses with point 2) Hoover's path was NOT taken, the damage had simply already been done.

Nice try.

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - other than hoover's influence, what prevented the fed from expanding the money supply?

[FletchforFreedom]

Look aroud you right now because the exact same thing is happening. Whether the Fed undertakes treasury purchase - open market activities - or interest rate manipulation, such activities are marginal and require activity in the lending markets to carry its actions to economic fruition. The breaking of the banking system (again, like today) so undermined that activity that such attempts at expansion were ineffective (again, see contemporary rates of 0% - 0.25% and a "liquidity crunch").

[sfiorare]

@FletchforFreedom - during the depression the money supply shrank

do you think the exact same thing is happening, now?

[FletchforFreedom]

No, monet supply is not shrinking. The difference was that, due to unit banking laws, so many individual banks failed. This, coupled with the Fed's INITIAL tightening, so radically reduced the number of avenues available to inflate the money supply via fractional reserves and so devastated the trust in the banking system as a whole that, once the Fed tried loosening again, the damage was done. The current crisis, while similarly caused and with similar symptoms is not as severe.

cont

[FletchforFreedom]

What's happening now is that what in an ordinary economy would result in massive hyperinflation is merely inflating at a far lower level. The inflation is bad in its own right. The risk that, as again in the 1930s, since neither FDR nor Bush nor Obama could ever completely kill entrepreneurship, that, when the economy really begins to turn, the policies in place will rapidly create another bubble and begin the cycle anew.

[Arjozof]

@sfiorare Actually, contraction of the money supply during Hoover's years (but only in 1929-30, if you read Rothbard's "America's Great Depression", you would get the figures right) was the right thing for the market to finally start clearing malinvestments. But Hoover, being a huge INTERVENTIONIST, and opposing fall in wages and prices, did not allow market to liquidate all malinvestments and reallocate capital. Hence you got GREAT DEPRESSION. Thank you, good night.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare It is not as if the Fed didn't try to expand the money supply, they were purchasing assets like crazy. They just could not purchase enough to overcome the deflationary forces in the market. Rothbard shows this empirically in "America's Great Depression", which is based entirely in the time period of Hoover's administration. However, the deflation would not have occurred if it weren't for the Fed expanding the money supply during the 20s.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - you can count on dilorenzo for a biased revision of history

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare I am not quite sure what relation your comment has to do with my last comment, or why you replied to it in such a way. What history is absolutely objective (i.e. unbiased). What typically gives more credence to an historical work is whether it can be backed by empirical evidence. That is why I spoke of Rothbard's work, because he goes to great lengths to leave opinion at the door, and pose his argument using empirical facts (i.e. he primarily lets the facts speak for themselves).

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - empirical evidence says the gold standard doesn't work; rothbard has little credence with people that aren't politically biased

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Most Austrians don't favor a "gold standard", they favor a market-money system of voluntary exchange of private property. Also, show me one instance of a gold currency whose problems were not created by either the debasing of the coinage, fixed exchange rates, or the issuing of more notes than there was gold. Rothbard's articles were typically inflexible (not biased), and his academic works are quite sound. Would you care to give some examples of the bias found in his academic works?

[successfulbuild]

@synestheticmonotony You ask dumb, loaded questions where the other side is required to prove a negative. You are a moron. I will be refuting your idiocy when I return.

[synestheticmonotony]

@successfulbuild First off, the fallacy of many questions (loaded question) has nothing to do with proving a negative, as the fallacy falls in that either an affirmative or a negative answer will prove guilt (or, work to the advantage of the questioning party). All of my questions require either an affirmative, or a negative answer, never both. Further, I did not label any question here a loaded question. I stated that the fallacy was in the proposition, not the question.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - one of rothbard's most obvious biases is against government

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare As I said, in order for something to be biased, it must be a prejudice without regard to fact. Seeing as government actions are the leading cause of death, and that governments typically use force in order to further the agendas of particular groups at the expense of others, I don't see much of a bias. It certainly isn't the case that governments are sweet and nice, that they do not use force against people, and that they do not cater to certain sectors of society over others.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - show me the information source you relied on for this:

"government actions are the leading cause of death"

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare There are far too many books to list. But, all one has to do is look at the death tolls of wars. Further, I do believe that just in the short period of socialist states, that they have claimed at least 100 million lives of their own people. Many people often like to point to religion as the worlds most proficient murderer, however they forget that most of these deaths occurred under theocratic rule, thus it is the State apparatus that gets the real credit.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - in other words you can't back up your claim

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare I backed it up quite well. Sorry if there is no room to list the death tolls of every war that has taken place in history. But, if you want just a single example, then the Civil War will suffice. Over 600,000 Americans killed in just 4 short years (with a total population of 31 million). That is 2% of the entire population!!! Today, total US deaths for all causes are below 1% of the population. When it comes to ending lives, no entity holds a candle to governments.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Another example is Nazi Germany. It claimed at least 11 million lives, of which about 5-6 million were Jews. This is not counting those killed in military battles. According to the Kremlin, the USSR killed/starved about 80 million people. Mao's government killed/starved roughly 50 million people (though, some claim that it is closer to 70 million). The government chartered colonization of the America's wiped out entire civilizations. The list is endless.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare WWI 37 million, WWII 60 million, Korea 1 million, Vietnam 2 million. Depending upon your source, A-stan and Iraq casualties are between 200,000 and 900,000. Having served between 2002-2006 in the USN, I can say with confidence that most of those casualties are civilian, and that most were the result of airstrikes and/or missile strikes. While most nations no longer carpet bomb populations, they still cannot bomb areas without taking out a significant number of civilians.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Nagasaki and Hiroshima claimed roughly 200,000 lives, almost all of which were civilian (.2% of Japan's population in less than a week). This act only required two bombs. I'd say that that is quite a proficiency when it comes to ending human life. When one compares deaths for all causes, one easily recognizes that every other cause of death is trailing far behind that of governmental causes. War is necessarily a governmental function, thus war deaths go into the government tally.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - deaths from accidents and disease dwarf those numbers

here's a look at the subject using the scientific method, rather than your politically biased propaganda:

noncommunicable conditions (including cancer) - 58.8%

communicable diseases, maternal/perinatal conditions and nutritional deficiencies - 32.1%

injuries (including war) - 9.1%.......war - 0.3%

to see the source, google: "The World Health Report 2004 120 121 Statistical Annex"

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare You're correct, in 2004 nature killed more humans than war. I neglected to account for the powerful and unyielding forces of nature itself. While the data posed accounts for a specific year, it would be interesting to do a 100 or 200 year study comparing actual numbers (war vs. nature) and policy implications on factors such as disease and quality of life. I guess that war will have to take the backseat to nature as the leading cause of human deaths. Mae culpa.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - smallpox killed approximately 300 million people in the 20th century alone

spanish flu killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide in less than 2 years

the black plague killed 75 million people worldwide

malaria kills 2 million every year

those are just 4 specific vectors, there are countless others

i suspect many governments save more lives than they harm

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare As I said, I guess that government will have to take the backseat to nature as the overall leading cause of death. However, that is still no consolation for government to take second place to nature itself, because governments still murder people.. Whereas humans can only defend against nature, they can stop the offenses of government at the source. Nature is mainly indiscriminate (though, some disease is more prevalent in poor nations), governments are purposive.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - you wrote:

"they can stop the offenses of government at the source"

how would this happen?

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare There are many ways, from simply refusing to fund murder or financial support to those who murder (such as dictatorial regimes), to outright change of government. I have never seen violence as the solution to any problems. Government is necessarily force, however mankind is not yet ready for the absence of this evil. The best option is to reduce the size and scope of government, to take away its power of control. The first step: limit it to its granted Constitutional privileges.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - you can bet that if the usa destroyed all it weapons and abolished its defenses, the world would plunge into a period of war like it has never seen before

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare That is not what I said. Weapons are a necessary tool for the defense of oneself. However, the US is not authorized by its constitution to have a standing Army. With the fact that we do have a standing Army it should surprise no one that we have had perpetual conflict and have erected an entire industry that is supported by that perpetual conflict. If we are attacked, rally the militia into an Army and then go kick some ass. "Preemption" certainly is not defense.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare The fact that the Constitution allows for a standing Navy is no mistake. Naval forces have been and continue to be the most powerful defensive force that any nation can hope to have. They are the only entity that both acts as a deterrent, and has the ability to project force to any point in the world. The Marines are simply part of the Department of the Navy, and as such are authorized to be a standing force. But, once again, preemption is not defensive, it is offensive.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - if you had your way, i suspect there would be more war rather than less

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Yes, it is true that our interventionist foreign policies have made us many enemies, that is becoming increasingly evident. However, this is not about having it "my way". Rather, it's about adhering to the rule of law. A government that does not adhere to the rule of law, and does not stay confined to the privileges granted to it, no longer is operating by the consent of the people. We will reap the consequences of such sooner or later (like it or not). All empires come to an end.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - the usa is committed to the rule of law

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Since when? I seem to notice that the Patriot Act violates much of the 4th amendment. I also notice that the president having the power to assassinate Americans without due process violates many rights. Are wars initiated under false pretense within the rule of law (i.e. Iraq and Vietnam)? Is the debasement of the currency lawful? How about transfers of wealth and property, is that a lawful exercise? Americans may be committed to the rule of law, our government certainly isn't.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - since it's inception, the usa has been committed to the rule of law; government is not only committed to the rule of law, it makes the law

would you have rather that closed, totalitarian communistic societies had dominated the earth or that the free world fought back?

remember khrushchev's words: "we will bury you"

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Of course I am fully committed to liberty, but that is what our government seems intend on destroying (most governments are). Common law, of which our Constitution is based, was not created by government, it was created by precedence in court. The only laws that governments create are statutory. What comes first, societal values or law? The law is merely the reflection of societal values, thus laws are created by society itself. The government merely legislates/enforces said laws.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare Further, societies predate States. While humans have been around for about 200,000 years, States did not appear until about 10,000-12,000 years ago. Since it is societies that have created governments, one cannot then say that it is governments that create the law. No, it is societies that create the law. Governments can only create statutes, of which can be (and, often are) in direct conflict of the hitherto accepted laws of society and/or their constitutions (supreme law).

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - war predates government

statutory law is law and codified law is also law

at its core, society and government are just abstract concepts

in practice, society is made up of people and governments are people

what country has a government that is ideal?

[piecharthosen]

none.

[synestheticmonotony]

@sfiorare I noticed that you like to toss the word "bias(ed)" around lot. I highly recommend that you reacquaint yourself with the definition of the term, because you keep using it incorrectly. There must be prejudice, lack of reason, refusal of fact, etc in order for something to be biased. Simply being contrarian does not fit the definition, and is a completely different concept altogether.

[sfiorare]

@synestheticmonotony - bias is appropriate in this case

the gold standard didn't work and was dropped for that reason

rothbard's bias towards a gold standard is the example

[CytherLynx]

@sfiorare

what a joke you are. A 51 year old, dogmatically stick'n to his guns without even attempting to refute with reason, and only spouting 'ad hominem' attacks, like a creationist would.

Actually, I've started to enjoy your comments. you seem almost intent on damaging your own position with such pathetic comments. You do a better job than me at shifting people away from pro-Fed positions.

[brown55061]

@sfiorare

The fact remains that the Federal Reserve's practices are not only illegal, but their policies destroy the value of YOUR money as well. It's simple math. How much did every product you bought in 1970 cost? Multiply it times 6 or 10 and you have what it costs today. That's called price inflation. I've read a years worth of your ignorant comments on this channel and NEVER have you offered one intelligent solution, just conflating arguments. You are wasting our oxygen.

[FletchforFreedom]

I'm always so appreciative when members of the Left, without prompting, go out of their way to preserve for posterity commentary that so clearly demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy and complete lack of substance of their economic and political stances.

Bravo. Keep up the good work!

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@sfiorare

Because ideas are unimportant, motives are everything, and logical deduction is endlessly malleable to suit your agenda.

If you have a critical examination to offer of the axiom of action, then offer it. Don't psychologize about whole groups of people you've never met.

[cchessmaster]

Quit using their fiat dollars. Free yourself. Stop the wars. Buy silver not gold.

[michaelpshipley1]

I wish I could have a book signed by Thomas DiLorenzo. He's the Thomas Jefferson of our time.

[masonkiller666]

@michaelpshipley1 I got a chance to chat a little with him and I really regret not asking for an autograph.

[michaelpshipley1]

If we were only a loose union of sovereign states, not a single "country," no one would fall for the con of "our country" has this or that problem that must be solved by a centralized authority. We need to abolish the federal government and system. It is the cause of all the problems.

[flynn2008]

Wish i have an internship with the Mises Institute.

[BachGuitar3]

groceries stores :D great video

[elucidative]

These Federal Reserve Bastards deserve life minimum.

[daviddalbylive]

Creative, Innovative and Visionary Entrepreneurs create Jobs and Wealth NOT Fat Greedy Banksters who wouldnt know a good investment if it ...

Economists esp keynesians have been captured by the banksters to promulgate there short sighted views.

The Victorians invested for the future and left us a great legacy. Todays Banksters do not have any vision but focus on short sighted shareholder value each quarter.

[failedassassin]

The music is key. It readies me to listen to these intellectual giants to talk about an epic of rational economics.

[anarchylogic]

Great post Mises.

[grraadd]

What about: "This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it."?

YT displays random messages again?