Woody Tasch: Destructive Economics

[MrSmackdown100]

Meanwhile the flow of life goes on.

[Aldaris19]

Somebody needs to read some Fredrich Bastiat...

[MANofINACTION]

This does point out some bad things in the keynesian socialist economy that focuses on artificial stimulus and consumer spending. Unforunately I'm getting an anti-market vibe from the video.

[Setzer]

I think the problem he's talking about really only applies to destructive acts where profits create incentive for the destructive behavior. The # of car accidents has nothing to do with the capital flows that result from one. Smoking on the other hand is different. If there was no way to make money by selling tobacco less people would smoke. We do have to make profit incentives for constructive activities and weaken incentives to engage in destructive behavior though.

[slingshot2427]

This guy assumes that if you arent spending money on the specific consumer goods that he mentions that money will not get spent at all. Just because youre not buying a car doesnt mean you arent buying something else with that money. And if you save it than you are boosting investment spending. This video is not accurate.

[cultusstultus]

bastiat's broken window

[CognitiveImbias]

Broken. Window. Fallacy.

Economics is a science.Where does this clown come off speaking like he were an expert on a subject about which he so clearly knows nothing?

Seriously, read just the first 3 pages or so of Frederic Bastiat's 1848 essay "What Is Seen and What is Not Seen" (free, easy to find online, easy to understand) and you will witness the utter annihilation of this entire argument.Wealth destruction is NEVER economically beneficial.This is old news--it's time to learn!

[brockunc]

@CognitiveImbias Sorry to say but economics is not a science. Ask any real scientist. A real science, physics, chemistry....has predictive power and accurate models. Economics is what is refereed to as a a social science which is basically a nice way of saying not accurate or not science.

And of course our economy is built on things being destroyed and becoming obsolete. If this did not happen you would not buy new things and we would not be a consumer society.

[CognitiveImbias]

@brockunc Science is a method, and economics uses it.Not all economic theories have predictive power, just like not all theories in the hard sciences have predictive power. But If we consider only the economic theories of the Chicago and Austrian schools, you will see that we can predict with greater-than-random accuracy whether some particular law will help or hurt the economy.We can't yet say how much benefit or harm will result, but this is a demonstration of predictive power nonetheless.

[brockunc]

@CognitiveImbias Better than random is not very good predictive power. I can predict better than random based on knowing a few factors but my educated guess is not science. And yes all theories in the hard sciences have extremely accurate testable predictions. Thats what makes it a science. I'm familiar with the chicago and austrian schools of thought. At best that can predict trends and not even those with any significant consistency.

[CognitiveImbias]

@brockunc You clearly didn't read the portion of the essay I mentioned before (you can't spare 10 minutes to feed the intellect?). After you read it, you will understand that our economy is strong in spite of destruction, consumption, and obsolescence, not because of them.

[brockunc]

@CognitiveImbias I'll read the essay if you send the link but its just one persons conjecture. The fact of the matter is you can't dispute the point that our economy relies on consumption of goods and services. Take away destruction and consumption drops significantly.

[Tressco]

Most excellent!

[healing00]

Woody Tasch, awesome!  Do you have your own channel, also what did you author? I'd like to read it. We are on the same page, entirely!