"Capitalism" is to economic laws what "Gravity" is to the Newtonian laws of the physical world. Saying you are for capitalism is just as dumb as saying you are for gravity. Duh, of course you are. What else are you going to do. Free market economics is the architecture of working with capitalism/gravity to realize it's properties and work with them in a harmonious way. Socialism, Communism are like an architect who tries to build his house upside down. Pain results.
… Intelligent and Truthful lecturers would start by defining “Economics”, which must be “the Science of Fulfilling Consumer Desires Efficiently”.
… That would indicate that neither Socialistic Slavery nor primitive Money Barter and Market Capitalism are economic topics, so both should be excluded from discussion and comment.
… Start your economic education by reviewing “The Revolutionary ConsumerCard Article”, then "The Great Pyramid, Why Was It Built".
@Chabinna, you're a fool. do a little more economic research before you make such an idiotic claim. What you said is akin to saying a little bit of cancer is optimal.
A free-society must first define "who" the individual is. For the individual is who you protect and the least amount of protectionism is logically the freest society.
Rothbard said it was the Owner
Mises said it was the Consumer
Consumer-Individualism requires the least "protectionism" -- C-I is had when you allow for Zero Rights and Zero Right-Seeking.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardianism) requires "rights" to protect property.
Nurb: To use, consume (diminish) or "spend" (to diminish).
I never said there are not colloquial usuages.
If a scientist uses the term in regard to nuclear "waste" -- do you think it means (expenditure - diminish) or "careless" hahahaha.
In economics (which is an emotionless science) uses the latter definition -- I know because I have an advanced degree in Economics and Child Development.
Really? Which dictionary? My example of the word "waste" was provided by a dictionary. Are you telling me that the word waste, when in the economic context, is synonymous with consumption? Because so far, whenever I find it in connection with consumption, it always seems to be in the context of needlessness.
Nurb: If we are talking about tuburcliosis, we say talk about the wasting away of tissue -- "to diminish"
If we say that I wasted my money -- it means that I diminished it; the "value judgement" is that I did it needlessly.
Colloquially, yes you are correct, it then becomes "wasted equals needless" however, if you do not have the "root" which is to diminish, then the "needless" is superfluous.
"Nurb: If we are talking about tuburcliosis, we say talk about the wasting away of tissue -- "to diminish""
A dictionary definition I provided already said as much.
No, regarding money, the word waste itself is a value judgement, not just needlessly.
I never said that waste equals needless. I said that in the context outside of medicine or science, that waste is needless consumption or usage. It is also more than colloqiual, it is official.
Another thing is that I take the correct usage of words seriously in a debate, as many people distort words to their own advantage to help their arguments.
Furthermore, I do not care about what you say your qualifications are. I care about proof. Your statements are an appeal to authority, your own.
If you want me to believe you, you have to show me proof that the word waste can mean "diminish" (which actually means to make less) or to consume outside of the context of needlessness or other negativity.
Nurb -- When we carbon-date its based on a "decay rate" -- which is the speed at which it "wastes" or diminishes.
You can't remove the word "diminish" from waste -- We are arguing a colloquial semantic.
Put it this way, if you read a book from the 20's and 30's on economic waste (it would be diminishment) not assumed to be "needless" because it's not our job as economists, when reporting the truth of a thing to put a value-judgement on it.
I never tried to remove 'diminish' from 'waste'. All this time, I have been trying to establish that if waste is to be used in place of 'consumption' then it means needless, destructive, or other negative consumption (all of which are value judgements on the consumption)
Nurb: Fine, hahahaha. I wont waste your time (diminish it).
For time is money -- to waste time is to waste money -- less you value this time then the "wasting" aspect is seperated from needless and added to benefit.
It's all good.
Consumption: To use, To Diminish, and to Transform --- We will remove "waste" (it does not change what I said originally), it was a wonderful rabbit to chase.
i will put it to you this way, all waste is consumption but not all consumption is waste; like how all red delicious apples are apples, but not all apples are red delicious apples.
You said "consuming is only wasteful if it is needless" -- which shows you are looking at "waste" in terms of "careless" and not in context of economics which obviously would only mean "diminish."
Wasn't the rise in British wages at the cost of a fall to Indian wages as textile production capital was transferred and India was impoverished?
Doesn't the capitalist model break down if you think it far enough out? Do you see movies like Blade Runner, Fifth Element, Judge Dread and the like as our evolution?
Is this the best people can think of after years of indoctrination by elite schools and think tanks?
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, bullshit, have you even been to China? FYI, the living condition of China were continuously improving. Chinese are less of a slave than you are, because they dont believe in any ideology any more, unlike you fool who worship your "God given freedom" that has long been secretly taken away from corperatism. We Chinese never trust any government no matter what they say or do, and FYI, the living standards becomes better by the day for the last 40 years for us.
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, fucking fool like you are the reason why the people in the west are not standing up to Socialism in the west in the form of corperatism. Because you always think that just because there are people who are living the worse condition in other countries, it is nessesarily true that your country are good and right in everyway, lol.
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, China government is in fact much less powerful than the US when it comes to controling its people because no Chinese trust their government. While in the US, the people trust their government so much that even if they government is OBVIOUSLY stealing from the people, bailing out corperates that shouldnt be bailed out, spying on its people and restricting their freedom in many more subtle ways. You can protest, but the gov still does what it does.
@BLUEANGEL7777777777 From what I've been able to gather, China is doing pretty well, because they've been "out-capitalisting" us. I remember seeing somewhere that they now have the largest concentration of millionaires in the world, and the poverty level has been shrinking quite fast. Not that I want to move there, but it could be a good lesson for our own wise and all seeing economic overlords. At least they might see the virtues in allowing us to keep our own property.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When you get a certain number of thumbs down your comment gets hidden. It's censorship. If you have 'negative feedback' then please express it through a comment.
A thumbs down is far better than a comment like "Oh man you are such a fucking dick. " At the very least it saves space and if I wish to read poorly received comments I still can.
@MengeleHitlerSimplifico: Yes, yes. You've discovered our dastardly plot to spambomb the proletariat into submission, until they'll work for free and in dangerous environments, and the Party will be powerless to stop us! :p
You've my thumbs up, though maybe not for the reasons you originally intended. :D
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't support more governmnet control "idiot." As an anarchist I want government gone. That's more than you "libertarians" (i.e. conservatives) want. Insecure? How the fuck do you know? Or do you have some remarkable ability to psychoanalise people using only one comment? I knew you people were deluded, but that takes the buscuit. Never mind, we are winning. Capital is bye bye.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh that's funny. Well guess what - you are the weakest link - GOODBYE! Do you see what I did there? If there wasn't bad feeling between us we could go into comedy together. Because that is SO funny.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And I am not "bye bye". I'll be there in London on Mayday, protesting for change in a world fucktards like you have thrown into complete economic chaos.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I love how ridiculous individuals like yourself (i.e. Austrians) can use 'Quixotian.' I hope the irony's not wasted on you . . . Mere flim-flam stories, and nothing but shams and lies. There is your "anarcho-capitalist" nonsense in one sentence.
I assume from your username that you are a Marxist. Marxism wasn't very successful in the USSR, I would actually go as far as too say that today's "economic chaos" is preferable than the 40 years of permo-recession in the Soviet Union.
Also, you are gravely misguided if you think any of the Austrian school's fundamental policies have been implemented in recent times.
Most economists agree that today's depression is a consequence of government failure in monetary policy
Excuse me they mostly accept it. However they disagree with the Austrians on how we should move tp solve the problem. widespread condemnation of Greenspan'sinflationary monetary policy escape your notice?
Btw Austrians are not "nutters" They predicted this recession. the reason theyare margianlised has nothing to do with actual economics, its because progressives control our world. Read Memoir on Pauperism by de Tocqueville to understand how this is inevitable
Well there is nothing contradictory in Marx teachings and Austrian school of economics. Karl Marx delt with (to some extent) evolution of means of production and concluded that at some point of our technological development (or at least this is my interpretation of his mesage) we will be able to produce infinite ammont of goods without much human labour and thus we will create a world where ppl will work according to their ability, and consume according to their need
@Invirtuo - I don't think most economists think this recession is a result of bad monetary policy. The question is still out and economists are still waiting for things to settle out to start making conclusions and hence forming into groups. It certainly was a government failure, but I think monetary policy was the least worst culprit.
Marxism is horrible, but I wouldn't say the USSR practiced it. Marx never advocated central planning. He advocated ideas much worse that have never been tried.
@Americaisgreat123 Monetary policying failure is the only that could instigate systemic collapse like we saw. Sure, irresponsible fiscal policy and other structural problems cause growth to lag but it's monetary policy that precipitated the present crisis. The Fed and ECB were too easy for too long.
The Soviet Union tried to implement Marxism but couldn't, because it's a practical and technical imposibility. Btw you're right, America is Great!
@Invirtuo Monetary failure is the only way you can get a depression, but a recession, even a great one, can be a factor of government failures outside of the central bank. What we currently have is highly unprecedented.
I see no evidence this collapse fulfills the Austrian Business Cycle and while I wholly stand with them in opposing central banking, to claim they were the main culprit is either genuinely misguided or intellectually dishonest.
@Invirtuo Long term interest rates are really set on the world market and largely out of control of the fed since broad de-regulation in the 1980's. The money supply is what sophisticated macro-economists focus on. The Austrians also ignore the cartel credit rating agencies, the SEC's false sense of security, the FDIC subsidizing insolvency through mis-priced government insurance.....
and the Congress and their housing bureaucracies that coerced banks into loans that were against their financial interest with implicit failure guarantee.
I've never heard that point of view before. I would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on that.
You accept that inflation and credit manipulation cause gross misallocation of savings and investment, and that this is usually the cause of most economic depression, but you postulate that state intervention in the setting of interest rates is only one of several possible causes of depressions, and that the current one is being caused by something else.
Greenspan (if you want me to name names) may not have performed his job ideally following the dot com crash, but he is often given far more blame than he deserves particularly from free market economists.
On the Austrian business cycle, I haven't fully developed my opinions on it (hey, neither has the economics profession), but I think that it holds weight, but only in the broader scheme of things. Alone, it rarely stands up to history.
So what's been causing the last few booms and busts, since the dotcom?
The Austrian cycle theory has something going for it, in that there has been immense inflation and credit expansion since the nineties. There's also the Clinton and post-Clinton political home-ownership competition, which certainly played some kind of role in the housing crisis.
@PanzerDivisionBOM - Broadly, government institutions creating moral hazard time bombs set loose by government intervention into the housing market and hence financial markets.
Oh yes because the study of economic law as undertaken by the Austrian School has failed utterly to comprehend that State subsidy for businesses distorts investment from where and how it would have been conducted in the free market. Sod universally valid business cycle theory, there were some other factors that caused the 00s housing glut so obviously the Austrian School doesn't predict thing properly! GTFO
@Nintendomanwill Is someone paying you to spout this kind of crap? Austrian school CONSTANTLY tries to point out the the states intervention & consequent destruction.
@doughtymqan, SO WHAT? You westerners disgust me. You guys talks and talks and talks for ever, telling everyone that it is wrong for the government to intervene on the economy, but every damn western government does it anyways. Trillions of tax-payer's is still being given away to irresponsible corperates, don't you boast to have democracy, dont you guys hate socialism?
Free markets would eventually learn to recognise those MHs. For the distortion of price signals perverse enough to induce investment in gluts and to induce extension of capital structures via investment in material goods during times of high and even increasing consumption, requires more than just moral hazard leading to business decisions taken on fraudulent or falsely presumed-secure risk insurance, inflation creates that sectoral malinvestment and low interest rate intertemporal misallocation
I'm not saying that these philosophies are inoperable. It is only scientific to consider a theory inherently flawed and fully scrutinize it. I see none of that in this speech, I see only "preaching to the choir".
The examples he opens with, such as the gains of the US in the past century completely ignore slavery (past and current), bloody labor conflicts, and massive abuses of power by market forces.
The things that can not be quantified often matter most. Can you put a value on life?
Furthermore, there are too many flaws inherent to the "market" for it to be completely "free". Externalizations being the greatest of them.
Parties engaged in a deal are only considering the consequences to all those involved in that deal and have neither the time nor insight to understand how their deal will effect others outside of the deal.
Currently no existing "free market" philosophy has mechanisms to even consider unquantifiable factors such as quality of life or social contentment.
I never invoked a conspiracy theory, I just stated truths from our government's records regarding their plans for Iraq.
First and foremost I'm a logician. My dissonance arises from the very term "Free Market". The whole purpose of creating a market is to regulate commerce. The word "Free" is the polar opposite of regulation. Which leads me to conclude that "Free Market" and ardent belief in it is a towering example of Orwellian doublethink.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
For what the Austrian economists are worth, they sure seem to deify their own intellectuals, such as Mises. This zealotry and self-righteousness seems to contradict their own philosophical teachings.
His media comments were oversimplified and wrong, his arguments about anti capitalists or criticism of capitalism being typically a result of jealousy are wrong, but, he was right in pointing out that a whoppingly large number of anti capitalists are just complete morons.
For example iArsalan and his conspiracy theory nonsense post.
I have a sneaky feeling that anticapitalists are more angry at the White race moreso than Capitalism itself.
I'm a white guy, a white jew from the third world, and I can tell that race doesn't make much difference.
But you are right about something: most anticapitalisms (and anticapitalists) don't make muche sense.
People as Ludwig Von Mises defended free market capitalism in a way that most anticapitalist wouldn't even understand. But anticapitalism isn't that homogeneous. The third world, specially in South America, is doing a great effort to develop coherent anticapitalist theories and methods.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This lecturer is delusional if he thinks that these "luxuries" he boasts of came out of thin air. These luxuries are the result of a massive world slave network. And often times 3rd world governments allow free-marketeers to do whatever they want but when the people get fed up then the free-marketeers suddenly develop a love for strong central government to stamp out decent.
The best example of a free market today? The Green Zone in Baghdad
"So what then is the Free Market? And show me one example in which a free market economy has been both sustainable and viable."
Hong Kong, Chile, Singapore, Iceland, some Native American tribes, etc.
Of course, you can't really prove that ANY economy is both sustainable and viable, because how do you measure such a thing? 100 years lasting? 200? Forever? Infinity can be a hard thing to empirically observe...
Hong Kong, Chile, and Singapore? Those are horrible examples because you fail to recognize that mafia is a powerful regulating force; those aren't free markets and they're all insolvent. You obviously haven't been to those countries.
Are you saying that horrible abuses to human rights are acceptable so long as GDP is up?
Native American tribes did not have free markets, they didn't even have property rights and practiced collective ownership.
"Hong Kong, Chile, and Singapore? Those are horrible examples because you fail to recognize that mafia is a powerful regulating force; those aren't free markets and they're all insolvent."
Yes, of course they aren't "pure" free markets, but they are freeER, markets.
You can point out all of the flaws in capitalist countries all you want, but the fact remains that the more economic freedom a country has, the better place it is to live. Hong Kong is the best place to live in China.
"...."dont confuse corporatism with the free market."
HAHAHA....in the same way:
"dont confuse dictatorship of the proletaria with communism" "
Riiiight, which is why the 19th century was a period of massive increase in standard of living even though U.S. spending was merely 3% of the GDP. And what little the government DID spend on mostly ended up spawning the nasty corporations (the railroads, oil, etc)
Interesting how free-marketeers completely ignore or, in some cases, justify slavery as a necessity for the successes of their free market examples.
Show me a state where the majority of its population is enslaved in various forms and I'll show you a state where the standard of living has massive increases... for those who aren't chattel slaves, indentured servants, or coolie laborers.
Show me one successful free market that doesn't engage in such abject abuses of humanity.
"Interesting how free-marketeers completely ignore or, in some cases, justify slavery as a necessity for the successes of their free market examples."
Only 5% of Britian's economy was fuelled by slavery during the Industrial Revolution. The abuses of humanity decreased as standard of living increased.
The only reason people even CONSIDERED getting rid of slavery is because slaves were becoming less and less needed for economies (technology).
You are completely dodging the fact that each example you gave was not a free market. Furthermore I included indenture and 'coolie' laborers as slaves because they're not chattel slave, but slaves none the less.
Slavery didn't decrease because of lack of governmental intervention, it was because of intervention through legislation that chattel slavery disappeared but debt slavery greatly increased throughout the south.
Standard of living did increase if you completely ignore the indentured.
"Standard of living did increase if you completely ignore the indentured."
Yes because the indentured servants were completely OUTSIDE the Industrial Revolution, totally unaffected by it. What a joke.
"Furthermore I included indenture and 'coolie' laborers as slaves because they're not chattel slave, but slaves none the less."
You're right that coolies were basically slaves, but the fact is, they were an improvement above slavery. Workers saw a marked increase in conditions in the 19th cent.
They were an improvement above chattel slavery but that's not because of the free market. That was a result of massive government intervention, not the least of which being the CIVIL WAR.
There exists no greater governmental intervention or public expenditure than war.
Point of fact, chattel slavery came about because of free marketeers undermining the indenture system and then by the government's refusal to get involved; and when the government finally did, it was to enforce chattel slavery.
"Show me one successful free market that doesn't engage in such abject abuses of humanity."
You accuse the "free market" of engaging in the abuses of humanity, as if it is some kind of evil entity, and is responsible for slavery. But slavery and worker abuse DECREASED as government intervention decreased in the 19th century.
"Native American tribes did not have free markets, they didn't even have property rights and practiced collective ownership."
I included them in the examples because some tribes functioned without coercive authority, which is essential for collective redistribution to function. The Comanche, for example, functioned like a family, where the oldest members made the decisions.
"Slavery didn't decrease because of lack of governmental intervention, it was because of intervention"
My point was that economic and technological developments through capitalism caused slavery to be no longer necessary, not that deregulation itself actually caused people to change their attitudes.. The legislation wouldn't have happened had the slaves not become "unnecessary evils".
"The best example of a free market today? The Green Zone in Baghdad."
Not really the green zone is missing law and order the basic condition for the development of a free market capitalist economy.Sure its moderately safe compared to the rest of Iraq but if John McCain needs an apache helicopter overhead to visit the market i would call it safe for free market business. As far as the privatization of public utility is concerned
the is clear US corporatism(government backed monopoly).
Yeah right, I would accuse you of lying, but I'd rather just say you're ignorant. Government backed monopolies is the opposite of a free-market. Free-market just means no force (ie, government monopolies), no fraud, just voluntary, individual peace. Government-backed monopolies is a characteristic of neo-conservatism and socialism (fascism to be exact).
Ultimatly a more realistic view would be that the modern anti capitalists are more an amalgamation of several elements fairly modified to suit the sociopolitical climate of our time, the politically and economically ill educated and ignorant, the jealous, the religious, the frustrated, and the politically/and economically experimental, though the components vary in size.
In short, Capitalism is not the Roman empire, the anti capitalists are not the goths, franks, vandals etc.
I think we are barbarians. We are those to whom much of free market capitalism was imposed, some times making a progress, but generally destroying our own way to modernity and imposing economical and political practices by brute force (as capitalism has also been totalitarian in some countries).
We may now have a more advanced economy than we had, but as it humiliated us as nations and people, and it condemned so many others to misery, hunger and death, we would like to see the old empires fall
(for whatever reason the first post didnt show up so this is basically what was said)
Though I agree with many of the views expressed, I feel that it would be erronous to attempt to mirror the positive aspects of the free market with the late western Roman empire, which was characterised at this point in time as being heavily corrupt, plagued with economic crisis and notorious for its wickedness and lack of justice. This feeling is expressed by late latin writers. (cont)
(cont) Finally I feel it must be pointed out that it was from the world created by the barbarian successors of the Roman civilization that the origins of capitalism as we know it derives. So the comparison actually deters a bit from the validity of the arguments of the speaker.
The German Historic school of economics places a high importance on the study of history within relation to economic and social matters and I feel that ironically their advice may have fallen on deaf ears.
Not really, I and most historians reject the entire notion that there was a dark ages on the basis that well... they weren't dark. People often say "ah yes but they were extremely violent but then again, so was the Roman period.
the dark ages weren't bad because of violence but because of living conditions.And living standard far below the one achieved in the Roman period and no significant scientific improvements.
Incorrect. As a general rule the living conditions of the empire were maintained, you need to keep in mind that your average person living in the Empire wasn't doing that well anyway, at the start of the "darkage" however in key cities of the empire life improved under new administration there were also several scientific improvements in weapons & agriculture. If living conditions are the justification of the term then the crisis of the third century was a dark age, it wasnt there was no darkage
(cont) also we must keep in mind that the Barbarian peoples who carved up the Western Roman empire actually didn't destroy it, but quite successfully took control of many Roman institutions and were actually very often fair to the Roman people, as often pointed out by late Latin writers, especially on the issues of the Goths.
Almost ironically however, the barbarian invasions in many ways are reflective of dynamic venture capital which contasts the fortified monopoly of the W roman empire(cont)
I do agree with most of you in a lot of things. I know, by experience, that most socialist are just people who failed as individuals and blame the society for that. But there's one thing you completely ignore, and that's the view of hunger. Now, you are right about the necessary knowledge of scientific principles to create prosperous societies, but you don't really know how the world is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What pseudo-intellectual BS!
There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. At $1,500/yr per car of depreciation that is $300,000,000,000 per year.
So Americans have lost FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS in depreciation on cars since 1995. When have any economists, capitalist sycophants or otherwise, said anything about this?
The economic wargame is a continuation of the military wargame by other means.
What technology have economists created in the last 200 years? That made things better.
What's your point? Millions of Americans spend thousands on televisions and they also depreciate. Nobody forced them to. Do you think car's should appreciate? Then buy a '67 Shelby Ford Mustang and restore it. Quit whining.
My point is the economics profession treats capital goods different from durable consumer goods.
The NET WORTH of consumers goes down as their property depreciates just as it does for businesses. But economists don't talk about NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT much they mostly hide the entire subject of depreciation of real goods. They talk more about th depreciation of money.
I mention depreciation of cars because I presume it is larger than that of televisions but all durable goods depreciation matters.
goods depreciate because of monetary inflation you fool. Something that the Mises institute never forgets to mention, but I guess you have or don't even know
Monetary inflation is the DEPRECIATION OF MONEY you fool. You shouldn't come here and pretend you understand economics.
Inflation means products cost more money so the value of money must be going down, therefore The MONEY has Depreciated.
Machines, like cars, wear out so that is one of the causes of their depreciation. The economy depends on people like you pretending they know economics confusing people who know even less. The masses must be confused into being DUMB WORKERS.
WOW, look who's the idiot who doesn't know Austrian economics. The depreciation of money is caused by PRINTING ALOT OF MONEY, that's where "inflation" comes from dumbass... the laws of supply and demand hold true for the money supply, god what an IDIOT you are... I can't believe you didn't even know this, this is like one of THE basic things about Austrian economics, if you didn't know this you were DEFINITELY NOT educated in Austrian economics
{{{ goods depreciate because of monetary inflation you fool. }}}
Printing a lot of money means there is a lot more money in relation to goods therefore the value of MONEY goes down in relation to goods. The MONEY depreciates. More money is required to buy the same goods. LOL
Not even the Austrian economists are dumb enough to get that wrong.
Austrian economics is based almost on human action. IE, what you do or do not do, means you have a choice in everything you do.
IE, forego consumption and save/invest with a return, or spend now, the opportunity cost being the lost income stream.
In capitalism, the consumer rules, he will reward the seller & his product that best pleases him - the others lose, who must now give more for less to compete ergo lower prices.
Govt sullies all it touches & prices rise from fiat inflation too.
What characterizes capitalism is not the bad taste of the crowds, but the fact that these crowds, made prosperous by capitalism, became consumers of literature of course, of trashy literature. The book market is flooded by a downpour of trivial fiction for the semi-barbarians. But this does not prevent great authors from creating imperishable works.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I do think that "envy" has little to do with sentiments of anticapitalism; instead, I think a large majority of people view the current incarnation of capitalism as the vehicle that a current few (namely a dozen or two families with the REAL wealth) use to CONTROL or attempt to amass power, resulting in the planned poverty of nonwhite cultures. I could care less about millionaires, but when they have the power to harm masses of people, that's more SELF DEFENSE than ENVY for the anticapitalist.
You seem to lack understanding of how an anarcho-capitalistic society would work.
With the non-aggression principle in the courts, the rich couldn't force the poor to do anything. Unless an individual is inhibited enough that they cannot engage in work or accept a donation, a poor person can always engage in a contract(i.e. a job) increasing his standard of living. Stop victimizing the poor, you're making things worse.
How many of these poor exploted countries have capitalist economies and strong domestic property rights? You don't know? Well I'll tell you.. none. In all of the poor countries of africa, the leader can walk in your house, expel you from it and grab it for himself. According to you, it is the fault of capitalism - our fault. So I guess you suffer from ignorance.
O.K., I have checked out some of the offerings from the Mises Institute's media archive, and I think the Austian answer to psi's statement about depreciation would be something like this: The consumer will tend to value the junk car less than the new car, he will choose to pay for one less often ( unless forced to by government). It seems to me that Austrians focus much less on charts, graphs and secret formulas, than do the "standard" economist.
He talks about a STANDARD OF LIVING that monarchs could not have 200 years ago. But he attributes this to CAPITALISM instead of science and technology. How much technology has been invented by Austrian economists in the last 200 years?
But the don't talk about the depreciation of under engineered garbage that is designed to become obsolete. Is ignoring the DEPRECIATION of all of the automobiles purchased by consumers an application of reason?
So shouldn't the GENIUS economists be able to compute the DEPRECIATION on the consumer garbage? Could it be the economists are technological MORONS and can't figure out what is garbage themselves?
Over 200,000,000 cars in the US every year since 1995 and we don't know the total depreciation on all of that junk. Do they ever bother calculating it and just don't report it?
The finance industry already has experts to do that, but it is neither here nor there... the ultimate arbiter of what is garbage or not is the consumer.
The Net Worth of millions of automobile owners goes down as their cars wear out. So if economists were TRUE SCIENTISTS they would be concerned about accurately evaluating what goes on in the economy. Just as astronomers are concerned about finding planets hundreds of light years away.
But consumers must buy new cars when their's wears out and economists are on the SUPPLY SIDE and not even trying to be objective so they don't talk about consumer depreciation or mandatory accounting courses.
I was just looking at a ThinkPad T40 for $439 at RefurbDepot(dot)com they say it retailed for $1500. I found a review from Dec 2003 so it is a 4 year old machine. So that is $250/yr of depreciation.
Can you type faster on a new $3000 machine? Of course you should worry about the hard drive on a used computer. I'd buy a new drive. An 80 gig laptop drive is $60 plus shipping. I could buy an oriental rug with the $1000. Impute THAT!
Yes you need to come up with some complex statistical trivia to pretend economics is difficult to understand but you need to dismiss the FACT that the entire profession has been ignoring the depreciation of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of cars WORLD WIDE for the last FIFTY YEARS.
You have no explanation for that so people need to be distracted with razzle dazzle statistical jargon. Impute THAT!
Here's a recommendation: get some book such as Economics for Dummies, figure out what it is I'm talking about (has nothing to do with statistics), then come back. Your "criticism" of economists fails because depreciation is entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
You and the economics profession are saying that economics is what is in economics books not what happens in REALITY.
Go to an automobile junk yard. Look at all of the piled up cars. Look in an economics book and see what it says about DEPRECIATION OF DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS.
NOTHING!!!
The economics profession is composed of LYING MORONS and the economics books are GARBAGE!
Reality is inescapable. You don't hear economists suggesting accounting be mandatory in the schools.
Sigh, again and again, you reveal total ignorance... statistical? No, wrong. Get out an economics for dummies book and educate yourself, then start whining about economists. So far the errors are all yours. Until then, this is a waste of time.
Samuelson's ECONOMICS did not talk about depreciation of durable consumer goods in 1976 and economists haven't brought up the subject since then. How much have American consumers lost on depreciation of automobiles since then?
OH YEAH! If economists don't put it into their books IT'S IRRELEVANT.
Psi: Are you talking entropy in regaurds to the junk cars, or merely a quantification of the environment in general? I mean, what is the value of the earth in raw? What is the value of earth pluss pyromids? Sans one millenia or two? Or do you speak of utility? As in I have used graddad's 30-06 so much that it misfires a lot and the stripper is all cashed out, rendering it a single action/break loader. It's utility is lowered. However, it retains value to me as I can keyhole a deer at 100yds.
Go to a junk yard and look at all of the piled up cars. Ask yourself the market value of the cars versus their price when they were new.
The difference is DEPRECIATION.
Economists added those cars to GDP when they were purchased. Where did that depreciation get factored into the economy? What about the depreciation on the industrial robots used to make the cars? Oh yeah, NDP that we hardly ever hear about.
I went to college for electrical engineering. I understood planned obsolescence was going on in automobiles in grade school. Look at the WWII airplanes that were designed without electronic computers but could do 400+ mph.
But 38 years after the moon landing our GENIUS economists can't talk about the depreciation of all of those trashmobiles.
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes, Planned obsolescence is (my oppin) skullduggery at its most diabolic. Furthermore I have little love for professionals of any stripe; it's just that I have to push it down or I end up in a near berseker frenzy. I don't know how many eggheads I put out of my taxi over the years. Specialization/div. of labor has a function, but I notice that professionals don't reroof their own house; moreover they do little meaningfull work. I get livid(berserk) when they wanna treat me like a servant.
It is more like the educational system is designed to control the distribution of knowledge than to educate people. Even some that are fairly well off have to pay to put up with crap at school. We should use the internet to totally short circuit the knowledge control system.
That is why everyone should know that accounting in child's play and economists can't do algebra. Buy a used computer to avoid depreciation. More power can't matter to most people anymore. VISTA SUCKS!!!
Had to give you a thumbs down... The internet has far whown, that anyone can post a comment, and lead blind people to belief. As I post now, you can thumbs me down also and tell me how ignorant I am...
Your assumption of internet education is a facade that maybe only 10% of the population can differentiate.
I went to college for electrical engineering. Back then it was $1100/semester. I didn't get an EE course until 4th semester and they started talking about Kirchoff's Current Law.
Get the book:
Teach Yourself Electricity & Electronics by Stan Gibilsco
That current law is on page 75 and the book is $35.
We pay too much for too little dribbled out too slowly. I wish someone had given me a book like that in 7th grade. Tho now we have electronic simulators. We didn't have those in college.
Mises books are being sold in Brazil by "Instituto Ludwig Von Mises Brasil".
This is awesome :)
Do you know what we learn in brazilian high-colleges ? Marxism :) hahaha...
sry about my english, I am a barbarian at the gate
paunocu666 2 months ago
When in history could a man and a speech *like this* be seen by 14,400+ people around the world for a few dollars of electricity?
mikedans55 5 months ago
"Capitalism" is to economic laws what "Gravity" is to the Newtonian laws of the physical world. Saying you are for capitalism is just as dumb as saying you are for gravity. Duh, of course you are. What else are you going to do. Free market economics is the architecture of working with capitalism/gravity to realize it's properties and work with them in a harmonious way. Socialism, Communism are like an architect who tries to build his house upside down. Pain results.
mikedans55 5 months ago 3
Is he related to Ryan?
alistairproductions 7 months ago
… Rubbish.
… Intelligent and Truthful lecturers would start by defining “Economics”, which must be “the Science of Fulfilling Consumer Desires Efficiently”.
… That would indicate that neither Socialistic Slavery nor primitive Money Barter and Market Capitalism are economic topics, so both should be excluded from discussion and comment.
… Start your economic education by reviewing “The Revolutionary ConsumerCard Article”, then "The Great Pyramid, Why Was It Built".
CivilizedMan444 8 months ago
I wanna live in a capitalist country!
cedricalien 11 months ago 5
@cedricalien As do we all...
Arctura42 3 months ago in playlist Liked
Rest in Peace Professor Sechrest
truevoice08 1 year ago
wow almost 2 minute introduction on his credentials
chucklesjgao 1 year ago
OMG. In this video there is so much of propoganda and one way utopian view...
Neither capitalism nor socialism work, middle road is the right answer.
Chabinna 1 year ago
@Chabinna, you're a fool. do a little more economic research before you make such an idiotic claim. What you said is akin to saying a little bit of cancer is optimal.
return135 1 year ago
Mises was NOT a Rothbardian
A free-society must first define "who" the individual is. For the individual is who you protect and the least amount of protectionism is logically the freest society.
Rothbard said it was the Owner
Mises said it was the Consumer
Consumer-Individualism requires the least "protectionism" -- C-I is had when you allow for Zero Rights and Zero Right-Seeking.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardianism) requires "rights" to protect property.
OctoBox 2 years ago
Consumers pay all costs
All People and all Businesses are first Consumers.
In truth there is no such thing as "production"
The definition of consumption is: to waste, to use, to diminish, and to transform.
There was ONE production moment -- The Big Bang or God (in the beginning).
After that we've only ever "transformed" what was made manifest. That is "consumed"
Thus Consumer-Individualism is the "freest" model for liberty.
Essentially Zero Rights for Workers-Owners
OctoBox 2 years ago
Wrong. Consumption is not always wasting. Consuming is only wasteful if it is needless.
Would you consider someone eating or drinking for sustenance to be wasteful?
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nurb: Actually it is correct, by definition "waste" means to diminish.
You assumed a value judgement on the term -- I was making no such judgement.
What's "waste" to you might be "great use" to me.
Consumption means: To Waste (diminish), to Use, and to Transform.
There's a lot of overlap in those discriptors. We must "use" to "waste" and we must transform to "use" and we must diminish to "waste."
OctoBox 2 years ago
"Nurb: Actually it is correct, by definition "waste" means to diminish."
Not according to the dictionaries.
waste (wst)
v. wast·ed, wast·ing, wastes
1. To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.
2. To cause to lose energy, strength, or vigor; exhaust, tire, or enfeeble: Disease wasted his body.
3. To fail to take advantage of or use for profit; lose: waste an opportunity.
4.
a. To destroy completely.
b. Slang To kill; murder.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Take note of the negative implications in each variation of the definition.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nurb: To use, consume (diminish) or "spend" (to diminish).
I never said there are not colloquial usuages.
If a scientist uses the term in regard to nuclear "waste" -- do you think it means (expenditure - diminish) or "careless" hahahaha.
In economics (which is an emotionless science) uses the latter definition -- I know because I have an advanced degree in Economics and Child Development.
OctoBox 2 years ago
You can ridicule me all you want, but the dictionaries say what they do.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
I'm using "waste" in terms of economics.
The definitions you provided are a mixture (as in to mix together) from scientific use of the word waste and from the colloquial useage.
If you use your time ideally -- you have still "wasted" or "diminished" time.
This is a semantical debate -- What I said stands economically speaking.
I have advanced degrees in economics and child development -- I "know" what the word "consumption" means; and my dictionary quotations of it stand.
OctoBox 2 years ago
Really? Which dictionary? My example of the word "waste" was provided by a dictionary. Are you telling me that the word waste, when in the economic context, is synonymous with consumption? Because so far, whenever I find it in connection with consumption, it always seems to be in the context of needlessness.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nurb: If we are talking about tuburcliosis, we say talk about the wasting away of tissue -- "to diminish"
If we say that I wasted my money -- it means that I diminished it; the "value judgement" is that I did it needlessly.
Colloquially, yes you are correct, it then becomes "wasted equals needless" however, if you do not have the "root" which is to diminish, then the "needless" is superfluous.
OctoBox 2 years ago
"Nurb: If we are talking about tuburcliosis, we say talk about the wasting away of tissue -- "to diminish""
A dictionary definition I provided already said as much.
No, regarding money, the word waste itself is a value judgement, not just needlessly.
I never said that waste equals needless. I said that in the context outside of medicine or science, that waste is needless consumption or usage. It is also more than colloqiual, it is official.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Another thing is that I take the correct usage of words seriously in a debate, as many people distort words to their own advantage to help their arguments.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Furthermore, I do not care about what you say your qualifications are. I care about proof. Your statements are an appeal to authority, your own.
If you want me to believe you, you have to show me proof that the word waste can mean "diminish" (which actually means to make less) or to consume outside of the context of needlessness or other negativity.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Comment removed
OctoBox 2 years ago
Nurb -- When we carbon-date its based on a "decay rate" -- which is the speed at which it "wastes" or diminishes.
You can't remove the word "diminish" from waste -- We are arguing a colloquial semantic.
Put it this way, if you read a book from the 20's and 30's on economic waste (it would be diminishment) not assumed to be "needless" because it's not our job as economists, when reporting the truth of a thing to put a value-judgement on it.
I hope this helps
OctoBox 2 years ago
I never tried to remove 'diminish' from 'waste'. All this time, I have been trying to establish that if waste is to be used in place of 'consumption' then it means needless, destructive, or other negative consumption (all of which are value judgements on the consumption)
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nurb: Fine, hahahaha. I wont waste your time (diminish it).
For time is money -- to waste time is to waste money -- less you value this time then the "wasting" aspect is seperated from needless and added to benefit.
It's all good.
Consumption: To use, To Diminish, and to Transform --- We will remove "waste" (it does not change what I said originally), it was a wonderful rabbit to chase.
OctoBox 2 years ago
i will put it to you this way, all waste is consumption but not all consumption is waste; like how all red delicious apples are apples, but not all apples are red delicious apples.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
My Nurbro, It's got to be the way you let it be baby -- it's all deelishious; define life as you see it and live flossy and large.
OctoBox 2 years ago
For example, one example that relates to money:
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
that was from the dictionary.referenceDOTcom site
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
You said "consuming is only wasteful if it is needless" -- which shows you are looking at "waste" in terms of "careless" and not in context of economics which obviously would only mean "diminish."
OctoBox 2 years ago
Um, no, I'm 32 years old, college educated and I know full well what waste means.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Wasn't the rise in British wages at the cost of a fall to Indian wages as textile production capital was transferred and India was impoverished?
Doesn't the capitalist model break down if you think it far enough out? Do you see movies like Blade Runner, Fifth Element, Judge Dread and the like as our evolution?
Is this the best people can think of after years of indoctrination by elite schools and think tanks?
FakeryTV 2 years ago
What type of Austro-libertarian is he? A classical liberal or anarchocapitalist?
truevoice08 2 years ago
This is a very eloquent speech.
Va3H 2 years ago 3
Socialism is great until there is no more money- then you take a step down to Communism- and live the good life like The Chinese slaves.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago 16
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, bullshit, have you even been to China? FYI, the living condition of China were continuously improving. Chinese are less of a slave than you are, because they dont believe in any ideology any more, unlike you fool who worship your "God given freedom" that has long been secretly taken away from corperatism. We Chinese never trust any government no matter what they say or do, and FYI, the living standards becomes better by the day for the last 40 years for us.
jimmyjamesWang 9 months ago
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, fucking fool like you are the reason why the people in the west are not standing up to Socialism in the west in the form of corperatism. Because you always think that just because there are people who are living the worse condition in other countries, it is nessesarily true that your country are good and right in everyway, lol.
jimmyjamesWang 9 months ago
@BLUEANGEL7777777777, China government is in fact much less powerful than the US when it comes to controling its people because no Chinese trust their government. While in the US, the people trust their government so much that even if they government is OBVIOUSLY stealing from the people, bailing out corperates that shouldnt be bailed out, spying on its people and restricting their freedom in many more subtle ways. You can protest, but the gov still does what it does.
jimmyjamesWang 9 months ago
@BLUEANGEL7777777777 From what I've been able to gather, China is doing pretty well, because they've been "out-capitalisting" us. I remember seeing somewhere that they now have the largest concentration of millionaires in the world, and the poverty level has been shrinking quite fast. Not that I want to move there, but it could be a good lesson for our own wise and all seeing economic overlords. At least they might see the virtues in allowing us to keep our own property.
aseredy 2 months ago
I don't like Marxist's. But today, the only Capitalism happening- is in Government.
BLUEANGEL7777777777 2 years ago
And what's with all these thumbs down? Oh, I get it. Censorship is fine. JUST GIVE ME FREE MARKETS BWA BWA BA
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Conflating negative feedback with censorship - clearly there is little that you do "get."
curtismustdie 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you get a certain number of thumbs down your comment gets hidden. It's censorship. If you have 'negative feedback' then please express it through a comment.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Why?
A thumbs down is far better than a comment like "Oh man you are such a fucking dick. " At the very least it saves space and if I wish to read poorly received comments I still can.
curtismustdie 2 years ago 2
@MengeleHitlerSimplifico: Yes, yes. You've discovered our dastardly plot to spambomb the proletariat into submission, until they'll work for free and in dangerous environments, and the Party will be powerless to stop us! :p
You've my thumbs up, though maybe not for the reasons you originally intended. :D
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't support more governmnet control "idiot." As an anarchist I want government gone. That's more than you "libertarians" (i.e. conservatives) want. Insecure? How the fuck do you know? Or do you have some remarkable ability to psychoanalise people using only one comment? I knew you people were deluded, but that takes the buscuit. Never mind, we are winning. Capital is bye bye.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Redistribution of Wealth really needs a Government...
blackcrossunited666 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Austrian economics is a joke.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
So are you.
Moragauth 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh that's funny. Well guess what - you are the weakest link - GOODBYE! Do you see what I did there? If there wasn't bad feeling between us we could go into comedy together. Because that is SO funny.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And I am not "bye bye". I'll be there in London on Mayday, protesting for change in a world fucktards like you have thrown into complete economic chaos.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Protest all you like, Quixotian loser.
Moragauth 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh man you are such a fucking dick.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love how ridiculous individuals like yourself (i.e. Austrians) can use 'Quixotian.' I hope the irony's not wasted on you . . . Mere flim-flam stories, and nothing but shams and lies. There is your "anarcho-capitalist" nonsense in one sentence.
Good day.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
I assume from your username that you are a Marxist. Marxism wasn't very successful in the USSR, I would actually go as far as too say that today's "economic chaos" is preferable than the 40 years of permo-recession in the Soviet Union.
Also, you are gravely misguided if you think any of the Austrian school's fundamental policies have been implemented in recent times.
Most economists agree that today's depression is a consequence of government failure in monetary policy
Invirtuo 2 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. I'm not a Marxist.
2. Most economists (apart from the Austrian nutters) do not agree with that.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Forgive me, ur username misled me.
Excuse me they mostly accept it. However they disagree with the Austrians on how we should move tp solve the problem. widespread condemnation of Greenspan'sinflationary monetary policy escape your notice?
Btw Austrians are not "nutters" They predicted this recession. the reason theyare margianlised has nothing to do with actual economics, its because progressives control our world. Read Memoir on Pauperism by de Tocqueville to understand how this is inevitable
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Well there is nothing contradictory in Marx teachings and Austrian school of economics. Karl Marx delt with (to some extent) evolution of means of production and concluded that at some point of our technological development (or at least this is my interpretation of his mesage) we will be able to produce infinite ammont of goods without much human labour and thus we will create a world where ppl will work according to their ability, and consume according to their need
Marine475 2 years ago
You forgot the part about bloody revolution.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
@Invirtuo - I don't think most economists think this recession is a result of bad monetary policy. The question is still out and economists are still waiting for things to settle out to start making conclusions and hence forming into groups. It certainly was a government failure, but I think monetary policy was the least worst culprit.
Marxism is horrible, but I wouldn't say the USSR practiced it. Marx never advocated central planning. He advocated ideas much worse that have never been tried.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123 Monetary policying failure is the only that could instigate systemic collapse like we saw. Sure, irresponsible fiscal policy and other structural problems cause growth to lag but it's monetary policy that precipitated the present crisis. The Fed and ECB were too easy for too long.
The Soviet Union tried to implement Marxism but couldn't, because it's a practical and technical imposibility. Btw you're right, America is Great!
Invirtuo 1 year ago
@Invirtuo Monetary failure is the only way you can get a depression, but a recession, even a great one, can be a factor of government failures outside of the central bank. What we currently have is highly unprecedented.
I see no evidence this collapse fulfills the Austrian Business Cycle and while I wholly stand with them in opposing central banking, to claim they were the main culprit is either genuinely misguided or intellectually dishonest.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Invirtuo Long term interest rates are really set on the world market and largely out of control of the fed since broad de-regulation in the 1980's. The money supply is what sophisticated macro-economists focus on. The Austrians also ignore the cartel credit rating agencies, the SEC's false sense of security, the FDIC subsidizing insolvency through mis-priced government insurance.....
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
and the Congress and their housing bureaucracies that coerced banks into loans that were against their financial interest with implicit failure guarantee.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123
I've never heard that point of view before. I would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on that.
You accept that inflation and credit manipulation cause gross misallocation of savings and investment, and that this is usually the cause of most economic depression, but you postulate that state intervention in the setting of interest rates is only one of several possible causes of depressions, and that the current one is being caused by something else.
Did I get that right?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM - Yes, that is correct.
Greenspan (if you want me to name names) may not have performed his job ideally following the dot com crash, but he is often given far more blame than he deserves particularly from free market economists.
On the Austrian business cycle, I haven't fully developed my opinions on it (hey, neither has the economics profession), but I think that it holds weight, but only in the broader scheme of things. Alone, it rarely stands up to history.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123
So what's been causing the last few booms and busts, since the dotcom?
The Austrian cycle theory has something going for it, in that there has been immense inflation and credit expansion since the nineties. There's also the Clinton and post-Clinton political home-ownership competition, which certainly played some kind of role in the housing crisis.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM - Broadly, government institutions creating moral hazard time bombs set loose by government intervention into the housing market and hence financial markets.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123
Absolute balls. The 'economics profession' thinks about as rigorously about reality as your average seven year old.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nintendomanwill "The 'economics profession' thinks about as rigorously about reality as your average seven year old."
As a Quant, a practitioner of the art of mathematical finance ;) , I am deeply offended.
axe863 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123
Oh yes because the study of economic law as undertaken by the Austrian School has failed utterly to comprehend that State subsidy for businesses distorts investment from where and how it would have been conducted in the free market. Sod universally valid business cycle theory, there were some other factors that caused the 00s housing glut so obviously the Austrian School doesn't predict thing properly! GTFO
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill Is someone paying you to spout this kind of crap? Austrian school CONSTANTLY tries to point out the the states intervention & consequent destruction.
doughtymqan 1 year ago
@doughtymqan
Mate, I was being sarcastic. Seriously, you have completely misinterpreted what I said.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@doughtymqan, SO WHAT? You westerners disgust me. You guys talks and talks and talks for ever, telling everyone that it is wrong for the government to intervene on the economy, but every damn western government does it anyways. Trillions of tax-payer's is still being given away to irresponsible corperates, don't you boast to have democracy, dont you guys hate socialism?
jimmyjamesWang 9 months ago
Free markets would eventually learn to recognise those MHs. For the distortion of price signals perverse enough to induce investment in gluts and to induce extension of capital structures via investment in material goods during times of high and even increasing consumption, requires more than just moral hazard leading to business decisions taken on fraudulent or falsely presumed-secure risk insurance, inflation creates that sectoral malinvestment and low interest rate intertemporal misallocation
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinthomen 3 years ago
Your posts are brilliant.
Chainedorlo 2 years ago
I love these fucking intellectual types they know everything...have done nothing
fxb4 3 years ago
I'm not saying that these philosophies are inoperable. It is only scientific to consider a theory inherently flawed and fully scrutinize it. I see none of that in this speech, I see only "preaching to the choir".
The examples he opens with, such as the gains of the US in the past century completely ignore slavery (past and current), bloody labor conflicts, and massive abuses of power by market forces.
The things that can not be quantified often matter most. Can you put a value on life?
iArsalan 3 years ago
Furthermore, there are too many flaws inherent to the "market" for it to be completely "free". Externalizations being the greatest of them.
Parties engaged in a deal are only considering the consequences to all those involved in that deal and have neither the time nor insight to understand how their deal will effect others outside of the deal.
Currently no existing "free market" philosophy has mechanisms to even consider unquantifiable factors such as quality of life or social contentment.
iArsalan 3 years ago
I never invoked a conspiracy theory, I just stated truths from our government's records regarding their plans for Iraq.
First and foremost I'm a logician. My dissonance arises from the very term "Free Market". The whole purpose of creating a market is to regulate commerce. The word "Free" is the polar opposite of regulation. Which leads me to conclude that "Free Market" and ardent belief in it is a towering example of Orwellian doublethink.
iArsalan 3 years ago
Sechrest was a great great mind.
tsummerlee 3 years ago
This is amazing stuff, can link it to many things.
Thunderwavia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For what the Austrian economists are worth, they sure seem to deify their own intellectuals, such as Mises. This zealotry and self-righteousness seems to contradict their own philosophical teachings.
KarlBonner1982 3 years ago
In case you haven't heard, Professor Sechrest died this morning. Jeff Tucker wrote his obituary on the Mises Institute blog.
Rest in peace, Larry, you will be missed.
minnesotachris 3 years ago
austrian school hehe
figocooldude 3 years ago
Excellent presentation. Very enjoyable to listen to and think about. There is certainly a naive nature to socialist objections to free economics.
RedShirtArmy 3 years ago 2
fuck intellectuals
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
His media comments were oversimplified and wrong, his arguments about anti capitalists or criticism of capitalism being typically a result of jealousy are wrong, but, he was right in pointing out that a whoppingly large number of anti capitalists are just complete morons.
For example iArsalan and his conspiracy theory nonsense post.
I have a sneaky feeling that anticapitalists are more angry at the White race moreso than Capitalism itself.
Now lets just leave it at that.
cidseven 3 years ago
I'm a white guy, a white jew from the third world, and I can tell that race doesn't make much difference.
But you are right about something: most anticapitalisms (and anticapitalists) don't make muche sense.
People as Ludwig Von Mises defended free market capitalism in a way that most anticapitalist wouldn't even understand. But anticapitalism isn't that homogeneous. The third world, specially in South America, is doing a great effort to develop coherent anticapitalist theories and methods.
narcisoloblanc 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This lecturer is delusional if he thinks that these "luxuries" he boasts of came out of thin air. These luxuries are the result of a massive world slave network. And often times 3rd world governments allow free-marketeers to do whatever they want but when the people get fed up then the free-marketeers suddenly develop a love for strong central government to stamp out decent.
The best example of a free market today? The Green Zone in Baghdad
iArsalan 3 years ago
dont confuse corporatism with the free market. its a very foolish and stupid mistake. check your premises.
elliotcheely 3 years ago
So what then is the Free Market? And show me one example in which a free market economy has been both sustainable and viable.
iArsalan 3 years ago
"So what then is the Free Market? And show me one example in which a free market economy has been both sustainable and viable."
Hong Kong, Chile, Singapore, Iceland, some Native American tribes, etc.
Of course, you can't really prove that ANY economy is both sustainable and viable, because how do you measure such a thing? 100 years lasting? 200? Forever? Infinity can be a hard thing to empirically observe...
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
Hong Kong, Chile, and Singapore? Those are horrible examples because you fail to recognize that mafia is a powerful regulating force; those aren't free markets and they're all insolvent. You obviously haven't been to those countries.
Are you saying that horrible abuses to human rights are acceptable so long as GDP is up?
Native American tribes did not have free markets, they didn't even have property rights and practiced collective ownership.
Get your head out of theory and go to the field.
iArsalan 2 years ago
"Hong Kong, Chile, and Singapore? Those are horrible examples because you fail to recognize that mafia is a powerful regulating force; those aren't free markets and they're all insolvent."
Yes, of course they aren't "pure" free markets, but they are freeER, markets.
You can point out all of the flaws in capitalist countries all you want, but the fact remains that the more economic freedom a country has, the better place it is to live. Hong Kong is the best place to live in China.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
...."dont confuse corporatism with the free market."
HAHAHA....in the same way:
"dont confuse dictatorship of the proletaria with communism"
almirCCR 3 years ago
or:
"dont confuse comunism with dictatorship of the proletaria."
almirCCR 3 years ago
"...."dont confuse corporatism with the free market."
HAHAHA....in the same way:
"dont confuse dictatorship of the proletaria with communism" "
Riiiight, which is why the 19th century was a period of massive increase in standard of living even though U.S. spending was merely 3% of the GDP. And what little the government DID spend on mostly ended up spawning the nasty corporations (the railroads, oil, etc)
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
Interesting how free-marketeers completely ignore or, in some cases, justify slavery as a necessity for the successes of their free market examples.
Show me a state where the majority of its population is enslaved in various forms and I'll show you a state where the standard of living has massive increases... for those who aren't chattel slaves, indentured servants, or coolie laborers.
Show me one successful free market that doesn't engage in such abject abuses of humanity.
iArsalan 2 years ago
"Interesting how free-marketeers completely ignore or, in some cases, justify slavery as a necessity for the successes of their free market examples."
Only 5% of Britian's economy was fuelled by slavery during the Industrial Revolution. The abuses of humanity decreased as standard of living increased.
The only reason people even CONSIDERED getting rid of slavery is because slaves were becoming less and less needed for economies (technology).
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
"the standard of living has massive increases... for those who aren't chattel slaves, indentured servants, or coolie laborers."
Sure, because centrally-planned economies like fucking India and North Korea are SOOOO much better for labourers. What a joke.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
You are completely dodging the fact that each example you gave was not a free market. Furthermore I included indenture and 'coolie' laborers as slaves because they're not chattel slave, but slaves none the less.
Slavery didn't decrease because of lack of governmental intervention, it was because of intervention through legislation that chattel slavery disappeared but debt slavery greatly increased throughout the south.
Standard of living did increase if you completely ignore the indentured.
iArsalan 2 years ago
"Standard of living did increase if you completely ignore the indentured."
Yes because the indentured servants were completely OUTSIDE the Industrial Revolution, totally unaffected by it. What a joke.
"Furthermore I included indenture and 'coolie' laborers as slaves because they're not chattel slave, but slaves none the less."
You're right that coolies were basically slaves, but the fact is, they were an improvement above slavery. Workers saw a marked increase in conditions in the 19th cent.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
They were an improvement above chattel slavery but that's not because of the free market. That was a result of massive government intervention, not the least of which being the CIVIL WAR.
There exists no greater governmental intervention or public expenditure than war.
Point of fact, chattel slavery came about because of free marketeers undermining the indenture system and then by the government's refusal to get involved; and when the government finally did, it was to enforce chattel slavery.
iArsalan 2 years ago
"Show me one successful free market that doesn't engage in such abject abuses of humanity."
You accuse the "free market" of engaging in the abuses of humanity, as if it is some kind of evil entity, and is responsible for slavery. But slavery and worker abuse DECREASED as government intervention decreased in the 19th century.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
"Native American tribes did not have free markets, they didn't even have property rights and practiced collective ownership."
I included them in the examples because some tribes functioned without coercive authority, which is essential for collective redistribution to function. The Comanche, for example, functioned like a family, where the oldest members made the decisions.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
That's not a free market. The fact that it was a gerontocracy is counter to free market philosophy.
iArsalan 2 years ago
"Slavery didn't decrease because of lack of governmental intervention, it was because of intervention"
My point was that economic and technological developments through capitalism caused slavery to be no longer necessary, not that deregulation itself actually caused people to change their attitudes.. The legislation wouldn't have happened had the slaves not become "unnecessary evils".
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
"technological developments through capitalism caused slavery to be no longer necessary"
Err . . . wrong. The American Civil War was fought for economic reasons, in other words for reasons of profit.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
"Err . . . wrong. The American Civil War was fought for economic reasons, in other words for reasons of profit."
... I never said the Civil War was fought for any other reason than that.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
"The best example of a free market today? The Green Zone in Baghdad."
Not really the green zone is missing law and order the basic condition for the development of a free market capitalist economy.Sure its moderately safe compared to the rest of Iraq but if John McCain needs an apache helicopter overhead to visit the market i would call it safe for free market business. As far as the privatization of public utility is concerned
the is clear US corporatism(government backed monopoly).
icege3 3 years ago
Yeah right, I would accuse you of lying, but I'd rather just say you're ignorant. Government backed monopolies is the opposite of a free-market. Free-market just means no force (ie, government monopolies), no fraud, just voluntary, individual peace. Government-backed monopolies is a characteristic of neo-conservatism and socialism (fascism to be exact).
titosantucci 2 years ago
Ultimatly a more realistic view would be that the modern anti capitalists are more an amalgamation of several elements fairly modified to suit the sociopolitical climate of our time, the politically and economically ill educated and ignorant, the jealous, the religious, the frustrated, and the politically/and economically experimental, though the components vary in size.
In short, Capitalism is not the Roman empire, the anti capitalists are not the goths, franks, vandals etc.
cidseven 3 years ago
I think we are barbarians. We are those to whom much of free market capitalism was imposed, some times making a progress, but generally destroying our own way to modernity and imposing economical and political practices by brute force (as capitalism has also been totalitarian in some countries).
We may now have a more advanced economy than we had, but as it humiliated us as nations and people, and it condemned so many others to misery, hunger and death, we would like to see the old empires fall
narcisoloblanc 3 years ago
(for whatever reason the first post didnt show up so this is basically what was said)
Though I agree with many of the views expressed, I feel that it would be erronous to attempt to mirror the positive aspects of the free market with the late western Roman empire, which was characterised at this point in time as being heavily corrupt, plagued with economic crisis and notorious for its wickedness and lack of justice. This feeling is expressed by late latin writers. (cont)
cidseven 3 years ago
(cont) Finally I feel it must be pointed out that it was from the world created by the barbarian successors of the Roman civilization that the origins of capitalism as we know it derives. So the comparison actually deters a bit from the validity of the arguments of the speaker.
The German Historic school of economics places a high importance on the study of history within relation to economic and social matters and I feel that ironically their advice may have fallen on deaf ears.
cidseven 3 years ago
Barbarian successors of the Roman civilization gave us the dark ages enough said.
icege3 3 years ago
Not really, I and most historians reject the entire notion that there was a dark ages on the basis that well... they weren't dark. People often say "ah yes but they were extremely violent but then again, so was the Roman period.
cidseven 3 years ago
the dark ages weren't bad because of violence but because of living conditions.And living standard far below the one achieved in the Roman period and no significant scientific improvements.
icege3 3 years ago
Incorrect. As a general rule the living conditions of the empire were maintained, you need to keep in mind that your average person living in the Empire wasn't doing that well anyway, at the start of the "darkage" however in key cities of the empire life improved under new administration there were also several scientific improvements in weapons & agriculture. If living conditions are the justification of the term then the crisis of the third century was a dark age, it wasnt there was no darkage
cidseven 3 years ago
(cont) also we must keep in mind that the Barbarian peoples who carved up the Western Roman empire actually didn't destroy it, but quite successfully took control of many Roman institutions and were actually very often fair to the Roman people, as often pointed out by late Latin writers, especially on the issues of the Goths.
Almost ironically however, the barbarian invasions in many ways are reflective of dynamic venture capital which contasts the fortified monopoly of the W roman empire(cont)
cidseven 3 years ago
Ad hominem much? I thought that Mises was an economist not a psychologist?
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Before making such big statements about what anti-capitalism is, you should visit at least a poor area of a third world country.
Wisdom is not only abstract knowledge, but the direct sight of reality. And, of course, hunger and compassion aren't the same as envy and ignorance.
narcisoloblanc 3 years ago
I do agree with most of you in a lot of things. I know, by experience, that most socialist are just people who failed as individuals and blame the society for that. But there's one thing you completely ignore, and that's the view of hunger. Now, you are right about the necessary knowledge of scientific principles to create prosperous societies, but you don't really know how the world is.
narcisoloblanc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What pseudo-intellectual BS!
There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. At $1,500/yr per car of depreciation that is $300,000,000,000 per year.
So Americans have lost FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS in depreciation on cars since 1995. When have any economists, capitalist sycophants or otherwise, said anything about this?
The economic wargame is a continuation of the military wargame by other means.
What technology have economists created in the last 200 years? That made things better.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
What's your point? Millions of Americans spend thousands on televisions and they also depreciate. Nobody forced them to. Do you think car's should appreciate? Then buy a '67 Shelby Ford Mustang and restore it. Quit whining.
cjatasu 3 years ago 2
My point is the economics profession treats capital goods different from durable consumer goods.
The NET WORTH of consumers goes down as their property depreciates just as it does for businesses. But economists don't talk about NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT much they mostly hide the entire subject of depreciation of real goods. They talk more about th depreciation of money.
I mention depreciation of cars because I presume it is larger than that of televisions but all durable goods depreciation matters.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
goods depreciate because of monetary inflation you fool. Something that the Mises institute never forgets to mention, but I guess you have or don't even know
lonewolf1369 3 years ago
Monetary inflation is the DEPRECIATION OF MONEY you fool. You shouldn't come here and pretend you understand economics.
Inflation means products cost more money so the value of money must be going down, therefore The MONEY has Depreciated.
Machines, like cars, wear out so that is one of the causes of their depreciation. The economy depends on people like you pretending they know economics confusing people who know even less. The masses must be confused into being DUMB WORKERS.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
WOW, look who's the idiot who doesn't know Austrian economics. The depreciation of money is caused by PRINTING ALOT OF MONEY, that's where "inflation" comes from dumbass... the laws of supply and demand hold true for the money supply, god what an IDIOT you are... I can't believe you didn't even know this, this is like one of THE basic things about Austrian economics, if you didn't know this you were DEFINITELY NOT educated in Austrian economics
lonewolf1369 3 years ago
ROFL
You said:
{{{ goods depreciate because of monetary inflation you fool. }}}
Printing a lot of money means there is a lot more money in relation to goods therefore the value of MONEY goes down in relation to goods. The MONEY depreciates. More money is required to buy the same goods. LOL
Not even the Austrian economists are dumb enough to get that wrong.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Wow, that was a really awesome lecture! This guy knows his economics AND philosophy!
KyleVarner 3 years ago
Why does he have to constantly refer to his notes then?
afacetiousguy 3 years ago
Austrian economics is based almost on human action. IE, what you do or do not do, means you have a choice in everything you do.
IE, forego consumption and save/invest with a return, or spend now, the opportunity cost being the lost income stream.
In capitalism, the consumer rules, he will reward the seller & his product that best pleases him - the others lose, who must now give more for less to compete ergo lower prices.
Govt sullies all it touches & prices rise from fiat inflation too.
marxbitesall 3 years ago
What characterizes capitalism is not the bad taste of the crowds, but the fact that these crowds, made prosperous by capitalism, became consumers of literature of course, of trashy literature. The book market is flooded by a downpour of trivial fiction for the semi-barbarians. But this does not prevent great authors from creating imperishable works.
metronomicity 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I do think that "envy" has little to do with sentiments of anticapitalism; instead, I think a large majority of people view the current incarnation of capitalism as the vehicle that a current few (namely a dozen or two families with the REAL wealth) use to CONTROL or attempt to amass power, resulting in the planned poverty of nonwhite cultures. I could care less about millionaires, but when they have the power to harm masses of people, that's more SELF DEFENSE than ENVY for the anticapitalist.
tuieqlsss 3 years ago
You seem to lack understanding of how an anarcho-capitalistic society would work.
With the non-aggression principle in the courts, the rich couldn't force the poor to do anything. Unless an individual is inhibited enough that they cannot engage in work or accept a donation, a poor person can always engage in a contract(i.e. a job) increasing his standard of living. Stop victimizing the poor, you're making things worse.
couchpotatoe387 3 years ago 5
How many of these poor exploted countries have capitalist economies and strong domestic property rights? You don't know? Well I'll tell you.. none. In all of the poor countries of africa, the leader can walk in your house, expel you from it and grab it for himself. According to you, it is the fault of capitalism - our fault. So I guess you suffer from ignorance.
hara001 3 years ago
O.K., I have checked out some of the offerings from the Mises Institute's media archive, and I think the Austian answer to psi's statement about depreciation would be something like this: The consumer will tend to value the junk car less than the new car, he will choose to pay for one less often ( unless forced to by government). It seems to me that Austrians focus much less on charts, graphs and secret formulas, than do the "standard" economist.
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
He talks about a STANDARD OF LIVING that monarchs could not have 200 years ago. But he attributes this to CAPITALISM instead of science and technology. How much technology has been invented by Austrian economists in the last 200 years?
But the don't talk about the depreciation of under engineered garbage that is designed to become obsolete. Is ignoring the DEPRECIATION of all of the automobiles purchased by consumers an application of reason?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
1) Science and technology come with capital accumulation and proper use of capital goods. Something capitalism is superior at.
2) Economists are not natural scientists, so what does this stupid objection have to do with anything?
3) Consumers value this "garbage". So unless you think you know better than others what they prefer, please keep your opinions to yourself.
Moragauth 3 years ago
So shouldn't the GENIUS economists be able to compute the DEPRECIATION on the consumer garbage? Could it be the economists are technological MORONS and can't figure out what is garbage themselves?
Over 200,000,000 cars in the US every year since 1995 and we don't know the total depreciation on all of that junk. Do they ever bother calculating it and just don't report it?
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
The finance industry already has experts to do that, but it is neither here nor there... the ultimate arbiter of what is garbage or not is the consumer.
Moragauth 3 years ago
I am not talking aout what the finance industry knows. The finance industry wants the consumers to be SUCKERS.
The economics profession is participating in the game and not being SCIENTIFIC by not reporting the FACTS.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
I still fail to see what depreciation has to do with anything, and why economists should care...
Moragauth 3 years ago
The Net Worth of millions of automobile owners goes down as their cars wear out. So if economists were TRUE SCIENTISTS they would be concerned about accurately evaluating what goes on in the economy. Just as astronomers are concerned about finding planets hundreds of light years away.
But consumers must buy new cars when their's wears out and economists are on the SUPPLY SIDE and not even trying to be objective so they don't talk about consumer depreciation or mandatory accounting courses.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
And again, this has no relevance. Value imputation is entirely subjective. Depreciation is neither here nor there with regard to it.
Moragauth 3 years ago
WOW! Such a cold hard FACT, Value Imputation.
ROFL
I was just looking at a ThinkPad T40 for $439 at RefurbDepot(dot)com they say it retailed for $1500. I found a review from Dec 2003 so it is a 4 year old machine. So that is $250/yr of depreciation.
Can you type faster on a new $3000 machine? Of course you should worry about the hard drive on a used computer. I'd buy a new drive. An 80 gig laptop drive is $60 plus shipping. I could buy an oriental rug with the $1000. Impute THAT!
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Umm, if you're going to criticise economists, find out what I'm talking about, then open your mouth. Until then you're groping in the dark.
Moragauth 3 years ago
Yes you need to come up with some complex statistical trivia to pretend economics is difficult to understand but you need to dismiss the FACT that the entire profession has been ignoring the depreciation of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of cars WORLD WIDE for the last FIFTY YEARS.
You have no explanation for that so people need to be distracted with razzle dazzle statistical jargon. Impute THAT!
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Here's a recommendation: get some book such as Economics for Dummies, figure out what it is I'm talking about (has nothing to do with statistics), then come back. Your "criticism" of economists fails because depreciation is entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Moragauth 3 years ago
You and the economics profession are saying that economics is what is in economics books not what happens in REALITY.
Go to an automobile junk yard. Look at all of the piled up cars. Look in an economics book and see what it says about DEPRECIATION OF DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS.
NOTHING!!!
The economics profession is composed of LYING MORONS and the economics books are GARBAGE!
Reality is inescapable. You don't hear economists suggesting accounting be mandatory in the schools.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Sigh, again and again, you reveal total ignorance... statistical? No, wrong. Get out an economics for dummies book and educate yourself, then start whining about economists. So far the errors are all yours. Until then, this is a waste of time.
Moragauth 3 years ago
Samuelson's ECONOMICS did not talk about depreciation of durable consumer goods in 1976 and economists haven't brought up the subject since then. How much have American consumers lost on depreciation of automobiles since then?
OH YEAH! If economists don't put it into their books IT'S IRRELEVANT.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Psi: Are you talking entropy in regaurds to the junk cars, or merely a quantification of the environment in general? I mean, what is the value of the earth in raw? What is the value of earth pluss pyromids? Sans one millenia or two? Or do you speak of utility? As in I have used graddad's 30-06 so much that it misfires a lot and the stripper is all cashed out, rendering it a single action/break loader. It's utility is lowered. However, it retains value to me as I can keyhole a deer at 100yds.
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
Go to a junk yard and look at all of the piled up cars. Ask yourself the market value of the cars versus their price when they were new.
The difference is DEPRECIATION.
Economists added those cars to GDP when they were purchased. Where did that depreciation get factored into the economy? What about the depreciation on the industrial robots used to make the cars? Oh yeah, NDP that we hardly ever hear about.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
When all you have is a hammer,everything looks like a nail.
mpolzkill 3 years ago
I went to college for electrical engineering. I understood planned obsolescence was going on in automobiles in grade school. Look at the WWII airplanes that were designed without electronic computers but could do 400+ mph.
But 38 years after the moon landing our GENIUS economists can't talk about the depreciation of all of those trashmobiles.
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. - John Kenneth Galbraith
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Yes, Planned obsolescence is (my oppin) skullduggery at its most diabolic. Furthermore I have little love for professionals of any stripe; it's just that I have to push it down or I end up in a near berseker frenzy. I don't know how many eggheads I put out of my taxi over the years. Specialization/div. of labor has a function, but I notice that professionals don't reroof their own house; moreover they do little meaningfull work. I get livid(berserk) when they wanna treat me like a servant.
PvtSchlock 3 years ago
It is more like the educational system is designed to control the distribution of knowledge than to educate people. Even some that are fairly well off have to pay to put up with crap at school. We should use the internet to totally short circuit the knowledge control system.
That is why everyone should know that accounting in child's play and economists can't do algebra. Buy a used computer to avoid depreciation. More power can't matter to most people anymore. VISTA SUCKS!!!
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Had to give you a thumbs down... The internet has far whown, that anyone can post a comment, and lead blind people to belief. As I post now, you can thumbs me down also and tell me how ignorant I am...
Your assumption of internet education is a facade that maybe only 10% of the population can differentiate.
afacetiousguy 3 years ago
I went to college for electrical engineering. Back then it was $1100/semester. I didn't get an EE course until 4th semester and they started talking about Kirchoff's Current Law.
Get the book:
Teach Yourself Electricity & Electronics by Stan Gibilsco
That current law is on page 75 and the book is $35.
We pay too much for too little dribbled out too slowly. I wish someone had given me a book like that in 7th grade. Tho now we have electronic simulators. We didn't have those in college.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
"Value imputation is entirely subjective."
Value is subjective is it? But "natural rights" aren't, I imagine?
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
It is. And I do not subscribe to natural rights theory simpliciter, so that stupid comment isn't going to get you anywhere, troll.
Moragauth 2 years ago