Love the irony - the third amendment is about quartering soldiers in people's homes without their consent ("What are you doing in here?!!"). The dig at libertarians for being Social Darwinists was unfair, but still a great and funny monologue on what exasperates economists about democracy.
Why would people with no sense of humor listen to a comedy routine? And start a humorless debate about it? Thanks to you, Standupeconomist, and good luck in China.
The caricature of libertarians totally misses the point. A caricature is supposed to exaggerate traits, not to falsify them. When you push libertarians towards communists or fascists, from which original position are you exaggerating? If you push libertarianism to its extreme, you will find anarchism, not extreme forms of statism.
@Niquento In a hypothetical 'ideal libertarian' perhaps, but the reality is most people who label themselves libertarians really only support specific facets of it, as is the case even with many conservatives and liberals
@liakyh There are such people, indeed (not sure about the "most", though). But I don't think the point of the video was to caricature phony libertarians.
@Niquento You'd like to think so, but many "pushed" libertarians are all in favor of statist power... as long as it does something they agree with. Returning to the gold standard, a measure universally rejected by the market, comes to mind. (Which is why Ron Paul is far and away the most statist presidential candidate.) Libertarians are generally all in favor of markets, as long as the market agrees with them, and all in favor of freedom, as long as you freely do things they agree with.
@hbobrien 1. By definition, libertarians are not statists. 2. Ron Paul is not a hardcore libertarian, but he certainly does not advocate a statist solution to the problem of money: he advocates the end of state control over money. To say that Ron Paul is "far and away the most statist presidential candidate" is simply laughable. 3. Your statement that markets have rejected the gold standard is simply false. 4. You seem to say that libertarians in general are hypocrites. That is not an argument.
@Niquento 3. Not all countries left the gold standard at the same time. This means those with the gold standard competed in the market against without it. The ones on the gold standard found themselves at a competitive disadvantage, to the point where the gold standard has been *universally* abandoned. The only way a country can return to the gold standard today is by statist fiat overturning a market derived outcome.
4. Nope. It's an empirical observation. Water is wet. Same thing.
@hbobrien "Countries", at least as you use the word, are really states, and thus they are not market participants. They regulate, control and distort the markets. The fact that "countries" left the gold standard says nothing about the markets. It says a lot about statism. Again, to acuse libertarians of hypocrisy is simply to insult. It is neither observation of fact, nor argument.
@Niquento "Oh, noes! That's not what I meant by markets at all! I'll just redefine 'markets' so it doesn't apply!"
Monkeying with the definition of a thing because you personally find it inconvenient is... Well, apparently I can't make that observation, without you construing it as an insult. Again, you're all in favor of my using reason, as long as I agree with you.
@Niquento The OED defines "market" as, "The action or business of buying and selling; a commercial transaction, a purchase or sale." How does it follow that aggregations of people (whether called corporations, countries, or states) cannot participate in these activities? In what way does does excluding states not constitute an idiosyncratic re-write of the language on your part?
@hbobrien Simple. In general states intervene in markets not to buy or sell, to engage in commercial transactions, of the purchase or sell. They intervene to regulate, to set the rules. You may or may not think that that is a good thing. But clearly, states are generally not simple market participants.
@Niquento So government expenditures aren't used for goods and services, but only for regulation? {blink} You should get yourself to DC, you could cut the budget by 90%. (As Sen. Jake Garn once said, NASA doesn't spend any money in space; it's all spent on the ground.) And that's before we get into, individuals and companies can choose the states in which they live and invest; overwhelmingly, they chose places w/o the gold standard, until *even the Swiss* gave up.
@hbobrien Yes, government expenditure takes place in markets. But by far the most important role of government in markets is not that of a player (a doped player, for that matter), but that of a regulator, of the creator of money, etc. Also, insofar as governments acts as market players, they do so with taxpayers' money, distorting the markets. As to money, I'm certain most people would prefer living with gold as money than under the continuous depreciation of the current fiat currencies.
@Niquento Poof is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply. *Evidence* would include Russia after the fall of the USSR; Chile during Pinochet; China today; Iraq at the beginning of the US occupation; Argentina after the currency crash; etc. Capital generally avoids such free-for-all places, which is why the stock markets of regulated economies like the US, Europe, Japan, etc. have such high valuations by comparison.
@hbobrien Meaning that in your opinion China today, Iraq at the beginning of the US invasion etc., are all cases of applied libertarianism? Well... I can understand your revulsion. It just so happens that libertarians themselves do not think these are free societies. And libertarian doctrine, if there is such a thing, does not propose or endorse such regimes. Hence, what you call libertarianism is but a straw man. Read a bit about libertarianism and you will quickly realize your error.
@Niquento I've read Hayek, I've read Friedman. I've read Nozick. I've read Rand. I've read Boaz. I've read Smith (whose work, I note, is The Wealth of Nations, not individuals). I've read Ricardo. Who did you have in mind? What have *you* read on libertarianism? Because, frankly, you've speaking out of your hat so much, with such a profound ignorance of history, economics, politics, geography, and rhetoric, that your repeated generic suggestion comes across as incredibly insincere.
@hbobrien You keep insulting. It is you who have shown a profound ignorance of libertarianism. Otherwise, you would not have said what you said during this discussion. I do not know whether you have read anything about it. If you did, you did not understand it. Perhaps because your ideology blinded you, I don't know. With respect to everything else besides libertarianism, I have no idea whether you are knowledgeable or not. I take your word for it.
@Niquento@hbobrien First of all, what are you two possibly accomplishing by arguing here? And second, neither of you used any significant/relevant hard evidence in your debate. If I were a moderator, my decision would be that you both lose.
@jameslondon22 Are we supposed to argue only if there is something to accomplish? :-) In any case, you do not need evidence to understand that libertarianism is incompatible with statism, much less with its extreme versions. It is self evident.
@Niquento 1. The don't desire a statist final outcome, no. But their prescriptions can generally only be achieved by massive use of state power. This is not unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat "withering away." 2. See 3. You can support the gold standard, or you can support markets. You can't do both. You can oppose reserve banking, or you can support markets. You can't do both. The only way to get the outcomes Paul wants is massive statist intervention. "For their own good."
@hbobrien Even if you believe that to get the outcomes that Paul wants requires massive state intervention, you cannot conclude from that that Paul proposes statism. At most, you may say that he is condemned to fail. As to your statement that to favor free money is tantamount to not supporting markets, it does not seem to be based in any sound reasoning. Maybe you should try to explain that assertion.
@Niquento "Even if you believe that to get the outcomes that Paul wants requires massive state intervention, you cannot conclude from that that Paul proposes statism." Not unlike saying, "Even if you believe a person freely chooses to eat a whole lot of pasta, you cannot conclude they propose Italian food as a diet." If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, and wants to use the US Treasury to overturn market-derived outcomes like a duck, I say it's a duck.
@Niquento I urge you to consider that libertarianism's existential problem is that, by its own logic, it's a failure. Markets have generally shunned libertarianism. The only way to get a libertarian system is through massive state intervention.
I also urge you to consider that you don't necessarily who's at the other end of the keyboard, and how much reading and real life experience they may or may not have.
@hbobrien You do seem to lack some reading. Libertarianism is not statism. It is anti-statism. That is a fact. You may believe and even argue that it is an unworkable ideology. That would be an argument against it. But to say that it is indistinguishable from statism is ridiculous. Also, your characterization of libertarians as hypocrites is neither an observation of fact, nor an argument. It is an insult.
After watching this video, I had to subscribe.
EVILTheLast 1 month ago
haha for some reason he reminds me of Carl Sagan.. xD Funny guy haha
A801506 1 month ago
"The Tea Party are a group that believes in social Darwinism, but doesn't believe in Darwin"
Sir, you are a genius.
Andreus 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
oh this guy is good.. nice take,..
lovelplants 2 months ago
very funny! lol
12TabulaRasa12 3 months ago
Love the irony - the third amendment is about quartering soldiers in people's homes without their consent ("What are you doing in here?!!"). The dig at libertarians for being Social Darwinists was unfair, but still a great and funny monologue on what exasperates economists about democracy.
SrijitSanyal 3 months ago
haha scientists, canadians and drug dealers...
indgiu 4 months ago
This guy is hilarious
3888799 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you suck you fucking sell of a dick in mouth
djwezman 6 months ago
trert
NotEntertaining 6 months ago
good stuff!
tpulley 6 months ago
Boooooooo
Tranderas 7 months ago
subbed
BryceOfByrden 7 months ago
ROFL this was priceless
BaronesaReturns 7 months ago 2
@econalannah You belong to the "center" dont you?
ruinsofkunark 7 months ago
this is not very funny..
dingdongpingpong69 7 months ago
I hope you post a video from your time in China.
kateimprobable 7 months ago
You're still hilarious! And you remind why it is I'm an econ major.
Yani02120 7 months ago
who else came here from Greg Manilow's blog? :P
sadragne1 7 months ago
@sadragne1 Greg Mankiw?
flyingbeagles 7 months ago
Why would people with no sense of humor listen to a comedy routine? And start a humorless debate about it? Thanks to you, Standupeconomist, and good luck in China.
EconAlannah 7 months ago 4
Yes! I knew I would find a debate about libertarians in the comments! Thanks for not disappointing, YouTube!
drfanfare 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
Niquento 7 months ago
If libertarianism can be achieved without state power, you should be able to provide historical or functional examples.
hbobrien 7 months ago
This video must have the highest like to views ratio on youtube.
zomgneedaname 7 months ago
Still waiting my email subscription for the word "I'll be in Jogja,Indonesia in ... " :D
bejoalan 7 months ago
"Hey Obimbo, bring me a cola. Here are two dollars, keep the change!"
MisterMikesh 7 months ago
Just finished reading your Cartoon Intro to Microeconomics for going to university soon--excellent stuff! I'm taking it with me for reference
niriop 7 months ago
That was EXCELLENT!
lazybear83 7 months ago
Absolutely Brilliant!
UriaHammonRaviel 7 months ago
Great way to get how our system works with a laugh
asaigaonkar 7 months ago
The caricature of libertarians totally misses the point. A caricature is supposed to exaggerate traits, not to falsify them. When you push libertarians towards communists or fascists, from which original position are you exaggerating? If you push libertarianism to its extreme, you will find anarchism, not extreme forms of statism.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento In a hypothetical 'ideal libertarian' perhaps, but the reality is most people who label themselves libertarians really only support specific facets of it, as is the case even with many conservatives and liberals
liakyh 7 months ago
@liakyh There are such people, indeed (not sure about the "most", though). But I don't think the point of the video was to caricature phony libertarians.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento You'd like to think so, but many "pushed" libertarians are all in favor of statist power... as long as it does something they agree with. Returning to the gold standard, a measure universally rejected by the market, comes to mind. (Which is why Ron Paul is far and away the most statist presidential candidate.) Libertarians are generally all in favor of markets, as long as the market agrees with them, and all in favor of freedom, as long as you freely do things they agree with.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien 1. By definition, libertarians are not statists. 2. Ron Paul is not a hardcore libertarian, but he certainly does not advocate a statist solution to the problem of money: he advocates the end of state control over money. To say that Ron Paul is "far and away the most statist presidential candidate" is simply laughable. 3. Your statement that markets have rejected the gold standard is simply false. 4. You seem to say that libertarians in general are hypocrites. That is not an argument.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento 3. Not all countries left the gold standard at the same time. This means those with the gold standard competed in the market against without it. The ones on the gold standard found themselves at a competitive disadvantage, to the point where the gold standard has been *universally* abandoned. The only way a country can return to the gold standard today is by statist fiat overturning a market derived outcome.
4. Nope. It's an empirical observation. Water is wet. Same thing.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien "Countries", at least as you use the word, are really states, and thus they are not market participants. They regulate, control and distort the markets. The fact that "countries" left the gold standard says nothing about the markets. It says a lot about statism. Again, to acuse libertarians of hypocrisy is simply to insult. It is neither observation of fact, nor argument.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento "Oh, noes! That's not what I meant by markets at all! I'll just redefine 'markets' so it doesn't apply!"
Monkeying with the definition of a thing because you personally find it inconvenient is... Well, apparently I can't make that observation, without you construing it as an insult. Again, you're all in favor of my using reason, as long as I agree with you.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not redefine anything. You did. As to using reason, well, I do. You don't: you use insults.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento The OED defines "market" as, "The action or business of buying and selling; a commercial transaction, a purchase or sale." How does it follow that aggregations of people (whether called corporations, countries, or states) cannot participate in these activities? In what way does does excluding states not constitute an idiosyncratic re-write of the language on your part?
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Simple. In general states intervene in markets not to buy or sell, to engage in commercial transactions, of the purchase or sell. They intervene to regulate, to set the rules. You may or may not think that that is a good thing. But clearly, states are generally not simple market participants.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento So government expenditures aren't used for goods and services, but only for regulation? {blink} You should get yourself to DC, you could cut the budget by 90%. (As Sen. Jake Garn once said, NASA doesn't spend any money in space; it's all spent on the ground.) And that's before we get into, individuals and companies can choose the states in which they live and invest; overwhelmingly, they chose places w/o the gold standard, until *even the Swiss* gave up.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Yes, government expenditure takes place in markets. But by far the most important role of government in markets is not that of a player (a doped player, for that matter), but that of a regulator, of the creator of money, etc. Also, insofar as governments acts as market players, they do so with taxpayers' money, distorting the markets. As to money, I'm certain most people would prefer living with gold as money than under the continuous depreciation of the current fiat currencies.
Niquento 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Niquento And, I repeat, If libertarianism can be achieved without state power, you should be able to provide historical or functional examples.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Not at all. The assertion is yours. You should prove it.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento Poof is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply. *Evidence* would include Russia after the fall of the USSR; Chile during Pinochet; China today; Iraq at the beginning of the US occupation; Argentina after the currency crash; etc. Capital generally avoids such free-for-all places, which is why the stock markets of regulated economies like the US, Europe, Japan, etc. have such high valuations by comparison.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Meaning that in your opinion China today, Iraq at the beginning of the US invasion etc., are all cases of applied libertarianism? Well... I can understand your revulsion. It just so happens that libertarians themselves do not think these are free societies. And libertarian doctrine, if there is such a thing, does not propose or endorse such regimes. Hence, what you call libertarianism is but a straw man. Read a bit about libertarianism and you will quickly realize your error.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento I've read Hayek, I've read Friedman. I've read Nozick. I've read Rand. I've read Boaz. I've read Smith (whose work, I note, is The Wealth of Nations, not individuals). I've read Ricardo. Who did you have in mind? What have *you* read on libertarianism? Because, frankly, you've speaking out of your hat so much, with such a profound ignorance of history, economics, politics, geography, and rhetoric, that your repeated generic suggestion comes across as incredibly insincere.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien You keep insulting. It is you who have shown a profound ignorance of libertarianism. Otherwise, you would not have said what you said during this discussion. I do not know whether you have read anything about it. If you did, you did not understand it. Perhaps because your ideology blinded you, I don't know. With respect to everything else besides libertarianism, I have no idea whether you are knowledgeable or not. I take your word for it.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento @hbobrien First of all, what are you two possibly accomplishing by arguing here? And second, neither of you used any significant/relevant hard evidence in your debate. If I were a moderator, my decision would be that you both lose.
jameslondon22 7 months ago
@jameslondon22 Are we supposed to argue only if there is something to accomplish? :-) In any case, you do not need evidence to understand that libertarianism is incompatible with statism, much less with its extreme versions. It is self evident.
Niquento 7 months ago
I would like to know what Yoram Bauman thinks about this.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento Hahaha good call
jameslondon22 7 months ago
@hbobrien Somebody classified your answer as spam. I have tried to remove that classification, but without success.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento 1. The don't desire a statist final outcome, no. But their prescriptions can generally only be achieved by massive use of state power. This is not unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat "withering away." 2. See 3. You can support the gold standard, or you can support markets. You can't do both. You can oppose reserve banking, or you can support markets. You can't do both. The only way to get the outcomes Paul wants is massive statist intervention. "For their own good."
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Even if you believe that to get the outcomes that Paul wants requires massive state intervention, you cannot conclude from that that Paul proposes statism. At most, you may say that he is condemned to fail. As to your statement that to favor free money is tantamount to not supporting markets, it does not seem to be based in any sound reasoning. Maybe you should try to explain that assertion.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento "Even if you believe that to get the outcomes that Paul wants requires massive state intervention, you cannot conclude from that that Paul proposes statism." Not unlike saying, "Even if you believe a person freely chooses to eat a whole lot of pasta, you cannot conclude they propose Italian food as a diet." If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, and wants to use the US Treasury to overturn market-derived outcomes like a duck, I say it's a duck.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien Totally unlike saying it. Sorry. You keep missing the point.
Niquento 7 months ago
@hbobrien I urge you to read a bit about libertarianism. It is not what you think it is.
Niquento 7 months ago
@Niquento I urge you to consider that libertarianism's existential problem is that, by its own logic, it's a failure. Markets have generally shunned libertarianism. The only way to get a libertarian system is through massive state intervention.
I also urge you to consider that you don't necessarily who's at the other end of the keyboard, and how much reading and real life experience they may or may not have.
hbobrien 7 months ago
@hbobrien You do seem to lack some reading. Libertarianism is not statism. It is anti-statism. That is a fact. You may believe and even argue that it is an unworkable ideology. That would be an argument against it. But to say that it is indistinguishable from statism is ridiculous. Also, your characterization of libertarians as hypocrites is neither an observation of fact, nor an argument. It is an insult.
Niquento 7 months ago
You explain our situation in 7 minutes which our politicians can't do in years. Thank you!
biki687 7 months ago
Thank you for explaining that joke at the end xD
bangolio7 7 months ago
Yay, fresh stuff from the stand-up economist! Loved it!!
s888marks 7 months ago
Yoram Bauman, the world needs intellectual stand-up comics like you! Just loved this..
rahulaeon 7 months ago 15
Hilarious. Thanks!
thegargantua 7 months ago
You crack me up EVERY time. I appreciate the upload!
Deziness777 7 months ago 13
@Deziness777 Thanks!! Yoram :)
yorambauman 7 months ago 4