What a great guy is this Tom Woods , keep up the good work ,really hope you will one day have an oppurtunity to rewrite this period of USA history in school books.
@TWSceptic Yeah dude let the good times roll. Von Miscreants hope and look forward to for the total Collaspe of the U.S. Economy so Austrians can "RULE again". Thanks for confirming everyone elses worst fears. Nice to know where your coming from! :-)
@weho1 Austrians predict the collapse of the economy. And it happens. Keynsians, on the other hand, cover their ears and scream "THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!"
@david52875 Austrians predicting the collapse of the market is not a "prediction" rather a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since 1980's Reagonomics GOP, Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan and Gov't in general have implemented economic policies advocated by the Austrian School, Deregulation, lower taxes, privatization ect. The end result, near complete collapse of the U.S./World economy middle class slipping into poverty, rich getting richer. That's kind of like an arsonist "predicting" a fire!
@weho1 Oh, ye who are so lost. Go find a chart of the number of regulations on the books from 1950 to present. "Privatization" is not private if you create an entity that has 'private' profits but socializes losses and dumps them on the taxpayers. The Federal Reserve is legal tender monopoly. Austrians advocate market based money, meaning everyone in the economy gets to chose what they want to exchange with and store value with. I hope to god your comment was just trolling because if not...
@Coreadrin Austrians don't seem to comprehend basics. ALL "markets" are sub-sets of society & gov't not the other way around. In democracies the electorate constitute a free market using their votes as currency. In ALL markets the unscrupulous inside or out of Gov't manipulate any system for personal $ benefit. So blaming only "Gov't" is as silly as Austrians Holy Grail references to imaginary "free markets" that will magically appear like a Unicorn or Leprechaun if U just believe hard enough.
@Knorssman My point is simply in as much as we are free to choose any type of Gov't. we want elections are a "free market". The performance of our elected officials good or bad will have real money consequences on each of us.
@luftwaffle We agree util people elect others to change failed policies. Most recent examples of Failed Gov't policy involve Deregulation. Examples: 2001 Enron used energy market derugulation to steal 28 Billion $ from Ca taxpayers. The Gramm, Leach, Bliely Act deregulated Wall St. which was then free misrepresent and sell 500+ Trillion $ of worthless securities that almost collapsed the world economy. So given these spectacular failures Austrians advocate more Gov't deregulation exactly why?
@weho1 Enron is a very complicated issue that can't just be written off as caused by deregulation. Even so, no one is claiming that the market is perfect. It's just the best system there is. Your comment about 500+ Trillion $ worth of securities makes me a bit suspicious that you might not understand what you're talking about. There isn't that much money on Earth. I think you don't understand how derivatives work.
@luftwaffle Enron's not complicated at all just follow the money. It's a clear case of insider political patronage and good old fashion corruption at the publics expense. One of the worst cases until the Iraq war was declared by fomer Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney who advocated "Privatization" just when he was then in a position to award several hundred Billion $ Gov't no-bid war contacts to his former employer Haliburton while lowering their taxes. Austrians think we need more "privatization"?
@weho1 The problem is that you're not making a distinction between privtization and collusion between public and private entities. Going half-way is possibly the worst way to do it. It has to be full privitization or none. Key point: private influence is useless if there isn't government power. It's the power of government that attracts corruption.
@luftwaffle Reason for corruption is GREED! Corrupt greedy people view any system Gov't or (Free) Markets as merely a means to an end, enriching themselves. Dick Cheney and many Corp.CEO's play on both teams simultaneously. The role of Gov't is to promote and protect the Public Welfare, role of private sector is simply to maximize profits,usually at the expense of the public welfare. Austrians want to get rid of Gov't and live by the law of the jungle? In the Jungle there are very few Lions.
@raystinsky Your right, that's a clear example of how the private sector has infiltrated and captured Gov't at the highest levels to corruptly run/control the very gov't agencies that are supposed to be regulating their activities and protecting the public interest. Does it make sense that former Oil Company CEO's should run the EPA or former Coal Mine CEO's should be in charge of enforceing mine safety? Seems like a conflict of interest and its a big reason our Gov't is broken and ineffective.
@weho1 I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. The figures I've heard reported on the entire dirivitive market are bet. $500-$800 trillion. I understand dirivitives pretty well and to a point they make sense as long as they are properly collateralized. The problem with the recent mortgage meltdown was that Wall St. worked with Mortgage bankers to simply generate a high volume of mortgages they could package, sale and churn regardless of quality. This was not the fault of borrowers!
@weho1 This $500-800 trillion figure is meaningless. That's the notional value. It's not the money "at stake" that could somehow all be lost. The original problem was twofold (mainly): 1.) The government enacted policies to incentivize mortgage originators to get poor people into homes 2.) The federal reserve kept interest rates too low. You can't blame the market for these immensely disruptive government interventions.
@luftwaffle Govt regulation is necessary because Wall St. private sector have repeatedly proven they are perfectly willing to throw not only the entire U.S. Economy under the bus to enrich themselves but the entire World Economy too. This is a matter of National Security. It wasn't long ago during the Cold War that the U.S. Gov't feared plots by the U.S.S.R. to disrupt the U.S. economy. Now corrupt private bankers on Wall manage to rig the system, make obscene profits and it's the Gov'ts fault?
@weho1 Wall St. didn't throw the US economy under the bus. It's the US government doing it. Who bailed out the banks? Who forced interest rates to at or near 0%? Who federally mandated giving houses to poor people? Who exactly got enriched by the recession? The US Govt. took money from citizens and gave them to the banks so they wouldn't go out of business. And you blame business? I'm really sorry but these arguments you're making are very simple and easily refuted. Read a book please.
@luftwaffle We know who bailed out banks, the U.S. Gov't/taxpayers, thanks to Bush/Cheney. Real questions: When & why did Banks need to be bailed out in the 1st. place and how did the U.S. Gov't get into a position being forced to choose between bailing out Wall St. or letting the entire U.S. & World economy implode? The answer, because during Bush/Cheney Administration Wall St. paid millions of $ to politicians, got themselves Deregulated under Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act and cashed in. google it
@weho1 Reagan and Greenspan did not subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. First of all, the Austrian school is against central banks, so the chairman of the fed could hardly be an Austrian. Reagan was not an Austrian either. The economists on his cabinet were Keynesians, Monetarists and supply-siders. His most influential economic advisor, Milton Freidman, was a monetarist, not an Austrian. Milton Freidman was critical of the Austrian school, despite his libertarian leanings.
@BagofHay Reagan wasn't an Austrian purist but he was a staunch advocate of "deregulation". He deregulated the Savings and Loans after they put millions $ into his campaign. A few years later Savings and Loans collapsed under the weight of bogus loans and Gov't/taxpayers were left holding the bag for 160 Billion $. The S&L crisis was a dress rehearsal for the recent Wall St. deregulation sub-prime loan scandal. Both were planned and executed by corrupt private sector bankers after Deregulation.
@weho1 I would argue that this type of regulation failed for the same reason banking deregulation failed in the 80s. Capitalism had been bound hand and foot to the point where it could not solve its own problems. The FDIC was to blame then, for creating a moral hazard, not deregulation. Similarly, it is government intervention which makes deregulation so dangerous. This is very ironic, but wrong breeds more wrong. Reagan supported corporatism. I'm not contesting that. But he wasn't an Austrian.
@BagofHay I would argue history is repeating itself. Laissez-faire capitalism Austrians champion led to excesses that caused the 1st Great Depression. In response, New Deal reforms led to the longest era of prosperity and economic growth this country has known. Since the 1980's to the extent conservatives representing the rich and powerful have been successful repealing these reforms, the rich got richer, upward mobilty has gone down, and the average middleclass worker has slipped into poverty.
@weho1 Your reading of history is completely flawed: the expansion was almost solely down to America being the only man left standing after WWII. Factor in the other, Western, democracies going 'all in' on socialism (and it's handmaiden, statism), and there was even less competition for a dominating USA. That we've now spent the past 20 years drinking from the same, poisoned, well as the Western European democracies and now we find ourselves in the same, sinking, socialist boat.
@ECMIM Satism, statism, statism keep repeating that BULLSHIT along with "Free Markets" as if it's a silver cross in the face of vampires.I never argue with success and that's what disturbs me with those that clinging to the Austrian school as if it's a religion. Everything Austrians believe in has proven to end in utter FAILURE and yet instead of rising up from the ashes and asking where did we do wrong, they double down and say the problem is we didn't go far enough! Beware, U reap what u sow!
@weho1 Please give me an example of how keynesianism has worked please. Keynesianism has been a total failure if anything. Government managed Capitalism (An Oxymoron) has been empirically proven to be the primary cause of the economic recession of today. Increased government spending, unsustainable social programs, tax increases, inflation due to a government-sponsored central bank and its failed fiat monetary policy, artificially low interest rates encouraging mal-investment.
@ECMIM BTW in the last 20 years the dominant political party in the U.S. has been Conservative so you have just unknowingly endorsed everything I've said. Thank you!
@weho1 Those terms, Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Democrat, mean nothing anymore and they haven't for the last at least thirty years. That's a very empty, for lack of a better word, argument. Look at who paid for Obama's campaign, and ask yourself why a Democrat is backed by the corporatist bankers. Our economy is sinking, not because of a party issue, but because the government has become way too powerful, and has way too much of our money.
@weho1 That is incorrect. The Depression of 1920 was caused by the post WWI recession. In fact, Harding ended the 1st Depression by lowering taxes and the federal debt. Free market enterprise does not generate excess, it generates real wealth through the productive forces of competition. FDR's socialist programs were not enough whatsoever to provide recovery from the Great Depression of 1929. The largest period of economic growth was in the 19th and early 20th century due to entrepreneurship.
@weho1 The only difference between the Great Depression and the many 1-2 year recessions that came before it is that the Great Depression came after/during a period of increased intervention (The Fed starting open-market operations in 1922, Herbert Hoover, FDR), and that the Great Depression lasted much longer and was much more severe. Ben Bernanke came right out and admitted that the Fed caused the Great Depression in a speech of his a few years ago. However, I agree about the 80s reforms.
@weho1 Inflation was part and parcel of their policies, as was deficit spending. Government action compelled the changes in mortgage lending, as well. Their actions were taken with an eye to monetarism, Keynesian economics, and the supply-side beliefs. Sorry, but not Austrian.
Lets push the reset button and clairify my position. I agree there is truth in the Austrian Schools premise that inflation has been used as a mechanism to create the illusion of wealth in our economy based on debt that at some point will implode and collapse in on itself in a deflationary conflagration. Where we disagree is in who's responsible for this and why (the private sector is equally responsible), what the legitimate roll of Gov't is and what's the best solution to the problem.
@weho1 Neocons believe in war, weho. The Austrians reject war. The system you advocate is already in place, and has resulted in the redistribution of wealth through coercion to those who control the money supply. If you're going to go about call people who believe in peace "greedy", then don't get huffy when you're met with a little sarcasm in return.
@raystinsky Any gov't/economic system that creates and institutionalizes great inequality between the rich and poor will inherantly be unstable, unsustainable and require a Violent totalitarian police state to maintain. Austrian School advocates such a system. Why split hairs on facism, corporatism, or other "isms". Such gov'ts come and go usually ending in Violent revolutions. It's sad to see the USA undermined from the inside by r-wing extremists with such contempt for the U.S. Constitution.
@weho1 The Austrian school does not advocate a police state. The current system in the United States, which is corporatist, has resulted in the redistribution of wealth to an elite. You're advocating vesting power in the government to regulate the social and economic lives of the citizens, but that's already been done; you see the results around you. You grab these labels that don't apply. Rejection of war is central to the Austrian school. That's not "splitting hairs"
@raystinsky Actually from what I've read it appears you're spliting hairs, being decietful and intentionally misrepresenting the Austrian School Doctrine. Non-Violence does not = Non-Agression. Based on what I've read advocates of the Austrian School advocate extreme violence as a justified response against anyone who they believe is unjustly "taking their property". Like the United States Federal Gov't levying Taxes maybe? Is this correct? Do U believe the U.S Gov't should be overthrown?
@weho1 Where did they advocate "extreme" violence? Could you point me to that essay? Is it on the LvMI website? Who wrote it? The non-aggression principle permits only defensive violence. Do you reject the right to self defense?
No, I don't think the government should be overthrown. I think that would cause worse suffering and unnecessary death.
@raystinsky I define "extreme violence" as physical violence which would likely result in death. You define violence according to the Austrian School/ Bastiant as any form of taking private property by Gov't. Based on Von Mises ideology it follows you would engage in subversion or violent insurection against the Gov't as justified "self-defence" against "violent agression". Also interesting how Von Misesians create/apply a double standard bet. public and private sector/Wall St. fraud "Taking".
@weho1 Do you oppose police officers using firearms?
Where did you get that supposed Misesian definition of violence? I've read quite a bit and not come across advocacy for disproportionate violence to protect property rights (the right to life being based upon the extreme idea that we each own ourselves).
I can only assume from your last sentence that you think Austrians approve of the current cooperation between Wall Street and the government. Shockingly, you're wrong yet again.
@raystinsky You stated Austrian School and Bastian's doctrine believe that any form of "taking private property" by Gov't constitutes "Violence". You also stated the Austrian school believes they have a right to respond to "violent agression" with force in self defence. Based on your definition of "violence" logically that means if Gov't took punitive measures to collect taxes Austrians would respond/resist "porortionally" to defend themselves from Gov't agression/violence, correct?
@raystinsky So is Austrian School/VonMises is now supporting Occupy Wall Street protesters frequently met with police brutality, arrest and jail for excercising their Constitutional rights to assembly & free speech? Meanwhile Private Sector Wall St. bankers who stole Trillions of Taxpayer $ sit in glass towers drinking champaign? Doesn't that mean Free Market Bankers like JP Morgan Chase Bank who recently donated 4.6 Million $ to NYPD R comitting Violence against Taxpayers including War Vetrans?
@weho1 Our banks don't operate on a free market principle. They receive special privileges from the government, in the form of fractional reserve and subsidies. We do not have free markets, and that has enabled some corporations to operate with less competition than they would face with free markets.
@peaches1944 The Von Mises Institute/Austrian School advocate a radical subversive right wing ideaology that taken to it's logical conclusion will destroy what's left of the middle class and transform America from a representitive democracy into some type of totalitarian Banana Republic run by and for the $ benefit of Corporate monopolies. To the extent they believe Corporations are "individuals" this is the definition of Facism with many ominous parallels to Germany in 1929. U think this is OK?
@weho1 The ignorance of that statement is so great that I'm going to assume you are only here to troll. I have no intention of trying to fight Crazy. Enjoy being fleeced.
@peaches1944 Really? we'll see how "crazy" I am when Social Security and Medicare are gone, and at 75 years old find you find yourself living in a homeless shelter because your not physically able to work, and you didn't have the financial assets to pay for a necessary medical procedure for you or a family member.
And letting people manage their own money is fascism? Right? But govt controlled, taxed and spent way of providing for old age.. which is already bankrupt.. is somehow not fascism?
@utubehayter If it ain't broke don't fix it! Social Security has delivered everything as promised for 75 years while in the private sector workers pensions and 401k plans plans have disappeared the moment it comes time to collect them into the pockets of the "Free Market" Wall St. bankers. Healthcare is an inelastic commodity without it u Die. Medicare has also delivered as promised. Both HC providers and end users agree it works well. Why pay an Insurance Corp. 35% of each $ to be a middleman?
No, no you called these people fascist. Apparently taking people's money away at gunpoint, is okay. But to allow them to manage their own money is fascist. Fascist? You have no sense of what the hell is going on. You wouldn't know economics if it bit you in the ass and because of this, it is going to! Just because a ponzi scheme ran fine for 75 years doesn't mean it can go on forever. So you are f'ked anyway. Go cry in a corner somewhere.
@weho1 Most socialists describe how the free-market doesn't work by describing how it works when corrupted. You can't describe how something functions by describing it when its broken. That line of thinking is moronic.And it's just plain illogical. I can't say socialism doesn't work because it's facism. Corrupted socialism becomes facism, but to make the argument I would have to describe how socialism, while operating in its pure form, fails.
@navsquid32 Apperantly broken Capitalism also makes Fascism. They both lead to the same thing in the broken stage. ( look at the USA now, how there is no privacy and human rights left. Barely anything of the constitution remains because of these laws ).
We should go back to the pure form of capitalism. IF people are still below poverty line then, we can implent some socialism ( by giving a minimum income to survive, the rest you'll have to work for yourself ). A combi would prob be best. :)
@navsquid32 For the free market to work at all you'll need NO government interference in the market itself. ( Only the income security i mentioned before ). Like we have today with the bailouts ( Communism for the rich/big ass companies, but broken capitalism for the poor ).
@weho1 So what you're saying the free market doesn't work when people corrupt the system. No kidding. But then it ceases to be the free market and perform its original function. If your car breaks down, do you say "cars don't function properly!" and then ride your bike everywhere for the rest of your life? When that happens to me, I say "my car, when properly operating, provides a very useful function. I should fix it."
@navsquid32 You keep referring to the "Free Market" as if any market operates purely on supply and demand. The only place that happens is in a theorectical model, not in the real world. Even in a market with no Gov't regulation a small group of insiders will eventually find ways to game the market for their $ benefit.So wether Gov't is involved or not there's no such thing as a "free market". People like Woods who falsely claim free markets R a solution R the ones planning to game the market.
@raystinsky Actually I've read quite a lot about the Austrian School of Economics as of late and what I've learned is disturbing. It's not that I don't understand it so much as we fundementally disagree. It all comes down to this: I believe the market exist to serve the people. You and followers of the Austrian School believe the people exist to serve the market.
@weho1 My snark wasn't fair, and I apologize. With all my talk of viewing people as individuals and criticism of central planning, I made the mistake of thinking that someone reading the same material as me would come to the same conclusion. Who have you read? Since the free market is merely a convenient term for the many trades made amongst individuals to satisfy their preferences, I would say from the Austrian perspective, it's impossible for the individual to serve it.
@raystinsky It seems to me advocates of the Austrian School R quite militant in their criticism of Gov't and quick to judge everyone else they point figers at. So whats the bottom line end game for the Austrian School if you got everything you wanted tomorrow? Where would the Capital $ Flow? Whats the role of Gov't and the Public Sector? Who would be the winners and who would be the losers according to you and why?
@raystinsky Austrian perspective advocates greed believing Adam Smith's invisible hand always guides markets to a positive outcome. Such beliefs shift personal moral responsibility for ones behavior away from the individual to what you euphemistically call the "Free Market". Therefore, any perversion or suffering can be justified so long as the market demands it and someone profits $. Child prostitution, extinction of endanged species, monopolies, slave wages, serve the market Not society.
@weho1 To what percentage of the profit from his production is a worker entitled? The only monopoly in existence in the US is the Federal Reserve. How did that happen?
@raystinsky What constitutes a fair wage depends on many variables but a minmum wage should be sufficient to provide basic necessities in life like: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, disabiliy income for the sick and eldely.
Many Monopolies/Cartels currently exist that work together to eliminate competition and manipulate market prices for their product. Microsoft, Big Oil, Banks,Insurance Companies, Military Contractors, etc...
@raystinsky Dept. of Labor sets national Minimum which is currently $7.25 and hour or approximately $14,000/yr. which I beleive is below what the Census Bureau considers the poverty level.
@raystinsky "Overlords"? This conversation has run its course. Greed & blind ambition r your overlords.Von Misses/Austrian school r the Economic arm of a Neocon Agenda. Its policies r a blueprint to destroy Social Security,Medicare and redistribute wealth from the middle class & poor to top 1% or 2% who apparently think they can rule like kings over the 98%. Even if the 2% succeeded taking over Gov't they can't maintain it without consent of the 98% Good luck with that! French Revolution? :-)
@weho1 I'm also not sure how the government could "allow" inflation of commodities (and I would hardly call oil and energy inelastic... quite the opposite, actually.) The market sets whatever price is appropriate (in the true free market), not the government. I would also disagree that oil and energy have an affect on all market sectors. Take precious metals for instance. Technology is also very often energy independent. The foolish actions of the fed can hit all sectors, though.
@navsquid32 I have my share of experience in the "Free Market" and I can tell you for a FACT there R 2 kinds of players in All "Free Markets" insiders that manipulate markets and outsiders who get skinned and if you don't know if you R an insider or an outsider guess what that makes you? A Sucker!
@navsquid32 Poor choice of words on my part, Gov't is interested in stability so when there is deflationary pressure on the economy they adopt monetary policies that encourage inflation in an attempt to create equalibrium. Deflationary pressure has largely been created by "Deregulation" and "Free Trade" policies with poor 3rd world countries who restrict their markets for our exports while dumping their cheaply manufactured products in the US with US Corporations acting as the middle men.
@weho1 If government were remotely interested in stability, why do they insist on creating bubbles, knowing that eventually they will burst? Why do they have the Fed print money and devalue our currency? Why do they mandate the purchase of particular items and invent regulations on top of regulations? They aren't interested in "stability!" Idgit.
@miazagora Actually it was private sector on Wall St. that lobbied Congress and spent billions of $ to get Deregulation. The private sector then effectively increased the money supply by 500 Trillion $ printing and selling worthless dirivitive securities which the Gov't later had to collteralize after the fact to prevent total economic collapse. So the problems in our economy weren't caused by regulation but instead by the exact type of deregulation the Von Mises Institute advocates more of.
@weho1 You seem to be mixing cost and currency deflation. Since ABCT deals with the market, I'll assume cost. ABCT doesn't equal cost deflation, but it is often a nice effect of it. The govt obviously doesn't fear lowering costs. What it does fear is what it perceives as a "stagnant" market, whereby not the govt but the federal reserve injects fiat currency into circulation, lowering interest rates and causing foolhardy investments. That CAUSES the deflationary economy through investment bubbles
@navsquid32 So ABCT = Deflation. Governments fear deflation so when faced with deflationary economy they allow inflation of inelastic commodities such as ENERGY/OIL that have an inflationary effect on ALL sectors of the economy in order to compensate. Correct?
Why is it so hard for people like weho and the OWS morons to understand that devaluing our money by 95% is the reason the middle class is getting screwed. Woods is correct right down the line. The problem is govt and its partnership with Wall Street through the Fed and other govt & quasi-govt institutions.
@Jaycephus01 What is occuring in our economy is NOT Inflation but instead Deflation! Thats what happens when you people making $25/hr compete with people making $1.50/hr to produce the exact same products.
@weho1 There IS currently some deflation in some places measured in certain terms, but housing costs are STILL inflated above the long-term baseline. They got inflated in the 1st place by the FED & Govt policies. Are they now deflating? Yes, while simultaneously, the FED is inflating like crazy to try to keep housing & other prices up. That is not 'more healthy' than just letting the deflation happen, especially when the initial INFLATION they are attempting to PRESERVE was artificial.
@weho1 Furthermore, this inflation from the FED has been very long-term, and much of the devaluation of the middle class standard of living came prior to the rise of China. It is NOT just cheap labor in the last decade that is the problem. Cheap labor is cheap labor. It is good for everyone except the cheap laborer, & even then he likes it just fine if he was coming from earning 50 cents an hour on a farm working 14 hours a day. Our problems are more complex than just 'cheap foreign labor'.
@Jaycephus01 Tell that to the MILLIONS of unemployed or under employed Americans who will soon be living in the cardboard condos in the HOOVER/BUSH-CHENEY VILLES. Interesting GOP lies about labour statistics by pointing out that household incomes have not declined significantly in the past 25 years but what they fail to mention is that INDIVIDUAL incomes/benefits including health insurance have steadily declined so now it takes 2 or more people each working 2 jobs to make same amount of money.
@raystinsky Context is important. Conservative ideology aka Crony Capitalism held sway under Bush/Cheney. They put wars of choice to enrich big oil, military industrial complex, Bush Drug Plan a Gov't sponsored monopoly for big pharma, deregulation of banks Wall St. on our National Credit Card. End result 2nd Depression. After the top 1% looted the U.S. Treasury, Cons now blame Obama for it and advocate austerity in order to lay $ burden on the 99%. Sounds like Gov't socialism for the 1% to me!
@weho1 You will find that Thomas Woods rejects crony capitalism and that the history of central planning is one of crony capitalism. Most American Conservatives do believe in crony capitalism. Just like most American Liberals. I'm glad you reject government intervention in the marketplace.
@raystinsky No I don't agree. History has shown Gov't is necessary to regulate fair market practices for common wealth of all. Like a football game there are winners and losers but everyone must play by the same rules and have an impartial referee to enforce those rules. Free market capitalist think markets will somehow magically sort themselves out and benefit of all. We tried that in the 19th century and the end result was a feudal system run by preditory capitalist Robber Barrons.
@raystinsky Actually it was the other way around. Founding Fathers created a Gov't run by the people for the people to empower the masses from the bottom up not the elite from the top down. Robber barons used their wealth to corrupt the system manipulate politicians change laws public policy behind the scenes same way corporations now RUN our legislature, court system and national media. End result was Gov't policy served interests of the few on top at everone elses expense. Sound familiar?
@weho1@weho1 Yes, businessmen appealed to politicians for special protections for their businesses. You and I both oppose corporatism. You will find that Thomas Woods does, as well. You will not find him supporting any form of subsidy to business. The Founding Fathers were not angels. You will find the demand for a centralized bank (a form of monopoly) started rather early in our history. In the time of the "robber barons" businesses did receive direct subsidies from the government.
Well both the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs are labelled as robber barons, though only the political entrepreneurs really deserve such negative statements. The market entrepreneurs are true heroes, succeeding against all the odds that the politicians and their "businessmen" could put up.
@Illyrien I agree. I was holding back on pointing that out. I like the distinction between market and political entrepreneurs. I think I remember it from a mises.org article. I need to add it to my vocabulary--the distinction is so very clear using those terms.
Yep. I too got it from Mises. From the article called "The Truth About the "Robber Barons" ", I think. I also recently bought "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton W. Folsom Jr. I haven't gotten around to read it yet. Sooooo many books to read :)
That big business is in bed with big government is hardly a secret. There are even names for this... we call it corporatism or mercantilism. Remove State intervention into the economy and the corporations wont have the option of using State powers against their competitioners. Corporations should compete against each others on the free market and let the consumers judge, not politicians. This is what the free market is about.
@Illyrien Business will always game the system. Your "solution" just puts the Fox where he wants to be in the Hen House. I've worked in Gov't and the private sector. The goal of business is profit even if as in the case of cigarettes it kills the customer. These are not the people I want in charge of making and enforcing the rules for the public welfare. We tried that in the 19th century what did we get? Monopolies, child labor, dangerous working conditions, slavery, dirty food, water ect. ect.
@Illyrien Btw the solution to Business corrupting gov't is actually very simple. It's called Campaign Reform. Take the MONEY out of running for public office. Simply make it ILLEGAL for ANYONE to make any campaign donation or quid pro quo gift. Publically fund all elections and level the playing field. Then Billionaires like Meg Whitman wouldn't be in a position to buy $ the Governorship of California and control the 8th largest economy in the world for the benefit of her cronies.
@raystinsky SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United is a perfect illustration. SCOTUS majority are Corporate sponsored ideologues engaging in Judicial Activism on behalf of their owners. SCOTUS defined Corporations = a Person with all the individual rights, except of course personal financial liability. They also ruled $ = free speech. Now what corporations or forgiegn Gov'ts lack in numbers of votes they can compensate for by spending billions $ using front groups to secretly influence our elections.
@weho1 Corporate personhood pre-existed the Citizens United case. Most corporations are single owner, and the real money for candidates comes after elections. There are many non-profit corporations, as well. I've read the arguments in their entirety. Limited liability can be a problem, I agree.
@raystinsky SCOTUS ruling eliminates the concept of 1 man 1 vote. Think about the implications of this? GOP is also passing laws that target falsely disqualify millions of poor and minority voters who statically vote 4 Democrats. Founding Fathers rebelled against authoritarian tyranny of King George designed our Gov't to defuse concentration of Gov't power between 3 branches.The Corp. sponsored GOP is well on it's way to reversing our entire system of Government. Totalitarianism will follow.
@weho1 During the Great Depression, farmers were sometimes forbidden by the government from growing additional crops for their own consumption in the name of price controls. I would say that reversal has already occurred.
@raystinsky UR mixing apples & oranges here. Gov't job is to intervene to protect public interest from non-competitive market manipulation schemes such as monopolies and fraud. One thing the Wall St. melt down clearly illustrates is that DEREGULATION initiated by private sector businessmen allowed them personally enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers who they left holding the bag. So ur "Free Market Benefits All" theories just went up in smoke! How did that benefit anyone but them?
@weho1 If we had a free market, then you might have a point. We didn't come close to having a free market (which doesn't permit fraud), so at best you can argue that having some regulations but not others is a bad idea. We both agree that bailing out failure with government money is bad government.
@raystinsky When in World History did a "free market" exist that insiders did not manipulate or exploit for personal gain? To do otherwise by the definition of "business" is a conflict of interest. How did this imaginary free market regulate itself and "not permit fraud"? You speak as if these things once existed and somehow got lost. My husband and I are successful capitalist but also realize there's a bigger picture beyond simply enriching ourselves at a less fortunate persons expense.
@weho1 It's not a conflict of interest to avoid resorting to State violence to promote one's interests--that is what a free market is. Many businessmen don't want a free market--they want the government to help them profit. All law is force. It's not a utopia. You will find much discussion of tort law and property rights amongst the free marketeers.
@raystinsky So you equate the legitimate lawful excercise of power by a democratically elected Gov't on behalf of the people being govered to Violence? Then I guess that makes you an Anarchist and don't believe any form of Gov't is legitimate including Democracy. While were on the subject of utopia U never answered my previous question: When did this perfectly ethical magically self regulating free market you keep talking about ever exist in the history of the World?
@weho1 That all law is violence is a basic truth. When it is proper to exercise violence is another question. I refer you to Bastiat's "The Law" in that matter. It's a great work. I've never said a free market would be "perfectly ethical". Hence the mention of tort law. Your condescension isn't helping communication.
@raystinsky It seems quite fashionable now for Conservatives on the lunitic fringe to call themselves anything else but conservative. I'm open to new ideas, but there's nothing new with Woods he's just repackaging same old tired conservative arguments of Adam Smith's invisible hand. Greed is good, he who has the gold makes the rules, I've got mine Fu#% everyone else. He supports his "conclusions" with revisionist history and references to a mythical free market utopia. Sounds like a cult to me.
@weho1 You will find a lack of support for many "conservative" values from Woods. What you label as revisionist history (apparently implying that all revision is untrue) is backed up. Neither Woods, nor any other classical liberal, is proposing a utopia. They propose equal protection under the law. We don't have that from progressives or conservatives. You need to entertain that there is (at the very least) a third position, out there. Stop viewing the world through government approved terms.
@raystinsky "That all law is violence is a basic truth." Really, what makes that statement "Truth" just because Bastiat said so and you agree? Now who's the one being condesending here? You keep dodging the bottom line. Do we live in a Me society or a We society?
@weho1 I would have agreed had anyone said it. That's not what you meant, of course. Every law is backed by threat of violence. Every law is ultimately enforced by threat of death. In some cases, I argue its appropriate--laws against violation of life property are rightly backed by threat of violence in order to prevent or deter such violations. I'm not being condescending, I'm pointing out your binary political worldview. It's a statement of fact.
@raystinsky My world view is hardly binary, left or right. From what I read briefly about Bastiat my impression is he is the ultimate anti-tax advocate because he doesn't believe anyone including Gov't has the autority moral or legal to ever take as a matter of course anything "produced" or "owned" by an individual. This seems like an extreme (binary) all or nothing world view to me. At least when it comes to Gov't authority. To better understand ur context do We live in a Me or a We society?
@weho1 Society is an arbitrary term. I may do quite a lot for others, but I have no right to compel others to do the same. You live how you wish to live, barring initiation of aggression. By "binary", I refer to your apparent support of the two party system, which has led you to erroneously believing Woods to be conservative. Would you consider the view that murder is always wrong to be extreme? You should read Bastiat in whole, not "briefly".
@raystinsky Since my reference to "Society" is something you apparently have trouble comprehending I will provide this definition of a society: a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Now based on that definition do you believe we live in a Me or We society in the United States?
@weho1 Apparently, you live in an angry society. Now, are you asking whether we live under a government that may take from one to give to another? That is run by omnipotent moral busybodies who feel they can plan our lives better than we can for ourselves? Yes, that is the government under which we live. Do all of us need a gun to our heads to help people? No. Are some of us too lazy to do more, and so want laws to compel everyone to 'help'? Obviously. I'm writing to one, right now.
@raystinsky So essentially your world view can be summed up as: "It's All About Me" and what benefits a person as an individual is always most important so long as it doesn't involve Violence. Yet you also define Violence as = to Gov't. taxing people. Wether you choose to call yourself a conservative or not is irrelevant, because this is one of the primary foundations of basic conservative ideaology which I find delusional and out of touch with reality for the following reasons:
@raystinsky For ANY market to EXIST on a stable sustainable basis requires a Society with Gov't infrastucture. This is why based on your definition of a "Free Market" (free from any Gov't influence) U & Woods can"t give 1 example of what U keep refering to as a "Free Market". All Markets are synergistic product of Society/We and Gov't collaboration organizing a system of trade that simultaneously benefits individuals as well as the Society.
As individuals this provides many opportunities to...
@raystinsky exploit the market for personal gain which is a incentive to provide goods or services that benefit Society. However, in many cases an individuals personal self-interest is in direct conflict with the best interest of the Society. Example: Illegal drug dealers. They take profit $ up front but on backside shift true cost of their product on society. People get hooked can't work, get sick and resort to crime and cease being productive. So gov't legitimately steps in to protect society.
@raystinsky Wall St. meltdown is another grand example. Wall St. bankers spent over $5 Billion over 10 yrs. to lobby/manpulate Gov't DEREGULATE the Financial Service Industry. They then created, misrepresented and fraudulently sold Trillions of $ in securities they knew were defective, took Hundreds of Billions in Real $ Profit on the front end and stuck Society/Taxpayers with worthless paper on the back end. So by your definition of Violence, Wall St. and the Private sector commited Genocide!
@weho1 Actually, weho, I have put myself in harm's way repeatedly for people, including strangers. I donate to charities. What I reject is that I have the right to force others to do the same. Your definition of the market holds to the corporatist definition of the market. You're a corporatist. It's your preferred system. Fine. Having traveled a bit, I've seen that government is not the only entity capable of constructing roads and bridges. Read a little, learn proper terms and some economics.
@raystinsky Well it is the case that my terminology as well as my spelling and punctuation when I type fast leaves much to be desired. However I seem to be communicating reasonably effectively. Btw I still waiting to hear your specific example or description of how this pure Free Market you keep referring to would exist without the context of a Gov't. infrastucture: police, fire dept, courts, utilities. Gov't provides these services at cost. Private sector would be cost + profit margin.
@weho1 I would argue, vaguely from the outside, that the government doesn't provide these services at 'cost'. Profit is not necessarily an added cost, but rather a reason for a good or service to exist in the first place. What you would call 'cost' for these services may in fact be largely overvalued. This goes along with the whole 'no free lunch' theory, meaning that 'free healthcare' is not actually free, but does come with a very substantial cost (taxes, debt, etc.)
@reefpirate Profit is NOT only reason for products to exist. In fact "profit" is a conflict of interest in many Gov't functions. Ex: privitization of prisons. Politicians, judges, police have $ incentive to incarcerate as many as possible. Jan Brewer AZ Gov. passed laws to incarerate thousands of illegal aliens after awarding Gov't contracts to private prison corp. she held stock in. There R many examples. Free market advocates focus only on self don't understand concept of the Public Welfare.
@raystinsky To add insult to injury the same corrupt Wall St. grifters who raped taxpayers & stockholders, pay guys like Woods to create dissent political wedge issues directing blame and anger away from them playing race and class warfare by shifing the blame on to Conservatives usual list of suspects: Big Gov't, and Liberal do gooders who forced Wall St. to loan money against their will to LAZY unqualified innercity brown people. This cynical ugly stuff created a backlash: Occupy Wall St.
@weho1 Woods opposes the current structure , which permits companies to benefit from making bad investments, since losses are insured by the government and the monetary expansion provides those in the financial sector with money at higher value before it travels through the system, losing value. You truly know nothing about the man or about those (like him) who oppose corporatism. It's not the speed of typing that's hampering you. It's a lack of information.
@raystinsky I agree there is a lot I don't know about Woods, but I based on what I have seen and read about him on line I don't think we will agree on much when it comes to the role of Gov't. but I promise to read at least one or two of his books and if as I suspect my BS detector goes off I will be sure to get back to you with specifics!
@raystinsky Root cause of our economic problems is external deflation pressure caused by transition into a global economy where Corp. outsource factories to 3rd world countries, pay labor what amounts to a bowl of rice. Costs of Labor, Energy & Capital r basic factors of all production that effect ALL sectors of economy. Inflationary monetary policies by US attempt to compensate/reduce huge trade deficit & jobs/capital outflow created by $ poor trading partners. Aka Ross Perot's sucking sound!
@weho1 You have to be careful about your terminology. Deflation/inflation has to do with the money supply. Downward pressure on wages isn't deflation. Inflationary monetary policy isn't an attempt to counteract outsourcing--it's a means of enriching the government. It's a tax. As a corrective measure, it's based on bad economics. Are you advocating protectionism?
@raystinsky To extent major trading partners employ protectionism in their markets it should be considered. U.S trade policy is wide open thanks to lobbiest who rewrote US Gov't trade policy for benefit of their Corp. clients like Walmart that maximize profits outsourcing manfacturing to countries that don't have labor or enviornmental laws and ship their "cheap" products back to U.S. duty free as the rest of our economy collapses. This trade policy is know as "Dumping" and used to be illegal.
@Jaycephus01 Why is it so hard for ABCT Morons to understand that Private Sector Bankers Bribed/Manipulated Gov't to Dergulate Worthless Dirivitive Secirities Wall Street misrepresented and Rated AAA. Doesn't this amount to the Private Sector Wall St. bankers taking over Gov't functions and printing 500+ Trillion $ in counterfit securities? U blame Gov't for not stopping the corruption of the Free Market as well as too much regulation of the market at the same time. WTF? Make up your mind!
@weho1 There's nothing free about our markets. Keynesian economics says that we need a Federal Reserve, without it we would not have this highly leveraged, speculative, boom and bust economy. Watch this video if you really what to see the difference.
When Reagan withdrew regulatory restraints on banking "products" (re-introduction of putative "investments" like CDCs) marketed to consumers without disclosure, and to all levels of government without accountability, an appearance of prosperity was created. As Woods clearly states, THAT is exactly when the damage was done.
@mpc91 And its not just Joe Blow that believes this. Professors, journalists, and congress critters like Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson Jr. believe this too. It's sickening how foolish some people in power actually are.
@Jaycephus01 To quote Republicon Conservative President Dick Cheney "Defecits dont matter" Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP Congress, none of this was an issue when the GOP held ALL 3 branches of Gov't, and ran the U.S. economy into the ground for the benefit the richest 1%. after a Black Democrat is elected President, suddenly conservatives become chicken little and keep crying the sky is falling. What a buntch of hypocrites. Interesting all your concerns seem to be focused on black politicians.
@weho1@weho1 Quit being a demobot. Tom Woods & his fans are not racists, you simpleton. They were as opposed to Bush & Cheney then as they are opposed to King George Bush the Third, AKA Barrack Obama. Please grow some intestinal fortitude & own up to the responsibility of electing a truly horrid & unprepared president, to the responsibility of CONGRESS being controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's term, & to the fact that dems have been equally responsible for this mess
@Jaycephus01 No surprise TOM WOODS is a member of the League of the South, an Alabama based organization that states its ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic." consisting of states that made up the former Confederacy. It's also a religious social movement, advocating return to traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture and a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates". Southern Poverty Law Center lists it as a white supremacist hate group .
Oh, our good little demobot found a communist-front organization that condemns a religiously-affiliated organization. Shocking. Next you'll be quoting from a KKK website because they hate Woods too. If you want to get to the truth, go to lewrockwell. com and search for "Dreaded 'S' Word". Ironically, you are repeating exactly what neocons are saying when they attack Woods for being a 'libertarian'! LOL
@Jaycephus01 You said Woods political beliefs have nothing to do with racism yet Woods belongs to a White Supremacist Group that advocates a return to slavery and the old Southern Confederacy. WTF? U sound like a paranoid mental case. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a "communist front organization" but even it openly advocated Communism, so what ? League of the South is still a White Supremacist Organiztion.Guess that makes you an idiot as well as a racist. Please see my "Comment Policy"
@raystinsky Ad hominen, really? So U think Woods racist political views r not relevant to his overall world view on which he bases his opinions? I never heard of Woods until I saw this post. My 1st impression was that he's a shallow slimey opportunist preaching to the choir. Little did I reaize the choir were racist southern white people until doing more research. It is what it is, deal with it. Btw, I wonder if U asked Jaycephus01 about ad hominem Demobot, the KKK, and communist front groups?
@raystinsky Sometimes U have to read between the lines. Actions speak louder than words. Overt appeals to racism fail so now racist cloak their agenda in political Trojan Horses. Hilter was a brilliant politician except for that little problem he had with Jews. You seem to think you can compartmentalize Woods racist views and ignore the dirty laundry. I don't care to give Woods warped views on history, economics or social policy any more time than they warrent. Btw R U a white supremacist?
@weho1 So you don't have a quote. You're reading between the lines based on his membership in a group. What about Thomas Woods's membership in a group named for a Jewish man? What about his adherence to the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership? His opposition, therefore, to the governments famous for persecution of certain segments of the population?
Race is accidental to humanity, weho. For you, race is apparently significant. For me, it isn't. I don't view people as collectives.
@raystinsky Yes race as well as sexual orientation is very significant to me to the extent it's used as a criteria by the majority to persecute the minority. Prop 8 in Ca is an example. You didn't answered my question. The question was not wether "you view people as collectives" it was do you believe in White Supremacy? The two are different things.
@weho1 I did answer your question. I didn't give you an easy yes or no, but I thought that since you were capable of reading between the lines, you would easily interpret my rejection of collectivism, and of race as anything but an accident of humanity. Since you couldn't: No. I reject the claims of white supremacy as asinine and worthy of contempt. Prop 8 in Ca. is ridiculous. Government has no business in marriage, at all.
@raystinsky The only comments I made regarding racism were in response to negative racial overtones in comments from another Woods advocate directed to me. Since you're also an advocate of Woods and he is apparently belongs to a white supremacist group, I wanted to clairify the context of your advocacy. That's all. I consider the issue closed.
@weho1 I accept your surrender and retraction due to insufficient information. It could happen to anyone, jumping to conclusions as you did. I hope next time, you will do more research than reading a few stories from people who are advocates of Statism.
@raystinsky Statism? Can't revisionist historians and their slavish followers come up with an more original name for those who rely on facts to point out the fallacies of their wackey opinions. Like most conservatives you live in a world of make believe so it's easy to understand why you would misinerpret boredom for surrender.
@weho1 We could call it "LeMondufratco", but that's not very descriptive, is it? I used it to describe you. You haven't refuted anything. I am not a conservative. One of us is advocating the status quo--continuing down the same tired path. That's conservative. And it describes you. It's okay. They're only labels.
right off the bat, woods busts out the jokes...love it
MrGiggity890 5 days ago
Fantastic video!!!
Austrian economics really does make sense!!!
natskis 1 week ago
o yeah he is like a stand up comedian for intelligent people =)
bostjankramar11 1 week ago
What a great guy is this Tom Woods , keep up the good work ,really hope you will one day have an oppurtunity to rewrite this period of USA history in school books.
bostjankramar11 1 week ago
Keynsianism sucks, i hope the us economy collapses so Austrians can rule again.
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
@TWSceptic Yeah dude let the good times roll. Von Miscreants hope and look forward to for the total Collaspe of the U.S. Economy so Austrians can "RULE again". Thanks for confirming everyone elses worst fears. Nice to know where your coming from! :-)
weho1 3 weeks ago
@weho1 No problem, glad I could educate you. :-)
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
@weho1 Austrians predict the collapse of the economy. And it happens. Keynsians, on the other hand, cover their ears and scream "THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOUND!!"
david52875 2 weeks ago
@david52875 Austrians predicting the collapse of the market is not a "prediction" rather a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since 1980's Reagonomics GOP, Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan and Gov't in general have implemented economic policies advocated by the Austrian School, Deregulation, lower taxes, privatization ect. The end result, near complete collapse of the U.S./World economy middle class slipping into poverty, rich getting richer. That's kind of like an arsonist "predicting" a fire!
weho1 2 weeks ago
@weho1
I have never ever hear Austrians cheering to central banking and fiat money, welfare state, overseas empire-building, and expansion of government.
I am sorry, but you just can't blame it on Austrians.
VitaSineLibertatenih 1 week ago
@weho1 Oh, ye who are so lost. Go find a chart of the number of regulations on the books from 1950 to present. "Privatization" is not private if you create an entity that has 'private' profits but socializes losses and dumps them on the taxpayers. The Federal Reserve is legal tender monopoly. Austrians advocate market based money, meaning everyone in the economy gets to chose what they want to exchange with and store value with. I hope to god your comment was just trolling because if not...
Coreadrin 1 week ago
@Coreadrin Austrians don't seem to comprehend basics. ALL "markets" are sub-sets of society & gov't not the other way around. In democracies the electorate constitute a free market using their votes as currency. In ALL markets the unscrupulous inside or out of Gov't manipulate any system for personal $ benefit. So blaming only "Gov't" is as silly as Austrians Holy Grail references to imaginary "free markets" that will magically appear like a Unicorn or Leprechaun if U just believe hard enough.
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 do you honestly believe that people carefully "spend" their votes as much much as they spend their real money?
Knorssman 1 week ago
@Knorssman My point is simply in as much as we are free to choose any type of Gov't. we want elections are a "free market". The performance of our elected officials good or bad will have real money consequences on each of us.
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 The problem is that policies outlive politicians, and people vote themselves benefits at a cost to people that aren't even born yet.
luftwaffle 1 week ago
@luftwaffle We agree util people elect others to change failed policies. Most recent examples of Failed Gov't policy involve Deregulation. Examples: 2001 Enron used energy market derugulation to steal 28 Billion $ from Ca taxpayers. The Gramm, Leach, Bliely Act deregulated Wall St. which was then free misrepresent and sell 500+ Trillion $ of worthless securities that almost collapsed the world economy. So given these spectacular failures Austrians advocate more Gov't deregulation exactly why?
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 Enron is a very complicated issue that can't just be written off as caused by deregulation. Even so, no one is claiming that the market is perfect. It's just the best system there is. Your comment about 500+ Trillion $ worth of securities makes me a bit suspicious that you might not understand what you're talking about. There isn't that much money on Earth. I think you don't understand how derivatives work.
luftwaffle 1 week ago
@luftwaffle Enron's not complicated at all just follow the money. It's a clear case of insider political patronage and good old fashion corruption at the publics expense. One of the worst cases until the Iraq war was declared by fomer Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney who advocated "Privatization" just when he was then in a position to award several hundred Billion $ Gov't no-bid war contacts to his former employer Haliburton while lowering their taxes. Austrians think we need more "privatization"?
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 The problem is that you're not making a distinction between privtization and collusion between public and private entities. Going half-way is possibly the worst way to do it. It has to be full privitization or none. Key point: private influence is useless if there isn't government power. It's the power of government that attracts corruption.
luftwaffle 1 week ago
@luftwaffle Reason for corruption is GREED! Corrupt greedy people view any system Gov't or (Free) Markets as merely a means to an end, enriching themselves. Dick Cheney and many Corp.CEO's play on both teams simultaneously. The role of Gov't is to promote and protect the Public Welfare, role of private sector is simply to maximize profits,usually at the expense of the public welfare. Austrians want to get rid of Gov't and live by the law of the jungle? In the Jungle there are very few Lions.
weho1 1 week ago
@luftwaffle Don't forget, the Enron problem was not discovered by regulatory agencies. It was exposed by the horrible, evil short seller.
raystinsky 1 week ago
@raystinsky Your right, that's a clear example of how the private sector has infiltrated and captured Gov't at the highest levels to corruptly run/control the very gov't agencies that are supposed to be regulating their activities and protecting the public interest. Does it make sense that former Oil Company CEO's should run the EPA or former Coal Mine CEO's should be in charge of enforceing mine safety? Seems like a conflict of interest and its a big reason our Gov't is broken and ineffective.
weho1 6 days ago
@weho1 I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. The figures I've heard reported on the entire dirivitive market are bet. $500-$800 trillion. I understand dirivitives pretty well and to a point they make sense as long as they are properly collateralized. The problem with the recent mortgage meltdown was that Wall St. worked with Mortgage bankers to simply generate a high volume of mortgages they could package, sale and churn regardless of quality. This was not the fault of borrowers!
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 This $500-800 trillion figure is meaningless. That's the notional value. It's not the money "at stake" that could somehow all be lost. The original problem was twofold (mainly): 1.) The government enacted policies to incentivize mortgage originators to get poor people into homes 2.) The federal reserve kept interest rates too low. You can't blame the market for these immensely disruptive government interventions.
luftwaffle 1 week ago
@luftwaffle Govt regulation is necessary because Wall St. private sector have repeatedly proven they are perfectly willing to throw not only the entire U.S. Economy under the bus to enrich themselves but the entire World Economy too. This is a matter of National Security. It wasn't long ago during the Cold War that the U.S. Gov't feared plots by the U.S.S.R. to disrupt the U.S. economy. Now corrupt private bankers on Wall manage to rig the system, make obscene profits and it's the Gov'ts fault?
weho1 1 week ago
@weho1 Wall St. didn't throw the US economy under the bus. It's the US government doing it. Who bailed out the banks? Who forced interest rates to at or near 0%? Who federally mandated giving houses to poor people? Who exactly got enriched by the recession? The US Govt. took money from citizens and gave them to the banks so they wouldn't go out of business. And you blame business? I'm really sorry but these arguments you're making are very simple and easily refuted. Read a book please.
luftwaffle 1 week ago
@luftwaffle We know who bailed out banks, the U.S. Gov't/taxpayers, thanks to Bush/Cheney. Real questions: When & why did Banks need to be bailed out in the 1st. place and how did the U.S. Gov't get into a position being forced to choose between bailing out Wall St. or letting the entire U.S. & World economy implode? The answer, because during Bush/Cheney Administration Wall St. paid millions of $ to politicians, got themselves Deregulated under Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act and cashed in. google it
weho1 6 days ago
@weho1 Reagan and Greenspan did not subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. First of all, the Austrian school is against central banks, so the chairman of the fed could hardly be an Austrian. Reagan was not an Austrian either. The economists on his cabinet were Keynesians, Monetarists and supply-siders. His most influential economic advisor, Milton Freidman, was a monetarist, not an Austrian. Milton Freidman was critical of the Austrian school, despite his libertarian leanings.
BagofHay 1 week ago
@BagofHay Reagan wasn't an Austrian purist but he was a staunch advocate of "deregulation". He deregulated the Savings and Loans after they put millions $ into his campaign. A few years later Savings and Loans collapsed under the weight of bogus loans and Gov't/taxpayers were left holding the bag for 160 Billion $. The S&L crisis was a dress rehearsal for the recent Wall St. deregulation sub-prime loan scandal. Both were planned and executed by corrupt private sector bankers after Deregulation.
weho1 6 days ago
@weho1 I would argue that this type of regulation failed for the same reason banking deregulation failed in the 80s. Capitalism had been bound hand and foot to the point where it could not solve its own problems. The FDIC was to blame then, for creating a moral hazard, not deregulation. Similarly, it is government intervention which makes deregulation so dangerous. This is very ironic, but wrong breeds more wrong. Reagan supported corporatism. I'm not contesting that. But he wasn't an Austrian.
BagofHay 6 days ago
@BagofHay I would argue history is repeating itself. Laissez-faire capitalism Austrians champion led to excesses that caused the 1st Great Depression. In response, New Deal reforms led to the longest era of prosperity and economic growth this country has known. Since the 1980's to the extent conservatives representing the rich and powerful have been successful repealing these reforms, the rich got richer, upward mobilty has gone down, and the average middleclass worker has slipped into poverty.
weho1 5 days ago
@weho1 Your reading of history is completely flawed: the expansion was almost solely down to America being the only man left standing after WWII. Factor in the other, Western, democracies going 'all in' on socialism (and it's handmaiden, statism), and there was even less competition for a dominating USA. That we've now spent the past 20 years drinking from the same, poisoned, well as the Western European democracies and now we find ourselves in the same, sinking, socialist boat.
ECMIM 4 days ago
@ECMIM Satism, statism, statism keep repeating that BULLSHIT along with "Free Markets" as if it's a silver cross in the face of vampires.I never argue with success and that's what disturbs me with those that clinging to the Austrian school as if it's a religion. Everything Austrians believe in has proven to end in utter FAILURE and yet instead of rising up from the ashes and asking where did we do wrong, they double down and say the problem is we didn't go far enough! Beware, U reap what u sow!
weho1 4 days ago
@weho1 Please give me an example of how keynesianism has worked please. Keynesianism has been a total failure if anything. Government managed Capitalism (An Oxymoron) has been empirically proven to be the primary cause of the economic recession of today. Increased government spending, unsustainable social programs, tax increases, inflation due to a government-sponsored central bank and its failed fiat monetary policy, artificially low interest rates encouraging mal-investment.
StAugustine79 3 days ago
@ECMIM BTW in the last 20 years the dominant political party in the U.S. has been Conservative so you have just unknowingly endorsed everything I've said. Thank you!
weho1 4 days ago
@weho1 Those terms, Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Democrat, mean nothing anymore and they haven't for the last at least thirty years. That's a very empty, for lack of a better word, argument. Look at who paid for Obama's campaign, and ask yourself why a Democrat is backed by the corporatist bankers. Our economy is sinking, not because of a party issue, but because the government has become way too powerful, and has way too much of our money.
Lupina12 4 days ago
@weho1 That is incorrect. The Depression of 1920 was caused by the post WWI recession. In fact, Harding ended the 1st Depression by lowering taxes and the federal debt. Free market enterprise does not generate excess, it generates real wealth through the productive forces of competition. FDR's socialist programs were not enough whatsoever to provide recovery from the Great Depression of 1929. The largest period of economic growth was in the 19th and early 20th century due to entrepreneurship.
StAugustine79 3 days ago
@weho1 The only difference between the Great Depression and the many 1-2 year recessions that came before it is that the Great Depression came after/during a period of increased intervention (The Fed starting open-market operations in 1922, Herbert Hoover, FDR), and that the Great Depression lasted much longer and was much more severe. Ben Bernanke came right out and admitted that the Fed caused the Great Depression in a speech of his a few years ago. However, I agree about the 80s reforms.
BagofHay 2 days ago
@weho1 Inflation was part and parcel of their policies, as was deficit spending. Government action compelled the changes in mortgage lending, as well. Their actions were taken with an eye to monetarism, Keynesian economics, and the supply-side beliefs. Sorry, but not Austrian.
raystinsky 1 week ago
Lets push the reset button and clairify my position. I agree there is truth in the Austrian Schools premise that inflation has been used as a mechanism to create the illusion of wealth in our economy based on debt that at some point will implode and collapse in on itself in a deflationary conflagration. Where we disagree is in who's responsible for this and why (the private sector is equally responsible), what the legitimate roll of Gov't is and what's the best solution to the problem.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 Neocons believe in war, weho. The Austrians reject war. The system you advocate is already in place, and has resulted in the redistribution of wealth through coercion to those who control the money supply. If you're going to go about call people who believe in peace "greedy", then don't get huffy when you're met with a little sarcasm in return.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky Any gov't/economic system that creates and institutionalizes great inequality between the rich and poor will inherantly be unstable, unsustainable and require a Violent totalitarian police state to maintain. Austrian School advocates such a system. Why split hairs on facism, corporatism, or other "isms". Such gov'ts come and go usually ending in Violent revolutions. It's sad to see the USA undermined from the inside by r-wing extremists with such contempt for the U.S. Constitution.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 The Austrian school does not advocate a police state. The current system in the United States, which is corporatist, has resulted in the redistribution of wealth to an elite. You're advocating vesting power in the government to regulate the social and economic lives of the citizens, but that's already been done; you see the results around you. You grab these labels that don't apply. Rejection of war is central to the Austrian school. That's not "splitting hairs"
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky Actually from what I've read it appears you're spliting hairs, being decietful and intentionally misrepresenting the Austrian School Doctrine. Non-Violence does not = Non-Agression. Based on what I've read advocates of the Austrian School advocate extreme violence as a justified response against anyone who they believe is unjustly "taking their property". Like the United States Federal Gov't levying Taxes maybe? Is this correct? Do U believe the U.S Gov't should be overthrown?
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 Where did they advocate "extreme" violence? Could you point me to that essay? Is it on the LvMI website? Who wrote it? The non-aggression principle permits only defensive violence. Do you reject the right to self defense?
No, I don't think the government should be overthrown. I think that would cause worse suffering and unnecessary death.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky I define "extreme violence" as physical violence which would likely result in death. You define violence according to the Austrian School/ Bastiant as any form of taking private property by Gov't. Based on Von Mises ideology it follows you would engage in subversion or violent insurection against the Gov't as justified "self-defence" against "violent agression". Also interesting how Von Misesians create/apply a double standard bet. public and private sector/Wall St. fraud "Taking".
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 Do you oppose police officers using firearms?
Where did you get that supposed Misesian definition of violence? I've read quite a bit and not come across advocacy for disproportionate violence to protect property rights (the right to life being based upon the extreme idea that we each own ourselves).
I can only assume from your last sentence that you think Austrians approve of the current cooperation between Wall Street and the government. Shockingly, you're wrong yet again.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky You stated Austrian School and Bastian's doctrine believe that any form of "taking private property" by Gov't constitutes "Violence". You also stated the Austrian school believes they have a right to respond to "violent agression" with force in self defence. Based on your definition of "violence" logically that means if Gov't took punitive measures to collect taxes Austrians would respond/resist "porortionally" to defend themselves from Gov't agression/violence, correct?
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 Do you think people should be killed to enforce law?
raystinsky 1 month ago
@weho1 And seeing as it's illegal to resist an officer assaulting you unlawfully, I'd say the police state is here.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky So is Austrian School/VonMises is now supporting Occupy Wall Street protesters frequently met with police brutality, arrest and jail for excercising their Constitutional rights to assembly & free speech? Meanwhile Private Sector Wall St. bankers who stole Trillions of Taxpayer $ sit in glass towers drinking champaign? Doesn't that mean Free Market Bankers like JP Morgan Chase Bank who recently donated 4.6 Million $ to NYPD R comitting Violence against Taxpayers including War Vetrans?
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 Our banks don't operate on a free market principle. They receive special privileges from the government, in the form of fractional reserve and subsidies. We do not have free markets, and that has enabled some corporations to operate with less competition than they would face with free markets.
raystinsky 2 weeks ago
Weho1, something about this theory isn't computing to you. And that's fine. But leave the people who are capable of understanding it alone please.
peaches1944 1 month ago
@peaches1944 The Von Mises Institute/Austrian School advocate a radical subversive right wing ideaology that taken to it's logical conclusion will destroy what's left of the middle class and transform America from a representitive democracy into some type of totalitarian Banana Republic run by and for the $ benefit of Corporate monopolies. To the extent they believe Corporations are "individuals" this is the definition of Facism with many ominous parallels to Germany in 1929. U think this is OK?
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 The ignorance of that statement is so great that I'm going to assume you are only here to troll. I have no intention of trying to fight Crazy. Enjoy being fleeced.
peaches1944 1 month ago
@peaches1944 Really? we'll see how "crazy" I am when Social Security and Medicare are gone, and at 75 years old find you find yourself living in a homeless shelter because your not physically able to work, and you didn't have the financial assets to pay for a necessary medical procedure for you or a family member.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1
And letting people manage their own money is fascism? Right? But govt controlled, taxed and spent way of providing for old age.. which is already bankrupt.. is somehow not fascism?
utubehayter 1 month ago in playlist Misesmedia
@utubehayter If it ain't broke don't fix it! Social Security has delivered everything as promised for 75 years while in the private sector workers pensions and 401k plans plans have disappeared the moment it comes time to collect them into the pockets of the "Free Market" Wall St. bankers. Healthcare is an inelastic commodity without it u Die. Medicare has also delivered as promised. Both HC providers and end users agree it works well. Why pay an Insurance Corp. 35% of each $ to be a middleman?
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1
No, no you called these people fascist. Apparently taking people's money away at gunpoint, is okay. But to allow them to manage their own money is fascist. Fascist? You have no sense of what the hell is going on. You wouldn't know economics if it bit you in the ass and because of this, it is going to! Just because a ponzi scheme ran fine for 75 years doesn't mean it can go on forever. So you are f'ked anyway. Go cry in a corner somewhere.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Whatever...
weho1 1 month ago
People who dislike this video are simpleminded dweebs.
miazagora 1 month ago
@weho1 Most socialists describe how the free-market doesn't work by describing how it works when corrupted. You can't describe how something functions by describing it when its broken. That line of thinking is moronic.And it's just plain illogical. I can't say socialism doesn't work because it's facism. Corrupted socialism becomes facism, but to make the argument I would have to describe how socialism, while operating in its pure form, fails.
navsquid32 1 month ago
@navsquid32 Apperantly broken Capitalism also makes Fascism. They both lead to the same thing in the broken stage. ( look at the USA now, how there is no privacy and human rights left. Barely anything of the constitution remains because of these laws ).
We should go back to the pure form of capitalism. IF people are still below poverty line then, we can implent some socialism ( by giving a minimum income to survive, the rest you'll have to work for yourself ). A combi would prob be best. :)
WGutjens 1 month ago
@navsquid32 For the free market to work at all you'll need NO government interference in the market itself. ( Only the income security i mentioned before ). Like we have today with the bailouts ( Communism for the rich/big ass companies, but broken capitalism for the poor ).
WGutjens 1 month ago
@weho1 So what you're saying the free market doesn't work when people corrupt the system. No kidding. But then it ceases to be the free market and perform its original function. If your car breaks down, do you say "cars don't function properly!" and then ride your bike everywhere for the rest of your life? When that happens to me, I say "my car, when properly operating, provides a very useful function. I should fix it."
navsquid32 1 month ago
@navsquid32 You keep referring to the "Free Market" as if any market operates purely on supply and demand. The only place that happens is in a theorectical model, not in the real world. Even in a market with no Gov't regulation a small group of insiders will eventually find ways to game the market for their $ benefit.So wether Gov't is involved or not there's no such thing as a "free market". People like Woods who falsely claim free markets R a solution R the ones planning to game the market.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 It's a shame you don't read.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky Actually I've read quite a lot about the Austrian School of Economics as of late and what I've learned is disturbing. It's not that I don't understand it so much as we fundementally disagree. It all comes down to this: I believe the market exist to serve the people. You and followers of the Austrian School believe the people exist to serve the market.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 My snark wasn't fair, and I apologize. With all my talk of viewing people as individuals and criticism of central planning, I made the mistake of thinking that someone reading the same material as me would come to the same conclusion. Who have you read? Since the free market is merely a convenient term for the many trades made amongst individuals to satisfy their preferences, I would say from the Austrian perspective, it's impossible for the individual to serve it.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky It seems to me advocates of the Austrian School R quite militant in their criticism of Gov't and quick to judge everyone else they point figers at. So whats the bottom line end game for the Austrian School if you got everything you wanted tomorrow? Where would the Capital $ Flow? Whats the role of Gov't and the Public Sector? Who would be the winners and who would be the losers according to you and why?
weho1 1 month ago
@raystinsky Austrian perspective advocates greed believing Adam Smith's invisible hand always guides markets to a positive outcome. Such beliefs shift personal moral responsibility for ones behavior away from the individual to what you euphemistically call the "Free Market". Therefore, any perversion or suffering can be justified so long as the market demands it and someone profits $. Child prostitution, extinction of endanged species, monopolies, slave wages, serve the market Not society.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 To what percentage of the profit from his production is a worker entitled? The only monopoly in existence in the US is the Federal Reserve. How did that happen?
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky What constitutes a fair wage depends on many variables but a minmum wage should be sufficient to provide basic necessities in life like: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, disabiliy income for the sick and eldely.
Many Monopolies/Cartels currently exist that work together to eliminate competition and manipulate market prices for their product. Microsoft, Big Oil, Banks,Insurance Companies, Military Contractors, etc...
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 So in places where one thing or another costs more, the minimum wage should be set higher by government.
raystinsky 1 month ago
@raystinsky Dept. of Labor sets national Minimum which is currently $7.25 and hour or approximately $14,000/yr. which I beleive is below what the Census Bureau considers the poverty level.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 I didn't ask that. Give me your answer, not what you've been told to believe by your Wise Overlords.
raystinsky 1 month ago
Comment removed
weho1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raystinsky "Overlords"? This conversation has run its course. Greed & blind ambition r your overlords.Von Misses/Austrian school r the Economic arm of a Neocon Agenda. Its policies r a blueprint to destroy Social Security,Medicare and redistribute wealth from the middle class & poor to top 1% or 2% who apparently think they can rule like kings over the 98%. Even if the 2% succeeded taking over Gov't they can't maintain it without consent of the 98% Good luck with that! French Revolution? :-)
weho1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weho1
"Such beliefs shift personal moral responsibility for ones behavior away ..."
You really have no idea what they are advocating.. do you? LOL!
utubehayter 1 month ago in playlist Misesmedia
@weho1 I'm also not sure how the government could "allow" inflation of commodities (and I would hardly call oil and energy inelastic... quite the opposite, actually.) The market sets whatever price is appropriate (in the true free market), not the government. I would also disagree that oil and energy have an affect on all market sectors. Take precious metals for instance. Technology is also very often energy independent. The foolish actions of the fed can hit all sectors, though.
navsquid32 1 month ago
@navsquid32 I have my share of experience in the "Free Market" and I can tell you for a FACT there R 2 kinds of players in All "Free Markets" insiders that manipulate markets and outsiders who get skinned and if you don't know if you R an insider or an outsider guess what that makes you? A Sucker!
weho1 1 month ago
@navsquid32 Poor choice of words on my part, Gov't is interested in stability so when there is deflationary pressure on the economy they adopt monetary policies that encourage inflation in an attempt to create equalibrium. Deflationary pressure has largely been created by "Deregulation" and "Free Trade" policies with poor 3rd world countries who restrict their markets for our exports while dumping their cheaply manufactured products in the US with US Corporations acting as the middle men.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 If government were remotely interested in stability, why do they insist on creating bubbles, knowing that eventually they will burst? Why do they have the Fed print money and devalue our currency? Why do they mandate the purchase of particular items and invent regulations on top of regulations? They aren't interested in "stability!" Idgit.
miazagora 1 month ago
@miazagora Actually it was private sector on Wall St. that lobbied Congress and spent billions of $ to get Deregulation. The private sector then effectively increased the money supply by 500 Trillion $ printing and selling worthless dirivitive securities which the Gov't later had to collteralize after the fact to prevent total economic collapse. So the problems in our economy weren't caused by regulation but instead by the exact type of deregulation the Von Mises Institute advocates more of.
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 You seem to be mixing cost and currency deflation. Since ABCT deals with the market, I'll assume cost. ABCT doesn't equal cost deflation, but it is often a nice effect of it. The govt obviously doesn't fear lowering costs. What it does fear is what it perceives as a "stagnant" market, whereby not the govt but the federal reserve injects fiat currency into circulation, lowering interest rates and causing foolhardy investments. That CAUSES the deflationary economy through investment bubbles
navsquid32 1 month ago
Anyone who doesn't believe that the ABCT is the only possible way to allow economic health is either playing politics or is ignorant about economics.
navsquid32 1 month ago
@navsquid32 So ABCT = Deflation. Governments fear deflation so when faced with deflationary economy they allow inflation of inelastic commodities such as ENERGY/OIL that have an inflationary effect on ALL sectors of the economy in order to compensate. Correct?
weho1 1 month ago
@navsquid32 Well that sounds very Facist. Thanks for making your point of view clear!
weho1 1 month ago
beautiful thing!
basscataz 2 months ago
How would I love to see a proper debate between Thomas Woods and Ben Bernanke in prime time on national TV.
RiNSpy 2 months ago
Comment removed
weho1 2 months ago
Why is it so hard for people like weho and the OWS morons to understand that devaluing our money by 95% is the reason the middle class is getting screwed. Woods is correct right down the line. The problem is govt and its partnership with Wall Street through the Fed and other govt & quasi-govt institutions.
Jaycephus01 2 months ago 2
@Jaycephus01 What is occuring in our economy is NOT Inflation but instead Deflation! Thats what happens when you people making $25/hr compete with people making $1.50/hr to produce the exact same products.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 There IS currently some deflation in some places measured in certain terms, but housing costs are STILL inflated above the long-term baseline. They got inflated in the 1st place by the FED & Govt policies. Are they now deflating? Yes, while simultaneously, the FED is inflating like crazy to try to keep housing & other prices up. That is not 'more healthy' than just letting the deflation happen, especially when the initial INFLATION they are attempting to PRESERVE was artificial.
Jaycephus01 2 months ago
@weho1 Furthermore, this inflation from the FED has been very long-term, and much of the devaluation of the middle class standard of living came prior to the rise of China. It is NOT just cheap labor in the last decade that is the problem. Cheap labor is cheap labor. It is good for everyone except the cheap laborer, & even then he likes it just fine if he was coming from earning 50 cents an hour on a farm working 14 hours a day. Our problems are more complex than just 'cheap foreign labor'.
Jaycephus01 2 months ago
@Jaycephus01 Tell that to the MILLIONS of unemployed or under employed Americans who will soon be living in the cardboard condos in the HOOVER/BUSH-CHENEY VILLES. Interesting GOP lies about labour statistics by pointing out that household incomes have not declined significantly in the past 25 years but what they fail to mention is that INDIVIDUAL incomes/benefits including health insurance have steadily declined so now it takes 2 or more people each working 2 jobs to make same amount of money.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Our money supply has increased. Price changes are a result of inflation or deflation.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Context is important. Conservative ideology aka Crony Capitalism held sway under Bush/Cheney. They put wars of choice to enrich big oil, military industrial complex, Bush Drug Plan a Gov't sponsored monopoly for big pharma, deregulation of banks Wall St. on our National Credit Card. End result 2nd Depression. After the top 1% looted the U.S. Treasury, Cons now blame Obama for it and advocate austerity in order to lay $ burden on the 99%. Sounds like Gov't socialism for the 1% to me!
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 You will find that Thomas Woods rejects crony capitalism and that the history of central planning is one of crony capitalism. Most American Conservatives do believe in crony capitalism. Just like most American Liberals. I'm glad you reject government intervention in the marketplace.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky No I don't agree. History has shown Gov't is necessary to regulate fair market practices for common wealth of all. Like a football game there are winners and losers but everyone must play by the same rules and have an impartial referee to enforce those rules. Free market capitalist think markets will somehow magically sort themselves out and benefit of all. We tried that in the 19th century and the end result was a feudal system run by preditory capitalist Robber Barrons.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 The "robber barons" were subsidized by the government.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Actually it was the other way around. Founding Fathers created a Gov't run by the people for the people to empower the masses from the bottom up not the elite from the top down. Robber barons used their wealth to corrupt the system manipulate politicians change laws public policy behind the scenes same way corporations now RUN our legislature, court system and national media. End result was Gov't policy served interests of the few on top at everone elses expense. Sound familiar?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 @weho1 Yes, businessmen appealed to politicians for special protections for their businesses. You and I both oppose corporatism. You will find that Thomas Woods does, as well. You will not find him supporting any form of subsidy to business. The Founding Fathers were not angels. You will find the demand for a centralized bank (a form of monopoly) started rather early in our history. In the time of the "robber barons" businesses did receive direct subsidies from the government.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky
Well both the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs are labelled as robber barons, though only the political entrepreneurs really deserve such negative statements. The market entrepreneurs are true heroes, succeeding against all the odds that the politicians and their "businessmen" could put up.
Illyrien 2 months ago
@Illyrien I agree. I was holding back on pointing that out. I like the distinction between market and political entrepreneurs. I think I remember it from a mises.org article. I need to add it to my vocabulary--the distinction is so very clear using those terms.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky
Yep. I too got it from Mises. From the article called "The Truth About the "Robber Barons" ", I think. I also recently bought "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton W. Folsom Jr. I haven't gotten around to read it yet. Sooooo many books to read :)
Illyrien 2 months ago
@weho1
That big business is in bed with big government is hardly a secret. There are even names for this... we call it corporatism or mercantilism. Remove State intervention into the economy and the corporations wont have the option of using State powers against their competitioners. Corporations should compete against each others on the free market and let the consumers judge, not politicians. This is what the free market is about.
Illyrien 2 months ago
@Illyrien Business will always game the system. Your "solution" just puts the Fox where he wants to be in the Hen House. I've worked in Gov't and the private sector. The goal of business is profit even if as in the case of cigarettes it kills the customer. These are not the people I want in charge of making and enforcing the rules for the public welfare. We tried that in the 19th century what did we get? Monopolies, child labor, dangerous working conditions, slavery, dirty food, water ect. ect.
weho1 2 months ago
@Illyrien Btw the solution to Business corrupting gov't is actually very simple. It's called Campaign Reform. Take the MONEY out of running for public office. Simply make it ILLEGAL for ANYONE to make any campaign donation or quid pro quo gift. Publically fund all elections and level the playing field. Then Billionaires like Meg Whitman wouldn't be in a position to buy $ the Governorship of California and control the 8th largest economy in the world for the benefit of her cronies.
weho1 2 months ago
@raystinsky SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United is a perfect illustration. SCOTUS majority are Corporate sponsored ideologues engaging in Judicial Activism on behalf of their owners. SCOTUS defined Corporations = a Person with all the individual rights, except of course personal financial liability. They also ruled $ = free speech. Now what corporations or forgiegn Gov'ts lack in numbers of votes they can compensate for by spending billions $ using front groups to secretly influence our elections.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Corporate personhood pre-existed the Citizens United case. Most corporations are single owner, and the real money for candidates comes after elections. There are many non-profit corporations, as well. I've read the arguments in their entirety. Limited liability can be a problem, I agree.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky SCOTUS ruling eliminates the concept of 1 man 1 vote. Think about the implications of this? GOP is also passing laws that target falsely disqualify millions of poor and minority voters who statically vote 4 Democrats. Founding Fathers rebelled against authoritarian tyranny of King George designed our Gov't to defuse concentration of Gov't power between 3 branches.The Corp. sponsored GOP is well on it's way to reversing our entire system of Government. Totalitarianism will follow.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 During the Great Depression, farmers were sometimes forbidden by the government from growing additional crops for their own consumption in the name of price controls. I would say that reversal has already occurred.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky UR mixing apples & oranges here. Gov't job is to intervene to protect public interest from non-competitive market manipulation schemes such as monopolies and fraud. One thing the Wall St. melt down clearly illustrates is that DEREGULATION initiated by private sector businessmen allowed them personally enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers who they left holding the bag. So ur "Free Market Benefits All" theories just went up in smoke! How did that benefit anyone but them?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 If we had a free market, then you might have a point. We didn't come close to having a free market (which doesn't permit fraud), so at best you can argue that having some regulations but not others is a bad idea. We both agree that bailing out failure with government money is bad government.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky When in World History did a "free market" exist that insiders did not manipulate or exploit for personal gain? To do otherwise by the definition of "business" is a conflict of interest. How did this imaginary free market regulate itself and "not permit fraud"? You speak as if these things once existed and somehow got lost. My husband and I are successful capitalist but also realize there's a bigger picture beyond simply enriching ourselves at a less fortunate persons expense.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 It's not a conflict of interest to avoid resorting to State violence to promote one's interests--that is what a free market is. Many businessmen don't want a free market--they want the government to help them profit. All law is force. It's not a utopia. You will find much discussion of tort law and property rights amongst the free marketeers.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky So you equate the legitimate lawful excercise of power by a democratically elected Gov't on behalf of the people being govered to Violence? Then I guess that makes you an Anarchist and don't believe any form of Gov't is legitimate including Democracy. While were on the subject of utopia U never answered my previous question: When did this perfectly ethical magically self regulating free market you keep talking about ever exist in the history of the World?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 That all law is violence is a basic truth. When it is proper to exercise violence is another question. I refer you to Bastiat's "The Law" in that matter. It's a great work. I've never said a free market would be "perfectly ethical". Hence the mention of tort law. Your condescension isn't helping communication.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky It seems quite fashionable now for Conservatives on the lunitic fringe to call themselves anything else but conservative. I'm open to new ideas, but there's nothing new with Woods he's just repackaging same old tired conservative arguments of Adam Smith's invisible hand. Greed is good, he who has the gold makes the rules, I've got mine Fu#% everyone else. He supports his "conclusions" with revisionist history and references to a mythical free market utopia. Sounds like a cult to me.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 You will find a lack of support for many "conservative" values from Woods. What you label as revisionist history (apparently implying that all revision is untrue) is backed up. Neither Woods, nor any other classical liberal, is proposing a utopia. They propose equal protection under the law. We don't have that from progressives or conservatives. You need to entertain that there is (at the very least) a third position, out there. Stop viewing the world through government approved terms.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky "That all law is violence is a basic truth." Really, what makes that statement "Truth" just because Bastiat said so and you agree? Now who's the one being condesending here? You keep dodging the bottom line. Do we live in a Me society or a We society?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 I would have agreed had anyone said it. That's not what you meant, of course. Every law is backed by threat of violence. Every law is ultimately enforced by threat of death. In some cases, I argue its appropriate--laws against violation of life property are rightly backed by threat of violence in order to prevent or deter such violations. I'm not being condescending, I'm pointing out your binary political worldview. It's a statement of fact.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky My world view is hardly binary, left or right. From what I read briefly about Bastiat my impression is he is the ultimate anti-tax advocate because he doesn't believe anyone including Gov't has the autority moral or legal to ever take as a matter of course anything "produced" or "owned" by an individual. This seems like an extreme (binary) all or nothing world view to me. At least when it comes to Gov't authority. To better understand ur context do We live in a Me or a We society?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Society is an arbitrary term. I may do quite a lot for others, but I have no right to compel others to do the same. You live how you wish to live, barring initiation of aggression. By "binary", I refer to your apparent support of the two party system, which has led you to erroneously believing Woods to be conservative. Would you consider the view that murder is always wrong to be extreme? You should read Bastiat in whole, not "briefly".
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Since my reference to "Society" is something you apparently have trouble comprehending I will provide this definition of a society: a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Now based on that definition do you believe we live in a Me or We society in the United States?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Apparently, you live in an angry society. Now, are you asking whether we live under a government that may take from one to give to another? That is run by omnipotent moral busybodies who feel they can plan our lives better than we can for ourselves? Yes, that is the government under which we live. Do all of us need a gun to our heads to help people? No. Are some of us too lazy to do more, and so want laws to compel everyone to 'help'? Obviously. I'm writing to one, right now.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky So essentially your world view can be summed up as: "It's All About Me" and what benefits a person as an individual is always most important so long as it doesn't involve Violence. Yet you also define Violence as = to Gov't. taxing people. Wether you choose to call yourself a conservative or not is irrelevant, because this is one of the primary foundations of basic conservative ideaology which I find delusional and out of touch with reality for the following reasons:
weho1 2 months ago
@raystinsky For ANY market to EXIST on a stable sustainable basis requires a Society with Gov't infrastucture. This is why based on your definition of a "Free Market" (free from any Gov't influence) U & Woods can"t give 1 example of what U keep refering to as a "Free Market". All Markets are synergistic product of Society/We and Gov't collaboration organizing a system of trade that simultaneously benefits individuals as well as the Society.
As individuals this provides many opportunities to...
weho1 2 months ago
@raystinsky exploit the market for personal gain which is a incentive to provide goods or services that benefit Society. However, in many cases an individuals personal self-interest is in direct conflict with the best interest of the Society. Example: Illegal drug dealers. They take profit $ up front but on backside shift true cost of their product on society. People get hooked can't work, get sick and resort to crime and cease being productive. So gov't legitimately steps in to protect society.
weho1 2 months ago
@raystinsky Wall St. meltdown is another grand example. Wall St. bankers spent over $5 Billion over 10 yrs. to lobby/manpulate Gov't DEREGULATE the Financial Service Industry. They then created, misrepresented and fraudulently sold Trillions of $ in securities they knew were defective, took Hundreds of Billions in Real $ Profit on the front end and stuck Society/Taxpayers with worthless paper on the back end. So by your definition of Violence, Wall St. and the Private sector commited Genocide!
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Actually, weho, I have put myself in harm's way repeatedly for people, including strangers. I donate to charities. What I reject is that I have the right to force others to do the same. Your definition of the market holds to the corporatist definition of the market. You're a corporatist. It's your preferred system. Fine. Having traveled a bit, I've seen that government is not the only entity capable of constructing roads and bridges. Read a little, learn proper terms and some economics.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Well it is the case that my terminology as well as my spelling and punctuation when I type fast leaves much to be desired. However I seem to be communicating reasonably effectively. Btw I still waiting to hear your specific example or description of how this pure Free Market you keep referring to would exist without the context of a Gov't. infrastucture: police, fire dept, courts, utilities. Gov't provides these services at cost. Private sector would be cost + profit margin.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 I would argue, vaguely from the outside, that the government doesn't provide these services at 'cost'. Profit is not necessarily an added cost, but rather a reason for a good or service to exist in the first place. What you would call 'cost' for these services may in fact be largely overvalued. This goes along with the whole 'no free lunch' theory, meaning that 'free healthcare' is not actually free, but does come with a very substantial cost (taxes, debt, etc.)
reefpirate 1 month ago
@reefpirate Profit is NOT only reason for products to exist. In fact "profit" is a conflict of interest in many Gov't functions. Ex: privitization of prisons. Politicians, judges, police have $ incentive to incarcerate as many as possible. Jan Brewer AZ Gov. passed laws to incarerate thousands of illegal aliens after awarding Gov't contracts to private prison corp. she held stock in. There R many examples. Free market advocates focus only on self don't understand concept of the Public Welfare.
weho1 1 month ago
@raystinsky To add insult to injury the same corrupt Wall St. grifters who raped taxpayers & stockholders, pay guys like Woods to create dissent political wedge issues directing blame and anger away from them playing race and class warfare by shifing the blame on to Conservatives usual list of suspects: Big Gov't, and Liberal do gooders who forced Wall St. to loan money against their will to LAZY unqualified innercity brown people. This cynical ugly stuff created a backlash: Occupy Wall St.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Woods opposes the current structure , which permits companies to benefit from making bad investments, since losses are insured by the government and the monetary expansion provides those in the financial sector with money at higher value before it travels through the system, losing value. You truly know nothing about the man or about those (like him) who oppose corporatism. It's not the speed of typing that's hampering you. It's a lack of information.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky I agree there is a lot I don't know about Woods, but I based on what I have seen and read about him on line I don't think we will agree on much when it comes to the role of Gov't. but I promise to read at least one or two of his books and if as I suspect my BS detector goes off I will be sure to get back to you with specifics!
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Fair enough.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Root cause of our economic problems is external deflation pressure caused by transition into a global economy where Corp. outsource factories to 3rd world countries, pay labor what amounts to a bowl of rice. Costs of Labor, Energy & Capital r basic factors of all production that effect ALL sectors of economy. Inflationary monetary policies by US attempt to compensate/reduce huge trade deficit & jobs/capital outflow created by $ poor trading partners. Aka Ross Perot's sucking sound!
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 You have to be careful about your terminology. Deflation/inflation has to do with the money supply. Downward pressure on wages isn't deflation. Inflationary monetary policy isn't an attempt to counteract outsourcing--it's a means of enriching the government. It's a tax. As a corrective measure, it's based on bad economics. Are you advocating protectionism?
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky To extent major trading partners employ protectionism in their markets it should be considered. U.S trade policy is wide open thanks to lobbiest who rewrote US Gov't trade policy for benefit of their Corp. clients like Walmart that maximize profits outsourcing manfacturing to countries that don't have labor or enviornmental laws and ship their "cheap" products back to U.S. duty free as the rest of our economy collapses. This trade policy is know as "Dumping" and used to be illegal.
weho1 2 months ago
@Jaycephus01 Why is it so hard for ABCT Morons to understand that Private Sector Bankers Bribed/Manipulated Gov't to Dergulate Worthless Dirivitive Secirities Wall Street misrepresented and Rated AAA. Doesn't this amount to the Private Sector Wall St. bankers taking over Gov't functions and printing 500+ Trillion $ in counterfit securities? U blame Gov't for not stopping the corruption of the Free Market as well as too much regulation of the market at the same time. WTF? Make up your mind!
weho1 1 month ago
@weho1 There's nothing free about our markets. Keynesian economics says that we need a Federal Reserve, without it we would not have this highly leveraged, speculative, boom and bust economy. Watch this video if you really what to see the difference.
watch?v=5K4Os5eXPw4
tadaa11 1 month ago
When Reagan withdrew regulatory restraints on banking "products" (re-introduction of putative "investments" like CDCs) marketed to consumers without disclosure, and to all levels of government without accountability, an appearance of prosperity was created. As Woods clearly states, THAT is exactly when the damage was done.
keylawk 3 months ago
"No body's this stupid"
95% of the population believes government can "stimulate" the economy by taking money from someone productive, and reallocating it elsewhere.
Why does the government take money from Peter, give it to Paul and call it "stimulus"? I call it robbery.
EndTheFedRes 3 months ago
@EndTheFedRes - It's better than that. People believe that government can create money out of this air.
This leads to inflation, making both Peter and Paul poorer. They essentially make Paul borrow money, and give it to Paul, and call it a gift.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 And its not just Joe Blow that believes this. Professors, journalists, and congress critters like Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson Jr. believe this too. It's sickening how foolish some people in power actually are.
Jaycephus01 2 months ago
@Jaycephus01 To quote Republicon Conservative President Dick Cheney "Defecits dont matter" Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP Congress, none of this was an issue when the GOP held ALL 3 branches of Gov't, and ran the U.S. economy into the ground for the benefit the richest 1%. after a Black Democrat is elected President, suddenly conservatives become chicken little and keep crying the sky is falling. What a buntch of hypocrites. Interesting all your concerns seem to be focused on black politicians.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 @weho1 Quit being a demobot. Tom Woods & his fans are not racists, you simpleton. They were as opposed to Bush & Cheney then as they are opposed to King George Bush the Third, AKA Barrack Obama. Please grow some intestinal fortitude & own up to the responsibility of electing a truly horrid & unprepared president, to the responsibility of CONGRESS being controlled by Democrats for the last two years of Bush's term, & to the fact that dems have been equally responsible for this mess
Jaycephus01 2 months ago
@Jaycephus01 No surprise TOM WOODS is a member of the League of the South, an Alabama based organization that states its ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic." consisting of states that made up the former Confederacy. It's also a religious social movement, advocating return to traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture and a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates". Southern Poverty Law Center lists it as a white supremacist hate group .
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1
Oh, our good little demobot found a communist-front organization that condemns a religiously-affiliated organization. Shocking. Next you'll be quoting from a KKK website because they hate Woods too. If you want to get to the truth, go to lewrockwell. com and search for "Dreaded 'S' Word". Ironically, you are repeating exactly what neocons are saying when they attack Woods for being a 'libertarian'! LOL
Jaycephus01 2 months ago 2
@Jaycephus01 You said Woods political beliefs have nothing to do with racism yet Woods belongs to a White Supremacist Group that advocates a return to slavery and the old Southern Confederacy. WTF? U sound like a paranoid mental case. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a "communist front organization" but even it openly advocated Communism, so what ? League of the South is still a White Supremacist Organiztion.Guess that makes you an idiot as well as a racist. Please see my "Comment Policy"
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 Do you have a refutation of the video, or do you just wish to engage in ad hominem?
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Ad hominen, really? So U think Woods racist political views r not relevant to his overall world view on which he bases his opinions? I never heard of Woods until I saw this post. My 1st impression was that he's a shallow slimey opportunist preaching to the choir. Little did I reaize the choir were racist southern white people until doing more research. It is what it is, deal with it. Btw, I wonder if U asked Jaycephus01 about ad hominem Demobot, the KKK, and communist front groups?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 What did he say that was racist?
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Sometimes U have to read between the lines. Actions speak louder than words. Overt appeals to racism fail so now racist cloak their agenda in political Trojan Horses. Hilter was a brilliant politician except for that little problem he had with Jews. You seem to think you can compartmentalize Woods racist views and ignore the dirty laundry. I don't care to give Woods warped views on history, economics or social policy any more time than they warrent. Btw R U a white supremacist?
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 So you don't have a quote. You're reading between the lines based on his membership in a group. What about Thomas Woods's membership in a group named for a Jewish man? What about his adherence to the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership? His opposition, therefore, to the governments famous for persecution of certain segments of the population?
Race is accidental to humanity, weho. For you, race is apparently significant. For me, it isn't. I don't view people as collectives.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Yes race as well as sexual orientation is very significant to me to the extent it's used as a criteria by the majority to persecute the minority. Prop 8 in Ca is an example. You didn't answered my question. The question was not wether "you view people as collectives" it was do you believe in White Supremacy? The two are different things.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 I did answer your question. I didn't give you an easy yes or no, but I thought that since you were capable of reading between the lines, you would easily interpret my rejection of collectivism, and of race as anything but an accident of humanity. Since you couldn't: No. I reject the claims of white supremacy as asinine and worthy of contempt. Prop 8 in Ca. is ridiculous. Government has no business in marriage, at all.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky The only comments I made regarding racism were in response to negative racial overtones in comments from another Woods advocate directed to me. Since you're also an advocate of Woods and he is apparently belongs to a white supremacist group, I wanted to clairify the context of your advocacy. That's all. I consider the issue closed.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 I accept your surrender and retraction due to insufficient information. It could happen to anyone, jumping to conclusions as you did. I hope next time, you will do more research than reading a few stories from people who are advocates of Statism.
raystinsky 2 months ago
@raystinsky Statism? Can't revisionist historians and their slavish followers come up with an more original name for those who rely on facts to point out the fallacies of their wackey opinions. Like most conservatives you live in a world of make believe so it's easy to understand why you would misinerpret boredom for surrender.
weho1 2 months ago
@weho1 We could call it "LeMondufratco", but that's not very descriptive, is it? I used it to describe you. You haven't refuted anything. I am not a conservative. One of us is advocating the status quo--continuing down the same tired path. That's conservative. And it describes you. It's okay. They're only labels.
You should read Murray Rothbard.
raystinsky 2 months ago