@LibertyPen Hey Jim, it has been a long time since I've sent you a post.. I would just like to thank you for all of your hard work on your channel and for youtube.. I have personally turned on many many people to this channel to friends on and off youtube.. They love your channel.. Thank you for challenging me on some things I may not have agreed with you on as well. You truly are a great American
The Friedman Paradox... If you disagree with Friedman, you disagree with your own interests...unless you are ignorant of his policies. But no one who is educated of his policies would disagree with him. I guess what I am trying to say is that Friedman is the greatest guy ever.
Milton Friedman is the most brilliant economist and liberty based speakers in the history of our great country. He is 100% correct. We need to elect leaders that are complete and total followers of Milton Friedmans logic. We will preserve freedom and have a prosporous nation. An absolute gem was he. Keyensian principles and socialism light ie.. FDR is what has ruined our nation. We need a solid 20 years of Austrian Economics to reverse the damage that has been done!
We need a balance of Austrian economics, to offset the Keynesian principles. I've relayed this point to numerous Keynesians, and they simply state the obvious, which is that some people are less gifted than others. However, this rationalization, whereas correct, fails to include human action and motivation.
Many educated people learned pure Keynesian ism in college, and are ignorant to Praxeology.
@riverlioness You are completely correct. Our politicians know nothing about actual economics. But in credit to some,( ie a Ronald Reagan ) he read Hayek. Ronald Reagan was a man of principle and common sense. Not an economic man, but understood when he heard truth. After reading the road to serfdom his integrity would no longer allow him to be a leftist. He understood that it was truth he was reading. There is still hope for America.
@riverlioness Economics in the Keynesian school of thought always looks at the lit side of the street... They do not take in account human behavior... They do not understand, nor do they really get how important it is to study the human behavior factor... That is what sets apart the Austrian approach.. Leftists policies also do not account for results.. How could they when their results do not achieve what was intended.. This world would be a much better place if Austrian was dominant.
When I took economics in college, I tried to present the Austrian Economic debate, "here is the advantages of Keynesian ism, and the disadvantages according to Austrian economics" and she once critiqued that Austrian School was purely academic, and not practical. I told her, "Should we assume when issuing credit cards that all individuals are money wise, and will calculate the interest while spending? Is it impractical to foresee the risks of individuality?"
@riverlioness I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. In college you have to remember, especially in the earliest stages of economics classes. Most teachers of macro or micro economics are educators and not actuall economists. I have a degree in economics, but to be honest, it was only after school did I really understand the practices of economics. I mean we studied economics in college, but we didn't have the real world effects on us as persons. College professors are gov employees.
I absolutely agree with you 100% on the science of human action. An utilization of psychology and historical sciences is a necessity in weighing economic decisions. After all, money buys food, water, shelter, and warmth. I like what Mises said about sacrificing wealth, and comfort for an ideal is irrational. Keynes perceived Hayek's warnings of unintended consequences as mad, but I doubt he foresaw a $14 trillion debt to foreign banks. Ben Bernanke is just plain oblivious.
@riverlioness Boy my friend did you say it.... But I do have to say this about Keynes. I actually am in the minority with this opinion, but I think that Keynes knew that what is happening in this nation was a very real possibility. I think the reasons he adhered to his philosophy was that if a said country would fall due to Keynesian philosophy that it would lead to a one world philosophy.. It think Keynes was a sadist.
The unpopular opinion is usually closer to the truth. Keynes may have had some issues. Keynes lashed out at Hayek, because he threatened his ego. Keynes successfully convinced himself he was an economic savior, and, in his grandiosity, lost touch with reality. Keynes tended to that in his personal life, too. He perceived himself as a Romeo.
@riverlioness Oh and on Bernanke? Did you see the comment he made in a congressional hearing to Ron Paul whenever he was asked if he believed that gold was money? Then Bernanke said No???? WOW!!! I hear so called investment professionals saying all the time that only 10% of your portfolio should be precious metals such as gold or silver.. All I can say is go ahead and invest in something that is about to be bankrupt... I'll take the silver and gold
Ha ha. Do you think reading The theory of money and credit by Ludwig Von Mises would snap the Federal Reserve Chairman out of his optimistic state of denial? Foreign centralized banks prefer gold to monopoly money. Old Ben is doing the same song and dance as always, "prosperity is just around the corner."
That's wise of you to prefer silver and gold. Both gold and silver are stable. Unlike the inflated dollar.
@riverlioness We are in deep trouble at the moment.. If we are forced to remain in the Keynesian system, the least we can do is to stop borrowing from it.. Honestly, I do not see any politician that is understanding the damage the Fed is doing, and how it should be dealt with.. I did see in the debate the other night, both Paul and Gingrich talking about auditing the Fed.. I actually think that Gingrich is one of the brightest in America.. and was very happy with that statement by him..
The trouble began when currency lost its value, and this is economic aftermath. God, I hope an act passes through the house. The last time, Democrats jumped ship on an attempt to audit the Fed. Maybe Newt Gingrich can rally support, but it's a difficult task. Gengrich is bright but the Post Keynesian mindset is difficult to overcome. Ron Paul lost support for his proposal at the last minute, and his reasoning is sound. I am looking at the economic glass as half empty.
@riverlioness I know this is going to sound egotistical, but you and I are 2 members of a very elite club at the moment.. We are advocates of reality.. We understand the properties of how economics actually work.. We understand Keynesian economics and Austrian economics and how the Fed actually works.. Having said that, I am actually encouraged. Reason being is I have debated leftist endlessly on youtube, and I am finding more and more allies who are Libertarian or conservatives.. A plus 4 sure!
@SuperGuitarman69 You understand Keynesian and Austrian Economics, WHAT A LAUGH. The only thing you understand is that you have memorized every word Milton ever spake, and can quote him verbatim. You have also lost every debate you engaged in.
@louiethegreater No you are a masochist.. There is one problem.. I am not a sadist. Go away louie.. After the last time of beating you endlessly for weeks I am done with you.. Quit with the drive by insults by the way.. It doesn't make you right.. There is nothing you can do.. You are a communist leftist.. You and those who agree with you are directly responsible for our inner cities.. And you want the rest of the country to look like that.. You are not equipped to debate. Can you feed yourself?
@SuperGuitarman69 Wow SuperGayBe69 I don't remember our discussion as being like that at all. I just remember spending several hours attempting to teach you the fundamentals of protectionism. You spent several hours indulging in your fantasies.
@SuperGuitarman69 Hey Communism is working really well for China. Of course we have American Free Trading Communist investing in the PRC instead of their own country. Seems kind of miss guided on your part, that you could explain Communism to anyone, being as you are a Communist supporter. Are you saying that the PRC is not Communist, even though they say they are.
@rogeralejandro2007 Yes, laissez-faire capitalism works really well when, the masses of cheap labor are controlled by an authoritarian state. No worker protections, state controlled labor unions, open war on the environment ect.
In almost any modern econ textbook, neoclassicals, as well as some Keynesians, basically give the Federal Reserve a free pass, acting like they can do no wrong. One of them even wrote a book referring to Greenspan as "Maestro", which is just staggering to me. I've heard that Paul Krugman, in his econ book, basically shrugs off guys like Milton Friedman on monetary policy and acts like we don't have to do it well, that we can just screw around for the sake of "economic growth."
@MoneyIsSilver It's because he was practical in the application of his idealism. His proven ideals couldn't have total free reign in his contemporary situation, so he deferred to what he thought worked best within that system. In other words he adapted to the situation which is what any evolved being does. Unlike most liberals who try to cram an untried theoretical (or at worst, a failed) model down everyone's throat.
He did not support central banking in his later years. His idea was the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a computer that would print money soley on the basis of population growth.
We've never had a Free Market, it's always been a mixed economy. More and more we have the same sort of Corporatism that resembles the 'roaring 20's' and we now see the same thing results. It's not the fault of Capitalism, but Corporatism. What ever happened to 'best man for the job?' Nope, just hire my buddies and we can yuk it up all the way to the bank until the business is run into the ground.
I've always preferred Milton Friedman as an advocate for liberty to Ayn Rand. Sure, Rand's got interesting novels, although I've only read one myself (Anthem, for English class in HS), but Friedman's actually done research and can back up his claims with lots of empirical evidence and data, something Rand rarely did or could do. Von Mises was great as an advocate of liberty, too, although nowadays I'm a little more skeptical about how "real" Austrian economics is compared to neoclassical.
@whoo689 I agree with you that Friedman's empirical research provides a very good foundation for his ideas. But if you want to witness the sheer power of Rand's logic, read Atlas Shrugged. Anthem doesn't even compare to it.
@AlexanderLee1 As some1 who has read almost all of Rand's AND Friedman's work, I think that Atlast Shrugged is powerful on an emotional level rather than logical. Rand does a great job of illustrating the corrupt powers of gov. while in Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, he much more effectively lays out how Capitalism works in a more logical and intellectual way
@whoo689 I could not agree w/ you more. The biggest reason that I prefer Friedman to Rand is that Friedman was a consequentialist libertarian while Rand was more fundamental. So w/ Friedman, it's not that he thought something like the minimum wage was theft, he just thought it fundamentally did not work.
Also, I am more into monetarism as opposed to Austrian Econ. which is completely blind to mathematics. All famous austrians today like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff dont know a thing about math.
The other problem with Austrian economics I find is that they seem to have almost an antipathy towards empirical research and using things like regression to help prove or find evidence for their major theoretical points. They just use observation and logic, as if that passes for "proof" of a grand economic theory. But economics is a social science, and like any science, you need to PROVE, or at least provide evidence empirically, before you can make bold claims.
@flukemate Austrians refer to THEIR method of "proving" economics as "praxeology", which to me is just a fancy mumbo-jumbo term for "We don't know math or econometrics, so we're just gonna wing it and see what happens." In the complex world of economics, you can't afford NOT to use complex tools like regression and chi-squared to try to figure out if your theories are true or not. You have to test them against real world evidence. People CAN be studied to some extent on behavior.
@flukemate Guys like von Mises and Hayek assert that you can't use history to prove or give evidence towards an economic point, but that's bull! How else could von Mises have advocated free markets and against tyranny if he didn't know how tyrannical Soviet and Communist societes were?? How else could he know if he hadn't studied, at least minimally, the American economic miracle? Of course history can provide a good basis for deducing empirical truths. Everyone knows that.
@flukemate I think this is the main reason the Austrian school is not as mainstream in modern econ. If Austrian economists had not shunned empirical research tools and done a complete 180, unlike all the OTHER major economic schools of thought being taught in econ at the time (monetarism, Keynesianism, neoclassical, etc.), which did plenty of empirical studies to test their models, maybe they'd actually be a mainstream economics. I mean, they make pretty bold claims about monetary policy.
@TimeWarp66 Well, Austrian economics places a huge importance on good monetary policy. Neoclassical not so much. They seem to treat inflation in modern macro as just some random fluctuation in the economy that occurs spontaneously, and no one ever can figure out why. They treat inflation as INEVITABLE. Folks like von Mises and Hayek, on the other hand, placed a lot of importance on NOT creating money out of thin air or letting a central bank control so much of our econ, for example.
@TimeWarp66 Neoclassical economists, esp. bigwigs at the investment banks or maybe places like CNBC, oftentimes tend to almost worship at the altar of Alan Greenspan or other Fed chairmen. Austrian economists and advocates do NOT give the Fed this kind of unthinking praise. They realize the Fed is not to be held up on a pedestal and should be criticized when it does wrong. Most neoclassicals LOVED the housing and dotcom bubbles and were willing to take advantage. Austrians were more cautious.
@TimeWarp66 You could say, to sum up, that Austrian economics is basically a weird marriage between neoclassical and monetarism with some of the prenuptial conditions thrown out ahead of time. I think the most significant difference between Austrians and neoclassical is that Austrians know ahead of time what will happen if we create artificial bubbles. For example, similar things happen in the 1920s, and guys like von Mises could see the crash coming. Neoclassicals were totally blind to it.
@TimeWarp66 Peter Schiff was on tons of Fox News and CNBC shows in the 2000s before Lehman and Bear Sterns failed saying the bubble was bogus and was bound to collapse sooner or later and cause a huge financial hurt. Everyone else laughed at him, but who's laughing now? As much as I decry their lack of empirical research and using tools like regression analysis to prove their theories, oddly enough, the Austrians do have enormous predictive power.
@TimeWarp66 Neoclassical economists (and many stupid Keynesians) put way too much faith in the bubble economy of 2002-2008. They thought, like the Japanese in the late 1980s, that this would last forever. And unfortunately, the Keynesians who had little idea what was going on are the ones who are being allowed to rewrite history and set all post-crash policy, as if this was ALL the market's fault, and the gov't did nothing wrong! If anything, both market and gov't are to blame.
I really enjoy listening to Friedman. However, he was one of the architects of the employer "Withholding Tax" scheme, and was originally a Keynesian supporter... Although, I think he changed his view on that latter in life and believed in abolishing the Fed.
@slhines7 Obama could have appointed Volcker. He didn't. FED Chairman is simply a man of the President. Reagan supported the right but painful policy of Volcker. Obama likes cheap money.
@vorbeigehende Yes, I guess so but for whatever reason, BO did not appoint Volcker. Either way, I don't think that it would have been much better really. As long as the FED keeps the printing presses going the way they are now, it ain't gonna get better. Watch Melt up when you get a chance. Or the Dollar Bubble.
Lol, the guy at 3:00
cdoftx 1 month ago
@LibertyPen Hey Jim, it has been a long time since I've sent you a post.. I would just like to thank you for all of your hard work on your channel and for youtube.. I have personally turned on many many people to this channel to friends on and off youtube.. They love your channel.. Thank you for challenging me on some things I may not have agreed with you on as well. You truly are a great American
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
The exchange must be both voluntary and rational to produce mutual benefit
anthonygador 7 months ago
The Friedman Paradox... If you disagree with Friedman, you disagree with your own interests...unless you are ignorant of his policies. But no one who is educated of his policies would disagree with him. I guess what I am trying to say is that Friedman is the greatest guy ever.
adulby 9 months ago
3:03 yawning fool. i'd be entranced, not tired
wegreenall 10 months ago
Milton Friedman is the most brilliant economist and liberty based speakers in the history of our great country. He is 100% correct. We need to elect leaders that are complete and total followers of Milton Friedmans logic. We will preserve freedom and have a prosporous nation. An absolute gem was he. Keyensian principles and socialism light ie.. FDR is what has ruined our nation. We need a solid 20 years of Austrian Economics to reverse the damage that has been done!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
We need a balance of Austrian economics, to offset the Keynesian principles. I've relayed this point to numerous Keynesians, and they simply state the obvious, which is that some people are less gifted than others. However, this rationalization, whereas correct, fails to include human action and motivation.
Many educated people learned pure Keynesian ism in college, and are ignorant to Praxeology.
riverlioness 7 months ago
@riverlioness You are completely correct. Our politicians know nothing about actual economics. But in credit to some,( ie a Ronald Reagan ) he read Hayek. Ronald Reagan was a man of principle and common sense. Not an economic man, but understood when he heard truth. After reading the road to serfdom his integrity would no longer allow him to be a leftist. He understood that it was truth he was reading. There is still hope for America.
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
@riverlioness Economics in the Keynesian school of thought always looks at the lit side of the street... They do not take in account human behavior... They do not understand, nor do they really get how important it is to study the human behavior factor... That is what sets apart the Austrian approach.. Leftists policies also do not account for results.. How could they when their results do not achieve what was intended.. This world would be a much better place if Austrian was dominant.
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
When I took economics in college, I tried to present the Austrian Economic debate, "here is the advantages of Keynesian ism, and the disadvantages according to Austrian economics" and she once critiqued that Austrian School was purely academic, and not practical. I told her, "Should we assume when issuing credit cards that all individuals are money wise, and will calculate the interest while spending? Is it impractical to foresee the risks of individuality?"
riverlioness 7 months ago
@riverlioness I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. In college you have to remember, especially in the earliest stages of economics classes. Most teachers of macro or micro economics are educators and not actuall economists. I have a degree in economics, but to be honest, it was only after school did I really understand the practices of economics. I mean we studied economics in college, but we didn't have the real world effects on us as persons. College professors are gov employees.
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
Comment removed
riverlioness 7 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Really? Not at my school, a lot of entry level professors were economists on loan from businesses.
ak47523 7 months ago
@ak47523 What school was it? I have never had a professor that didn't have a degree in economics.. Then again that was my major.
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 University of Delaware.
ak47523 7 months ago
@ak47523 Ah I see, that may be very well true... I know that some schools that are not known as economic institutions will do that..
SuperGuitarman69 7 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Well he had a degree in economics but used in practically as an analyst at a corporation. Where did or do you go?
ak47523 6 months ago
@ak47523 I went to Wash U
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
I absolutely agree with you 100% on the science of human action. An utilization of psychology and historical sciences is a necessity in weighing economic decisions. After all, money buys food, water, shelter, and warmth. I like what Mises said about sacrificing wealth, and comfort for an ideal is irrational. Keynes perceived Hayek's warnings of unintended consequences as mad, but I doubt he foresaw a $14 trillion debt to foreign banks. Ben Bernanke is just plain oblivious.
riverlioness 7 months ago
@riverlioness Boy my friend did you say it.... But I do have to say this about Keynes. I actually am in the minority with this opinion, but I think that Keynes knew that what is happening in this nation was a very real possibility. I think the reasons he adhered to his philosophy was that if a said country would fall due to Keynesian philosophy that it would lead to a one world philosophy.. It think Keynes was a sadist.
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
The unpopular opinion is usually closer to the truth. Keynes may have had some issues. Keynes lashed out at Hayek, because he threatened his ego. Keynes successfully convinced himself he was an economic savior, and, in his grandiosity, lost touch with reality. Keynes tended to that in his personal life, too. He perceived himself as a Romeo.
riverlioness 6 months ago
@riverlioness Oh and on Bernanke? Did you see the comment he made in a congressional hearing to Ron Paul whenever he was asked if he believed that gold was money? Then Bernanke said No???? WOW!!! I hear so called investment professionals saying all the time that only 10% of your portfolio should be precious metals such as gold or silver.. All I can say is go ahead and invest in something that is about to be bankrupt... I'll take the silver and gold
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
Ha ha. Do you think reading The theory of money and credit by Ludwig Von Mises would snap the Federal Reserve Chairman out of his optimistic state of denial? Foreign centralized banks prefer gold to monopoly money. Old Ben is doing the same song and dance as always, "prosperity is just around the corner."
That's wise of you to prefer silver and gold. Both gold and silver are stable. Unlike the inflated dollar.
riverlioness 6 months ago
@riverlioness We are in deep trouble at the moment.. If we are forced to remain in the Keynesian system, the least we can do is to stop borrowing from it.. Honestly, I do not see any politician that is understanding the damage the Fed is doing, and how it should be dealt with.. I did see in the debate the other night, both Paul and Gingrich talking about auditing the Fed.. I actually think that Gingrich is one of the brightest in America.. and was very happy with that statement by him..
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
The trouble began when currency lost its value, and this is economic aftermath. God, I hope an act passes through the house. The last time, Democrats jumped ship on an attempt to audit the Fed. Maybe Newt Gingrich can rally support, but it's a difficult task. Gengrich is bright but the Post Keynesian mindset is difficult to overcome. Ron Paul lost support for his proposal at the last minute, and his reasoning is sound. I am looking at the economic glass as half empty.
riverlioness 6 months ago
@riverlioness I know this is going to sound egotistical, but you and I are 2 members of a very elite club at the moment.. We are advocates of reality.. We understand the properties of how economics actually work.. We understand Keynesian economics and Austrian economics and how the Fed actually works.. Having said that, I am actually encouraged. Reason being is I have debated leftist endlessly on youtube, and I am finding more and more allies who are Libertarian or conservatives.. A plus 4 sure!
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You understand Keynesian and Austrian Economics, WHAT A LAUGH. The only thing you understand is that you have memorized every word Milton ever spake, and can quote him verbatim. You have also lost every debate you engaged in.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater Yeah you are back to be spanked again?? Put in your ball gag moron
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Yea, I am back in an attempt to educate a morbidly ignorant supergaybe.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater No you are a masochist.. There is one problem.. I am not a sadist. Go away louie.. After the last time of beating you endlessly for weeks I am done with you.. Quit with the drive by insults by the way.. It doesn't make you right.. There is nothing you can do.. You are a communist leftist.. You and those who agree with you are directly responsible for our inner cities.. And you want the rest of the country to look like that.. You are not equipped to debate. Can you feed yourself?
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Wow SuperGayBe69 I don't remember our discussion as being like that at all. I just remember spending several hours attempting to teach you the fundamentals of protectionism. You spent several hours indulging in your fantasies.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater No you spent several hours explaining how state controlled markets were the answer.. I explained that communism doesn't work..
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Hey Communism is working really well for China. Of course we have American Free Trading Communist investing in the PRC instead of their own country. Seems kind of miss guided on your part, that you could explain Communism to anyone, being as you are a Communist supporter. Are you saying that the PRC is not Communist, even though they say they are.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater PRC? What the fuck dude.. Go lay down somewhere..
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Oh, the PRC, they are a democracy now right.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater Chinas economic model is very capitalistic
rogeralejandro2007 2 months ago
@rogeralejandro2007 Yes, laissez-faire capitalism works really well when, the masses of cheap labor are controlled by an authoritarian state. No worker protections, state controlled labor unions, open war on the environment ect.
louiethegreater 2 months ago
In almost any modern econ textbook, neoclassicals, as well as some Keynesians, basically give the Federal Reserve a free pass, acting like they can do no wrong. One of them even wrote a book referring to Greenspan as "Maestro", which is just staggering to me. I've heard that Paul Krugman, in his econ book, basically shrugs off guys like Milton Friedman on monetary policy and acts like we don't have to do it well, that we can just screw around for the sake of "economic growth."
whoo689 1 year ago
Friedman talks such a good free market game, but then he supported central banking. Does anyone else see a contradiction?
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago 3
@MoneyIsSilver It's because he was practical in the application of his idealism. His proven ideals couldn't have total free reign in his contemporary situation, so he deferred to what he thought worked best within that system. In other words he adapted to the situation which is what any evolved being does. Unlike most liberals who try to cram an untried theoretical (or at worst, a failed) model down everyone's throat.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@MoneyIsSilver
He did not support central banking in his later years. His idea was the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a computer that would print money soley on the basis of population growth.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 I'd have liked to have asked him "why not just leave money creation to the free market?"
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago
We've never had a Free Market, it's always been a mixed economy. More and more we have the same sort of Corporatism that resembles the 'roaring 20's' and we now see the same thing results. It's not the fault of Capitalism, but Corporatism. What ever happened to 'best man for the job?' Nope, just hire my buddies and we can yuk it up all the way to the bank until the business is run into the ground.
CerebralSimian 1 year ago
Comment removed
jklolbrblmfao 1 year ago 12
@jklolbrblmfao Yes, it really is a great example.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@jklolbrblmfao Very Very well said
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
I've always preferred Milton Friedman as an advocate for liberty to Ayn Rand. Sure, Rand's got interesting novels, although I've only read one myself (Anthem, for English class in HS), but Friedman's actually done research and can back up his claims with lots of empirical evidence and data, something Rand rarely did or could do. Von Mises was great as an advocate of liberty, too, although nowadays I'm a little more skeptical about how "real" Austrian economics is compared to neoclassical.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 I agree with you that Friedman's empirical research provides a very good foundation for his ideas. But if you want to witness the sheer power of Rand's logic, read Atlas Shrugged. Anthem doesn't even compare to it.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@AlexanderLee1 As some1 who has read almost all of Rand's AND Friedman's work, I think that Atlast Shrugged is powerful on an emotional level rather than logical. Rand does a great job of illustrating the corrupt powers of gov. while in Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, he much more effectively lays out how Capitalism works in a more logical and intellectual way
flukemate 1 year ago
@flukemate Keep in mind that "Atlas Shrugged" was a work of art, not an essay. Have you read "The Romantic Manifesto"?
shamgar001 1 year ago
@whoo689 I could not agree w/ you more. The biggest reason that I prefer Friedman to Rand is that Friedman was a consequentialist libertarian while Rand was more fundamental. So w/ Friedman, it's not that he thought something like the minimum wage was theft, he just thought it fundamentally did not work.
Also, I am more into monetarism as opposed to Austrian Econ. which is completely blind to mathematics. All famous austrians today like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff dont know a thing about math.
flukemate 1 year ago
The other problem with Austrian economics I find is that they seem to have almost an antipathy towards empirical research and using things like regression to help prove or find evidence for their major theoretical points. They just use observation and logic, as if that passes for "proof" of a grand economic theory. But economics is a social science, and like any science, you need to PROVE, or at least provide evidence empirically, before you can make bold claims.
whoo689 1 year ago
@flukemate Austrians refer to THEIR method of "proving" economics as "praxeology", which to me is just a fancy mumbo-jumbo term for "We don't know math or econometrics, so we're just gonna wing it and see what happens." In the complex world of economics, you can't afford NOT to use complex tools like regression and chi-squared to try to figure out if your theories are true or not. You have to test them against real world evidence. People CAN be studied to some extent on behavior.
whoo689 1 year ago
@flukemate Guys like von Mises and Hayek assert that you can't use history to prove or give evidence towards an economic point, but that's bull! How else could von Mises have advocated free markets and against tyranny if he didn't know how tyrannical Soviet and Communist societes were?? How else could he know if he hadn't studied, at least minimally, the American economic miracle? Of course history can provide a good basis for deducing empirical truths. Everyone knows that.
whoo689 1 year ago
@flukemate I think this is the main reason the Austrian school is not as mainstream in modern econ. If Austrian economists had not shunned empirical research tools and done a complete 180, unlike all the OTHER major economic schools of thought being taught in econ at the time (monetarism, Keynesianism, neoclassical, etc.), which did plenty of empirical studies to test their models, maybe they'd actually be a mainstream economics. I mean, they make pretty bold claims about monetary policy.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 You seem to say an awful lot about Rand's work for someone who only read one book.
shamgar001 1 year ago
@whoo689
What the hell is the difference between neoclassical and Autrian economics???? They must only distinguish at the margins.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 monetary policy I think.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Well, Austrian economics places a huge importance on good monetary policy. Neoclassical not so much. They seem to treat inflation in modern macro as just some random fluctuation in the economy that occurs spontaneously, and no one ever can figure out why. They treat inflation as INEVITABLE. Folks like von Mises and Hayek, on the other hand, placed a lot of importance on NOT creating money out of thin air or letting a central bank control so much of our econ, for example.
whoo689 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Neoclassical economists, esp. bigwigs at the investment banks or maybe places like CNBC, oftentimes tend to almost worship at the altar of Alan Greenspan or other Fed chairmen. Austrian economists and advocates do NOT give the Fed this kind of unthinking praise. They realize the Fed is not to be held up on a pedestal and should be criticized when it does wrong. Most neoclassicals LOVED the housing and dotcom bubbles and were willing to take advantage. Austrians were more cautious.
whoo689 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 You could say, to sum up, that Austrian economics is basically a weird marriage between neoclassical and monetarism with some of the prenuptial conditions thrown out ahead of time. I think the most significant difference between Austrians and neoclassical is that Austrians know ahead of time what will happen if we create artificial bubbles. For example, similar things happen in the 1920s, and guys like von Mises could see the crash coming. Neoclassicals were totally blind to it.
whoo689 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Peter Schiff was on tons of Fox News and CNBC shows in the 2000s before Lehman and Bear Sterns failed saying the bubble was bogus and was bound to collapse sooner or later and cause a huge financial hurt. Everyone else laughed at him, but who's laughing now? As much as I decry their lack of empirical research and using tools like regression analysis to prove their theories, oddly enough, the Austrians do have enormous predictive power.
whoo689 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Neoclassical economists (and many stupid Keynesians) put way too much faith in the bubble economy of 2002-2008. They thought, like the Japanese in the late 1980s, that this would last forever. And unfortunately, the Keynesians who had little idea what was going on are the ones who are being allowed to rewrite history and set all post-crash policy, as if this was ALL the market's fault, and the gov't did nothing wrong! If anything, both market and gov't are to blame.
whoo689 1 year ago
The Free Market FTW.
KevZen2000 1 year ago 30
I really enjoy listening to Friedman. However, he was one of the architects of the employer "Withholding Tax" scheme, and was originally a Keynesian supporter... Although, I think he changed his view on that latter in life and believed in abolishing the Fed.
Cut away of the kid yawning is funny.
iFreedom4ever 1 year ago
Too bad he is dead and can't be our Federal Reserve chairman.
slhines7 1 year ago
@slhines7 why would you want such a great man heading such a putrid institution?
Elasaltaculos 1 year ago 14
@Elasaltaculos I guess you are right. It sucks that we could even pass a bill auditing the crooked Fed, let alone end it.
slhines7 1 year ago
@Elasaltaculos Yea, I guess that you are right, puke:(
slhines7 1 year ago
@slhines7
Obama appointing Friedman for FED Chairman?
what do you smoke?
vorbeigehende 1 year ago 2
@vorbeigehende Well, he is dead either way so it doesn't matter. I was just saying that Bernanke and Greenspan are complete opposites of Friedman.
slhines7 1 year ago
@slhines7 Obama could have appointed Volcker. He didn't. FED Chairman is simply a man of the President. Reagan supported the right but painful policy of Volcker. Obama likes cheap money.
vorbeigehende 1 year ago
@vorbeigehende Yes, I guess so but for whatever reason, BO did not appoint Volcker. Either way, I don't think that it would have been much better really. As long as the FED keeps the printing presses going the way they are now, it ain't gonna get better. Watch Melt up when you get a chance. Or the Dollar Bubble.
slhines7 1 year ago
first?
hahahaspam 1 year ago