The Political Economy of War | Thomas DiLorenzo

[successfulbuild]

Finally, Rothbard never gave any "proofs" of the logical axioms and he certainly never made any known contributions to any other fields. His claim was that there was some "empirical evidence" for the axioms, although he never presented any. The justification for the "deductive approach" to economics just gets worse as time goes on. Robert Murphy claims that he "feels" that the axioms are correct. Of course, nobody cares what some idiot who thinks chaos theory disproves evolution "feels."

[nadadreamer]

south koran was dumping their steel on the US. This would lead to distrotion in our economy and korsn. Until austin economics, economics in generaL, stop blinding beating the free trade drum NO ONE will listen to crap. It is esay to sit at desk egghead ranting about free trade but if your a MAYTAG working in iowa who lost his 24 / hr job with benefit only to a 12/ hr without benefit that is real pain

WE, USA, ARE THE ONLY DUMBASSES IN THE WORLD THAT BLINDLY BELIEVE IN FREE TRADE.

[robertk1968]

Suber talk and educationally insightful !! Thank you for this post !!

[61markt]

@successfulbuild I know your trying to say something come on now just let it out!

[swiftysmithuk]

@successfulbuild

"I spent 30 million dollars on Austrian economics, and all I got was this lousy action axiom."

LOL! Good one.

I did'nt spend a dime because they publish all their stuff online for free.

Those darn capitalists, now they have found a way to exploit me without it actually costing me anything!

Doh!

[Blastfimus777]

@successfulbuild Check out spocktalk and Fringelements. Teach you some real history besides that religious doctrine you petal. I'm on vacation...your a good laugh anyhow. btw, Liberal is not what you are in the true meaning but you would know this, if you liked to read.

It's all fascist but just not you kind...right? And again, we're not a capitalist society nor have we been since 1948; please read more. Here: Noam Chomsky and Carroll Quigley, so you know what a real lib is...okay? very good.

[KSTCBH23]

@successfulbuild I cannot tell if you are using the political or the historical use of the word liberal in regard to your comment about the civil war. However, you must remember that at that time period, it was the Democrats who held the moniker "Liberal" during that time and until 1900 (today used as a pejorative). And, it was the southern Democrats that formed the Confederacy. Slavery was a prime issue, but it was when tariffs were imposed on slave-states that the states began to secede.

[Mechanized0]

@successfulbuild Though I would strongly disagree with the foreign policy of the Palin-wing of the Tea Party movement it is hardly AstroTurf. However, if conservatives believe that simply "voting the bums out," if you will, and replacing them with the neomercantilist Republican Party reduce government they are once again allowing themselves to be fooled.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

If you're referring to the criticisms by Kaplan, Krugman et al, their critiques probably did more to strengthen their opponents than otherwise. Having a methodology that is more sophisticated than building lots of pretty equations around post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies, which is the sum total of most macroeconomics, is not unscientific; it is unfictional.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill You obviously have no comprehension of modern science or modern economics. There is no such thing as a purely deductive, or purely inductive science. In mathematics we use inductive reasoning quite a lot actually, and certainly it is used in computer science. Furthermore, you have done nothing other than making blatant claims that Rothbard apparently has backed up without citing any examples. Give me some examples of how equilibrium prices, demand functions are fallacious.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill His name is Brian Caplan, not "Kaplan" [SIC], and, yes, his rebuttal is a very good critique of Austrian economics. It also shows what an idiot many Austrian economists were (such as Rothbard). Rothbard didn't even understand the implications of neoclassical economics. He claimed "step functions" somehow more accurate modeled the world than demand curves - which makes absolutely no sense. If you had examples of his contributions, you would have provided them.

[KSTCBH23]

@successfulbuild How is Koch Industries a monopoly? Can you not buy carpet, petroleum, paper, fertilizer, etc elsewhere? Does Kock Industries have the ability to charge monopoly prices for their goods? No. As for Standard Oil, it dramatically reduced the cost for lighting oil. It did not have the power to charge monopoly prices.  In fact, it often charged prices well below that of its competitors. Darn those companies that make it cheaper for me to enjoy a higher quality of life...

[pretorious700]

@successfulbuild What's pathetic is your compulsion to leave the same dogmatic bullshit comments on every Austrian vid.

[CurtHowland]

@successfulbuild "Pathetic."

Indeed. Have you considered therapy?

As for philosophy, please see YouTube/user/stefbot

[successfulbuild]

@CurtHowland So the answer to one cult is another cult. Got it. And he just bans anybody who disagrees with him, whereas Austrians apparently just wine and refuse to debate anybody who points out errors in their ridiculous philosophy.

[condobeacon]

@successfulbuild don't flatter yourself. We choose not to get drawn into a discussion with an angry, irrational, nervous, biased, internet troll. Someone with "intellectual wherewithal" is calm and doesn't spit venom in a youtube forum. It's really pathetic guy. No one, not even Bob Murphy would be able to change your biased opinion. It's clear you don't want to debate or learn, you just want to be right and justified.

Go smoke a joint and calm down.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Honestly, you don't even know what you're defending vis a vis mainstream economics. Even crass Keynesianism is based on a theory, one that presumes its fundamental predications to be sure, but it's not purely empirical.

[KSTCBH23]

@Nintendomanwill "Even crass Keynesianism is based on a theory, one that presumes its fundamental predications to be sure, but it's not purely empirical."

I would be willing to bet that SB never read Keynes' 'General Theory', "Consequences', etc, or Samuelson's 'Economics' (he's admitted to never reading Austrian economics. While he attacks Austrians, he never poses any ideas that have any relation to economics. It is akin to criticizing the people of Chile, even if you have never been there.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Seeing your economics will be fun, if anything.

[successfulbuild]

"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion"

[heckler73]

Perhaps it would be better to consider the Austrian School as a branch of Economic PHILOSOPHY, since it has no practical application...

To which, I suppose the only hope is in Post-Keynesianism ala Steeve Keen or Hyman Minsky... or Wynne Godley...

Good luck to you THEORiSTS...

This was 1hr38min I will not be able to get back...

or you, for that matter...

Talk about low Marginal Value....

Bwahahahahah

[heckler73]

It's unfortunate that Austrian Economists [sic] don't know how to summarize their "ideas" using Algebra, never mind Calculus...

Step into the 21st century, you Luddites !!!!

[Nintendomanwill]

@heckler73

You're the philosophical Luddite, if you think that equations can teach us things before the concepts have even been DEFINED, you fucking moron.

[heckler73]

@Nintendomanwill

allow me to offer a more poignant critique for your edification,

(from Debunking Economics)

"...though Austrians eschew equilibrium analysis, and regard it as an unattainable state, their preference for capitalism as a social system is partly dependent on the belief that it will remain close to equilibrium. If, instead, capitalism is endogenously unstable, then it may remain substantially distant from equilibrium situations all the time."

resolve that issue w/o math, thanx

[DemandPerfection]

@heckler73 Mises does a rather good job of resolving that without math. I would recommend reading Human Action, Chapter 16, Section 1. (Google "mises xvi prices the pricing process" to find it.)

[heckler73]

@DemandPerfection Thank you for the reply, but I'm afraid, from my reading of Chap 16.1 , Mises does not address the WIDE DISEQUILIBRIUM that occurs in the markets (all markets, not just in the speculative). Although, perhaps there is a particular part of 16.1 that you are referring to? Could you quote it for me? All I can see is that Mises sees markets with MINOR Disequilibrium (<5 Sigma). He does not address the FAT-TAILS that occur on a more regular basis than is theoretically presumed...

[DemandPerfection]

@heckler73 If you're referring to Black Swan events when you mention "wide disequilibrium", then you're right - I haven't seen Mises address those directly.

Though from what I've seen, it's the non-Austrians who primarily use mathematical models of aggregate statistics in an attempt to predict how often such events "should" occur, and (as you noted) often fail to predict accurately.

If you were speaking about something else, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill "Conceptual science" was a fad used in the 80s to attempt to explain the nature of physics, math, etc., without actually using math. It was a popular science technique, not an example of real science. Differential equations are accurate approximations of the world regardless of what an individual "conceptually" believes.

[successfulbuild]

The fact is that the people who have studied this stuff at a real University (not Mises University) are more than qualified to discuss this stuff than you. Austrians on YT have apparently shown the following: that physics is an axiomatic science (I guess starting from the axiom "matter is"), that they've resolved the liar paradox, and now they've proven all "mathematical economics" is a fallacy.

_

I don't want to miss the next advancement from Department of Mother's Basement.

[Panax07]

@successfulbuild By "Real" you mean gov-sanctioned schools that articulate a pro-gov line that the US is number 1, Keynesian Economics works, and War can be beneficial to an economy.

If a "real" is defined by the GUNverment then give me "Imaginationland U" anyday.

[heckler73]

I bet Stephen King would make a great Austrian Theorist....

His penchant for verbal diarrhea would make Von Mises blush...

[reapfreak]

@successfulbuild Spamming a youtube video solves little.

[truevoice08]

@successfulbuild Your showing yourself off as a typical social democratic troll who takes democracy as a be-all-end-all argument for the state. Sorry to say, nobody takes you seriously.

[condobeacon]

@successfulbuild let me guess...you have an obama sticker on your bumper....moron

[successfulbuild]

@condobeacon Are you Austrians going to keep making ad-hominem attacks or do you want to debate? I'm just posting facts and asking questions. I don't think creating alternative accounts is going to help the debate.

[surrealnumber]

@successfulbuild "Are you Austrians going to keep making ad-hominem attacks or do you want to debate? I'm just posting facts and asking questions."

odd it seems that is all you have been doing, have fun with your statist view and arguments where by the only historical evidence you have is that of the retelling that the states tend to do.

[successfulbuild]

@surrealnumber So you think that all historians and academics are "statist" and there research is somehow tainted. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Do you have any evidence to confirm your belief?

_

Oh, that's right, you reject historical analysis as well as fact-based empirical research.

[strokjl]

@successfulbuild

"Oh, that's right, you reject historical analysis as well as fact-based empirical research. "

This statement alone exposes your complete lack of understanding of the body of Austrian work. Perhaps you should read a little of the academic work done by Austrians and then come back. Praxeology is but one way to analyze human action. Historians like Woods and the economists like Rothbard actually cite their references, unlike many mainstream "historians".

[KSTCBH23]

@strokjl Not only do they cite their references, it is clear that while Rothbard and Mises were superb economists, they were also knowledgeable of many other academic areas. When you look at the academic range of their references, one will usually ask oneself, "how in the world could one man ever hope to have read so much material in one lifetime"? If you would go out and buy all of the books/papers mentioned by Rothbard/Mises, you would amass quite a wide-ranging, voluminous library.

[Nintendomanwill]

@KSTCBH23

People who call Rothbard an intellectual lightweight have only read his materials that he intended for a a wide audience, so claiming such about Rothbard is tantamount to sticking a sign on your head saying; I shy away from sophisticated materials. But then why would we expect total non economists like 'successfulbuild' to bother with a most logically rigorous treaty like M, E & S, when he has stated that govt intervention works because they funded the internet.

Ce qu'on ne voit pas?

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Who funds the schools and universities then? Square pegs go into square holes, and in this case the academy is a statist hole that imbibes statist acolytes. If you were intelligent and critical enough you would actually have gone to university to find this out for yourself.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill So the reason why Rothbard's "logical analysis" was rejected in economics is because the "statist acolytes" conspired to keep it out? And your proof of this is where? This is a ridiculous analysis as academia has often been a safe haven for all kinds of dissidents who opposed the governments' actions in more direct ways than "Austrian economics" - such as anti-war activists. Communists were still in academia during the red scare.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill Einstein as well was thought to be a "radical," "anarchist" etc. but was welcomed by academia although groups of conservatives often opposed him.

_

Furthermore, many "anarcho"-capitalists, including Caplan, are at publicly funded universities. Of course many Austrian "economists" are too, and they do nothing other than try and find more succinct ways to explain how Mises' axioms explain the universe (all fallacious ways, of course).

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill Nintendomanwill has given at least three different variations of his educational experience. When I first encountered this troll, he was "studying at Oxford." Later he changed it to studying at a college in the UK. And finally, in the Chomsky vs. Buckley video, he claimed he had plans to transfer to MIT.

_

The only way one of Robert Murphy's students will be accepted to a bona fide University is if they were cleaning it.

[condobeacon]

@successfulbuild surrealnumber is correct, most of your comments have been ad-hominem attacks. I suggest you study the works of Mises, Rothbard and Hayek before you open your mouth. No one can read, "human action" and not convert to austrianism.

[successfulbuild]

@condobeacon Typical cult member idiot. I back up my facts and note that you're an idiot when you refuse to accept them. And yes, people have read Mises crappy book "Human Action" and have rejected Austrian economics. It has generally received negative reviews from economists - and even some Austrians - and is largely ignored in the economic canon. It's nothing more than a series of invectives.

[condobeacon]

@successfulbuild you win, i am powerless to your obviously superior brain. say idiot more in your next reply. lol.

[KSTCBH23]

@successfulbuild "people have read Mises crappy book "Human Action" and have rejected Austrian economics. It has generally received negative reviews from economists - and even some Austrians"

Yes, I am quite sure that most mainstream economists reject it, mainly because it represents a threat to their livelihood. If you make your salary from the State, obviously you would not want to endorse something that is critical of your employer. Please name some "Austrians" that have rejected it.

[successfulbuild]

@condobeacon Give me an example where in Mises shitty book "Human Action" he invalidates, say, even a neoclassical assumption using only logic.

[surrealnumber]

@condobeacon it is odd that he would make these claims with Thomas DiLorenzo when Dilorenzo sights all of his sources in his books and nearly all of them have been first hand.... at least the books of his that i have read.

i am not the kind of guy to fight pointless internet fights with people who obviously have no background in the subject matter.

[utubehayter]

@condobeacon Obviously "successfulbuild", knows nothing about Austrian economics or the relation between Koch and Austrian economists. Please ignore him. Many folks imagine that the purpose of economics is to "run the economy" - from their perspective. Now, given that "rich" folks like Koch are said to be funding the Austrian perspective - in a badly researched article in recent press, these folks jump to their predetermined conclusions in haste.

[zalida100]

This is very interesting stuff. Delivered with great style. Much appreciated Doc.

[capitalist4life]

That's a great point at about 8:48.

"Protectionism is something that we do to ourselves in peacetime what our enemies would like to do to us during wartime."

[bartj777]

DiLorenzo is one of my favorite speakers at Mises. His stuff is always good.

[residentzombie]

@bartj777 Tom Woods is a bit better in my opinion. He has better sattire. I would rank the top 3 as this: 1) Tom Woods 2) Tom DiLorenzo 3) Robert Murphy

[utubehayter]

@residentzombie

You forget Walter Block and Ralph Raico? Block is my favorite living economist, and Raico my favourite living historian.