6a by the way it's was assumed that democracy would have a profit loss system under the idea of "retrospective voting". This is the concept that bad instittuions and politicians are purged, as a they would be in a market if they don't perform. This notion was shattered when social scientists witnessed individauls blaming politicans for acts of nature like shark attacks and earthquakes. Democracy is tremendously irrational, that is , unless politicians cause natural disastors.
If you would like an epistomological system that considers shark attacks the fault of the current administrater i will wish you well with it. But i urge you to recognize the structural problems with democracy and keep it for yourself. I don't think everybody should live under a marekt structure. It should be a personal preference. 'We should bulid a world that maximizes subjective preference rather then uses violence to enslave each other.
I totally agree that todays democracy are a farce, they are no democracies... at large and they will never be for as long as Bi Finance strangles the world by its presence and acting out on whole nations putting them at war against each other.
The ACTUAL EVIL and WRONGNESS of todays financial system is exonentially, infinitely larger than the POTENTIAL problems and misunderstandings and inefficiencies of TRUE democracy.
Democracy has clear structural problems like condorcets paradox. Even if you could impose the system you wanted then graft democracy onto it you have not removed condorcet or arrow's critiques which lead to my 1-7. You cannot create a global social preference order under democracy, It's impossible.
"We should build a world that maximizes subjective preference rather then uses violence to enslave each other."
Totally, 100%. But the things... you don't seem to understand social functions, do you? Ever heard of the prisoners dilemma or other related, well understood pheonomena? If you're unable to aggregate individual preferences into collective ones, your "maximization" is quite arbitrarily egocentric.
Yes i have and it's the basis of Robert trivers research on reciprocal altruism (71) which has had a fundamental impact on my support for capitalism and rejection of anything the left or progressives have to offer.
markets are not egocentric. If anything democracies are more egocentric because they serve the fewist who have the most politcal capital.
This truly is a whole bunch of twisted thinking. There are black sheep all over the place, especially with todays manipulative powers around.
What you call "nature" is willfull manipulation and should be considered as a criminal act when one is a social representative abusing ones position merely granted by those electing them.
There is much less reason and soundness to an individuals egocentrism than to collective agreement and work for the better of society at large.
Individuals do not work for the betterment of society at large. They work to advance their individual self interests. Markets ensure that society benefits because violence isnt' used as a tranactional method in the social interface. Democracy, dictatorships, collectivism uses increases the degree of violence in transsactions nullifying exit options, This allows individuals to benefit at teh expense of society in the name of representing society. Violence in all transactions should be minimized.
4) stop taking todays western world for being democracies, lobbying is what we have these days"
No lobbying is what businesses have. Those with money have the power under democracy because the peopel are emasculated, they have no voice. The larger the democracy the more this is true. Global democracy would be a disaster. I'm a middle class american, i can't lobby the gov to not give paint thinner firms regulatory advantage over their competators so i must pay higher costs for that product.
This , by the way is how the USSR taxed it's citizens, through higher consumer product costs granted to firms that obtained monoply privlage. the USSR only approximated socialism for about 4 years and it failed miserably when they have to re-institute money.
public choice theory attampts to bridge the gap between institutions. One method of my current critique here is based on the vote as money comparison. They both serve respectively identical functions
There is no socialism in the USSR and there never was, neither before, nor after what is proposed as the end of the cold war.
Notice that all the hot nuclear material is far from gone... and I truly wonder who really controls that. I am certain that it were all to easy for the Bilderbergs of this world to even decide on triggering one or some of them just to get a hold on social changes undercutting their reidiculous power.
The USSR is nothing but a social mafia system, disgusting.
1917 to 22 is what i'm refereing to. It was the closest approximateion to socialism ever. And i agree USSR wasn't socialist because socialim is impossible.
The USSR is nothing but a social mafia system, disgusting. As will be any institution that relies on democracy.
"No, lobbying is what businesses have. Those with money have the power..."
I totally agree. But it is not that democracy is the reason for this system failure... ti rather is that people are to lame or lazy to understand that there is no democracy as of today.
Therefore it is not true, that the problems get bigger, the bigger the democracy... unless you keep calling todays western societies and their international unions to be democratic.
When your vote has no value your not incentivized to inform yourself of politicies or reps. therefore lobbying>voting by a spontaneous emergence of self interst. The self interest of the business who wants to profit and the self interest of the voter who just wants to relax when tehy come home rather then spend hours debating policy.
3a) is not an irrational point. It was based off research performed by Philip Converse "the nature of belief systems and mass publics" which argues that the large majority of voters are Rationally ignorant.. ( notice i didn't say ignorant. Rational ignorance means it's incentivized to be un-informed about something.. For me it's fishing i don't fish, bcs i dont' like to, and i can obtain fish meats in stores. There is a rational reason for me to be ignorant in this regards. same for voters.
Why ? bcs the value of my vote is infinitesimally low. There is thus no reason to inform myself regarding policy bcs my vote is likely to have no impact. Now you said you wanted smaller democracies, this might somehwat mitigate this problem but fundamentaly it still exists.
As I said, and I think it should not be necessary that we repeat ourselves... it is necessary for democratic decision making patterns to be part of every single bit of society... compartmentalised in meaningfull ways such that people (can) decide especially on the things in their near environment.
That goes agaisnt everything i just said. I don't see any reason to do this. Even more frightening is the idea this should be imposed on me? should it?
I didn't say, that I wanted smaller democracies... what I said was... I want it on all levels and that doesn't exclude large-scale organisation structures... like the UN.
What seems to be missing these days are reasonable means of veto, at least when it comes to decisions in the European Union.
I don't care on bit if your call that or reference to "research".. at all. And I admit, I still haven't quite grasped your idea or definition of being "rationally ignorant".
If 'incentivized to be uninformed' is to mean just that... then I can't see the rationality in such ignorance. Instead, I would find people to be lazyass motherfuckers who don't give a shit for the pain and suffering they cause for prefering to be dumbass consumers watching tv to find out what's new in the world (to buy).
What happened to you advocacy for freedom ? What's wrong with peopel sitting around in their house watchign tv rather then reading policy papers all night? Should a person be able to just come home from a hard days work and relax? I know alotta people that cannot stand discussing politics ( they tend to not like me much, cause that's all i do) What's to be done with these people ?
1 The idea of rational ignorance is based on costs. There are costs to learning information. You must spend time obtaining, reading and internalizing. These actions require something else be sacrificed. Going on a date, watching american idol, learning calculus for an engineering degree. These are costs because they are things that must be sacrificed while you read policy stuff. A rational ignorant
2 A rational ignorant person recognizes that the value of their vote is miniscule( its probability to be the deciding vote in an election) and thus they prefer to engage in non-policy related activities that advance their interests. Its irrational for me to learn to air condition repair if the costs would require a sacrifice greater the the costs to just have somebody come fix it. And only I can evaluate those costs as they are subjective.
A last one for all you free-market, liberal consumerist vanities.
Ask that child in Bangldesh about its liberties when producing your sneakers 10 hours a day.
Ask those Africans on lake victoria where they see their natural ressources being genetically modified and then exported, leaving them with fisheads dumped on the ground to feed their hunger.
Ask those animals under intesive livestock farming, how they like market prices dictating their world.
Don't forget, those area's have regional governments that impact the development of markets in their locations. Governmetns and markets are inextricably linked. Any criticism of Markets without an analysis of the role or incentives states create is critical.
I understand what you are saying, but I hope you understand as well, how privatisation pushed through IMF/WTO "development aid"... creates indebtedness rather than freedom for the people of such countries, all the greedy benefit going to big finance, at last ...or who is it, providing these funds?
The most dominant role for governments which I can identify is that of being corruptible... of selling out their own countries people and resources (to sustain their ignorant idea of power ?).
I got one more thought for you free market fetishes:
Why do you think unbelievably huge expenditures go into the military all over the world? That is, because it is the Bilderberg's/Rothchild's/... way to:
* blackmail societies & wilfully chain up societies through debt
* generate steady "income" for them
* sponsor all sides in a conflict
Ain't that some beautiful free market? Reason will surely deal with that.
Just get it, the FED is not the problem, but what is behind it + weak democracy.
What your observing is called Rent seeking. As long as you have a government and "rationally ignorant " people the politcal class and business lobbies bank on our apathy and use the state to transfer costs to us. The state in this sense emerges as a market but it subverts primary market function.
This is not about transerfing costs! I would truly wish you started trying to understand & agree on that.
There is no need for exorbitant military expenditures. There is financial blackmailing and ignorance. Those people are corrupting and infecting everyones minds with false convictions.
You know, the World Trade Center was actually bought not too long before 9/11 and insured at a whole lot more than their actual value.
How much would you have to pay to some "arabs" to bring them down?
On military expendatures we are in accord so you needn't sell me on supporting the military industrial complex. But under democracy individual will transfer costs to each other regardless of if there are wars or not. Rent seeking doens't only occur from defense firms, but from unions, from non-profits, from massive software cooperations, the healthcare industry. They transfer costs to you to enhance their profits.
The strategy of (big) finance is to devide an conquer to their own benefit... there will not be a single healthy and reasonably free market in that for as long as this basic corruption defines the shape of our lifes and societies.
Free markets turn make the rich canabalize other rich via trade compeition. democracy, and a state allows rich to use the state to not only canabalize other rich competators, but also transfer the costs to consumers. The state and democracy are aberations of our social nature. The more we depart from the model of free voluntary transactions and property ownership the more exploitation we will experience.
The fallacy of that demand side economic policy is this:
That it delays the natural pullback to sustainability, a reaction that will NOT be abated by further inflationary spending, and creates future instability, as counter cyclical inflation ends up making govt permanently inflationary/and big.
Basically, demand siders view inflation as a measurable quantity, a MASS, rather than a FORCE. They think-if deflation occurs: inflate. But to inflate to reach neutral again allows further inflation.
To explain to other libertarians precisely why people believe that we need to act in such a way as created the crisis, in order to reduce it: economy inflates beyond its means and deflationary pullback occurs in credit crunch. Either allow that to reap its brief destruction (Austrian view) or increase means to supply (and demand) by stimulus that can then increase the means of the economy thus negating recessionary pullback to bring inflated economies within their means.
A bit wordy and repetitive, but when he gets to the point, he explains some key economic ideas really well in layman's terms so that anyone can understand it. Really great talk, just maybe 5 or 6 minutes too long.
The only reason I mention that is because I'm the only person I know that has even heard of the Mises Institute and I doubt anyone I share it with is going to sit through a 30-minute video on economics, which is unfortunate because so many people are clueless about most of it.
(The people of both nations are better off when nations specialize according to their comparative advantages and trade freely than they are with protectionism.)
When there are no externalities, market pricing mechanisms allocate resources efficiently.
They should change the endangered species act so that it simply gives a tax break if the endangered animals live there and no restrictions. They should just come check every year to prove it. That would make people WANT to have the animals live there ONLY.
The fact that he looks and speaks ordinarily--in other words,he's smart,but avoids talking down to his audience is why he's easy to learn from. He avoids jargon and uses examples to make his point. He's a good teacher.
lol well things are Objective lol so they have a value. somethings have more philosophical value that others i.e. water vs. a diamond. but i dunno, just sayin.
yes i've heard of it. but that's not my point, you can have a shit load of water, which we do. and it doesnt change the fact that you need water to live, it has a higher philosophic value than a diamond. lipstick vs. a microscope , obviously the microscope has more philosophic value, but a lipstick to a secretary will have more value lol
The theory of marginal utility explains this. If you're in the desert and don't know when you are gonna get to the nearest town, water might be more valuable to you than the diamond. if you have a diamond in the desert but believe that you'll get to a town soon enough, then you might value the diamond higher than water and simply sell the diamond once you get in the city to buy water and other things. Or maybe the diamond has sentimental value and you never give it up.
as long as that's understood. I got some classes (not economics classes) where we had lectures on it as if it were set in stone or something, like my friend put it "as if people carry it around in their pocket and check it before they act" lol
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The core of what this guys economics teaches: it ignores what is at the heart of the financial system... a bloody exponential function.
(Compound) interests? It takes ~5 Minutes to realize how that screws up everything from resource management to democracy, justice including a free market.
Failing to recognize this, your economics is a bunch of bullocks. You're trying to turn economics into fun stuff, while what drives it is outrageously f$%&ed.
Please, stop rating my comment badly because the tone doesn't seem to suit your mood.
Instead, go figure how much you'd have to pay back if 2000 years ago someone, like god 'ol Jesus, had loaned you one cent; le't say at a reasonable interest rate of 5%.
If that doesn't make you realise why ALL current monetary systems are a stinking fraud and that it is NOT governments that run countries ...well, I can't help it.
Money is 'fictitious' debt, above all, a means of slavery and control.
@realisoph There are lots right here on the misesmedia channel. Many, many lectures etc.. Very easy to understand, almost to the point of it being common sense and also a very good tool to help explain why current economic policy will fail.
please read my challenge below and let me know what you think... and to what degree you think the Mises institute is at least somewhat congruential in terms of "ideals".
Governments have proven themselves time and time again not capable to be given such power, even with a set of rules, and being able to refrain from abusing such a system. When people vote for rulers who have that capability at their fingertips, they are going to start promising what you listed below in order to get elected. It wouldnt work
As Condorcet adn Ken Arrow illustrate there is no way to obtain a global social preference order from a system with two options. Democracy thus leads toa dictatorship of the minority..
But that's not all, The larger the population the lower the value of your vote. Therefore your not RATIONALLY incentivized to inform yourself. This is called "rational ignorance" and is illustrated in phil converses research on belief systems.
Which one? Today's false one? The concept in general? As we are granted only black and white electoral choices every few years, there is no democracy.
Things don't have to remain thus.
It's rater EASY to implement systems for citizens to assign preference points or vetos to discrete decisions, instead of political colours or parties.
"Democracy leads to dictatorship of the minority"... is a contradiction of tems, and don't care who you quote.
"The larger the population, the lower the value of your vote."
That is indeed so and therefore #1 reason to demand democracy throughout all levels of society, independently, and to assess democratic decisions in the area only where they apply, while still forming representative boards of people discussing and suggesting decisions on theses matters in a broader context.
So democracy must be compartmentalised, obviously.
"Rational ignorance" you only get tryng to see and control all at once.
How do you do that ? by force? what if i want to leave a democratic syndicate, must i vote for my freedom from them? What hapens when one skilled individaul offers himself to multiple competing syndicates and the winning bidding syndicate gives that skilled indi complete control of the firm. Then yo uhave classical market ownership emerge again if the skilled can outperform other syndicates.
Other than point number two, you won't find much congruence with that at the Mises Institute. A Misesian economist would abolish central banks, replace central bank money "creation" with private money "production", eliminate attempts to subvert the market rate of interest, promote savings as a prerequisite for rational capital investment, eliminate arbitrary limits on income and property, etc. But you can hardly debate those points in a YouTube comment string with a 500 character limit.
There is no reason for folks in the austrian school to prohibit/advice against private individuals spending money to procure adequate defense for their property. So point #2 will not hold because of its absolute "never".
@utubehayter: Perhaps incorrectly, I interpreted point number 2 as opposing the creation of money to support military aggression. (The term "new funds" led me to that interpretation). To that extent, an austrian economist would likely agree. But as you point out, self defense funded by real savings (i.e. "old" funds) is another matter.
I strictly oppose any kind of detached monetary investment gambles. I also find todays concept of individual savings to be one of the major problems in the conception of healthy monetary systems. While indeed bigger projects require more assets to achieve any of them, it is the kind of hoarding of money... in it's extremes resulting in the top 2%, the attitudes of "let your money work for you", that - together with its exponential nature - are at core of todays system failure.
No, the core of today's system's failure is price controlling interest rates. Definitely not saving or "hoarding" or "speculating" or any other shibboleth you wish to speak of. The bogeyman isn;'t out to get you....
Economics - or Austrian econ - is older than the current system and has anticipated its failure time and time again. It is mainstream econ and especially Keynesian rubbish that is bollocks, but not all econ...
Ok, here's a challenge: I find it irrational to abolish central banks. I believe we need a democratic global financial system. Here's what I promote: 1) international, democratic, debt-free money creation; promoting social (development) projects 2) new funds never for military purposes 3) no private money creation ever 4) no (compound) interests 5) no prime rates (obviously) 6) no more "let your money work for you" 7) upper bounds to income and property (x times average) 8) a UBI & you?
I find it entirely rational to abolish central banks. I believe we need the spontaneous order of an unplanned, free-market global financial system. The de facto monetary standard must be the one that stands the test of the marketplace. This de facto standard would almost certainly be gold-based, but this would not rule out other silver based, commodities based, or innovative electronic means of exchange.
On the other hand... the only reason why we cannot but be utterly suspicious towards any such institutions is exactly because of the way things work today in a monetary sense.
What I am talking about is the chance of real democracy ...when different, obviously democratic, money creation and distribution patterns are in place.
For such a thing to happen, there must be no more Bilderbergs & Goldman Sachs other than them being more or less lovely names.
Its not congruential with the specific ideas (2,3,4,5,6,7) at all. But the fuzzy ideas like (1 &8) - it is very likely no one from mises institute would agree with you.
So essentially, none of my ideas make you think that Mises is a match for me. I find that to be quite astonishing. Is it not they who tend to picture themselves as sort of revolutionary, dirfferent, going for the real deal of change?
I hope you understand my disappointment about that obviously not being so.
On the other hand, this is ever more reason to talk with you guys about considering the matter from quite different angles... which I sure am not the only proponent of.
No, we're simply not the kind of people who buy into any and all nonsense merely for the sake of being 'revolutionary'. Enough of what we believe in is genuinely revolutionary and no, Misesians are quite familiar with 'debt-free money' and other such stuff, it is just economically silly to force it on anyone at any grand scale...
See, I am not selling anything. Simply daring to picture a completely different road from todays bullshit doesn't make it nonsense, now does it?
If you suggest my ideas being nonsense, tell me about why instead of just labling it that.
Who said anything about forcing it on people on grand scales? I am very much promoting that people, one by one, have a right to agree upon their own alternative monetary systems... in order to overcome todays. Nothing wrong with that!
You/'re asking questions on Youtube about Mises. What you need to be doing instead is going to the Mises website and reading for yourself, and stop expecting Youtube commenters to answer all your questions for you. Do some research on Austrian economics so that you understand what is being discussed here.
I suggest you tell me why anything you said is a 'challenge'. And yes if you want to engage in alternative monetary system do so but don't expect other people to abide by bans on interest &c, be they 'democratic' or otherwise.
Here's a challenge: stop believing in bullshit! There is nothing with money being "debt-based" if it is what voluntary parties to the exchange want. Dunno what is wrong with compound interest or "letting your money work for you" and you sure as hell have no right to dictate how much other people earn. I find it irrational to keep the very system that causes crises and funds wars. Please come up with a real challenge.
You don't know what's wrong with compound interests? Get to learn exponential functions and why those create utterly unjustified imbalances by lame idiots selling other lam-o's phantasies of "let your money work for you".
I do not dictate people how much to earn! Instead, I ask everyone to discuss and, if the majority agreed, to implement restrictions of this kind via social agreements. I believe +80% of all folks had about enough of unduly rich cocksuckers controlling their lives.
1) yes it does, waste is a problem as long as resources are finite. Under a democracy Waste isnt' internalized via a profit loss signal. Individaul voters must attemt to outperform the market in this regard and the historic record indicates the market outperforms everybody.
What does waste have to do with democracy being inefficient?
Todays economical markets are simply rooted on UNSUSTAINABLE production mechanisms controlled by big finance, every single one of them.
The only reaction that "Under democracy waste isn't internalized via a profit loss signal" is that of confusion and some question of: What are you talking about?
"Voters must attempt to outperform the market"
What performance?
Cancerous markets outperforming democracy: Good or bad?
Withotu a profit loss signal , as you replace this with the opinions and perceptions of people you will not be able to identify and eliminate waste.
Performance, the abiltiy to identify a method that is profitable or is able to rationalize production at the lowest social costs. Costs exist regardless of economic structure. Costs are next highest preferences that must be sacrificed. Democracy doesn't have a means of ID costs liek proft loss signals.
I see no reason in why democracy would ignore waste and not strive for efficient (and therefore most beneficial) methods of (incentivizing such) production... again, not suggesting some sort of centralised form of planning.
On the other hand, imagine the world of today if all the funds and brainpower that went into the Manhattan Project would have been spent on sustainable economics.
Or the cost during and after WW2. Life is not about markets but about healthy preferences.
Democracy contains no profit loss signal. This is illustrated in Von Mises economic calculation challenge to socialist about 50 years ago. How would a single voter know if a firm was producing optimally when he has no profit statement to look at ? How does a voter decide if a firm is wasting to much or not? price signals perform this f(x) through direct comparison.
Moving production marginally away from price signals toward democracy cannot be accepted to any degree if cost exists.
by the way if you wish to criticise the current system be my guest and i will join you, but know fundamentally i'm an anarcho capitalist. The idea that we live in a capitlist system is false, i just will not accept it. If your going to engage in a analysis of the political economy your going to ahve to integrate the state as well as the peopel who vote in it under scrutiny. People do not have virtue on the basis of how subjectivly exploited some think they are
2) this means that individaul errors manifest in a loss of recognition between relational variables in a system Not a random dispersion of bias but a actual vectoral ignorance that manifests in incorrect decisions. Therefore institutions formed under democracy will be wastefull and will never outperform markets.
This is illustrated in Fremling , Lotts research "THE BIAS TOWARDS ZERO IN AGGREGATE PERCEPTIONS: AN EXPLANATION BASED ON RATIONALLY CALCULATING INDIVIDUALS" which is not online :(
There are no "correct decisions" in any absolute sense.
The only distinction that I find important is whether or not there was social agreement on a chosen path... thus the decision pattern being democratic, stupid or not.
In case you havent't noticed, it is the errors we make from which we learn (as societies).
There is no need for democracy outperforming markets. There is not even an incentive for performance as being the critical measure in a world abundant of necessary goods, like ours.
There are correct decisions when you have to decide what type of cement to use ina bridge that can so much tonnage of support freight traffic. Society idealy must want to minimize costs rather then maximize them. You can't expect production to use 18 units of something when it could use 6 units of the same. Democracy doesn't not advance you additional resources so you can compete with markets.
I dunno some are some arn't. If you providing decentralized social planning what is teh size of the Phalanx , or society , that engages in demo planning. A market allows 1 individaul to plan and relseaes soemthig to the market. If you attemt to rationalize production amongst many I can exit how ever many individauls there are. Thus a market enhances its' ability to extract knowledge and act on it as 1 person can plan and offer that product. My ability to exit to his offer is a + signal of value.
Please understand, that democracy does not mean to abolish the notion or idea ro reality of markets in general... it doesn't even conflict with it.
It most definetly interferes with todays corrupt financial system and all those false markets or rather manipulation systems without any goods or market at all, which stem from it.
Democracy does also not mean to prohibit trade... though there are numerous valid and reasonable restrictions that it might impose.
Democracy screws itself up. Many people would argue that a monarchy is actually more favorable than a democracy.
The reason you pay interest is because you are paying to use someone else's money. You are paying to tie a resource up in something that could otherwise be placed elsewhere. Duh? Clearly you see no value in providing capital towards new endeavors; under your model, innovation would completely stagnate and no one would lend any money out thanks to a total lack of incentive.
"Democracy screws itself up. Many people would argue that a monarchy is actually more favorable than a democracy."
I believe you just completely put the reality of the matter upside down. Most people are two things:
1) historically accustomed to being obbedient
2) living with the false conviction of living in a democracy, where in fact what we have is a plutocracyand the false images of political leaders, wannabe monarchs.
democracy is stupid. only decent system is a republic.
if people don't have a right to property, people ain't going to work as much to the detriment of everyone else in society. democracy can vote away right to property, majority just has to think its good for them.
"Democracy is stupid. Only decent system is a republic."
I don't get your point at all? In what sense do you think you can distinguish democracy from republic by such abstract insinuations? What is the kind of decency you see in a republic which you're unable to find in (true) democracy?
Who said anything about people not having a right to property? Isn't there a difference between a right to property and undermining democratic principles by controling the masses through money?
We'll free market is democracy, democracy and republic at same time. You vote with dollars. The businesses that are doing things well get more votes and stick around. Should laws be voted on democratically? should laws be created by law makers? or people in high positions in office, i dont think so. maybe laws should be more local and changable by democracy on small scale, not on a national level so if u dont like laws u can go to another place.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I find you fundamentally neglecting many, if not the most important, aspects of society where money simply is and should not be the measure of things.
Or do you think there is a 'free' market for democracy, justice, truthfulness, peace? You cannot buy these things. Yet, you have to work hard for them ...and all that without being payd any attention in return? I think not. Society has to revolve around social over private progress... that's my 5cts.
"I find you fundamentally neglecting many, if not the most important, aspects of society where money simply is and should not be the measure of things."
I don't think this was directed at me, but I feel compelled to comment. Money isn't a measure of anything. It is simply a convenient means of exchange. Money allows a person to exchange one thing for another without having to barter your way to the final result.
If you made chairs, for instance, and needed butter, then without money, you'd have to find someone with butter that needs a chair, or perform a series of trades to get what you're looking for.
Also, money allows fractional trading. One stick of butter is worth less than a chair, but a piece of a chair isn't worth anything. So you sell the chair and buy the butter, and use the rest for something else. Money facilitates trade.
just cause its against the law, don't make it illegal. Maybe in your eyes it illegal, what if i don't recognize a governments authority over me? They buy big guns, maybe I wanna buy big guns too. I mean the people who steal 50% your lifetime income, you want them to have all the big guns. But a person like me who doesn't want to steal anything from u just defend myself against those who mean to steal from me, people like me can't have big guns can we. cause its illegal. you crazy.
I got it now, I can stop discussing with you as well.
Have fun with whatever guns are in your backyard or which you so desperately want... but know, that I'd be happy to be the one to take them away from guys like you, thanks and good bye. I hope you'll get better, because honestly, you're sick.
Does money control societies up until the point were wars are waged? And if so does that correspond to your ways of giving it this loevely nature of a merely being a "convenient means of exchange"?
Do not define simplicity where there is none, but see it where indeed it is, even if the picture is ugly...
what are you talking about, private progress is social progress. w/o private progress every person would be a farmer, if farming even existed. What are you even talking about social progress. Lets get real, you go to court you ain't going to get any justice. You want justice you got to take that into your own hands. Your family get murdered, death penalty ain't justice. You need to take your time with them, no quick death. That is justice. Maybe death penalty is justice for manslaughter
Well, above all, social progress means private progress. You cannot just turn around a logical statement and think you end up with one that is equally true.
You can certainly think or say "What's good for me is good for others." Yet, that doesn't constitute social progress.
"Maybe death penalty is justice for manslaughter."
Honestly... I don't think following your train of thought to here seems relevant to the discussion, or did I miss something?
in a true democracy? everything is up to the majority, thats mob rule. Thats like the rules are made out of popularity. not on whats right. liek what if a passionate leader wants to be voted in king cause he knows best. I dont want to sit in a voting booth all day and have my irrevelent votes against the majority matter for nothing. A society based on principle, not the whim of the majority imo.
What kind of suprime elitism do you think provides for the greater god?
Deal with it, that's mother nature in good and in bad.
If people decided to collectively go nuts, which is much more delusional than just realizing how big finance is pushing us into ever more stupid fear driven wars and braindead security measures, then at least there would be noone to blame.
Right and wrong are only ever what people agree for them to be, individually and collectively.
Let me ask you - how do you think laws come about? I know how laws come about - and just to be clear, I am not for a republic either. For I do not trust any man or group of men to wield power. This is why I am not a fan of democracy either. In fact, of all the systems designed by man - democracy is the worst, probably just as worse as any totalitarianism.
If you condemn social agreement, aka democracy, as "the worst, probably just as worse as any totalitarianism"... you show a complete lack of understanding of either.
It also indicates some basic fear or hatred which I suggest you better put on the table, rather sooner than later.
Explain your conception of the kind of society that suits you and, maybe, try to learn and accept that otheres (even the majority) do not agree.
I will not accept that democracy is good or is even "social agreement". If you want to persist in it - please do so. I have been convinced that it is a terrible evil and I will persist in that unless reasoned otherwise
cool, but a question what if a group of people led by a warlord with a tank takes over a town of people who have guns. The people surrender the guns so their town not destroyed. Then they take over next town, and just keep taking over and they have a nice territory and they start stealing money or taxing whatever you call it. How does this get stopped in market anarchy individualism?
Wow hold on an hour, i'm going to explain everything that is wrong with that state. Okay i can only explain a few things, not all that's wrong. IF this were a real likely possibility, then almost of all of Africa and latin America and Asia would be like this. Now how will a group of mercenaries keep finding loyal militants and the funds to do so? How can they make sure everybody gives up their guns? How will the sustain and ruling power if no body sees them as legit? Not as likely a possibility.
Democracy is not a social agreement. "Democracy", the concept, is actually the tyranny of the 50% plus one. Social agreements is what people do spontaneously to create networks of voluntary, mutually beneficial trades and exchanges.
The fact that others do not accept something does not make the idea they espouse valid. Ad Popullum arguments are not valid.
Revise your Latin and also what that fallacy means and what it doesn't. If opinions were traded on markets, I sure wouldn't buy into your "tyranny of the 50%+1".
Also, you can shew and ruminate on your free, unconstrained market liberalism for as long as you like, in the case where man like you - I say man, since you clearly not be a women - will ever get to implement such nonsense, we're all gonna have a fun time thowing up that antisocial attitude right back out of our collective throats.
Well, the nitpicking on my spelling notwithstanding, the fact is that pure democracy is an auction on stolen goods, the tyranny of the majority over the minority - just ask the Jews, or the Armenians.
There is absolutely nothing antisocial about being a free person and acts freely. You may have bought the idea that a Police State has the most socially-balanced people, but I don't.
Laws come about not by consensus, realisoph, but by reason. It is not hard to come up with "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit fraud." Read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law."
Please do not resort to insults, they just make you look childish.
Excuse me, but I cannot but confirm again, that you seem to be rather lame (as in slow thinking).
Laws come about by reason?
Of course they do, sort of.
But who's reason is it?
Who is putting them down?
Who decides?
Does Mr. Reason take out a piece of paper and then tuck it against the next wall for everyone to see?
Besides, I just about had it with everyone else's insults and insinuation, so... I think it's quite alright, if I do give you back some of what you so cheerfully dish out.
I think it is about time that you guys started to differentiate between some proposed ideal situation and today's fucked up situation where almost every stupid decision is based on monetary considerations.
Here's something for you to discuss (or rate down):
I just realized: the world needs the great depression. It will heal us, if we keep our minds clear and let but the banks crash, while focussing on our economies to remain as stable as possible.
I see no contradiction between my proposals and innovation & real progress. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. People were actually able to take the time and innovate, get the real jobs done, taking care of things that matter and not things shiny or useless requirements.
I see no tieing of resources other than the convention that there has to be democratic agreement as to when and how new money is created and distributed under the convention of it never being debt or war waging.
Right, that's because you have absolutely no grasp of economics whatsoever,
For instance, you think it's somehow logical or useful to force everyone to use the same currency. Not only is this impossible, it's detrimental. You want democratic control of currency, and yet you want to abolish private currencies. Economics aside, your own ideas aren't even logically congruent with themselves.
Innovation can't occur without investment capital.
"Somewhere in the world, there is the worst economist in the world; and he is seeing Obama tomorrow." GOLDEN
MrAbadabas 11 months ago 8
24:35
Perpetual motion machines LOL
richardcadbury 1 year ago
Hmm i think hes talking about Paul Krugman at 9:00.
shaqdaddy11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why is this idiot rambling on about the mummy and Banilla ice cream??
tonybonez 1 year ago
Is that Tom Woods in the front on the left? lol
TheObjectiveReality 1 year ago
@TheObjectiveReality I think so. /watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I
mittrekkie 1 year ago
24:38...hilarious
pretorious700 2 years ago
One guys just took up the whole comments page. He must be saying very important stuff...
Leobons 2 years ago
It's an illness.
pretorious700 2 years ago
6a by the way it's was assumed that democracy would have a profit loss system under the idea of "retrospective voting". This is the concept that bad instittuions and politicians are purged, as a they would be in a market if they don't perform. This notion was shattered when social scientists witnessed individauls blaming politicans for acts of nature like shark attacks and earthquakes. Democracy is tremendously irrational, that is , unless politicians cause natural disastors.
rayyf69 2 years ago
If you would like an epistomological system that considers shark attacks the fault of the current administrater i will wish you well with it. But i urge you to recognize the structural problems with democracy and keep it for yourself. I don't think everybody should live under a marekt structure. It should be a personal preference. 'We should bulid a world that maximizes subjective preference rather then uses violence to enslave each other.
rayyf69 2 years ago
I totally agree that todays democracy are a farce, they are no democracies... at large and they will never be for as long as Bi Finance strangles the world by its presence and acting out on whole nations putting them at war against each other.
The ACTUAL EVIL and WRONGNESS of todays financial system is exonentially, infinitely larger than the POTENTIAL problems and misunderstandings and inefficiencies of TRUE democracy.
realisoph 2 years ago
Democracy has clear structural problems like condorcets paradox. Even if you could impose the system you wanted then graft democracy onto it you have not removed condorcet or arrow's critiques which lead to my 1-7. You cannot create a global social preference order under democracy, It's impossible.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"We should build a world that maximizes subjective preference rather then uses violence to enslave each other."
Totally, 100%. But the things... you don't seem to understand social functions, do you? Ever heard of the prisoners dilemma or other related, well understood pheonomena? If you're unable to aggregate individual preferences into collective ones, your "maximization" is quite arbitrarily egocentric.
realisoph 2 years ago
Yes i have and it's the basis of Robert trivers research on reciprocal altruism (71) which has had a fundamental impact on my support for capitalism and rejection of anything the left or progressives have to offer.
markets are not egocentric. If anything democracies are more egocentric because they serve the fewist who have the most politcal capital.
rayyf69 2 years ago
This truly is a whole bunch of twisted thinking. There are black sheep all over the place, especially with todays manipulative powers around.
What you call "nature" is willfull manipulation and should be considered as a criminal act when one is a social representative abusing ones position merely granted by those electing them.
There is much less reason and soundness to an individuals egocentrism than to collective agreement and work for the better of society at large.
realisoph 2 years ago
Individuals do not work for the betterment of society at large. They work to advance their individual self interests. Markets ensure that society benefits because violence isnt' used as a tranactional method in the social interface. Democracy, dictatorships, collectivism uses increases the degree of violence in transsactions nullifying exit options, This allows individuals to benefit at teh expense of society in the name of representing society. Violence in all transactions should be minimized.
rayyf69 2 years ago
4) stop taking todays western world for being democracies, lobbying is what we have these days"
No lobbying is what businesses have. Those with money have the power under democracy because the peopel are emasculated, they have no voice. The larger the democracy the more this is true. Global democracy would be a disaster. I'm a middle class american, i can't lobby the gov to not give paint thinner firms regulatory advantage over their competators so i must pay higher costs for that product.
rayyf69 2 years ago
This , by the way is how the USSR taxed it's citizens, through higher consumer product costs granted to firms that obtained monoply privlage. the USSR only approximated socialism for about 4 years and it failed miserably when they have to re-institute money.
public choice theory attampts to bridge the gap between institutions. One method of my current critique here is based on the vote as money comparison. They both serve respectively identical functions
rayyf69 2 years ago
There is no socialism in the USSR and there never was, neither before, nor after what is proposed as the end of the cold war.
Notice that all the hot nuclear material is far from gone... and I truly wonder who really controls that. I am certain that it were all to easy for the Bilderbergs of this world to even decide on triggering one or some of them just to get a hold on social changes undercutting their reidiculous power.
The USSR is nothing but a social mafia system, disgusting.
realisoph 2 years ago
1917 to 22 is what i'm refereing to. It was the closest approximateion to socialism ever. And i agree USSR wasn't socialist because socialim is impossible.
The USSR is nothing but a social mafia system, disgusting. As will be any institution that relies on democracy.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"No, lobbying is what businesses have. Those with money have the power..."
I totally agree. But it is not that democracy is the reason for this system failure... ti rather is that people are to lame or lazy to understand that there is no democracy as of today.
Therefore it is not true, that the problems get bigger, the bigger the democracy... unless you keep calling todays western societies and their international unions to be democratic.
realisoph 2 years ago
When your vote has no value your not incentivized to inform yourself of politicies or reps. therefore lobbying>voting by a spontaneous emergence of self interst. The self interest of the business who wants to profit and the self interest of the voter who just wants to relax when tehy come home rather then spend hours debating policy.
rayyf69 2 years ago
3a) is not an irrational point. It was based off research performed by Philip Converse "the nature of belief systems and mass publics" which argues that the large majority of voters are Rationally ignorant.. ( notice i didn't say ignorant. Rational ignorance means it's incentivized to be un-informed about something.. For me it's fishing i don't fish, bcs i dont' like to, and i can obtain fish meats in stores. There is a rational reason for me to be ignorant in this regards. same for voters.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Why ? bcs the value of my vote is infinitesimally low. There is thus no reason to inform myself regarding policy bcs my vote is likely to have no impact. Now you said you wanted smaller democracies, this might somehwat mitigate this problem but fundamentaly it still exists.
rayyf69 2 years ago
As I said, and I think it should not be necessary that we repeat ourselves... it is necessary for democratic decision making patterns to be part of every single bit of society... compartmentalised in meaningfull ways such that people (can) decide especially on the things in their near environment.
realisoph 2 years ago
That goes agaisnt everything i just said. I don't see any reason to do this. Even more frightening is the idea this should be imposed on me? should it?
rayyf69 2 years ago
I didn't say, that I wanted smaller democracies... what I said was... I want it on all levels and that doesn't exclude large-scale organisation structures... like the UN.
What seems to be missing these days are reasonable means of veto, at least when it comes to decisions in the European Union.
realisoph 2 years ago
I don't care on bit if your call that or reference to "research".. at all. And I admit, I still haven't quite grasped your idea or definition of being "rationally ignorant".
If 'incentivized to be uninformed' is to mean just that... then I can't see the rationality in such ignorance. Instead, I would find people to be lazyass motherfuckers who don't give a shit for the pain and suffering they cause for prefering to be dumbass consumers watching tv to find out what's new in the world (to buy).
realisoph 2 years ago
What happened to you advocacy for freedom ? What's wrong with peopel sitting around in their house watchign tv rather then reading policy papers all night? Should a person be able to just come home from a hard days work and relax? I know alotta people that cannot stand discussing politics ( they tend to not like me much, cause that's all i do) What's to be done with these people ?
rayyf69 2 years ago
1 The idea of rational ignorance is based on costs. There are costs to learning information. You must spend time obtaining, reading and internalizing. These actions require something else be sacrificed. Going on a date, watching american idol, learning calculus for an engineering degree. These are costs because they are things that must be sacrificed while you read policy stuff. A rational ignorant
rayyf69 2 years ago
2 A rational ignorant person recognizes that the value of their vote is miniscule( its probability to be the deciding vote in an election) and thus they prefer to engage in non-policy related activities that advance their interests. Its irrational for me to learn to air condition repair if the costs would require a sacrifice greater the the costs to just have somebody come fix it. And only I can evaluate those costs as they are subjective.
rayyf69 2 years ago
A last one for all you free-market, liberal consumerist vanities.
Ask that child in Bangldesh about its liberties when producing your sneakers 10 hours a day.
Ask those Africans on lake victoria where they see their natural ressources being genetically modified and then exported, leaving them with fisheads dumped on the ground to feed their hunger.
Ask those animals under intesive livestock farming, how they like market prices dictating their world.
The list is endless. But hey, enjoy!
realisoph 2 years ago
Don't forget, those area's have regional governments that impact the development of markets in their locations. Governmetns and markets are inextricably linked. Any criticism of Markets without an analysis of the role or incentives states create is critical.
rayyf69 2 years ago
I understand what you are saying, but I hope you understand as well, how privatisation pushed through IMF/WTO "development aid"... creates indebtedness rather than freedom for the people of such countries, all the greedy benefit going to big finance, at last ...or who is it, providing these funds?
The most dominant role for governments which I can identify is that of being corruptible... of selling out their own countries people and resources (to sustain their ignorant idea of power ?).
realisoph 2 years ago
I got one more thought for you free market fetishes:
Why do you think unbelievably huge expenditures go into the military all over the world? That is, because it is the Bilderberg's/Rothchild's/... way to:
* blackmail societies & wilfully chain up societies through debt
* generate steady "income" for them
* sponsor all sides in a conflict
Ain't that some beautiful free market? Reason will surely deal with that.
Just get it, the FED is not the problem, but what is behind it + weak democracy.
realisoph 2 years ago
What your observing is called Rent seeking. As long as you have a government and "rationally ignorant " people the politcal class and business lobbies bank on our apathy and use the state to transfer costs to us. The state in this sense emerges as a market but it subverts primary market function.
rayyf69 2 years ago
This is not about transerfing costs! I would truly wish you started trying to understand & agree on that.
There is no need for exorbitant military expenditures. There is financial blackmailing and ignorance. Those people are corrupting and infecting everyones minds with false convictions.
You know, the World Trade Center was actually bought not too long before 9/11 and insured at a whole lot more than their actual value.
How much would you have to pay to some "arabs" to bring them down?
realisoph 2 years ago
On military expendatures we are in accord so you needn't sell me on supporting the military industrial complex. But under democracy individual will transfer costs to each other regardless of if there are wars or not. Rent seeking doens't only occur from defense firms, but from unions, from non-profits, from massive software cooperations, the healthcare industry. They transfer costs to you to enhance their profits.
rayyf69 2 years ago
The strategy of (big) finance is to devide an conquer to their own benefit... there will not be a single healthy and reasonably free market in that for as long as this basic corruption defines the shape of our lifes and societies.
realisoph 2 years ago
Free markets turn make the rich canabalize other rich via trade compeition. democracy, and a state allows rich to use the state to not only canabalize other rich competators, but also transfer the costs to consumers. The state and democracy are aberations of our social nature. The more we depart from the model of free voluntary transactions and property ownership the more exploitation we will experience.
rayyf69 2 years ago 11
@realisoph You're very loony if you think any of your examples are some kind of valid indictment of free-markets.
Jaycephus01 1 year ago
Only Bob Murphy could make a toilet analogy work!
totustuus11 2 years ago
The fallacy of that demand side economic policy is this:
That it delays the natural pullback to sustainability, a reaction that will NOT be abated by further inflationary spending, and creates future instability, as counter cyclical inflation ends up making govt permanently inflationary/and big.
Basically, demand siders view inflation as a measurable quantity, a MASS, rather than a FORCE. They think-if deflation occurs: inflate. But to inflate to reach neutral again allows further inflation.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
To explain to other libertarians precisely why people believe that we need to act in such a way as created the crisis, in order to reduce it: economy inflates beyond its means and deflationary pullback occurs in credit crunch. Either allow that to reap its brief destruction (Austrian view) or increase means to supply (and demand) by stimulus that can then increase the means of the economy thus negating recessionary pullback to bring inflated economies within their means.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
fucking seat belt laws!
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
A bit wordy and repetitive, but when he gets to the point, he explains some key economic ideas really well in layman's terms so that anyone can understand it. Really great talk, just maybe 5 or 6 minutes too long.
The only reason I mention that is because I'm the only person I know that has even heard of the Mises Institute and I doubt anyone I share it with is going to sit through a 30-minute video on economics, which is unfortunate because so many people are clueless about most of it.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
great job!
jfish147 2 years ago
Some core concepts of economics left out:
Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage?
(The people of both nations are better off when nations specialize according to their comparative advantages and trade freely than they are with protectionism.)
When there are no externalities, market pricing mechanisms allocate resources efficiently.
Hayek's fatal conceit. Planned economies can't work.
freesk8 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy shouldn't be teaching economics...maybe math.
DillonX 2 years ago
Does anyone have the source for the seatbelt/accidents study? I first heard about it maybe nine years ago, and still don't have a source.
kentafan123 2 years ago
The author of the study is Sam Peltzman, if that helps.
tewj57 2 years ago 4
Yes Tewj57 is right Sam Peltzman also known as teh peltzman effect. It has serious implicatons for welfare policy.
rayyf69 2 years ago
They should change the endangered species act so that it simply gives a tax break if the endangered animals live there and no restrictions. They should just come check every year to prove it. That would make people WANT to have the animals live there ONLY.
Hashishin13 2 years ago
The fact that he looks and speaks ordinarily--in other words,he's smart,but avoids talking down to his audience is why he's easy to learn from. He avoids jargon and uses examples to make his point. He's a good teacher.
sleedolfine15 2 years ago 9
Robert Murphy is such a funny guy, lol. I love his politically incorrect guide books, some of the best of the series.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago 5
why don't they use a word other than subjective? that really does confuse people. why not socially objective vs. philosophically objective
oscar7557 2 years ago
How would "socially objective" or "philosophically objective" be less confusing? In fact -- what do you even mean? =P
melldrin 2 years ago 4
lol well things are Objective lol so they have a value. somethings have more philosophical value that others i.e. water vs. a diamond. but i dunno, just sayin.
oscar7557 2 years ago
If you have a lot of water it doesn't have the value for you any more (if you are flooded it has a negative value).
Did you hear about Maslov's pyramid of needs?
grraadd 2 years ago
yes i've heard of it. but that's not my point, you can have a shit load of water, which we do. and it doesnt change the fact that you need water to live, it has a higher philosophic value than a diamond. lipstick vs. a microscope , obviously the microscope has more philosophic value, but a lipstick to a secretary will have more value lol
oscar7557 2 years ago
The theory of marginal utility explains this. If you're in the desert and don't know when you are gonna get to the nearest town, water might be more valuable to you than the diamond. if you have a diamond in the desert but believe that you'll get to a town soon enough, then you might value the diamond higher than water and simply sell the diamond once you get in the city to buy water and other things. Or maybe the diamond has sentimental value and you never give it up.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
thanks for the explanation :)
oscar7557 2 years ago
no problem
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Marginal utility shows why the triangle isn't that great, but it is still a better model than saying things have objective value
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Sure, it's just a model - simplification.
grraadd 2 years ago
as long as that's understood. I got some classes (not economics classes) where we had lectures on it as if it were set in stone or something, like my friend put it "as if people carry it around in their pocket and check it before they act" lol
:D
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Things have value insofar as they fulfill an agent's wants.
Moragauth 2 years ago
very true, i guess that's why free market capitalism begs the question. of value to whom?
oscar7557 2 years ago
Here are some more points about free market liberalism.
Democracy is NOT a free market, sofar as:
1) not all, if not the most valuable things, will never be measured by monetary standards
2) agreement and sticking to it deliberately restricts freedom of participants for healthy, agreed upon reasons
3) the freedom of one restricts that of another
In the last decades millions of people around the world were literally put to death under the pretense of false freedoms and liberties.
realisoph 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The core of what this guys economics teaches: it ignores what is at the heart of the financial system... a bloody exponential function.
(Compound) interests? It takes ~5 Minutes to realize how that screws up everything from resource management to democracy, justice including a free market.
Failing to recognize this, your economics is a bunch of bullocks. You're trying to turn economics into fun stuff, while what drives it is outrageously f$%&ed.
realisoph 2 years ago
true that
FrancisPayne 2 years ago
Hey FrancisPayne, could you also have a look at the challenge I posted below and take part in the debate?
It's not that I am looking for a backup, I just think it would be nice to get some feedback on specific ideas.
realisoph 2 years ago
Please, stop rating my comment badly because the tone doesn't seem to suit your mood.
Instead, go figure how much you'd have to pay back if 2000 years ago someone, like god 'ol Jesus, had loaned you one cent; le't say at a reasonable interest rate of 5%.
If that doesn't make you realise why ALL current monetary systems are a stinking fraud and that it is NOT governments that run countries ...well, I can't help it.
Money is 'fictitious' debt, above all, a means of slavery and control.
realisoph 2 years ago
@realisoph You've just discovered what Austrian economics is all about.
arcanekrusader 2 years ago
hi arcanekrusader,
Do you have any read or vid you can recommend that has the power of convincing me that this is indeed so?
realisoph 2 years ago
@realisoph There are lots right here on the misesmedia channel. Many, many lectures etc.. Very easy to understand, almost to the point of it being common sense and also a very good tool to help explain why current economic policy will fail.
arcanekrusader 2 years ago
please read my challenge below and let me know what you think... and to what degree you think the Mises institute is at least somewhat congruential in terms of "ideals".
realisoph 2 years ago
Governments have proven themselves time and time again not capable to be given such power, even with a set of rules, and being able to refrain from abusing such a system. When people vote for rulers who have that capability at their fingertips, they are going to start promising what you listed below in order to get elected. It wouldnt work
bambam2384 2 years ago 4
Why talk of governments?
What is the power of governments if people have got no say in it other than being allowed to have some black or white choice every four years or so?
Why do you imply that governments are about leaders?
I don't give damn about presidents... I say let's get rid of them.
A democracy is not a presidential monarchy.
So stop promoting authority given to puppet leaders controlled by big finance.
Start to be peacefully demanding instead of rationaly resigning!
realisoph 2 years ago
Democracy does not give people the say. Why?
As Condorcet adn Ken Arrow illustrate there is no way to obtain a global social preference order from a system with two options. Democracy thus leads toa dictatorship of the minority..
But that's not all, The larger the population the lower the value of your vote. Therefore your not RATIONALLY incentivized to inform yourself. This is called "rational ignorance" and is illustrated in phil converses research on belief systems.
rayyf69 2 years ago
"Democracy does not give people the say"
Which one? Today's false one? The concept in general? As we are granted only black and white electoral choices every few years, there is no democracy.
Things don't have to remain thus.
It's rater EASY to implement systems for citizens to assign preference points or vetos to discrete decisions, instead of political colours or parties.
"Democracy leads to dictatorship of the minority"... is a contradiction of tems, and don't care who you quote.
realisoph 2 years ago
"The larger the population, the lower the value of your vote."
That is indeed so and therefore #1 reason to demand democracy throughout all levels of society, independently, and to assess democratic decisions in the area only where they apply, while still forming representative boards of people discussing and suggesting decisions on theses matters in a broader context.
So democracy must be compartmentalised, obviously.
"Rational ignorance" you only get tryng to see and control all at once.
realisoph 2 years ago
How do you do that ? by force? what if i want to leave a democratic syndicate, must i vote for my freedom from them? What hapens when one skilled individaul offers himself to multiple competing syndicates and the winning bidding syndicate gives that skilled indi complete control of the firm. Then yo uhave classical market ownership emerge again if the skilled can outperform other syndicates.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Other than point number two, you won't find much congruence with that at the Mises Institute. A Misesian economist would abolish central banks, replace central bank money "creation" with private money "production", eliminate attempts to subvert the market rate of interest, promote savings as a prerequisite for rational capital investment, eliminate arbitrary limits on income and property, etc. But you can hardly debate those points in a YouTube comment string with a 500 character limit.
kcumpston 2 years ago
There is no reason for folks in the austrian school to prohibit/advice against private individuals spending money to procure adequate defense for their property. So point #2 will not hold because of its absolute "never".
utubehayter 2 years ago
@utubehayter: Perhaps incorrectly, I interpreted point number 2 as opposing the creation of money to support military aggression. (The term "new funds" led me to that interpretation). To that extent, an austrian economist would likely agree. But as you point out, self defense funded by real savings (i.e. "old" funds) is another matter.
kcumpston 2 years ago
I strictly oppose any kind of detached monetary investment gambles. I also find todays concept of individual savings to be one of the major problems in the conception of healthy monetary systems. While indeed bigger projects require more assets to achieve any of them, it is the kind of hoarding of money... in it's extremes resulting in the top 2%, the attitudes of "let your money work for you", that - together with its exponential nature - are at core of todays system failure.
realisoph 2 years ago
No, the core of today's system's failure is price controlling interest rates. Definitely not saving or "hoarding" or "speculating" or any other shibboleth you wish to speak of. The bogeyman isn;'t out to get you....
Moragauth 2 years ago
Read Mises and find out rather than expecting other people to do it for you. To answer though, not at all.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Economics - or Austrian econ - is older than the current system and has anticipated its failure time and time again. It is mainstream econ and especially Keynesian rubbish that is bollocks, but not all econ...
Moragauth 2 years ago 3
realisoph 2 years ago
I find it entirely rational to abolish central banks. I believe we need the spontaneous order of an unplanned, free-market global financial system. The de facto monetary standard must be the one that stands the test of the marketplace. This de facto standard would almost certainly be gold-based, but this would not rule out other silver based, commodities based, or innovative electronic means of exchange.
vivalabag 2 years ago
Its a good idea to look at every thing that is "central" with suspicion, because central is generally used in context or vicinity of a "collective".
utubehayter 2 years ago
Today, I do agree with you, 100%.
On the other hand... the only reason why we cannot but be utterly suspicious towards any such institutions is exactly because of the way things work today in a monetary sense.
What I am talking about is the chance of real democracy ...when different, obviously democratic, money creation and distribution patterns are in place.
For such a thing to happen, there must be no more Bilderbergs & Goldman Sachs other than them being more or less lovely names.
realisoph 2 years ago
Its not congruential with the specific ideas (2,3,4,5,6,7) at all. But the fuzzy ideas like (1 &8) - it is very likely no one from mises institute would agree with you.
utubehayter 2 years ago
So essentially, none of my ideas make you think that Mises is a match for me. I find that to be quite astonishing. Is it not they who tend to picture themselves as sort of revolutionary, dirfferent, going for the real deal of change?
I hope you understand my disappointment about that obviously not being so.
On the other hand, this is ever more reason to talk with you guys about considering the matter from quite different angles... which I sure am not the only proponent of.
realisoph 2 years ago
No, we're simply not the kind of people who buy into any and all nonsense merely for the sake of being 'revolutionary'. Enough of what we believe in is genuinely revolutionary and no, Misesians are quite familiar with 'debt-free money' and other such stuff, it is just economically silly to force it on anyone at any grand scale...
Moragauth 2 years ago
See, I am not selling anything. Simply daring to picture a completely different road from todays bullshit doesn't make it nonsense, now does it?
If you suggest my ideas being nonsense, tell me about why instead of just labling it that.
Who said anything about forcing it on people on grand scales? I am very much promoting that people, one by one, have a right to agree upon their own alternative monetary systems... in order to overcome todays. Nothing wrong with that!
realisoph 2 years ago
You/'re asking questions on Youtube about Mises. What you need to be doing instead is going to the Mises website and reading for yourself, and stop expecting Youtube commenters to answer all your questions for you. Do some research on Austrian economics so that you understand what is being discussed here.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 4
I suggest you tell me why anything you said is a 'challenge'. And yes if you want to engage in alternative monetary system do so but don't expect other people to abide by bans on interest &c, be they 'democratic' or otherwise.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Look at this and then stop being ignorant about the nature of the fraud:
bit . ly/71YS3y
realisoph 2 years ago
Here's a challenge: stop believing in bullshit! There is nothing with money being "debt-based" if it is what voluntary parties to the exchange want. Dunno what is wrong with compound interest or "letting your money work for you" and you sure as hell have no right to dictate how much other people earn. I find it irrational to keep the very system that causes crises and funds wars. Please come up with a real challenge.
Moragauth 2 years ago
You don't know what's wrong with compound interests? Get to learn exponential functions and why those create utterly unjustified imbalances by lame idiots selling other lam-o's phantasies of "let your money work for you".
I do not dictate people how much to earn! Instead, I ask everyone to discuss and, if the majority agreed, to implement restrictions of this kind via social agreements. I believe +80% of all folks had about enough of unduly rich cocksuckers controlling their lives.
realisoph 2 years ago
What imbalances, pray tell? And yes, you do wish to dictate it, behind the disguise of 'democratic' decisonmaking, ie tyranny of 50% + 1. No thanks.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Democracy
1) does not produce efficient instutions..
See (mackenzie "use of knowledge about society")
2) Biases do not cancel (fremling, lott)
3) rational ignorance perpetuates the system de-incentivizing informing onself (P. Converse "belief systems)
4) democracy leads to increased lobbying activities because of the emasculation of the people via low vote value (mancur olson "logic of collectives")
5) Does not reward correct choices (it has no entrepreneurial f(x))
6) no profit loss signal.
rayyf69 2 years ago
1) is not an issue in todays productivity and overproduction
2) no idea that that means
3) invalid, irrational point
4) stop taking todays western world for being democracies, lobbying is what we have these days
5) it has a beautiful entrepreneurial f(x), providing people with freedom as to their own paths in life, not financially dominated ones
6) there is no less of a signal as compared to todays world... see crisis
So I remain utterly unconvinced by all of your points.
realisoph 2 years ago
1) yes it does, waste is a problem as long as resources are finite. Under a democracy Waste isnt' internalized via a profit loss signal. Individaul voters must attemt to outperform the market in this regard and the historic record indicates the market outperforms everybody.
rayyf69 2 years ago
What does waste have to do with democracy being inefficient?
Todays economical markets are simply rooted on UNSUSTAINABLE production mechanisms controlled by big finance, every single one of them.
The only reaction that "Under democracy waste isn't internalized via a profit loss signal" is that of confusion and some question of: What are you talking about?
"Voters must attempt to outperform the market"
What performance?
Cancerous markets outperforming democracy: Good or bad?
realisoph 2 years ago
Withotu a profit loss signal , as you replace this with the opinions and perceptions of people you will not be able to identify and eliminate waste.
Performance, the abiltiy to identify a method that is profitable or is able to rationalize production at the lowest social costs. Costs exist regardless of economic structure. Costs are next highest preferences that must be sacrificed. Democracy doesn't have a means of ID costs liek proft loss signals.
rayyf69 2 years ago
I see no reason in why democracy would ignore waste and not strive for efficient (and therefore most beneficial) methods of (incentivizing such) production... again, not suggesting some sort of centralised form of planning.
On the other hand, imagine the world of today if all the funds and brainpower that went into the Manhattan Project would have been spent on sustainable economics.
Or the cost during and after WW2. Life is not about markets but about healthy preferences.
realisoph 2 years ago
Democracy contains no profit loss signal. This is illustrated in Von Mises economic calculation challenge to socialist about 50 years ago. How would a single voter know if a firm was producing optimally when he has no profit statement to look at ? How does a voter decide if a firm is wasting to much or not? price signals perform this f(x) through direct comparison.
Moving production marginally away from price signals toward democracy cannot be accepted to any degree if cost exists.
rayyf69 2 years ago
the manhattan project was state funded.
What are healthy preferences ?
rayyf69 2 years ago
by the way if you wish to criticise the current system be my guest and i will join you, but know fundamentally i'm an anarcho capitalist. The idea that we live in a capitlist system is false, i just will not accept it. If your going to engage in a analysis of the political economy your going to ahve to integrate the state as well as the peopel who vote in it under scrutiny. People do not have virtue on the basis of how subjectivly exploited some think they are
rayyf69 2 years ago
2) this means that individaul errors manifest in a loss of recognition between relational variables in a system Not a random dispersion of bias but a actual vectoral ignorance that manifests in incorrect decisions. Therefore institutions formed under democracy will be wastefull and will never outperform markets.
This is illustrated in Fremling , Lotts research "THE BIAS TOWARDS ZERO IN AGGREGATE PERCEPTIONS: AN EXPLANATION BASED ON RATIONALLY CALCULATING INDIVIDUALS" which is not online :(
rayyf69 2 years ago
There are no "correct decisions" in any absolute sense.
The only distinction that I find important is whether or not there was social agreement on a chosen path... thus the decision pattern being democratic, stupid or not.
In case you havent't noticed, it is the errors we make from which we learn (as societies).
There is no need for democracy outperforming markets. There is not even an incentive for performance as being the critical measure in a world abundant of necessary goods, like ours.
realisoph 2 years ago
There are correct decisions when you have to decide what type of cement to use ina bridge that can so much tonnage of support freight traffic. Society idealy must want to minimize costs rather then maximize them. You can't expect production to use 18 units of something when it could use 6 units of the same. Democracy doesn't not advance you additional resources so you can compete with markets.
rayyf69 2 years ago
5) it has a beautiful entrepreneurial f(x), providing people with freedom as to their own paths in life, not financially dominated ones."
No it doesn't as the vote is EQUAL. therefore soembody who knows what is right is marginalized under many that don't have the same knowledge
rayyf69 2 years ago
Democracy
1) does not produce efficient instutions..
See (mackenzie "use of knowledge about society")
2) Biases do not cancel (fremling, lott)
3) rational ignorance perpetuates the system de-incentivizing informing onself (P. Converse "belief systems)
4) democracy leads to increased lobbying activities because of the emasculation of the people via low vote value (mancur olson "logic of collectives")
rayyf69 2 years ago
5) Does not reward correct choices (it has no entrepreneurial f(x))
6) no profit loss signal.
7) No Exit signal. You are forced to consume the products/services of the state.
rayyf69 2 years ago
7) ???
What kind of democracy are you talking about? One trying to centralise all economical planning? Who is promoting that?
realisoph 2 years ago
I dunno some are some arn't. If you providing decentralized social planning what is teh size of the Phalanx , or society , that engages in demo planning. A market allows 1 individaul to plan and relseaes soemthig to the market. If you attemt to rationalize production amongst many I can exit how ever many individauls there are. Thus a market enhances its' ability to extract knowledge and act on it as 1 person can plan and offer that product. My ability to exit to his offer is a + signal of value.
rayyf69 2 years ago
Please understand, that democracy does not mean to abolish the notion or idea ro reality of markets in general... it doesn't even conflict with it.
It most definetly interferes with todays corrupt financial system and all those false markets or rather manipulation systems without any goods or market at all, which stem from it.
Democracy does also not mean to prohibit trade... though there are numerous valid and reasonable restrictions that it might impose.
realisoph 2 years ago
Democracy screws itself up. Many people would argue that a monarchy is actually more favorable than a democracy.
The reason you pay interest is because you are paying to use someone else's money. You are paying to tie a resource up in something that could otherwise be placed elsewhere. Duh? Clearly you see no value in providing capital towards new endeavors; under your model, innovation would completely stagnate and no one would lend any money out thanks to a total lack of incentive.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"Democracy screws itself up. Many people would argue that a monarchy is actually more favorable than a democracy."
I believe you just completely put the reality of the matter upside down. Most people are two things:
1) historically accustomed to being obbedient
2) living with the false conviction of living in a democracy, where in fact what we have is a plutocracyand the false images of political leaders, wannabe monarchs.
There is no democracy in presidents!
realisoph 2 years ago
democracy is stupid. only decent system is a republic.
if people don't have a right to property, people ain't going to work as much to the detriment of everyone else in society. democracy can vote away right to property, majority just has to think its good for them.
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
"Democracy is stupid. Only decent system is a republic."
I don't get your point at all? In what sense do you think you can distinguish democracy from republic by such abstract insinuations? What is the kind of decency you see in a republic which you're unable to find in (true) democracy?
Who said anything about people not having a right to property? Isn't there a difference between a right to property and undermining democratic principles by controling the masses through money?
realisoph 2 years ago
We'll free market is democracy, democracy and republic at same time. You vote with dollars. The businesses that are doing things well get more votes and stick around. Should laws be voted on democratically? should laws be created by law makers? or people in high positions in office, i dont think so. maybe laws should be more local and changable by democracy on small scale, not on a national level so if u dont like laws u can go to another place.
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
Please forgive my ignorance, but I find you fundamentally neglecting many, if not the most important, aspects of society where money simply is and should not be the measure of things.
Or do you think there is a 'free' market for democracy, justice, truthfulness, peace? You cannot buy these things. Yet, you have to work hard for them ...and all that without being payd any attention in return? I think not. Society has to revolve around social over private progress... that's my 5cts.
realisoph 2 years ago
"I find you fundamentally neglecting many, if not the most important, aspects of society where money simply is and should not be the measure of things."
I don't think this was directed at me, but I feel compelled to comment. Money isn't a measure of anything. It is simply a convenient means of exchange. Money allows a person to exchange one thing for another without having to barter your way to the final result.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
If you made chairs, for instance, and needed butter, then without money, you'd have to find someone with butter that needs a chair, or perform a series of trades to get what you're looking for.
Also, money allows fractional trading. One stick of butter is worth less than a chair, but a piece of a chair isn't worth anything. So you sell the chair and buy the butter, and use the rest for something else. Money facilitates trade.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Obviously, money facilitates trade.... nobody can seriously argue that.
Instead of idealising what you basically wish money does... start understanding that money also buys (illegal) weapons... and soliders.
realisoph 2 years ago
just cause its against the law, don't make it illegal. Maybe in your eyes it illegal, what if i don't recognize a governments authority over me? They buy big guns, maybe I wanna buy big guns too. I mean the people who steal 50% your lifetime income, you want them to have all the big guns. But a person like me who doesn't want to steal anything from u just defend myself against those who mean to steal from me, people like me can't have big guns can we. cause its illegal. you crazy.
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
I got it now, I can stop discussing with you as well.
Have fun with whatever guns are in your backyard or which you so desperately want... but know, that I'd be happy to be the one to take them away from guys like you, thanks and good bye. I hope you'll get better, because honestly, you're sick.
realisoph 2 years ago
Does money control societies up until the point were wars are waged? And if so does that correspond to your ways of giving it this loevely nature of a merely being a "convenient means of exchange"?
Do not define simplicity where there is none, but see it where indeed it is, even if the picture is ugly...
bit . ly/71YS3y
realisoph 2 years ago
what are you talking about, private progress is social progress. w/o private progress every person would be a farmer, if farming even existed. What are you even talking about social progress. Lets get real, you go to court you ain't going to get any justice. You want justice you got to take that into your own hands. Your family get murdered, death penalty ain't justice. You need to take your time with them, no quick death. That is justice. Maybe death penalty is justice for manslaughter
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
"private progress is social progress"
Well, above all, social progress means private progress. You cannot just turn around a logical statement and think you end up with one that is equally true.
You can certainly think or say "What's good for me is good for others." Yet, that doesn't constitute social progress.
"Maybe death penalty is justice for manslaughter."
Honestly... I don't think following your train of thought to here seems relevant to the discussion, or did I miss something?
realisoph 2 years ago
A free market is not democracy. In a free market, nobody is forced to participate. That isn't the case with democracy.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
in a true democracy? everything is up to the majority, thats mob rule. Thats like the rules are made out of popularity. not on whats right. liek what if a passionate leader wants to be voted in king cause he knows best. I dont want to sit in a voting booth all day and have my irrevelent votes against the majority matter for nothing. A society based on principle, not the whim of the majority imo.
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
Majority rule = mob rule?
What kind of suprime elitism do you think provides for the greater god?
Deal with it, that's mother nature in good and in bad.
If people decided to collectively go nuts, which is much more delusional than just realizing how big finance is pushing us into ever more stupid fear driven wars and braindead security measures, then at least there would be noone to blame.
Right and wrong are only ever what people agree for them to be, individually and collectively.
realisoph 2 years ago
The problem of democracy is one of scale: the larger it becomes, the greater the number of oppressed people.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
A democracy is majority rule.. or rule in the name of majority.
A republic is rule of (written) law.
The US system is a combination of both and the democratic part has ruined the republic part over time.
utubehayter 2 years ago
So laws are what provides for the good of the people and which separates a republic from a democracy?
Come on!
How do you think laws come about or change?
By his fucking majesty?
By some incompetent presidential fatherfigure who is never able to deal with the complexity of society at large?
By money controlled, ideological, lobbyist representatives?
By gods decree through his earthly creepings or other false prophets?
Please, take a cold shower and see if anything turns back on.
realisoph 2 years ago
Let me ask you - how do you think laws come about? I know how laws come about - and just to be clear, I am not for a republic either. For I do not trust any man or group of men to wield power. This is why I am not a fan of democracy either. In fact, of all the systems designed by man - democracy is the worst, probably just as worse as any totalitarianism.
utubehayter 2 years ago
This is utter bullocks, please.
If you condemn social agreement, aka democracy, as "the worst, probably just as worse as any totalitarianism"... you show a complete lack of understanding of either.
It also indicates some basic fear or hatred which I suggest you better put on the table, rather sooner than later.
Explain your conception of the kind of society that suits you and, maybe, try to learn and accept that otheres (even the majority) do not agree.
realisoph 2 years ago
Market anarchy, Individualism, 100% free market, anarcho-capitalism.
I will not accept that democracy is good or is even "social agreement". If you want to persist in it - please do so. I have been convinced that it is a terrible evil and I will persist in that unless reasoned otherwise
utubehayter 2 years ago
Well then, happy trading... no mater what.
May your ignorance at least turn out to be of a kind and peaceful nature.
realisoph 2 years ago
Oh, and by the way Mr. market anarchy... if I were you, I wouldn't count on being on the Mises side of the coin.
realisoph 2 years ago
Is that so? How would you know? You don't even know where folks at Mises institute are.
utubehayter 2 years ago
cool, but a question what if a group of people led by a warlord with a tank takes over a town of people who have guns. The people surrender the guns so their town not destroyed. Then they take over next town, and just keep taking over and they have a nice territory and they start stealing money or taxing whatever you call it. How does this get stopped in market anarchy individualism?
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
Wow hold on an hour, i'm going to explain everything that is wrong with that state. Okay i can only explain a few things, not all that's wrong. IF this were a real likely possibility, then almost of all of Africa and latin America and Asia would be like this. Now how will a group of mercenaries keep finding loyal militants and the funds to do so? How can they make sure everybody gives up their guns? How will the sustain and ruling power if no body sees them as legit? Not as likely a possibility.
snoopyflick 2 years ago
Re: Realisoph,
Democracy is not a social agreement. "Democracy", the concept, is actually the tyranny of the 50% plus one. Social agreements is what people do spontaneously to create networks of voluntary, mutually beneficial trades and exchanges.
The fact that others do not accept something does not make the idea they espouse valid. Ad Popullum arguments are not valid.
ftorresgamez 2 years ago
Yeah, praised be the market of justice and social agreement, of help and love.
Can I buy some ignorance please?
What? You want 10 Dollar per minute for that shit?
Nah, I'd rather stick to my own thinking then.
realisoph 2 years ago
Revise your Latin and also what that fallacy means and what it doesn't. If opinions were traded on markets, I sure wouldn't buy into your "tyranny of the 50%+1".
Also, you can shew and ruminate on your free, unconstrained market liberalism for as long as you like, in the case where man like you - I say man, since you clearly not be a women - will ever get to implement such nonsense, we're all gonna have a fun time thowing up that antisocial attitude right back out of our collective throats.
realisoph 2 years ago
Well, the nitpicking on my spelling notwithstanding, the fact is that pure democracy is an auction on stolen goods, the tyranny of the majority over the minority - just ask the Jews, or the Armenians.
There is absolutely nothing antisocial about being a free person and acts freely. You may have bought the idea that a Police State has the most socially-balanced people, but I don't.
ftorresgamez 2 years ago
There is no tyranny in the 50% plus one.
How do you suggest laws come about, by his majesty's rule, your wisdom?
What is wrong with you guys? I truly don't get it, not one bit!
Are you seriously suggesting that Mises stands for the kind of anti-democracy economics of all of you male apes replying to me?
Do you even understand either?
What is up with you people, are you retarded?
If so, go get some therapy and ask your mother for a cuddle, to get you back down on earth.
realisoph 2 years ago
Laws come about not by consensus, realisoph, but by reason. It is not hard to come up with "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit fraud." Read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law."
Please do not resort to insults, they just make you look childish.
ftorresgamez 2 years ago
Excuse me, but I cannot but confirm again, that you seem to be rather lame (as in slow thinking).
Laws come about by reason?
Of course they do, sort of.
But who's reason is it?
Who is putting them down?
Who decides?
Does Mr. Reason take out a piece of paper and then tuck it against the next wall for everyone to see?
Besides, I just about had it with everyone else's insults and insinuation, so... I think it's quite alright, if I do give you back some of what you so cheerfully dish out.
realisoph 2 years ago
I think it is about time that you guys started to differentiate between some proposed ideal situation and today's fucked up situation where almost every stupid decision is based on monetary considerations.
Here's something for you to discuss (or rate down):
I just realized: the world needs the great depression. It will heal us, if we keep our minds clear and let but the banks crash, while focussing on our economies to remain as stable as possible.
That will rid the world of the beast.
realisoph 2 years ago
Actually did you even find out why he thinks it's worse than totalitarianism. Or are you arguing by emotions again.
snoopyflick 2 years ago
You know what you guys... go get some social competence or ask your mother if she will sell some.
realisoph 2 years ago
I see no contradiction between my proposals and innovation & real progress. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. People were actually able to take the time and innovate, get the real jobs done, taking care of things that matter and not things shiny or useless requirements.
I see no tieing of resources other than the convention that there has to be democratic agreement as to when and how new money is created and distributed under the convention of it never being debt or war waging.
realisoph 2 years ago
Right, that's because you have absolutely no grasp of economics whatsoever,
For instance, you think it's somehow logical or useful to force everyone to use the same currency. Not only is this impossible, it's detrimental. You want democratic control of currency, and yet you want to abolish private currencies. Economics aside, your own ideas aren't even logically congruent with themselves.
Innovation can't occur without investment capital.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago