People who don't believe in the market economy really scare me! I wish Mises, Hayek and Friedman would come back and sit them down for a long chat.....each person, one by one, till they get it.
You would need an immortal team of Austrians.. these people keep popping out, endlessly. the only option I have is to give them a small city, and let them live in their utopia. BUT, they should not be allowed to live or trade with outside world until they realize they cannot be anti-market.
I'm not sure how offering competing interpretations of history and economic facts is "brainwashing", but if anyone is to be accused of that, it should be the state.
At least Dr. Woods' writings and lectures are based on facts in line with the most recent scholarship available rather than the discredited fairy tale versions of historical events that you normally encounter in public schools.
@KagarBeardtooth From my readings of all of the economists in the last few centuries, I can state that anyone from that organization is a damned liar that gives Joseph Goebels a run for his money.
@KagarBeardtooth Oh! Pardon my sin for wanting to read what economic authors in the last few centuries actually wrote. Obviously, if you work for the Mises Institute, you're one of the chosen priests that will reveal the mysteries revealed by God to the unwashed masses and we just have to accept what they say on faith.
I'm sure you'll find PLENTY of folks at the Mises Institute who discourage research and discovery and want people to accept whatever they say on faith alone. I mean, those manipulative thought controllers - they NEVER compare/contrast their theories with those of other schools of thought that exist..NEVER! Everything they say is completely overturned by the facts! They're in it for the power and money that come with no politics and honest business!
@KagarBeardtooth They're paid to lie on behalf of criminals, nothing new. The British Empire has had a lot of economic propagandists covering up for their mass murdering colonial holocaust.
Enlighten us: which criminals are paying the Mises Institute to lie on their behalf and what motivations do these criminals have that the Mises Institute message fits so perfectly with?
@KagarBeardtooth Oh, so mass murder and slavery is OK in your book, as long as its done in the name of free trade and survival of the fittest and all that bull shit.
@OaklandLYM You truly do not understand FREE markets that can only function in a FREE Society.. for fuck sakes. Go watch Justin Bieber and American Idol.. This is obviously to complicated for you
@BomaBoi Free Markets, a term coined by hack writers of a genocidal corporatist Empire in the business of slavery, murder, genocide, drug pushing, and looting.
@OaklandLYM Be specific or GTFO. Free markets is just a term used to describe complete and utter free trade among a society. Absolutely NO taxes or tarrifs to trade goods, just the complete free willingness of two or more parties to make an unabridged trade. Understand that troll. Take your pessimistic. abhorrent, unrelated, and sad opinions else where. No one gives two shits over here about your idiocracy...
Yeah, those saver type country are doing terrible. Austria, Switzerland, Australia who are they kidding with their 4 % unemployment and 27,000 in disposable income and their federal governments that aren't going broke. Keynes only explains why his interventionism with the fed has problems. Oh, pumping massive amounts of money into the economy will eventually lead to an unsustainable capital investment, unsustainable spending and a liquidity crises. Lets fix that by pumping more money in!
His theories are really just creative thinking of what the implications are of the false original idea. Its sort of like making the assumption that gravity doesn't exist because we can fly in a plane. There's only so much gas, people, we cant leverage forever. So we build a highly speculative and leveraged society, giving the false impression of success. All we have today is too much debt, high prices, and a world banking system thats failed. thanks keynes
@tadaa11 I don't have time to listen to 36 minutes. But the link pointing me here said "No, Capitalism Is Not Responsible for Child Labor, Low Wages, and the Rest of the Litany". That's true, it's a lack of freedom and regulations with well hidden intentions to control that causes the problems. You can't force people to be free, but only in the end reinforce a system of rewarding abuse and punishing the righteous.
@tadaa11 --Continued We are not a capitalistic society, but a corporatist/monopolistic, which is not capitalism. We have a one world government now, and it to is called corporatism/monopolism.
i don't mind historical producers. you will not see me upset at bill gates, or steve jobs or similar people who are actually innovating real and tangible goods. i am upset at those who purchase debt in order to sell debt in order to cut a profit. those who remove money from the economy without giving any tangible and real product. nobody should profit off of the the failure of a business or country.
the speaker keeps saying begining of century vs. significantly later. this is do to technological gains and less to do with taxes. a very real based on reality thing would be to compare the time when taxes where high (such as under president clinton) with the times that taxes were low (such as under president bush, take your pick of sr. or jr.). this is similar technology under higher taxes vs. lower taxes. this picture is based on reality, not a pipe dream fallacy.
american unions did stop child labor that caused the death of many american children in the early 1900's. this is historical fact, no matter what is implied about it. the speaker's thought experiment fails to take into account that we don't produce our goods in the US. labor is exported to other countries. you can't study reality if you don't take reality into account. all theories based only on fiction are only applicable to fiction.
My god, listening to half this crap is all I could manage, so much misinformation thought-out, the very premise of capitalism is clear that it leads to inequality from just looking at the basic economic function of it, hell all you have to do is look at the name CAPITALISM, meaning an individual capitalizing, this is without regard to the external factor beyond the self interest, stuff a child can grasp
@radroatch Who said inequality was bad? Inequality is at the very source of incentive for businessmen to join capital together to better their lives. I'd much rather have an "unequal" society than have everyone "equally" poor. Use your brain.
This is a lie that is pedalled to keep the masses from demanding change, with a rational look at the factors it falls down
You seem to misunderstand the difference between earning something and inequality, with inequality their are people that do not have the means to earn what other can, or are just born into
Lets take this argument 1st on the macroscopic level, the continents of Asia, Africa and South America all have vast amount of people stuck on a slave wage, ...
@radroatch - They are stuck at a "slave wage" not because of free markets, but because of a LACK of free markets. Are private property rights respected? Is it easy to start a business there? Is their regime certainty? Are taxes reasonable? If these things are in place, then these economies will flourish. It happened in Hong Kong, which was destitute 50 years ago, and today - prosperous.
Free markets never stay free, due to things like behavioral economics, game theory and the thermodynamics of economics; this is why we have regulations, they are to try and stop the flaws, but in the end they only delay the effects, or create ones, this is not to say that they are still not the best option
Free entry and exit are both barriered, this occurs in capitalism after time...
The term is well over a century old, but if you wish to call Noam's work crazy then go and find something real that can prove any of his arguments wrong, I have spent much time on looking into sociological trues and I find that they are no public figures that state the intertwining reality like Chomsky does, this is why people only ever attack him with either plain lies, ad hominem, straw-men or ingorance, because this isnt very successful normally instead he is just marginalized...
...It would be nice if you could though at least find flaws in something I have stated, instead you have just repeated your original view point in a basic way
History shows strongly the horrors that unregulated capitalism can cause, so would most economists, in fact externalizes under the basic capitalist theory show that firms have incentive to act against social interests, with many examples supporting this; I would go further saying that if you truly understand capitalist theory...
@radroatch - History has shown no such thing. Rather, it's shown just the opposite. Capitalism has created prosperity the likes of which the world has ever known. Interference in the free market in its many forms has led to a great deal of suffering. We are suffering now in an economic crisis caused primarily by the Fed, not the free market. The depression was caused by the same factors - those of government interference, the creation of false credit and of moral hazard.
... you must accept that where either no incentive, or as in many cases, a counter incentive existed against social optimization, due to the individuals profit motivation and requires an apposing form of control, to not do so interacts contradictions to free market rhetoric
@radroatch - I most certainly do not need to accept this. There are two ways a firm can be successful in our current system: either by satisfying the needs of the public, or of the government. That is where profit motivation works against the public good, when government becomes involved. Otherwise it is only through satisfying customers that a firm can succeed. Those looking to regulate the market always favor one actor over another for their own benefit.
No, what your missing is that the profit motive most frequently, is only trading to meet immediate demand, therefore the externalities are not accounted for, as produces are not produced for the greater social optimum, just the related social optimum/s, without government the social responsibility enters a prisoner dilemma scenario
eg, heavy population to create cheaper end product, over fishing, product misinformation and social hazards etc
@radroatch - The market does a very good job weeding out those entrepreneurs with only a short term vision. They go under, unless of course the state bails them out. It's not just a profit system, it's a profit and loss system. Now we get back to my last point about firms that satisfy government.
As for over-fishing, this is the tragedy of the commons. This happens when "the public" owns anything.
@tadaa11 - When "everybody" owns something, nobody has incentive to preserve that resource. Look around the world, and find some resource that is being depleted, some animal hunted to extinction, and you will usually find that there is not a whole lot of private ownership of that good. If everybody owns it, then nobody takes care of it.
Is property distribution credible for full libertarian rights, not with barriers on entry and exit after this length of time
The tax system has been infiltrated
China is a terrible example and prospers at the detriment of hundreds of thousands due to high centralization, the lack of free entry, very low wages, currency exchanges, and being communist the businesses are technically state owned
Want to know about inequality then look at Chinese migrant workers or wage slaves in Lao or DRC
@radroatch - Didn't say China, said Hong Kong. Different circumstances altogether. If you're going to answer questions other than those I've asked, then there's not a great deal of point posing questions at all.
This statement to be blunt shows real ignorance, Hong Kong is not a closed system, nor is Hong Kong a place of free entry and exit, nor is Hong Kong a place of social optimality, nor has it pooled wealth though lack of government involvement, although technically as China is a communist country the private sector is the state anyway
Hong Kong though is a good example how the term 'free trade' is exploited to justify usually intolerable practices
@radroatch - I know that 1999 may seem like quite a long time ago, but Hong Kong became wealthy when it was under British control. Their economies developed separately. To attempt to tie their prosperity to the Chinese Communist system is disingenuous at best.
The transformation of communism to capitalism creates huge inequality, in Eastern Europe's case it led to worse conditions than under its form communist governance in many countries
In China's case a vacuum of cheap labor triggered the exploitation of it's peoples for the near future gains of western societies and the ruling classes of China in collaboration that ruled the nation
If the country had a more accountable form of governance such as the west no such wealth arise...
...s Though the control of a mesoscopic created economy designed for the western fruition, due to democratic resistance against such evident geographical wealth gaps, we of course do suffer them to a lesser degree due to our oligarchical systems, but this because of the democratic failings
It is also worth pointing out that the mesoscopic level is not good evidence for advocating a marcoscopic system
@radroatch Communism and socialism only give the impression of working because they steal the benefits of capitalism. You bring up one example, overfishing, and that means what? The government should be involved in everything? Product misinformation is dealt with by the private sector. I would change your immediate needs with actual needs. Would you consider Innovation as immediate? All the government does is direct capital to unsustainable or otherwise private sector responsibilities
Sigh, communsism and [central planned] socialism, along with fascism (naming the big 3 not 2 (remember the differences between them)), and it can be said proclaimed 'neocapitialist' policies can fit under the category as you see it, which is not to its impartial, fully informed conclusion, relative to the opinions you put forward
Our western systems are kaynesian and central planned socialist in many aspects...
...which both are not the black and white issue you see it as, politics and economics have many subtleties, that maybe are not be as subtle when viewed outside public discourse
It is however clear they require balance, especially when dealing within the confined perimeters, even beyond that reality, neoliberal capitalism is a rapidly self implosive system, with its proclamation being the only part that can be maintained under most probably highly fascist control...
... This is due to its institutional transition of power that has had its limiters removed
lol, I brought up the massive topic of externalities , of which exists numerous documented examples, over fishing is just one; and is some of the most grounded of economic theory [Economics 1 - Lecture 12: Externalities], that plus similar lectures and papers explain "what it means" in detail
Governance in capitalism is required in cases of negative externalities...
... As I have said, I think, this is because the lack of, or opposition the direct profit motive in a transaction
Ugly scares in history show how the market does not self regulate, right up to this point I might add; capitalist basic theory shows why
Centralization is the problem of our governance, capitalism has been the main driving factor of this process, due to its own undemocratic, hierarchical, centralizing evolution...
... That said governmental structure and policy are difficult to get right, this is because as can be shown in game theory the theoretical goals are often harder to obtain that the more simple direct profit driven method, under current conditions; just because that is so does not by any means indicate the easier to be socially more optimum with all considered
@radroatch This is a joke, right? You are just throwing a bunch of generalized accusation or ideas out there and call them facts. All America needs is to have our constitution, the way it was written in originally, without the right it amend it, and define liberty. Take away the right for direct taxation and take away the federal reserve. The government would not be able to put people in groups, which is how they get elected. Life is unequal, but this is the best solution for fairness
A joke, maybe you are the one joking, if they are such then you should easily be able to point out the falsities in what I say
I could point out many specific factual examples, better in 500 to point people towards a field than just using a few specifics as you pointed out that you did not like the specific I originally pointed out remember, so such a remark could be considered trolling...
... On the US constitution, which ironically under its own doctrine is technically illegitimate, also the constitution was not perfect, nor its original writers infallible, nor their periodical ethics, even with their almost god like status amongst some modern public
It is very clear that the constitution creates many contradicting outcomes, one enjoying their liberties will inflict upon others, so governance must have some form of regulation in such circumstances...
...that are determined as degenerate to the common liberties for all, above the grander liberties of an ever reducing number
I do not however thing that amendments to the constitution are in anyway always in the general interest, I do not think that reforms that override it are either
I am not a fan of our polyarchical system like yourself, it is you proclaimed ill thought out that solutions I have the problems with, with the exception of tackling the fed, though I image we would...
The governance under any familiar form to our own would always categorize individuals, smaller or no, this is because of a very similar incentive as the profit motive you and other liberals seem to not always fully understand. If a science or technology are created they will be used to the own ends of the use for personal gain (this often amounts to a collectives gain) within the perimeter set...
... This case it came from, the at 1st capitalist market research, focus groups and consensus; and advancement of the new self psychology that were really developing in the last half a century, to the lesser simpler extent the whole century
So it can not be claimed that it is applicable to any real degree prior to this point, as the means did not exist
I agree that full equality would be somewhat casing a rainbow, but it is given that inequality should be greatly reduced...
... To find the best option requires a lot of research and information, in the same way we trust say a doctor due to his medical knowledge above our own, the problem is that politicians cannot be trusted to convey this impartially, so we must highly educate our selfs independent of singular institutions
My own opinions have been influenced greatly in my own process, and I am what I would call a more true libertarian, I believe that we need to have only coop democratic business...
... communal small governance, under more direct of a highly educated populace and controls, balance and accountability for any power structures required, this means regulation; this would be categorized as libertarian socialism at its end result, this, as I now see it, is the right direction, methods for getting there, I believe, are much harder to achieve
@radroatch Why would you throw out capitalism so easily. Socialism is slow to respond. Free markets with competition creates the innovation needed to increase productivity, which basically turns into wealth. It gives Elected leaders the power instead of a more competent and deserving innovator or owner. Socialists skip the part where the company is started and built. They skip the part where someone saves for years to risk everything for an idea.Easy money is wrong and so is socialism
I did not say I would throw out all capitalist principles, I think the profit motive is only part of what could be a larger more credible incentive motive, this for the foreseeable future should maintain the profit aspects that are beneficial
I think the problem you have is you do not know what socialism is and only see it in non liberal forms, as I pointed out, it should become libertarian socialism in its end result, capitalism is a dynamic economic system, this proves its strength...
... and weakness, it means it is adaptable to supply and demand in many cases, but it also means the constant flux, under economic thermodynamics, makes it a system of transition by design, under hierarchical control it will always centralize, with governance or not
This is why firms should be coops, once the hierarchical system is converted to a democratic system, under a educated society, this can be counter acted, along with other important reasons...
... Using such modern advancements like adapted social media democratic control can be easily and more efficiently managed, than I would argue a command chain even can
As it is not centrally planned this is not what would happen, it is actually the least centrally funded system, much less than that of neocapitalism
Besides you don't clearly understand true libertarian capitalism, as a keystone is free entry and exit, so no catastrophic risk, who says high risk is the meaning to easy...
might be more accurately put as Laissez faire/anarcho-capitalism/capitalist libertarianism: lightly governed, small governmental control, low regulation, right up to state abolishment, ron pauls wet dream...
@radroatch I'm all for that. I don't like centralized power where I'm forced to participate.
My definition of easy money, in any society, is when they have a central bank. These banks create money out of thin air and cause a speculative and highly leveraged investments, which is the cause of all this mess that everyone is in.
... The lack of incentive proves much better than crippling disincentive
I would also point out if you change your wording of owner to dictator in that sentence as wrote, you are at odds with modern democracy and such governance could be communist or fascist; who says that a fair electoral system would not produce more competent leadership, when it clearly would be for the good of those voting and thus the institute, a control figure has disincentive to replace their self...
@radroatch If you call a land owner a dictator. What if you don't have any employees are you still a dictator? In a free society you have the right to leave the so called dictator, which in it self makes that statement untrue. Socialist countries don't innovate, they use our innovations. The list is endless: Google, peanut butter, apple, Intel, Microsoft to name a few. There is a reason that these are developed in America. I personally think these ideas came from a person not a group.
"would also point out if you change your wording of owner to dictator"
Did Hitler really own entire Germany? Did Pol Pot own entire territory of Cambodia?
Replacing owner with dictator, is replacing "my" in - I eat my food - with ALL food.
"when it clearly would be for the good of those voting "
This is blatant lie. Hitler was elected thru modern democratic process, same goes for FDR and the democratic leadership of Japan which got them into a WW2.
I replaced owner with dictator, not dictator with owner, yes there is a difference, but ok
If a nation dictator decreed it and no uprising happen then yes my and ALL are both correct; ownership is a state of mind as well as an economic principle, does an owner truly own what he claims right to or just have control over it; ALL is the total of a set perimeter, firm, county, country, just bigger perimeters
Private firms are mostly hierarchies or dictatorships, my paradigm was sound...
... What I was pointing out with it is we claim the 'virtue' of modern democracy but our economy and labor is based on hierarchy and dictatorship, replace MY with firm or ALL with country; then try replace MY with state and ALL with world, just look at the parallels
I was talking about democratic ownership, with is very different, than the orthodox of modern democracy which is only marginally truly thus so not properly comparably
My statement can be backed up by papers and co-op...
Speak for yourself. I claim no such thing. Democracy is pure evil. There is no virtue there.
Private property allows people to walk away as and when their interests are separate and yet they are free to cooperate and come together for mutual benefit. Democratic ownership provides no such thing. The talk of coops is all fun and games, until you look into the depths. It is a highly ineffective and useless model that creates unnecessary conflicts.
The alternative to the democratic process as you seem apposed leads to elite control including dictatorship; Hitler committed the worst of his crimes as a dictator, in a country that didnt have free speech
btw earlier I will have highlight an educated populace to avoid such manipulation
What of the leadership of the US which planned to come in as late as pos. to become the superpower after the others destroyed their means of production...
"The alternative to the democratic process as you seem apposed leads to elite control including dictatorship;"
Yes, because our only two alternatives are the hive mind controls everything or Dictators control everything.. we cannot have a third and very natural, very normal option of you mind your business and I mind mine. NO!
Your talk of educated populace is sheer bunk. Of course, some people..(hint:mirror).. who think they are educated ...dumb as rocks, but "educated".
... You only position left is to side with the neo-cons logic, small democratic influence, large private influence, polyarchical control and what has this lead to, well the installation and support of dictatorships, your friend pot, gadaffi, pinochet, the shah, mubarak, abdullah, saddam to name some that come to mind, not to mention wars etc. all to maintain global hegemony
Been good to vote on the nukes that killed 1000000 to 200000 in Japan as it they were already surrendering
So, not following retarded socialist egalitarian ideas leads me no choice but to line up with retarded socialist egalitarian democratic monsters or supported by socialist egalitarian democracies. Wow! The logic is ...
As to nuking Japan, do you really believe people in Alabama, or for that matter, Oregon really cared if Japanese old men, women and children were killed? Heck, they were okay with internment of their Japanese neighbors! What kind of fantasy world do you ..?
... Hard to figure what you see as easy money, harder to figure why you see socialism as wrong in full because that would include much medical care, education, roads, military (you can't call the US/UK's defense), law/enforcement and many other infrastructures such as garage collection, regulating bodies, power plants, water works, and many innovation investments we benefit from
It is curious that nearly all US lib's disproportionally value a selective, as well as against their rhetoric
No, I don't benefit from being prevented from seeking highly regulated and price inflated medical care, subsidize the travel of others, overconsumption of gas, pay for prisons for children called government schools, or to pay for killing Arabs, brown people and muslims or to provide for a "police" force that can kill innocent people with immunity.
In your tiny little mind these things are good. To me they are all bad.
...this situation is kept this way by the powerful capitalist countries using our ‘free market’
On the meso level in the western countries wealth has shifted beyond a certain point what you now see is the lines of the two going the opposite way as social mobility reduces as wealth concentrates
If you allow inequality in society after time with gradual change, the wealth will be accumulated by a few, it works in the similar way to speciation though evolution
@radroatch No. This occurs because governments wipe out the middle class through inflation and crippling taxes. You have your anger misdirected. Governments can't do anything to "fix" this, firstly, because all governments can do is steal money from one individual and give it to another individual. That does absolutely nothing other than make society poorer.
Inflation is a necessity in all forms of capitalism under the 'multiply effect' logic, in combination with Kayneisianism, introduced to correct laissez fair capitalism and get the US out of the great depression, the problem was that the math to Kaynes does not work for the economics that have arose (if at all); this theory along with the intervention of regulation and worker rights by government to alleviate the force of classic capitalism could only act as a buffer...
@radroatch No, that doesn't correct laissez fair capitalism, especially under a gold standard. The theories you're talking about prolonged the great depression. Free-markets liquidate a lot quicker without government stifling that process. Countless examples of this are strewn throughout our history where government did nothing and allowed the free-markets to work properly. Wealth concentrates precisely because of these governmental regulations that don't allow competition to work.
If this were true then why was the great depression caused by the free markets before kayneisian economics even existed and why was the WW, which caused investment by the state, regarded as defibrillating the economic
Kayneisain capitalism did not work as well as it could have, but it worked a lot better than what was happening at the time that caused its implementation. Under the principles of economics you only invest when rate of return is seen as beneficial enough....
@radroatch But the free market DID NOT CAUSE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. The Federal Reserve giving out artificial credit caused the Great Depression.
Keynesian philosophies did however, extend the Depression for a great many years. Hoover and FDR trying to "stimulate" the economy with massive government spending kept it going, as did other new restrictions on business.
It was only the easing of restrictions and shrinking of government in 1946 that ended the depression.
...to justify investment, therefore if the investment could not produce the rate of return there would be no investor, as MWTP had been crippled in the creation of mass poverty, no economic recovery would happen without stimulation; if you can think of a conventionally acceptable way of doing this that is not though government, then you would win a nobel prize
The free market destroys itself as it is not a closed system
@radroatch You're saying governments need to stimulate an economic recovery. But what does government inherently have? It has absolutely nothing other than what it takes from the economy. So for you to say "government" needs to stimulate the economy through spending is absolutely false. There's a fundamental difference between stimulating demand, and genuine economic growth, and the only way governments can stimulate economic growth is by stepping out of the way.
Kayneisain economic theory is the government should save money in the booms and invest in the busts, thereby always maintaining the economy: this has not happen due to our economics and politics, I would go further and say this would not create anything close to social optimum posible and that is why the politics of the situation are where they are
On a macroscopic level demand can only increases if economic growth is in effect, this is unsustainable and is the reason kayneisain...
@radroatch - But Keynesian central banks CAUSE the booms and busts. Attempting to keep booms going just makes for more disastrous busts later. That's where we are right now. Right now we are suffering a bigger bust because of the Fed trying to ease the dot com bust.
Kayneisain is not a great economic system, but it is the best form of capitalism, I believe the best economic system is a socialist one, that might sound radical but it isn't; in the foreseeable future the largest changes would be to reduce centralization, increase education and legislate firms into becoming cooperatives under a kind of market socialism; this would correct the theories flaw of the firms AC curve regarding empolyees
@radroatch - "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Socialism destroys the work ethic, destroys the family, is antithetical to liberty and prosperity. But it is appealing to those who ignore history, and don't like thinking all that hard.
Keynesianism is not a form of capitalism, but is to capitalism what a prison cell is to liberty. There is no problem with laissez-faire. None.
Acting similarly to the laws of thermodynamics capitalism transferred into government infrastructure as now it has a link, a reason. After this happened the process began inside government that followed the capitalist base principle of adaptation to produce wealth for self interest, this mimicking evolutions natural selection, environmental adaptation in species 'arms race'
Compromised governance arose due to the undemocratic drive of capitalism
If USA learned how to distribute wealth more equally you could get free medical care, buy hey, your government doesn't seem to think that your worth it. Good luck with that.
@SlaughterMezz The government is very eager to control our medical care and our daily lives in the form of "healthy" lifestyles, the PEOPLE don't want it.
So doctors will work for free, hospitals will pay their electric bills with kind words, people will create drugs gratis. They won't want to feed their families, or anything greedy like that. If government distributed wealth better.
This is of course assuming that anything is free, or that government has the right or the knowledge to distribute wealth. Or that medical care under this system would be worth having.
@mpc91 The idea is simple, everyone pays taxes -> the tax-money goes to the goverment which distribute it amongst hospitals which pay doctors to take care of sick people, no matter their insurance. Ofcourse that would mean that your taxes would be slightly higher than they right now or you would have to cut down on your invasions, but none of you would ever need to worry about your health. But hey, keep the taxes low, waste it on shit and then buy insurance that doesn't even cover anything.
@SlaughterMezz - Funny, but your explanation defies any sort of economics. If people have the impression that something is free, or if that someone else is paying, they will get more of that thing. That will greatly increase the demand, and thus the cost. But with government setting the prices, the supply will not increase.
So either the quality drops, and sick people wait while hypochondriacs flood the doctor's office, or the costs skyrocket.
I really enjoy listening to Tom Woods and Peter Schiff because I want to hear the truth, not something that will make me feel good or pacify my fears about the world.
@boum62 Poor comment in my opinion. You give no specifics and no particular reason to doubt the arguments in the video. And what exactly was "vague" in it? How could it have been more precise?
This was the first video I ever saw from the Mises Institute, and it was the tipping point for me into capitalism and libertarianism. I still think this is one of the best talks on the internet. I've linked people to it many times to make some point or another. It's just great.
If you liked this one, you'd love his "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920" speech. It lays out the ABCT, important information on a calamity that, in just about every measure, started out worse than the Great Depression of 1929 and ended in a year when the Fed did nothing, and is all around a great primer for Austrian Economics, as well as the many books that are available on the website for free.
one thing we as americans have to understand is that the austrian school is much a response to the american school of economics as put forth by lincoln as in it was in opposition to lincolns model... listen to the words... austrian economics was an oposition response to the american school of economics as put forth by lincoln
I can't believe I listened to the whole video which is nearly 37 minutes long. It shows how good of a speaker Tom Woods is and especially on topics that are too hard to even debate on such as child labor.
The austrians actually have a very comprehensive theory that details the trends and causes & effects of economic actions. And what do liberals/marxists/keynsians do? they come up with wild irrational statements - 'blame it on greed' lolol
uh the creationists are the liberals, neo cons, the marxists, socialists & the keynsians who can't even count. Lol try reading the Wealth of Nations and read some Bastiat
The monetary serfdom of immense humanity to an outdated,dehumanising,destructive MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY is the template of the suffering of our common humanity . Divinity is SHARING OUR PLANET FOR OUR COMMMON NEEDS AND WELL BEING in harmony within and without. All metaphysical, piecemeal tinkering with COMMMODITIFICATION of our energies is doomed to fail. Only a democratic majority working class movement for a MONEYLESS,CLASSLESS,STATELESS communities of humanity is the option.
@jaguarclaw - The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.
@sfiorare - The Federal Reserve System has a structure designed by Congress…
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to Congress.
The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review.
@DRNevans - many historians and economists spend the majority of their lives doing exhaustive, unbiased research; unlike woods, who has chosen to hitch his wagon to the mises institute, which is well known to be an extremely politically biased organization; woods twists and alters facts in a way to pander to know-nothings and miscreants that don't want to face facts; he reminds me of creationist that make up a new version of history to match their religious and political beliefs
@sfiorare Well, when you have some specifics, you let us know. In the meantime, you're a super guy. Full of joy, too. And that one YouTube subscriber must be a real consolation.
@sfiorare - They may spend their lives doing exhaustive research, but to claim they are unbiased is at best naive, at worst deluded. If someone is going to dedicate their life to anything, you'd think they'd probably develop an opinion or two along the way. And to think that the MIses Institute is more biased than any University is even more naive.
To call people who disagree with you know-nothings and miscreants just shows your absolute arrogance.
@mpc91 - many historians have no partisan bias, unlike woods that is a lackey of the mises institute, which is highly, if not solely biased towards the libertarian party
you can deny that ron paul and lew rockwell pander to know-nothings and miscreants, but reality shows something different
@sfiorare - Paul and Rockwell don't pander to you, so clearly they are missing a miscreant and a know-nothing. But I digress. I don't think you know nothing, but your faith in historians infallibility is misplaced.
To claim that historians and academia in general is non-biased is both factually and conceptually foolish. 77% of the money donated by the faculty to political parties in 2010 at Harvard went to Democrats. 75% at Stanford. The Princeton Review... 100%. That's non-partisan?
@sfiorare - I'm sorry, but now you're arguing like a six year old.
I'm not claiming that Woods or I lack political bias. But you are claiming that there are people without political bias. There are apparently these automaton history professors and scholars who dedicate their lives studying history without forming an opinion on it. To ignore that every person has some level of bias is to be completely incapable of understanding any sort of history in any meaningful context.
notice how i didn't say there are people without any political bias
i said, "many historians have no partisan bias", which on its face indicates a level of political bias that is much less than the strong partisan bias that the libertarian party in famous for
only an idiot thinks there are people with zero political bias, a reasonable person would have understood that we're speaking of reality and significant degrees of bias
@mpc91 - no, everyone's bias isn't partisan, do you even understand what it means?
partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
i can say my political bias isn't partisan, because i don't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, support a party, cause, or person, i'm nonpartisan
nonpartisan - not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group.
@CurtHowland I thought that I was the only one who consistently found myself rewatching Tom Wood's videos. It's just the right amount of information and entertainment.
I really wish Tom Woods would run for congress. Ron Paul is great, but he is OLD and is a terrible speaker, whereas Tom is young and a great speaker. He is really a super star in the Austrian School of thought right now.
@christo930 I was really impressed with Tom Woods. I sent him an email around midnight one night and didn't expect a response. I got one back within 5 minutes.
@christo930 Paul isn't a terrible speaker. He's not Obama, for sure, but he tells the truth. To me, that makes his speeches infinitely more valuable than Obama or any other plastic man. But even disregarding that point, the man is an ok speaker. He doesn't command attention, but he got amazing standing ovations in the republican debates in 2008 because he would say what the others were too chicken shit to mention.
@MegaChevelle396 I fully support tariffs and a lot of my views have changed recently, especially against the right. I am not saying woods or Paul are liars, but right is filled with liars and Christian fundamentalists who I hate. They say they're for freedom, but they aren't and their biggest issues are social and all bad.
People who don't believe in the market economy really scare me! I wish Mises, Hayek and Friedman would come back and sit them down for a long chat.....each person, one by one, till they get it.
MrCitsidas 1 week ago
@MrCitsidas,
You would need an immortal team of Austrians.. these people keep popping out, endlessly. the only option I have is to give them a small city, and let them live in their utopia. BUT, they should not be allowed to live or trade with outside world until they realize they cannot be anti-market.
utubehayter 5 days ago
I love Tom Woods!
graaaaaagh 3 weeks ago
Seems that the Mises gang has taken Bertrand Russell's argument to start brainwashing the kids when they're young.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago in playlist Economics
@OaklandLYM
I'm not sure how offering competing interpretations of history and economic facts is "brainwashing", but if anyone is to be accused of that, it should be the state.
At least Dr. Woods' writings and lectures are based on facts in line with the most recent scholarship available rather than the discredited fairy tale versions of historical events that you normally encounter in public schools.
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago
@KagarBeardtooth From my readings of all of the economists in the last few centuries, I can state that anyone from that organization is a damned liar that gives Joseph Goebels a run for his money.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM
Yes, you've obviously read "all of the economists in the last few centuries"....
You're just a troll; you've got nothing!
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago
@KagarBeardtooth Oh! Pardon my sin for wanting to read what economic authors in the last few centuries actually wrote. Obviously, if you work for the Mises Institute, you're one of the chosen priests that will reveal the mysteries revealed by God to the unwashed masses and we just have to accept what they say on faith.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM
You are hilarious!
I'm sure you'll find PLENTY of folks at the Mises Institute who discourage research and discovery and want people to accept whatever they say on faith alone. I mean, those manipulative thought controllers - they NEVER compare/contrast their theories with those of other schools of thought that exist..NEVER! Everything they say is completely overturned by the facts! They're in it for the power and money that come with no politics and honest business!
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago
@KagarBeardtooth They're paid to lie on behalf of criminals, nothing new. The British Empire has had a lot of economic propagandists covering up for their mass murdering colonial holocaust.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM
Enlighten us: which criminals are paying the Mises Institute to lie on their behalf and what motivations do these criminals have that the Mises Institute message fits so perfectly with?
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago
@KagarBeardtooth Oh, so mass murder and slavery is OK in your book, as long as its done in the name of free trade and survival of the fittest and all that bull shit.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM
Of course it's not okay. No one is saying that. Who in the Mises Institute defends mass murder and involuntary servitude?
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago 5
@KagarBeardtooth All of them.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM
Right...
Take care.
KagarBeardtooth 3 weeks ago 4
@OaklandLYM You truly do not understand FREE markets that can only function in a FREE Society.. for fuck sakes. Go watch Justin Bieber and American Idol.. This is obviously to complicated for you
BomaBoi 2 weeks ago
@BomaBoi Free Markets, a term coined by hack writers of a genocidal corporatist Empire in the business of slavery, murder, genocide, drug pushing, and looting.
OaklandLYM 2 weeks ago
@OaklandLYM Be specific or GTFO. Free markets is just a term used to describe complete and utter free trade among a society. Absolutely NO taxes or tarrifs to trade goods, just the complete free willingness of two or more parties to make an unabridged trade. Understand that troll. Take your pessimistic. abhorrent, unrelated, and sad opinions else where. No one gives two shits over here about your idiocracy...
BomaBoi 2 weeks ago
@BomaBoi I know you don't give a shit about reality or truth, much like the hapless speaker in this video.
OaklandLYM 2 weeks ago
This is the ultimate anti-communist argument. Marx can't deal with this shit.
tallswede80 3 weeks ago
@tallswede80 Actually, Marx was in full agreement with Adam Smith and his crackpot theory.
OaklandLYM 3 weeks ago
This video is a favorite on Bhutan
ouishansen923l 1 month ago
Yeah, those saver type country are doing terrible. Austria, Switzerland, Australia who are they kidding with their 4 % unemployment and 27,000 in disposable income and their federal governments that aren't going broke. Keynes only explains why his interventionism with the fed has problems. Oh, pumping massive amounts of money into the economy will eventually lead to an unsustainable capital investment, unsustainable spending and a liquidity crises. Lets fix that by pumping more money in!
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11 Continued...
His theories are really just creative thinking of what the implications are of the false original idea. Its sort of like making the assumption that gravity doesn't exist because we can fly in a plane. There's only so much gas, people, we cant leverage forever. So we build a highly speculative and leveraged society, giving the false impression of success. All we have today is too much debt, high prices, and a world banking system thats failed. thanks keynes
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11 I don't have time to listen to 36 minutes. But the link pointing me here said "No, Capitalism Is Not Responsible for Child Labor, Low Wages, and the Rest of the Litany". That's true, it's a lack of freedom and regulations with well hidden intentions to control that causes the problems. You can't force people to be free, but only in the end reinforce a system of rewarding abuse and punishing the righteous.
Aldenissin 1 month ago
@tadaa11 --Continued We are not a capitalistic society, but a corporatist/monopolistic, which is not capitalism. We have a one world government now, and it to is called corporatism/monopolism.
Aldenissin 1 month ago
17 people should be, but probably aren't, moving to North Korea.
navsquid32 1 month ago
i don't mind historical producers. you will not see me upset at bill gates, or steve jobs or similar people who are actually innovating real and tangible goods. i am upset at those who purchase debt in order to sell debt in order to cut a profit. those who remove money from the economy without giving any tangible and real product. nobody should profit off of the the failure of a business or country.
greycloud24 2 months ago
the speaker keeps saying begining of century vs. significantly later. this is do to technological gains and less to do with taxes. a very real based on reality thing would be to compare the time when taxes where high (such as under president clinton) with the times that taxes were low (such as under president bush, take your pick of sr. or jr.). this is similar technology under higher taxes vs. lower taxes. this picture is based on reality, not a pipe dream fallacy.
greycloud24 2 months ago
american unions did stop child labor that caused the death of many american children in the early 1900's. this is historical fact, no matter what is implied about it. the speaker's thought experiment fails to take into account that we don't produce our goods in the US. labor is exported to other countries. you can't study reality if you don't take reality into account. all theories based only on fiction are only applicable to fiction.
greycloud24 2 months ago
@greycloud24 Labor is exported into other countries because of minimum wage.
david52875 1 month ago
free market ideology is the nemesis of humanity
pwd3679 2 months ago
@pwd3679 is the nemesis of logic.
david52875 1 month ago
My god, listening to half this crap is all I could manage, so much misinformation thought-out, the very premise of capitalism is clear that it leads to inequality from just looking at the basic economic function of it, hell all you have to do is look at the name CAPITALISM, meaning an individual capitalizing, this is without regard to the external factor beyond the self interest, stuff a child can grasp
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch Who said inequality was bad? Inequality is at the very source of incentive for businessmen to join capital together to better their lives. I'd much rather have an "unequal" society than have everyone "equally" poor. Use your brain.
TheSWTORMMO 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
This is a lie that is pedalled to keep the masses from demanding change, with a rational look at the factors it falls down
You seem to misunderstand the difference between earning something and inequality, with inequality their are people that do not have the means to earn what other can, or are just born into
Lets take this argument 1st on the macroscopic level, the continents of Asia, Africa and South America all have vast amount of people stuck on a slave wage, ...
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch - They are stuck at a "slave wage" not because of free markets, but because of a LACK of free markets. Are private property rights respected? Is it easy to start a business there? Is their regime certainty? Are taxes reasonable? If these things are in place, then these economies will flourish. It happened in Hong Kong, which was destitute 50 years ago, and today - prosperous.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91
Slave wage is a term you can use without ""
Free markets never stay free, due to things like behavioral economics, game theory and the thermodynamics of economics; this is why we have regulations, they are to try and stop the flaws, but in the end they only delay the effects, or create ones, this is not to say that they are still not the best option
Free entry and exit are both barriered, this occurs in capitalism after time...
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch - No, it's really not. When using your crazy Noam Chomsky jargon, I'll use whatever punctuation I choose to.
The free market does stay free, unless government starts enforcing regulations. They do not stop the flaws - they create them.
Government is needed to prevent fraud, protect private property rights, and enforce contracts. But the free market will take care of the rest.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91
The term is well over a century old, but if you wish to call Noam's work crazy then go and find something real that can prove any of his arguments wrong, I have spent much time on looking into sociological trues and I find that they are no public figures that state the intertwining reality like Chomsky does, this is why people only ever attack him with either plain lies, ad hominem, straw-men or ingorance, because this isnt very successful normally instead he is just marginalized...
radroatch 1 month ago
@mpc91
...It would be nice if you could though at least find flaws in something I have stated, instead you have just repeated your original view point in a basic way
History shows strongly the horrors that unregulated capitalism can cause, so would most economists, in fact externalizes under the basic capitalist theory show that firms have incentive to act against social interests, with many examples supporting this; I would go further saying that if you truly understand capitalist theory...
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch - History has shown no such thing. Rather, it's shown just the opposite. Capitalism has created prosperity the likes of which the world has ever known. Interference in the free market in its many forms has led to a great deal of suffering. We are suffering now in an economic crisis caused primarily by the Fed, not the free market. The depression was caused by the same factors - those of government interference, the creation of false credit and of moral hazard.
mpc91 1 month ago
@mpc91
... you must accept that where either no incentive, or as in many cases, a counter incentive existed against social optimization, due to the individuals profit motivation and requires an apposing form of control, to not do so interacts contradictions to free market rhetoric
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch - I most certainly do not need to accept this. There are two ways a firm can be successful in our current system: either by satisfying the needs of the public, or of the government. That is where profit motivation works against the public good, when government becomes involved. Otherwise it is only through satisfying customers that a firm can succeed. Those looking to regulate the market always favor one actor over another for their own benefit.
mpc91 1 month ago
@mpc91
No, what your missing is that the profit motive most frequently, is only trading to meet immediate demand, therefore the externalities are not accounted for, as produces are not produced for the greater social optimum, just the related social optimum/s, without government the social responsibility enters a prisoner dilemma scenario
eg, heavy population to create cheaper end product, over fishing, product misinformation and social hazards etc
watch some lectures on externalities
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch - The market does a very good job weeding out those entrepreneurs with only a short term vision. They go under, unless of course the state bails them out. It's not just a profit system, it's a profit and loss system. Now we get back to my last point about firms that satisfy government.
As for over-fishing, this is the tragedy of the commons. This happens when "the public" owns anything.
mpc91 1 month ago
@mpc91 Good point about the commons. Never heard that one before.
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11 - When "everybody" owns something, nobody has incentive to preserve that resource. Look around the world, and find some resource that is being depleted, some animal hunted to extinction, and you will usually find that there is not a whole lot of private ownership of that good. If everybody owns it, then nobody takes care of it.
mpc91 1 month ago
@mpc91
Is property distribution credible for full libertarian rights, not with barriers on entry and exit after this length of time
The tax system has been infiltrated
China is a terrible example and prospers at the detriment of hundreds of thousands due to high centralization, the lack of free entry, very low wages, currency exchanges, and being communist the businesses are technically state owned
Want to know about inequality then look at Chinese migrant workers or wage slaves in Lao or DRC
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch - Didn't say China, said Hong Kong. Different circumstances altogether. If you're going to answer questions other than those I've asked, then there's not a great deal of point posing questions at all.
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91
This statement to be blunt shows real ignorance, Hong Kong is not a closed system, nor is Hong Kong a place of free entry and exit, nor is Hong Kong a place of social optimality, nor has it pooled wealth though lack of government involvement, although technically as China is a communist country the private sector is the state anyway
Hong Kong though is a good example how the term 'free trade' is exploited to justify usually intolerable practices
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch - I know that 1999 may seem like quite a long time ago, but Hong Kong became wealthy when it was under British control. Their economies developed separately. To attempt to tie their prosperity to the Chinese Communist system is disingenuous at best.
mpc91 1 month ago
@mpc91
The transformation of communism to capitalism creates huge inequality, in Eastern Europe's case it led to worse conditions than under its form communist governance in many countries
In China's case a vacuum of cheap labor triggered the exploitation of it's peoples for the near future gains of western societies and the ruling classes of China in collaboration that ruled the nation
If the country had a more accountable form of governance such as the west no such wealth arise...
radroatch 1 month ago
@mpc91
...s Though the control of a mesoscopic created economy designed for the western fruition, due to democratic resistance against such evident geographical wealth gaps, we of course do suffer them to a lesser degree due to our oligarchical systems, but this because of the democratic failings
It is also worth pointing out that the mesoscopic level is not good evidence for advocating a marcoscopic system
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch Communism and socialism only give the impression of working because they steal the benefits of capitalism. You bring up one example, overfishing, and that means what? The government should be involved in everything? Product misinformation is dealt with by the private sector. I would change your immediate needs with actual needs. Would you consider Innovation as immediate? All the government does is direct capital to unsustainable or otherwise private sector responsibilities
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11
Sigh, communsism and [central planned] socialism, along with fascism (naming the big 3 not 2 (remember the differences between them)), and it can be said proclaimed 'neocapitialist' policies can fit under the category as you see it, which is not to its impartial, fully informed conclusion, relative to the opinions you put forward
Our western systems are kaynesian and central planned socialist in many aspects...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
...which both are not the black and white issue you see it as, politics and economics have many subtleties, that maybe are not be as subtle when viewed outside public discourse
It is however clear they require balance, especially when dealing within the confined perimeters, even beyond that reality, neoliberal capitalism is a rapidly self implosive system, with its proclamation being the only part that can be maintained under most probably highly fascist control...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... This is due to its institutional transition of power that has had its limiters removed
lol, I brought up the massive topic of externalities , of which exists numerous documented examples, over fishing is just one; and is some of the most grounded of economic theory [Economics 1 - Lecture 12: Externalities], that plus similar lectures and papers explain "what it means" in detail
Governance in capitalism is required in cases of negative externalities...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... As I have said, I think, this is because the lack of, or opposition the direct profit motive in a transaction
Ugly scares in history show how the market does not self regulate, right up to this point I might add; capitalist basic theory shows why
Centralization is the problem of our governance, capitalism has been the main driving factor of this process, due to its own undemocratic, hierarchical, centralizing evolution...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... That said governmental structure and policy are difficult to get right, this is because as can be shown in game theory the theoretical goals are often harder to obtain that the more simple direct profit driven method, under current conditions; just because that is so does not by any means indicate the easier to be socially more optimum with all considered
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch This is a joke, right? You are just throwing a bunch of generalized accusation or ideas out there and call them facts. All America needs is to have our constitution, the way it was written in originally, without the right it amend it, and define liberty. Take away the right for direct taxation and take away the federal reserve. The government would not be able to put people in groups, which is how they get elected. Life is unequal, but this is the best solution for fairness
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11
A joke, maybe you are the one joking, if they are such then you should easily be able to point out the falsities in what I say
I could point out many specific factual examples, better in 500 to point people towards a field than just using a few specifics as you pointed out that you did not like the specific I originally pointed out remember, so such a remark could be considered trolling...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... On the US constitution, which ironically under its own doctrine is technically illegitimate, also the constitution was not perfect, nor its original writers infallible, nor their periodical ethics, even with their almost god like status amongst some modern public
It is very clear that the constitution creates many contradicting outcomes, one enjoying their liberties will inflict upon others, so governance must have some form of regulation in such circumstances...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
...that are determined as degenerate to the common liberties for all, above the grander liberties of an ever reducing number
I do not however thing that amendments to the constitution are in anyway always in the general interest, I do not think that reforms that override it are either
I am not a fan of our polyarchical system like yourself, it is you proclaimed ill thought out that solutions I have the problems with, with the exception of tackling the fed, though I image we would...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... disagree on what do if it were
The governance under any familiar form to our own would always categorize individuals, smaller or no, this is because of a very similar incentive as the profit motive you and other liberals seem to not always fully understand. If a science or technology are created they will be used to the own ends of the use for personal gain (this often amounts to a collectives gain) within the perimeter set...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... This case it came from, the at 1st capitalist market research, focus groups and consensus; and advancement of the new self psychology that were really developing in the last half a century, to the lesser simpler extent the whole century
So it can not be claimed that it is applicable to any real degree prior to this point, as the means did not exist
I agree that full equality would be somewhat casing a rainbow, but it is given that inequality should be greatly reduced...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... To find the best option requires a lot of research and information, in the same way we trust say a doctor due to his medical knowledge above our own, the problem is that politicians cannot be trusted to convey this impartially, so we must highly educate our selfs independent of singular institutions
My own opinions have been influenced greatly in my own process, and I am what I would call a more true libertarian, I believe that we need to have only coop democratic business...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... communal small governance, under more direct of a highly educated populace and controls, balance and accountability for any power structures required, this means regulation; this would be categorized as libertarian socialism at its end result, this, as I now see it, is the right direction, methods for getting there, I believe, are much harder to achieve
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch Why would you throw out capitalism so easily. Socialism is slow to respond. Free markets with competition creates the innovation needed to increase productivity, which basically turns into wealth. It gives Elected leaders the power instead of a more competent and deserving innovator or owner. Socialists skip the part where the company is started and built. They skip the part where someone saves for years to risk everything for an idea.Easy money is wrong and so is socialism
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11
I did not say I would throw out all capitalist principles, I think the profit motive is only part of what could be a larger more credible incentive motive, this for the foreseeable future should maintain the profit aspects that are beneficial
I think the problem you have is you do not know what socialism is and only see it in non liberal forms, as I pointed out, it should become libertarian socialism in its end result, capitalism is a dynamic economic system, this proves its strength...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... and weakness, it means it is adaptable to supply and demand in many cases, but it also means the constant flux, under economic thermodynamics, makes it a system of transition by design, under hierarchical control it will always centralize, with governance or not
This is why firms should be coops, once the hierarchical system is converted to a democratic system, under a educated society, this can be counter acted, along with other important reasons...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... This is technically socialist, but it follows the capitalist theory almost directly, while I believe counter acting fundamental flaws in it
You will also see that coops are maintainable and successful at the very least in the current climate
At the very least it could can be sighted that coops are just as innovative, I believe evidence shows they should be far greater so
In these systems the need of leadership would be greatly reduced as it would have less necessity...
radroatch 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... Using such modern advancements like adapted social media democratic control can be easily and more efficiently managed, than I would argue a command chain even can
As it is not centrally planned this is not what would happen, it is actually the least centrally funded system, much less than that of neocapitalism
Besides you don't clearly understand true libertarian capitalism, as a keystone is free entry and exit, so no catastrophic risk, who says high risk is the meaning to easy...
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch What is libertarian capitalism? Workers own the means of production?
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11
might be more accurately put as Laissez faire/anarcho-capitalism/capitalist libertarianism: lightly governed, small governmental control, low regulation, right up to state abolishment, ron pauls wet dream...
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch I'm all for that. I don't like centralized power where I'm forced to participate.
My definition of easy money, in any society, is when they have a central bank. These banks create money out of thin air and cause a speculative and highly leveraged investments, which is the cause of all this mess that everyone is in.
tadaa11 1 month ago
@radroatch .....
Check out easy money... cut and paste this watch?v=5K4Os5eXPw4
tadaa11 1 month ago
@tadaa11
... The lack of incentive proves much better than crippling disincentive
I would also point out if you change your wording of owner to dictator in that sentence as wrote, you are at odds with modern democracy and such governance could be communist or fascist; who says that a fair electoral system would not produce more competent leadership, when it clearly would be for the good of those voting and thus the institute, a control figure has disincentive to replace their self...
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch If you call a land owner a dictator. What if you don't have any employees are you still a dictator? In a free society you have the right to leave the so called dictator, which in it self makes that statement untrue. Socialist countries don't innovate, they use our innovations. The list is endless: Google, peanut butter, apple, Intel, Microsoft to name a few. There is a reason that these are developed in America. I personally think these ideas came from a person not a group.
tadaa11 1 month ago
@radroatch
"would also point out if you change your wording of owner to dictator"
Did Hitler really own entire Germany? Did Pol Pot own entire territory of Cambodia?
Replacing owner with dictator, is replacing "my" in - I eat my food - with ALL food.
"when it clearly would be for the good of those voting "
This is blatant lie. Hitler was elected thru modern democratic process, same goes for FDR and the democratic leadership of Japan which got them into a WW2.
utubehayter 5 days ago
@utubehayter
I replaced owner with dictator, not dictator with owner, yes there is a difference, but ok
If a nation dictator decreed it and no uprising happen then yes my and ALL are both correct; ownership is a state of mind as well as an economic principle, does an owner truly own what he claims right to or just have control over it; ALL is the total of a set perimeter, firm, county, country, just bigger perimeters
Private firms are mostly hierarchies or dictatorships, my paradigm was sound...
radroatch 5 days ago
@utubehayter
... What I was pointing out with it is we claim the 'virtue' of modern democracy but our economy and labor is based on hierarchy and dictatorship, replace MY with firm or ALL with country; then try replace MY with state and ALL with world, just look at the parallels
I was talking about democratic ownership, with is very different, than the orthodox of modern democracy which is only marginally truly thus so not properly comparably
My statement can be backed up by papers and co-op...
radroatch 5 days ago
@radroatch
"we claim the 'virtue'"
Speak for yourself. I claim no such thing. Democracy is pure evil. There is no virtue there.
Private property allows people to walk away as and when their interests are separate and yet they are free to cooperate and come together for mutual benefit. Democratic ownership provides no such thing. The talk of coops is all fun and games, until you look into the depths. It is a highly ineffective and useless model that creates unnecessary conflicts.
utubehayter 4 days ago
@utubehayter
... performances against the regular model
The alternative to the democratic process as you seem apposed leads to elite control including dictatorship; Hitler committed the worst of his crimes as a dictator, in a country that didnt have free speech
btw earlier I will have highlight an educated populace to avoid such manipulation
What of the leadership of the US which planned to come in as late as pos. to become the superpower after the others destroyed their means of production...
radroatch 5 days ago
@radroatch
"The alternative to the democratic process as you seem apposed leads to elite control including dictatorship;"
Yes, because our only two alternatives are the hive mind controls everything or Dictators control everything.. we cannot have a third and very natural, very normal option of you mind your business and I mind mine. NO!
Your talk of educated populace is sheer bunk. Of course, some people..(hint:mirror).. who think they are educated ...dumb as rocks, but "educated".
utubehayter 4 days ago
@utubehayter
... You only position left is to side with the neo-cons logic, small democratic influence, large private influence, polyarchical control and what has this lead to, well the installation and support of dictatorships, your friend pot, gadaffi, pinochet, the shah, mubarak, abdullah, saddam to name some that come to mind, not to mention wars etc. all to maintain global hegemony
Been good to vote on the nukes that killed 1000000 to 200000 in Japan as it they were already surrendering
radroatch 5 days ago
@radroatch
So, not following retarded socialist egalitarian ideas leads me no choice but to line up with retarded socialist egalitarian democratic monsters or supported by socialist egalitarian democracies. Wow! The logic is ...
As to nuking Japan, do you really believe people in Alabama, or for that matter, Oregon really cared if Japanese old men, women and children were killed? Heck, they were okay with internment of their Japanese neighbors! What kind of fantasy world do you ..?
utubehayter 4 days ago
@tadaa11
... Hard to figure what you see as easy money, harder to figure why you see socialism as wrong in full because that would include much medical care, education, roads, military (you can't call the US/UK's defense), law/enforcement and many other infrastructures such as garage collection, regulating bodies, power plants, water works, and many innovation investments we benefit from
It is curious that nearly all US lib's disproportionally value a selective, as well as against their rhetoric
radroatch 1 month ago
@radroatch
"many innovation investments we benefit from"
No, I don't benefit from being prevented from seeking highly regulated and price inflated medical care, subsidize the travel of others, overconsumption of gas, pay for prisons for children called government schools, or to pay for killing Arabs, brown people and muslims or to provide for a "police" force that can kill innocent people with immunity.
In your tiny little mind these things are good. To me they are all bad.
utubehayter 4 days ago
@TheSWTORMMO
...this situation is kept this way by the powerful capitalist countries using our ‘free market’
On the meso level in the western countries wealth has shifted beyond a certain point what you now see is the lines of the two going the opposite way as social mobility reduces as wealth concentrates
If you allow inequality in society after time with gradual change, the wealth will be accumulated by a few, it works in the similar way to speciation though evolution
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch No. This occurs because governments wipe out the middle class through inflation and crippling taxes. You have your anger misdirected. Governments can't do anything to "fix" this, firstly, because all governments can do is steal money from one individual and give it to another individual. That does absolutely nothing other than make society poorer.
TheSWTORMMO 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
Inflation is a necessity in all forms of capitalism under the 'multiply effect' logic, in combination with Kayneisianism, introduced to correct laissez fair capitalism and get the US out of the great depression, the problem was that the math to Kaynes does not work for the economics that have arose (if at all); this theory along with the intervention of regulation and worker rights by government to alleviate the force of classic capitalism could only act as a buffer...
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch No, that doesn't correct laissez fair capitalism, especially under a gold standard. The theories you're talking about prolonged the great depression. Free-markets liquidate a lot quicker without government stifling that process. Countless examples of this are strewn throughout our history where government did nothing and allowed the free-markets to work properly. Wealth concentrates precisely because of these governmental regulations that don't allow competition to work.
TheSWTORMMO 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
If this were true then why was the great depression caused by the free markets before kayneisian economics even existed and why was the WW, which caused investment by the state, regarded as defibrillating the economic
Kayneisain capitalism did not work as well as it could have, but it worked a lot better than what was happening at the time that caused its implementation. Under the principles of economics you only invest when rate of return is seen as beneficial enough....
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch But the free market DID NOT CAUSE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. The Federal Reserve giving out artificial credit caused the Great Depression.
Keynesian philosophies did however, extend the Depression for a great many years. Hoover and FDR trying to "stimulate" the economy with massive government spending kept it going, as did other new restrictions on business.
It was only the easing of restrictions and shrinking of government in 1946 that ended the depression.
mpc91 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
...to justify investment, therefore if the investment could not produce the rate of return there would be no investor, as MWTP had been crippled in the creation of mass poverty, no economic recovery would happen without stimulation; if you can think of a conventionally acceptable way of doing this that is not though government, then you would win a nobel prize
The free market destroys itself as it is not a closed system
The industrial revolution proves this wrong
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch You're saying governments need to stimulate an economic recovery. But what does government inherently have? It has absolutely nothing other than what it takes from the economy. So for you to say "government" needs to stimulate the economy through spending is absolutely false. There's a fundamental difference between stimulating demand, and genuine economic growth, and the only way governments can stimulate economic growth is by stepping out of the way.
TheSWTORMMO 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
Kayneisain economic theory is the government should save money in the booms and invest in the busts, thereby always maintaining the economy: this has not happen due to our economics and politics, I would go further and say this would not create anything close to social optimum posible and that is why the politics of the situation are where they are
On a macroscopic level demand can only increases if economic growth is in effect, this is unsustainable and is the reason kayneisain...
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch - But Keynesian central banks CAUSE the booms and busts. Attempting to keep booms going just makes for more disastrous busts later. That's where we are right now. Right now we are suffering a bigger bust because of the Fed trying to ease the dot com bust.
mpc91 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
...is correcting the problem with laissez fair
Kayneisain is not a great economic system, but it is the best form of capitalism, I believe the best economic system is a socialist one, that might sound radical but it isn't; in the foreseeable future the largest changes would be to reduce centralization, increase education and legislate firms into becoming cooperatives under a kind of market socialism; this would correct the theories flaw of the firms AC curve regarding empolyees
radroatch 2 months ago
@radroatch - "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Socialism destroys the work ethic, destroys the family, is antithetical to liberty and prosperity. But it is appealing to those who ignore history, and don't like thinking all that hard.
Keynesianism is not a form of capitalism, but is to capitalism what a prison cell is to liberty. There is no problem with laissez-faire. None.
mpc91 2 months ago
@TheSWTORMMO
...Stopping the detrimental affects
Acting similarly to the laws of thermodynamics capitalism transferred into government infrastructure as now it has a link, a reason. After this happened the process began inside government that followed the capitalist base principle of adaptation to produce wealth for self interest, this mimicking evolutions natural selection, environmental adaptation in species 'arms race'
Compromised governance arose due to the undemocratic drive of capitalism
radroatch 2 months ago
Ron Paul FTW
jamiestoehr 3 months ago
Fuck congress, I'm going to start a draft Tom Woods movement for president in 2016 when Paul decides to step down... and I'm not even American.
seaofseeof 3 months ago
This is simply amazing. The exact opposite of what we're taught in our history books.
MandragGanon 4 months ago 2
Tom Woods explodes Robber Baron Myth, Wild Wild West myth & Native Americans as environmentalists myth. #awesome #p2 #tcot @thomasewoods
Decentralism 4 months ago in playlist Walter E Williams
13 people miss Soviet Russia.
brianmo180 5 months ago 2
If USA learned how to distribute wealth more equally you could get free medical care, buy hey, your government doesn't seem to think that your worth it. Good luck with that.
SlaughterMezz 6 months ago
@SlaughterMezz I'd rather the US not redistribute the wealth, but let me keep what I earn so I can afford my own healthcare.
MandragGanon 6 months ago 2
@SlaughterMezz
There is no such thing as free medical care, somebody always has to pay for it.
Illyrien 5 months ago in playlist Misc Political 2
@SlaughterMezz The government is very eager to control our medical care and our daily lives in the form of "healthy" lifestyles, the PEOPLE don't want it.
s0beit 5 months ago
@SlaughterMezz - Free medical care! That sounds great!
So doctors will work for free, hospitals will pay their electric bills with kind words, people will create drugs gratis. They won't want to feed their families, or anything greedy like that. If government distributed wealth better.
This is of course assuming that anything is free, or that government has the right or the knowledge to distribute wealth. Or that medical care under this system would be worth having.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 The idea is simple, everyone pays taxes -> the tax-money goes to the goverment which distribute it amongst hospitals which pay doctors to take care of sick people, no matter their insurance. Ofcourse that would mean that your taxes would be slightly higher than they right now or you would have to cut down on your invasions, but none of you would ever need to worry about your health. But hey, keep the taxes low, waste it on shit and then buy insurance that doesn't even cover anything.
SlaughterMezz 3 months ago
@SlaughterMezz - Funny, but your explanation defies any sort of economics. If people have the impression that something is free, or if that someone else is paying, they will get more of that thing. That will greatly increase the demand, and thus the cost. But with government setting the prices, the supply will not increase.
So either the quality drops, and sick people wait while hypochondriacs flood the doctor's office, or the costs skyrocket.
The free market would do better.
mpc91 3 months ago
Comment removed
SlaughterMezz 6 months ago
I really enjoy listening to Tom Woods and Peter Schiff because I want to hear the truth, not something that will make me feel good or pacify my fears about the world.
Talodus 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Poor lecture in my opinion. he appears to have a vague knowledge of history
boum62 6 months ago
@boum62 Poor comment in my opinion. You give no specifics and no particular reason to doubt the arguments in the video. And what exactly was "vague" in it? How could it have been more precise?
DRNevans 6 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRNevans, he is just a troll.
wood9670 6 months ago
@boum62 Yeah, I mean, he only has a PhD in history from Columbia, what would he know about history?
mjs0686 6 months ago
@mjs0686 6.72 ... "The economy needed more and more stuff point".
boum62 6 months ago
This was the first video I ever saw from the Mises Institute, and it was the tipping point for me into capitalism and libertarianism. I still think this is one of the best talks on the internet. I've linked people to it many times to make some point or another. It's just great.
JETZcorp 8 months ago 11
If you liked this one, you'd love his "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920" speech. It lays out the ABCT, important information on a calamity that, in just about every measure, started out worse than the Great Depression of 1929 and ended in a year when the Fed did nothing, and is all around a great primer for Austrian Economics, as well as the many books that are available on the website for free.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
one thing we as americans have to understand is that the austrian school is much a response to the american school of economics as put forth by lincoln as in it was in opposition to lincolns model... listen to the words... austrian economics was an oposition response to the american school of economics as put forth by lincoln
unknowndj11 8 months ago
Comment removed
s0beit 9 months ago
i love this guy
bobby4500 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi I´m Ben Bernanke and I print Money as much as I want
Salihovicable 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi I´m Ben Bernanke and I print Money as much as I want
Salihovicable 9 months ago
Tom is a true treasure.
carcabe 9 months ago
I can't believe I listened to the whole video which is nearly 37 minutes long. It shows how good of a speaker Tom Woods is and especially on topics that are too hard to even debate on such as child labor.
Hitman49 10 months ago 3
The austrians actually have a very comprehensive theory that details the trends and causes & effects of economic actions. And what do liberals/marxists/keynsians do? they come up with wild irrational statements - 'blame it on greed' lolol
swu880 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We need this guy to teach economics to high school students the same as we need a creationist to teach biology. Austrian economic theory is rubbish.
worldnewsbbc1 10 months ago
@worldnewsbbc1
uh the creationists are the liberals, neo cons, the marxists, socialists & the keynsians who can't even count. Lol try reading the Wealth of Nations and read some Bastiat
swu880 10 months ago
@worldnewsbbc1 Would you be able to explain what makes Austrianism stand out from other branches of economics, and then explain why it is rubbish?
gocrew6900 10 months ago
The monetary serfdom of immense humanity to an outdated,dehumanising,destructive MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY is the template of the suffering of our common humanity . Divinity is SHARING OUR PLANET FOR OUR COMMMON NEEDS AND WELL BEING in harmony within and without. All metaphysical, piecemeal tinkering with COMMMODITIFICATION of our energies is doomed to fail. Only a democratic majority working class movement for a MONEYLESS,CLASSLESS,STATELESS communities of humanity is the option.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan
Go smoke some weed.
twk373 11 months ago
@twk373 You are aping your corporate owners, You have a cheap price tag on your ass.,go on wage slave.
arzoyan 11 months ago
@arzoyan
If you ran the economy, you would starve to death. That's literally how dumb you are.
twk373 11 months ago
@jaguarclaw - The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare - The Federal Reserve System has a structure designed by Congress…
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to Congress.
The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review.
sfiorare 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
woods is just another one of the mises institute's stooges, trying to revise well known history and economics
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare Exactly wrong. It's the people feeding us the "well known history and economics" who are the stooges of the establishment.
DRNevans 1 year ago
@DRNevans - many historians and economists spend the majority of their lives doing exhaustive, unbiased research; unlike woods, who has chosen to hitch his wagon to the mises institute, which is well known to be an extremely politically biased organization; woods twists and alters facts in a way to pander to know-nothings and miscreants that don't want to face facts; he reminds me of creationist that make up a new version of history to match their religious and political beliefs
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare Well, when you have some specifics, you let us know. In the meantime, you're a super guy. Full of joy, too. And that one YouTube subscriber must be a real consolation.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@LibertyWins2012 - i delete subscribers
what kind of specifics would you like?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare - They may spend their lives doing exhaustive research, but to claim they are unbiased is at best naive, at worst deluded. If someone is going to dedicate their life to anything, you'd think they'd probably develop an opinion or two along the way. And to think that the MIses Institute is more biased than any University is even more naive.
To call people who disagree with you know-nothings and miscreants just shows your absolute arrogance.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 - many historians have no partisan bias, unlike woods that is a lackey of the mises institute, which is highly, if not solely biased towards the libertarian party
you can deny that ron paul and lew rockwell pander to know-nothings and miscreants, but reality shows something different
sfiorare 3 months ago
@sfiorare - Paul and Rockwell don't pander to you, so clearly they are missing a miscreant and a know-nothing. But I digress. I don't think you know nothing, but your faith in historians infallibility is misplaced.
To claim that historians and academia in general is non-biased is both factually and conceptually foolish. 77% of the money donated by the faculty to political parties in 2010 at Harvard went to Democrats. 75% at Stanford. The Princeton Review... 100%. That's non-partisan?
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 - you're just showing how your own political bias works with your comment
sfiorare 3 months ago
@sfiorare - I'm sorry, but now you're arguing like a six year old.
I'm not claiming that Woods or I lack political bias. But you are claiming that there are people without political bias. There are apparently these automaton history professors and scholars who dedicate their lives studying history without forming an opinion on it. To ignore that every person has some level of bias is to be completely incapable of understanding any sort of history in any meaningful context.
mpc91 3 months ago
Comment removed
sfiorare 3 months ago
@mpc91 you're projecting your own state of mind
notice how i didn't say there are people without any political bias
i said, "many historians have no partisan bias", which on its face indicates a level of political bias that is much less than the strong partisan bias that the libertarian party in famous for
only an idiot thinks there are people with zero political bias, a reasonable person would have understood that we're speaking of reality and significant degrees of bias
sfiorare 3 months ago
@sfiorare - So the libertarian party is famous for strong partisan bias, and no other groups are?
Democrats have no strong partisan bias? Republicans have no strong partisan bias? You have no strong partisan bias?
Too funny.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 - what's funny is that i didn't say that other political parties don't have biases
but of course, you twist everything and my political bias isn't partisan
woods and the mises institute can't say that
sfiorare 3 months ago
@sfiorare - Your political bias isn't partisan? Everyone's is. You have a set of beliefs
Nobody can say that their political bias isn't partisan.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91 - no, everyone's bias isn't partisan, do you even understand what it means?
partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
i can say my political bias isn't partisan, because i don't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, support a party, cause, or person, i'm nonpartisan
nonpartisan - not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group.
sfiorare 3 months ago
@sfiorare
You could've just said, "thinking on my own is very difficult. Anyone who challenges what I've been
brainwashed to believe must be wrong" , to yourself aloud and saved yourself the time it took to
type your response.
colfrankslade 6 months ago
The standing ovation at the end gets me every time I watch this video.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 18
@CurtHowland I thought that I was the only one who consistently found myself rewatching Tom Wood's videos. It's just the right amount of information and entertainment.
4li5t4ir 10 months ago
@CurtHowland spoiler!! lol jk.
Wesker1982 9 months ago
I really wish Tom Woods would run for congress. Ron Paul is great, but he is OLD and is a terrible speaker, whereas Tom is young and a great speaker. He is really a super star in the Austrian School of thought right now.
christo930 1 year ago 54
@christo930
He isn't ruling it out, but with small children, it would properly have to wait s few years.
watch?v=NjgagUehny4
kjakobsen 1 year ago
@kjakobsen Thanks, I'll watch it.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 I was really impressed with Tom Woods. I sent him an email around midnight one night and didn't expect a response. I got one back within 5 minutes.
jimbo525SE 1 year ago
@christo930 Paul isn't a terrible speaker. He's not Obama, for sure, but he tells the truth. To me, that makes his speeches infinitely more valuable than Obama or any other plastic man. But even disregarding that point, the man is an ok speaker. He doesn't command attention, but he got amazing standing ovations in the republican debates in 2008 because he would say what the others were too chicken shit to mention.
Digali 1 year ago
@christo930
He appears to be an AnarchoCommunist American history revisionist, he very
carefully forgets to mention the American School of Economics [protectionism, jobs, funding
thru tariffs] that was the economic policy of the US government from 1789 to
1913 and was still mostly followed from 1913 to 1975. That is almost 200 years,
hard to miss in a talk about American economic history!
Learn what made life in the US great, check out the American School on wikipedia
MegaChevelle396 10 months ago
@MegaChevelle396 I fully support tariffs and a lot of my views have changed recently, especially against the right. I am not saying woods or Paul are liars, but right is filled with liars and Christian fundamentalists who I hate. They say they're for freedom, but they aren't and their biggest issues are social and all bad.
christo930 10 months ago