Creating the Next Great Depression | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[samaelrising666]

Whose side is this dude on? I don't see a soul here.

[postalmeter]

Dilorenzo seems to think that in the USA we don't have a few HUNDRED people in charge of hundreds of millions...he talks about the Soviet Union with THOUSANDS iin charge, but here we have 545 c ontrolling 300 million.

[fiatalfa1]

"Fool me once shame on you!" "Fool me twice shame on me!"

[crissis76]

just the same tiresome pro free market propaganda

[mrzack888]

evil corporations wall street bankers caused this mess, and the government allowed them to do it. problem is both . why can't mises realize humans can't control themselves, and needs proper regulations to keep society safe. if glass stegall was in place, this mess wouldn't have been as big, and commercial banks would still be standing.

[bartj777]

If humans can't control themselves, why do you think it's a good idea to separate a few of them out and give them power to control the rest of us?

[mrzack888]

nobody said anything about that. don't put words in my mouth. regulations and laws MUST be in place to prevent such monopolies and oligopolies to form.  Libertarians are against bailing out too big to fails, ask yourself, how do you stop something from becoming too big to fail in the first place? you can't count on the average drone to be informed on everything.

[bartj777]

That's exactly what you said. Government is just a small set of people with power. If peple can't control themselves, surely the giving them the police power of the state doesn't magically transform them to become perfect.

Laws and regulations are what create monopolies, it's a myth that such things existed in a free market.

[mrzack888]

government and regulations can be separate. regulations should be in place to prevent corporations from being too big. regulations and laws should also be in place to prevent government from getting too large. but unfortunately these regulations aren't enforced because the corporations buy off government officials.

[bartj777]

Gov. and regulations cannot be separate. Who creates, enforces and interprets regulations? There are laws in place to prevent gov. from getting too large and the gov. ignores them.

Again, you still haven't answered, if humans can't control themselves, isn't it folly to give some of them so much power over the rest of us?

[mrzack888]

that's why regulations must be in place to prevent anyone from getting too much power. duh.

[bartj777]

That doesn't make sense because you are giving the people making the regulations too much power then. You say you don't want people to have too much power, then you hand over huge amounts of power to the people in government. That's a contradiction.

[mrzack888]

do u know how regulations work? regulations are laws that are still in place regardless of who's in power. congress and executive change every even number of years. glass stegall was put in place after the 1920s crash. it was in place up until the mid 1990s.

[bartj777]

Do you know how regulations work? Who makes, enforces and interprets regulations? Humans, who you say cannot control themselves, who can't be trusted with too much power. Face it, you can't escape the problem with your assertion about regulations being necessary because of how flawed humans are. It is because humans are flawed that we shouldn't have regulations because that kind of power is what causes corruption.

[mrzack888]

do you know how the government works? government is composed of the people that are in power only temporarily. you make absolutely no sense. elected representatives vote on legislation and regulations and laws. and since you can't trust corporations to govern themselves, everytime they fuck up , big government has to step in and put up more regulations. if proper regulations were in place, then the major fuck ups by corporations wouldn't occur, or would be contained.

[bartj777]

If you can't trust corporations what makes you think you can trust public offcials? Time again you miss my point. You think all evil possible of those who run businesses but are blinded by a belief in the saintliness of government officals.

Do you know how the government works? There's no difference except those in government have the power to use force while those in the private sector cannot. The government thus is by far the greater threat. Why do you trust them?

[equsnarnd]

@mrzack888 Did you graduate from HS? Do you think buying off a gov't official is a one way transaction? How can you be so blind, so delusional in thinking that a person is a crook if in business but a saint if in gov't?

[equsnarnd]

@mrzack888 Did you graduate from HS? Do you think buying off a gov't official is a one way transaction? How can you be so blind, so delusional in thinking that a person is a crook if in business but a saint if in gov't? Are you expecting cats to bark like dogs?

[priapus512]

Since there is no such thing as to big to fail that is not a problem.

[HomeApplianceRepair]

We think we are on the edge of a big economic collapse.

[matti1003]

To the point as ever.

[strongbadXCP]

Everything Tom said makes perfect sense. This isn't rocket science. It makes me so furious that so many people are still full-blown Keynesians.

[2oss7uprey]

Thank you. I enjoyed the talk.

[FCmagic01]

Great speech. Maybe Obama will watch this? haha.

[realisoph]

Here's some pretense of knowledge. How many people do you think are in control of economies and how many controlled by propaganda? Economy is about governments?

Please start talking about why an exponential function (compound interests) is simply unsustainable as a basis of any economy... otherwise I suggest you better go back and do some maths, instead of talking about some economic indicator you pick for whatever secondary ideals you're promoting.

[RichardRoy2]

Not sure what this is in response to, realisoph. Who are you responding to?

[realisoph]

It was actually in response to (the introduction of) that video and the analogies about Russia failing because it obviously had to... and this subliminal expression of superiority ...while at the same time, circumnavigating the heart of why there wont be healthy (rather than free) markets when controlled by the most simple bs mechanism through which fed-&wall-street-&off-shore-ca­pitalism screws any decent economy, even pushing nations into war ...distracting from its very cancerous nature.

[RichardRoy2]

Oh, ok, so you disagree with him. Doesn't sound like you understand what he's talking about in connection with pretense of knowledge.

[realisoph]

I did note that he/Mises is critical as to the role of the FED and dismisses the FED from having certain authority.

Yet, I don't see them speak much about the fundamental problem or point it out clearly. It's more about insider jokes, expressed in numbers.

The real deal is more like societies watching themselves being whipped for the crime of simply being (forced into debt), everyone just watching paraliyzed while letting big finance get away with it, as if that was the nature of things.

[RichardRoy2]

1a. Mises was more than just critical of the Fed. He opposed a central banking system on the basis of the principal of how free market economics works. I realize that, at times, there can seem to be some degree of terseness to some of these presentations, and I agree that I'd like to see a good free market economics presentation, but you must understand that in particular presentations, they can't start from scratch each time, and must presume some degree of knowledge on the part of...

[RichardRoy2]

2a. ...the audience. I've been studying economics for a long time, and trust me, that doesn't make me an expert, and there are many theories, and conflicting views and interpretations of the best approach. Unfortunately, it seems to work in the favour of the government to maintain peoples ignorance about it to make it easier to convince them it's too complicated for the "simple" pesants to manage it. Yet it's as simple as, "you don't keep promises you can't keep."...

[RichardRoy2]

3a. ... and "you don't spend more than you take in." The nature of things seems to be that many people want something for nothing, and are complicit in the positions they find themselves in. Ask yourself how it was possible for "big finance" to get to the position where they'd be able to "get away with it". True; propaganda plays a role. But, you did say societies are watching themselves do this. Why? Perhaps education plays a role. How to proceed? War? Reeducate? Intellectual...

[RichardRoy2]

4a.  ... battle? I'm not sure. BUt I think the speaker is familiar with the crowd, and the crowd is already familiar with the system of economics his jokes are raised toward. Don't be too harsh. Sometimes it's just best to pick up what you can in the way of knowledge and move on. I do get angry sometimes too, but when you aren't being listened to, you can't force your ideas on them, only keep trying.

[realisoph]

Thanks for the extensive reply, much appreciated!

As for "the crowd" I find it absolutely necessary to clearly convey the very fundamentals every time.

I cannot but push those who considers themselves economically educated to start their talks with some sentence along the lines of: "It is absolutely necessary to abolish (compound) interests and here is another reason why."

As long as market dynamics are taught independent from that, I consider them to be almost pointless.

[RichardRoy2]

1b. I am a strong proponent of freedom of expression, and a forum where people can do so. I think this is such a forum. As to the abolishion of compound interest, I didn't see any reference to it in the presentation. I also wouldn't think they'd be supporters of the abolition of financial instruments, but rather the removal of governmentally created insentives and supports for programs that are unsustainable. That's not that I'm saying compound interest is always unstustainable, I don't...

[RichardRoy2]

2b. ...know enough about that issue to support it, or rebuce it. I do suspect that they'd support what the market can sustain without cronyism. There are materials out there offering fundamentals. Unfortunately, the powers that be guide the popular readership. And government controls education as well. But if you search enough, you will find the fundamentals. Remember that there are fundamentals for more than one concept of economics. If people are still expounding the primacy of FDR's...

[RichardRoy2]

3b. ... results, people will seek out the theories behind it. The "subliminal expression of superiority" you mentioned earlier is just that in reference to the superiority of Kanesian Economics through the claim that FDR ended the depression. There are people who would support the idea of a centrally controlled economy so that the damage of mistakes can be disbersed and diluted among all the populace. But any of the mistakes I've read about have been caused by the central planners, and...

[RichardRoy2]

4b. ... larger centralization breeds larger disasters. Now they want more centralization. That's as smart as the Bush administration saying they didn't pay attention to the first set of intelligence that would have warned us of 9-11, so the solution is to get more intelligence, and a scapegoat.

[realisoph]

"But any of the mistakes I've read about have been caused by the central planners"

You may be right with that, but I would replace the term of 'central planners' with 'oligarch capital interests'.

The problem with the FED is not that it is a central bank, it is the kind of central bank it is... privately run.

Search for "history_of_fed_free.pdf"

Exactly because none of the Mises people so far seem to even mention the causal problem, (compound) interest, I started to post.

[realisoph]

Why is compound interest at the heart of the global fraud - rather than financial - system?

Because there's no way to get people ever more in debt while at the same time exponentially enrichting the few, providing them with real power to manipulate and control most every single person on this planet ...ulimately through raging war.

2000 years ago someone loaned you 1cent at some reasonable 5%. How much would you have to pay back today?

This is exactly why every other debate is secondary.

[RichardRoy2]

Oh, I thought you were talking about compounding interest you get from your savings account. But this still comes back to the person taking the loan. If I pay interest on a mortgage, they try to get me to prolong it so they can get more interest, but I'd pay more to reduce the interest I pay. Some people prefer to pay less now, so they can have more now. In the long run, they get less later. Agreed that it is foolish. But to say it's primary is to ignore the whole structure supporting it.

[RichardRoy2]

I've heard this argument before about the FED being a private interest approved by the Federal Government. I think you're missing the point though. It doesn't matter whether it's private, or government. Again, the problem of pretense of knowledge comes in. Also, if it's the "kind of central bank it is", that differentiates it, what stops those "oligarch capital interests" from moving in on the one you describe and gaining control or influence over it? Of is it not run by people.

[realisoph]

I find it irrational to abolish central banks. I believe we need a democratic global financial system. Here's what I promote:

1) international, democratic, debt-free money creation; promoting social (development) projects

2) new funds never for military purposes

3) no private money creation ever

4) no (compound) interests

5) no prime rates (obviously)

6) no more "let your money work for you"

7) upper bounds to income and property (x times average)

8) a UBI

[RichardRoy2]

Ok, then. Judging by this, I'd say you must be more of a proponent of fiat money rather than commodity money, as I am. Is that a correct assesment?

[realisoph]

Excuse my not knowing what you mean... can you put in two simple sentences, the difference of 'flat vs. commodity money'?

As I said, unless created democratically to promote social projects, I don't think it is necessary for money supply to grow or to be a market in its own right ...as long as it is possible for price relations to adapt adequately to changes.

Looking at bills and credit cards... they always seem to turn out 'flat'.

...just kidding :o)

[RichardRoy2]

1c. That's ok. Trying to explain something helps me to better understand it. At least I've found it to be thus. It's something I've been struggling with for a long time. Fiat money is money given value by authoritative decree. Commodity money is money coined from some commodity that already posseses a value of it's own by the market it exists in. The history of money has been followed back to barter where people would trade goods for goods. It's been surmised that eventually the means...

[RichardRoy2]

2c. ... of exchange that had the best storage and value retension qualities would be highly sought. eg; Wheat would store better than meat over the course of a year. But even wheat could mold, or rot, or was subject to infestations. Precious metals had the added quality of being impervious to those problems, was scarce enough to make it easier to transport high value in smaller units, among other things. Many people don't get the connection of money, to gold, to medium of exchange, to...

[RichardRoy2]

3c. ...commodity to food and labour. Some think, "why gold? Why not rocks?" Well, rocks can be commodities too, but how many rocks do you think you'd have to carry to the store to get a loaf of bread? Rocks weren't scarce enough. You'd have to have very large storage facilities, and ways of transporting it. In short, you'd have to be rich. LOL And given the availability of gold, you'd also have to be irrational to use rocks instead.

[RichardRoy2]

4c. ...Oh, the credit cards, and todays money, is so far removed from commodity money that there is practically no relation at all, and almost completely depends on government decree. But also, on the trust people place on it. If people lose confidence in it's value, they'll sell it for something they think will hold it's value better.

[realisoph]

I appreciate your way of explaing yourself.

As I perceive it, what you call "commodtiy money" actually is a rather loose construct, depending all on ever changing market prices. I think there would be way to much room for fraud and exploitation of scarcity in such a system.

On he other hand, I wish you would not speak of money depending on "government decree" but instead of governments which cannot but create new debt, since otherwise the whole system would collapse even sooner.

[realisoph]

If you look at the exponential function that underlies any monetary system I know, you realize very quickly that:

a) at some point all must fail, since

b) the tension (difference between creditors and possible debtors) will be so intense that the sytem can no longer compensate the pressure and collapses in what we call a crisis.

And I repeat: the root of any such crisis is not some housing businiess... it is the basic fraud of (compound) interests and +95% of all people loosing out.

[realisoph]

We must see interests not in terms of what we as individuals pay to a bank or get for savings or investments.

Instead we must see the lion-share of credit-interest-payments going to some bank-account for each and every product bought.

Thus, more than 30% of a products value go directly to someone 'lucky enough' to have money to invest while doing nothing but own it.

But +95% of the people are stupid enough to believe they win when given 6% revenues, wheras 30%-6%=?

Exponential!

[realisoph]

Picture this...

*an obviously exponential income distribution

*a much less steep consumption curve as a share of the income

**while low income classes must spend everything

*a third of that consumption being the above mentioned interest payments

Then figure out interest revenues & interests payed. Observe, how +90% loose the game while rich people get ever richer, they just have to, doing bloody nothing.

Yet the middle class jump joyfully when 'earning' a few % off of their savings.

[realisoph]

I have uploaded you an image that illustrates the very problem described above...

bit . ly/71YS3y

There's a German economist that goes by the name of Bernd Senf... and when, explaining this diagram, he put it like this:

People won't understand the sick dynamics of compound interests, unless you made it audible such that you wouldn't know what just hit you. As it sounds like the positive feedback you'd hear when a mic and loudspeakers get into a feedback-loop ...only just unstoppable.

[RichardRoy2]

People don't have to spend everything. They want to spend everything. People buy so much junk that is unnecessary, it becomes a joke to say they are poor. They're greedy. The fiat money allows the authority to print money and put it into circulation, expanding the money supply, thereby devaluing it. The difference in the rate of inflation. You're also telling me that a commodity money system is too open to fraud and manipulation. Yet there's much less danger of that than in a fiat money system.

[realisoph]

I'm sorry, how can you possibly suggest that low income classes have a choice when it comes to accumulating any savings, not to speak of any net interest revenues? That has got nothing to do wiht unhealthy consumption habbits. Please, i urge you to study that illustration carefully and to even go beyond it, considering its long term effect, thank you.

[RichardRoy2]

Ok, I'm going to step back from that one, because I may have restricted my view to a small diameter centered on where I live. I'll acknowledge great despair in the world. But principles of economics wont change that. I find a lot of problems stem from imperialist governments that impose unspeakable "principals" on the world. This is piracy, and plunder. If that's what you're on about.

[realisoph]

What makes you believe governments have anything to do with it other than being mere puppets striving for their egocentric share of grandeur while rejecting the true nature of what you call imperialism?

Is it really governments that are demanding growth and revenues, which if not provided or rejected lead to slavery, misery and war, wheras if you work hard you might just be a tad bit less screwed, yet still enslaved by a system of false, financial interests?

Barack or Bilderberg? You tell me.

[RichardRoy2]

I went to your sight and watched a vid on how money is created. Now I recognize what you're talking about. It's also known as fractional reserve banking. Tell me something, if you think the government is powerless against this monster, what creation are you proposing that has the power to withstand what the government couldn't? This is a serious question. I agree that fractional reserve banking is a scourge. But I need an answer to the above question. And Mises does oppose this system.

[realisoph]

Honestly (I know it's utterly delusional, so please don't overly pick on me for that)...

It requires a complete financial reset. This will have to come anyways before the next exponential tension kicks in. I wouldn't want for people worldwide to go into revolution against the Bilderbergs of this world, though I am 99% positive that they will if the next depression kicks in.

[realisoph]

Therefore, for any such thing to work out, it is crucial that it is government controlled (instead of governments being controlled)... once and for all, not bloody deciding against the people, not waging wars for resources that you never had a right for to begin with, but depriving big finance completely.

With the end result of there being one world, debt free.

Greenspans, Gates or Bilderbergs having Bazillions on 'corporate' or rather private 'savings' accounts... no more, finito.

[realisoph]

I fear, they're rather going to invent a new world-currency, resetting the vicious cycle to have another 50 years to get the world appeased and under control and create that lovely military dictatorship which we're seeing established all over the world in the name of "(inter-)national security" ...in fact, "financial security". But behold, not for you and I, but for those who will decide about what you and I can, but above all, cannot do.

That's my 5cts as for todays financial systems.

[RichardRoy2]

1d. I haven't said so yet, but I must say, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you. You've been reasonable, and even generous, in offering me your thoughts on the matter. I've enjoyed this discourse very much. I don't know that it's delusional. I will say, it's hopeful. There has to be some kind of vision, or direction, in order to take the next step. The fact you're here indicates to me you're still learning, as am I. I think there's a better world possible in that. You may...

[RichardRoy2]

2d. ...find the next speaker interesting. He speaks of the fractional reserve banking, or, as you call it, compounding of interest. It's "A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery". I realize you may disagree with aspects of it, but you may find some interesting insights as well. There are any number of possible outcomes. Perhaps a bloody revolution will have to come about. I'd prefer not. Perhaps it's people like you and me who diseminate ideas enough to create an intellectual...

[RichardRoy2]

3d. ...revolution that will make the day. I'd prefer it to the other alternative, and I suspect you would too. It can be surprising how many people you can influence just by changing the mind of one person in your life. Influencing the right person can generate a chain reaction vast enough to boggle even an optimists mind. I have no objection to people who make there fortunes honestly. I'm still digging for answers. I trust you are, too. Thanks realisoph.

[realisoph]

I join in saying that this dicussion was a great pleasure.

I understand how sometimes I get verbal attacks for being overly demanding on others, overly stretching imagination for letting go of, after all, less dramatic everyday challenges or insecurities involved in envisioning a future that has yet to be seen, letting go of the fear of loosing ones (false) personality, ones own identity of (financial) success, the illusion of power or superiority through things owned, rather than shared.

[realisoph]

I am also glad that you called my ideas as being hopeful, which suggests that I am not just saying things that are beyond imagination but in fact achievable if enough people had the courage, power and reasonable, hence peaceful motivation to go for it.

The raging beast of people thinking in terms of a revolution, driven by anger, fear, short term resentments or even false survival struggles, is the one thing I would do all I can to prevent it.

I will take a look at the next video, thanks!

[MRSketch09]

@Vlog

Hearing about that debate in Washington.. between the bozos and bernake depressed me just a bit.

[TheSeungjin]

SOLID

[surrealnumber]

DiLorenzo is the man, his book "how capitalism saved america" puts a new view on all of the BS people are told in history class

[anyusmoon1]

Check out his books on Lincoln. Mindblowing! 'The Real Lincoln', by Thomas DiLorenzo.

Highly recommended.

[bajoverga]

I LOVE MISES

[frontier1701]

Thank you for posting.... very informative

[NAGGERNUTZ]

Keynesian economics. Taking a bucket full of water out of one end of the pool (the economy) and pouring it into the other end, then thinking you've stimulated the economy.

[RMMHS4RP]

@NAGGERNUTZ Only the bucket is leaky because it's a government-issue.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

Spot on!

[RichardRoy2]

I don't think it actually leaks. I think it's tipped into the laps of all the polititians on the way to the other end of the pool. Lucky if there's any "water" left in it at the other end of the "pool". Seems the government likes to have all incomes funnelled through them, just for the "tipping" benefit. I kind of wonder if they'll start having all incomes streamed through them because you can't manage your own money properly. It's for you own good, and the good of the country. New speak?

[Frumibandersnatch]

You forgot about the press conference, there's gotta be a press conference somewhere in there.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

Yeah... the one where they say everything is fine and praise Obama for his hope and change.

[AnarchyEnsues]

@NAGGERNUTZ no, its taking a bucket out, pouring half on the ground and putting the other half in a water feature...

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@AnarchyEnsues - I stand corrected.

[s0beit]

@AnarchyEnsues no, it's like taking a bucket of water out of a pool and somehow lighting it on fire

[danielzopola]

Really good talk.

I think Thomas DiLorenzo is my favorite speaker at mises institute.

[dabruin2]

Sweet...a Thomas DiLorenzo speech where you can actually make out what he's saying.

[bdwilson1000]

I didn't see the slip.

P.S. Mises rocks.

[tpsisokayiguess]

26:48

freudian slip lol

[megawavez]

Terrific video - thanks for posting !

[Billpete002]

I like em long - just sit back and watch :)

[mbarkhau]

Also great for doing the dishes or a workout.

[fluff125]

Someone needs to cut up these longer lectures and make compilations. Get someone else to post them, someone with more subscribers and link back to this channel.

[func0il]

I like them as they are but it's a nice idea !

[Organjic]

or share the channel and video...

[utubehayter]

I like them long as well.

[stealthswimmer]

LibertyPen channel here on Youtube does that. WEll, i dunno if they have compliations but they take short segments of lectures like these and post them up.

[foreverluisa]

that would be great if you could make shorter videos, they are great but pretty long

[Organjic]

The American attention span.

[foreverluisa]

Well, that would be nicer to have an edited video with the main point ! I am free to express myself. If I want want further information, I can always go read his papers, we are lucky because the misses institute puts so many papers available for us online (Or watch the whole version).

I don't understand why "the american attention span", I am not american, and Austrian school is my passion but I also have some other papers to write.

[Organjic]

fine,  there is a PAUSE option.