good video, too bad most of youtube has been entirely taken in by the constant implicit assumptions of perfect competition in free markets and so they see any government intervention as just "taking water out of one end of a pool and putting it another"
Well, now that Japan is gonna be needing some drastic recovery, they're going to want their money back from all the treasury bonds they bought. No more gov't manipulating artificially low interest rates...we're screwed.
Thank you, Sir! Very nice and informative explanations. And it was a good ideea to speak about war as a way to spend money without producing anything. Thanks again! And keep going!
That this video ignores the question of how the booms and busts actually happens, and how both Keynes and actually Friedman ignored this also, makes it just boring. If you are willing to do this, then sure, it all sounds nice enough. But who in their right mind would ever think that you can in the long run spend and borrow your way out of a bad economic situation, putting the cost to the future. Sure, it might make you feel a bit better to buy a new car, but you will face the consequenses later.
Keynes talked of cutting taxes as a stimulus. It was Gordon Brown who told the world to spend a stimulus, it was his government controlled economy idea that Obama and others followed.
why is it sad to say war produces nothing, i think its a good thing so we dont go to war too often, sadly we do though.
and war can be productive if you rob the losers of the war, just like a robber can buy a gun to hold you up with. I agree though war is a curse on the economy
"Conducted while the U.S. Congress fought over sweeping changes to expand access to health insurance, the November 2009 to January 2010 survey found Americans were divided over their access to healthcare. The U.S. health reforms became law last month."
It took 6 months for eastern block countries that implemented free market after soviet union colapse to go from - 30% GDP to +10% without any stimulus plan and despite high interest rates. It was lack of government spending and intervention that made it possible. When people lost old unproductive Keynsian style jobs in public sector they used their hands, heads and wit to do actually something productive.
Dear Readers: It was AFTER Professor Jeffrey Sachs brought Free Market programs to Russia that Russia descended into the 9th century. The neo classical Free Marketeers caused the Russian economy to implode (30%-50%). The ensuing Depression lasted a decade until four things happened: 1. The price of oil went from $9 per barrel to $90, 2. Valdimer Putin became president. 3. Putin returned the oil industry to state control. 4. Putin began a massive Keynesian spending program.
I guess Keynes would have been all for the Weimar by your logic and description of that, Friedman would have shrank the Weimar, maybe you would find this intersting check out The Cultural Upheaval of Loose Money by Jeffery Tucker on YT, loose money gets people to be persuaded by horrendous ideas and that leads to war....the best book on Bush @James Bovard The Bush Betrayal...stop reading the echo and read the earthquake of Mises, you are looking at secondary causes. *Creature From Jekyll Island
18)Wellrenommed ,National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conclude: "But that is only part of what is needed for a complete account of the business cycle, and the theory can only be made coherent with a broadly Keynesian model of equilibrium unemployment. Trying to tie Austrian Business Cycle Theory to Austrian prejudices against government intervention has been a recipe for intellectual and policy disaster and theoretical stagnation."
15)National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) writes"
To sum up, the version of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory originally developed by Hayek and Mises gives strong reasons to think that an unregulated financial system will be prone to booms and busts and that this will be true for a wide range of monetary systems, particularly including gold standard systems. ."
13) NBER :"Rothbard blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis. US had free banking from the Jackson Administration to the Civil War and that didn't stop the business cycle "
@zsylvana Speaking on behalf of Austrians; We do not state that it is only central banking that creates the booms and busts, although this has been a primary driver in modern history. Rather, throughout history it has been government policy that expanded the quantity of money, thus fostering an environment for speculation and malinvestment i.e. Tulip Mania. May i remind you of the Austrians track record of calling busts with stunning accuracy compared with many others i.e. Krugman et al.
"The modern Austrian school has tried to argue that the business cycle they describe is caused in some way by government policy, though the choice of policy varies from Austrian to Austrian -- some blame paper money and want a gold standard, others blame central banks, some want a strict prohibition on fractional reserve banking while others favour a laissez-faire policy of free banking, where anyone who wants can print money and others (Hayek ) a system of competing currencies."
11) NBER :"The credit cycle idea can easily be combined with a Keynesian account of under-employment equilibrium, and even more easily with the Keynesian idea of 'animal spirits'. This was done most prominently by Minsky, and the animsal spirits idea has recently revived by Akerlof and Shiller. I suspect that the macroeconomic model that emerges from the current crisis will have a recognisably Austrian flavour.Hayek and Mises spent the rest of their lives running hard in the opposite direction"
10) NBER:" A closely related point is that,unless Say's Law is violated,the Austrian model implies that consumption should be negatively correlated with investment over the business cycle, whereas in fact the opposite is true.To the extent that booms are driven by mistaken beliefs that investments have become more profitable, they are typically characterized by high, not low,consumption.."
8) NBER continues:"At the time it was put forward, the Mises-Hayek business cycle theory was actually a pretty big theoretical advance." but: "arguments about rational expectations are second nature than it was 100 years ago. So, the Austrian story requires either a failure of rational expectations, or a capital market failure that individuals rationally choose to make 'bad' investments "
6)NBER writes:" The US experienced serious "panics", as they were then called in 1796-97, 1819 and 1837 [as well as milder fluctuations associated with the British crises of the 1820s and 1840s. The typical crisis of the 19th century, like the current crisis, began with bank failures caused by the sudden burst of a speculative boom and then spread to the real economy, with the contraction phase typically lasting from one to five years. "
5)NBER writes:"The case of the US is of particular interest since the business cycle coincided with a wide range of monetary and banking systems: from national bank to free banking, and including a gold standard, bimetallism and non-convertible paper money. This NBER data goes back to 1857, but there was nothing new about the business cycle then (Marx, for example, had been writing about it for a decade or more). "
"First, some history and data. Austrian Business Cycle Theory was developed in the first quarter of the 20th century, mostly by Mises and Hayek, with some later contributions by Schumpeter. The data Mises and Hayek had to work on was that of that of the business cycle that emerged with industrial capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century and continued with varying amplitude throughout that century. "
"The result is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma.Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, t provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections. "
"To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas."
1) As Mike and other like myself are interested in development of Economic knows that Austrian Business Cycle Theory was Debunked by National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) maybee the most wellrenommed reasearch institute in USA long ago that write:
"Most of the mainstream economists who've looked at the theory, from Tyler Cowen , Bryan Caplan
and Gordon Tullock at the libertarian/Chicago end of the spectrum to Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong."
In my opinion, the problem with the Keynes model is the error of regulatory and Government nature. When you tell the Government to only run in the red during bad times and raise taxes while decreasing spending during good times, what you run in to is where marginal decreases cause the Government to overreact and damage the economy. With Keynesian Economics, eventually all times become bad times, and as such, constant deficits are run until a country runs out of money IE Greece.
Keynes NEVER addressed inflation as you state (lower govt spending, increase taxes), he only addressed deflation as that was the problem of the day in the 30s (increase G, lower T). He overlooked the fact that tight monetary policy in spite of increasing gold reserves was the root cause of the depression, but that's a digression. Inflation was not a problem while Keynes was alive, and unfortunately he died before he could warn his misguided followers that their response to it was wrong.
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
but the thing is, the fact that the government had so much money to spend their way out of the recession suggests that they had been taxing higher than the gdp and monetary expansion combined, but weren't spending it. that's what caused the depression. a continuing contraction in the amount of money available, but high taxing anyway.
Your analysis of Keynes is alright, though to be fair you should have talked about how crowding out affects fiscal policy. However, you're incorrect about Milton Friedman on the depression. He explicitly stated that many of FDR's programs were temporarily necessary, but he also said that the Fed was responsible for the depression to begin with.
Its the same thing with money, you have gold, its based on gold even though we arent on the gold standard. Lets say value is based on gold moron.. Okay so you cant just go on about the gold standard, shove your response about that. Value is based on gold, so gold is worth more than its ever been worth.. hmmm WHY? Its for the reason I last stated, you have a bar of gold that represents 4 peoples wealth lets say enough to live on, and add four more people.. now they are poor. thats inflation
@radiohogan I definatly will, I could care less about your prerequisites I am educated just like yourself. Self taught theories you say too, who says its self taught. You always learn from someone or somthing.
If the United States buys its own bonds sure it will increase the supply of money, but do you understand inflation? Do you understand that we are destroying society! Obama is ridiculous and definatly a total Keynesian. I could care less if you defend that stupid theory, but honestly no amount of regulation, higher taxes, and higher spending would do anything to improve our situation, when you see the tough times we go through after we lose the ability to keep spend all this debt. youll see
@radiohogan Do you understand inflation? INFLATION! Do you understand money? Do you understand anything maybe.. ? Do you know that when you print more money and spend it, it becomes useless! You cant spend it twice, you cant print it twice. Every time you print a twenty, you lose money. Can I explain, you have four stoners, and theres a gram of weed, you have enough to get everyone high. You can probably understand this right? If you add four more people nobody will get high.
@radiohogan I dont put videos up of myself because I dont want to get critisized by people that dont agree with me, I dont have the time, today is Canada day so I have all the time in the world. But like I have to work, I go to college, and I am going to university in the United States afterwards if everything goes well there. Self taught, what do you mean by that. You have posted 250 videos this was your lucky one.
Dear Mike.I don´t know why Austrian prozelytes on a video about two economists that both don´t have much in common with their pre WW1view on economics.The dicrepancy between Friedman and Austrian in methodogical approach is even bigger than by Keynes and Austrians allready in views on money and capital theory.Both rely on Wicksells capital theory that they draw different conclusion and developted diffrerent.Friedman was in his 3 books influenced by Irving Fischer,that Austrians disslike so much.
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
exactly. ( is the stick so deep you didnt see the joke?! get it- keynes, Kenya. ok it was weak, but not even a chuckle? ) i have to go get my unemployment check now.
adolf hitler was a keynesian. and barack obama is a half-keynesian. no, but seriously. what i am talking about is the complete failure of fraction banking coupled with keynesian socio-economics defeats those it is purported to aid. it is a shim-sham. every working part of keynes econ is a shell game.
@radiohogan If Adolf Hitler was something for sure he was with no doubt a Austrian!
Born in april 1889 i Braunau am Inn,Austria.J.M Keynes was a member of Liberal Party
in England.and shared their views on Democracy,Free speech,etc.He also contributed with his knowledge as Economist and English patriot to defend his country against Nazi Germany.
@sharpraiderbrown John Toland, Wm. L. Shirer, Alan Bullock and other historians have pointed out numerous times that in the area of economics, Hitler was an ignoramus...he had little interest in the subject, which actually BORED him. His National "Socialism" was based on blood and soil, nation and race. It's economic system was a form of controlled capitalism; in other words, Nazi Germany was a military-industrial-govenment triangle, not some sort of socialistic workers paradise.
What gives you the audacity to talk out against a genius such as Friedman, he proves that government regulation is bad for the economy more logically than any of these elitist Keynesianists
@radiohogan To say that YOU know something that Friedman doesnt does take audacity because you are just listening to what youre told Friedman paved the way for modern economics and was all together a higher of degree of economist than you so for you to say something like that about him is out of place because youre just a guy who observes the people he proved wrong The Economist wouldnt say that he was "The Best Economist of the Second Half of the 20th Century..Maybe The Whole Thing" if he wasnt
@radiohogan I don't place Friedman as a god, he was a momentous character, and momentous characters deserve recognition above others in their field. And I consider Keynesians elitist because they think that the government is an all knowing body that can run the economy better than the private sector, (primarily having roots in extreme arrogance and thirst for power... Or so it seems)
The man wrote three books - definitely not a God. Prof. F was a totalitarian, pure and simple.
As to your anarchist world view, while respected, where have you seen anarchism practiced. Certainly, Friedman was an ass kissing elitist for his entire career.
@radiohogan He was NOT totalitarian, and I have no idea why you would say that, (I swear, you people no nothing about right wing politics) he was a libertarian, which is obviously not a totalitarian, he believed in the maximization of individual freedom which is thought of as people like you as being anarchist because you unconciously accept that more government = less freedom.
Professor Gregg Grandin of Yale and NYU writing in CounterPunch documents Friedman's totalitarian flavor. Just Google the article. Libertarian ideology is class based. It is the new disguise of the neo fascists.
@radiohogan Though your statements on libertarianism are very ignorant, I'm going to ignore your translation; But Friedman was not a totalitarian, he was, in fact, the opposite, because he advoced minimal government interaction. Totalitarianism is defined as: excercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocraticated minimal govenment. Or in other words, teh opposite of libertarianism.
@radiohogan The fundamental argument behind your libertarian argument is a lack of knowledge of what it actually is: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. The modern left stance is actually more totalitarianistic because they advocate more control over... well... everything.
@radiohogan Hello Mike.It´s strange when those followers of von Mise-Rothbard etc.
defend the probarly most fundamentalistic Positivist and Intrumentalist in Economic science Milton Friedman.A man that belonged to Repuplican Party and openly rejected Libertarians and Randists,Rothbardists a cranks,and cultists.in Newsweek Magazine.Rothbard and Friedman dispiced each others and von Mises thought Milton F.was a Socialist i read.Do they defend a Socialist??
@radiohogan Thomas Payne:Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one, so no I am not an anarchist everyone who doesnt support full government control is not an anarchist Milton was an ass kissing elitist Seriously
Friedman was a flunky on the fringes of the Nixon & Reagan administration. Flunkies who take the Kings Shilling must Kiss Ass. It is what flunkies do.
@radiohogan So basically everything you are saying is validated in the fact that he was an economic adviser to a few presidents? That pretty much invalidates itself.
@radiohogan He was actually rather modest but I can see how someone such as yourself who is desperate to disprove him would dig in the deepest crevices to find something to even suggest that ex. Friedman took money from his sisters piggy bank when he was 5!
@radiohogan no but don't worry the baby boomers time for honoring themselves will soon becoming to an end, just like your failed keynesian economic theories.
what keynes did was try to remove the punishment clause ... when a company fails ... the government should step in and bail it out . it seems humane to me on surface, but by doing this the government is putting its hand into my pocket and taking out my money to keep a mismanaged company running . the government is curbing my freedoms . its unconstitutional . keynes himself said in his book economic consequences of peace chapter 6 "europe after the treaty" about how the government can rob people
@radiohogan i have nothing against keynes , he was clearly a brilliant guy ... no doubt ... all i m saying is that what he asked the government to do then was required in 1930s . it was not really required in 2007-08 ... and all this blaming reganomics or keynesian economics and hayek bashing is pointless ... utterly pointless ... the bottom line is a man has to do what he thinks is right ... without hurting the interests of his fellow man and without asking him to sacrifice his freedom
@radiohogan haha! kaynes himself said that marxism was illogical(in his essay end of laissez-faire) also, kaynes in his essays in persuasion said on das capital "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world." and there are many other philosophical doctrines would deem marx's philosophy rubbish ..
In an earlier comment, I wrote that Keynes was not a Marxist. All Keynesians think all Classical and Neo Classical economists are without merit. We all know this. Marx was the last of the great Classical economists.
Marx's most interesting and relevant work is his observations about the inherent contradictions in capitalism that lead to massive problems, if not the destruction of capitalism.
@mintoo2cool The world has not been kind to Friedmans policy, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.
@mintoo2cool Friedmans market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the global economy
@radiohogan marx was an idiot and his ideas (although he is free to express them) led to the death of over 100 million. central planning always fails, history doesnt lie.
@mintoo2cool For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear:countries that pursued neo-liberal policies that Friedman runned around the globe and preached ,lost the growth sweepstakes.
@mintoo2cool Defenders of Friedmans policy want to shift the blame from market failure to government failure.But US banks mismanaged risk on a colossal scale,with global consequences, while those running these institutions have walked away with billions of dollars in compensation.
@mintoo2cool Though Friedmanites do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light.and the more recent massive!Misallocation of resources to Housing!
the very core of friedmans point was that let the market reward the companies who are good and punish the companies that are poorly managed . he was constantly saying that capitalism is not only about profits ... its about both profits and losses . and according to him if a giant company fails .. you should let it fail because failing would not mean the end of the world. it would only mean that in future , in a truely free market smaller companies would spring out of the failed giant.
When Keynes told the government they can spend money, the government never ever listened to the rest. And they have been spending money ever since. Now we are fast on our way to hyper-inflation because of all of the excessive spending.
Friedman was right. Under Harding and Coolidge we had a stock market crash in 1920 that was in some ways worse than 1929. Harding lowered taxes and did nothing. Within 18 months the nation recovered. It took nearly 15 years after Hoover and FDR to recover.
@radiohogan I will be the last one to argue with you. It appears you have made an intense study of economics and I never even took an economics class in college.
I disagree with Marxism because it ignores human behavior and individual liberty. The Keynesian idea of spending you don't have money just seems illogical.
Yes, I majored in economics. You bring up Marx. Neither Friedman or Keynes were Marxists. Marx wrote about behavior - particularly in his early writings. As to Keynes and logic, much of economics is counter intuitive.
7) Knut Wicksell showed that the rate of interest in equilibrium is determined by the relation between saving and investment; and Gunnar Myrdal, a pupil of Wicksell’s, went still further, explaining that this rate of interest actually depends on the return expected from investments’, that is, on the rate of profit, as also Karl Marx said.
6)The quantity theory of money implies that prices rise or fall depending on whether the quantity of currency in circulation increases or decreases, in relation to a definite level of equilibrium.It was in this way that the idea of a rate of interest resulting from the supply and demand of capital, a rate of interest which rises until the demand ceases because it is excessive, was refuted at the beginning of the century by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell.
5) It can be said that the marginalist school was never able to solve the problem of the “marginal value of money”, and that for this reason it remained dualistic, combining a subjective theory of value with an objective theory of money (e.g. the quantity theory). which correspond to different needs of equal intensity.
4)Many economists,was dissatisfied with the answers from the neo-classical school,the problems of investment (the rate of interest),money (the quantity theory of money) periodical crises.Neo-classical began breaking up on its weakest sides,difficulties in formulating a dynamic theory,theory of growth,starting from micro-economic data of marginal value,& difficulty of reconciling the theory of prices from supply & demand with a theory of prices resulting from the quantity of money in circulation
3)The neo-classical theory is not only divorced from social reality as whole. It is also divorced from the practical reality of everyday life. Despite all the teachings of the neo-classical school,businessmen continue to calculate their costs of production using “amount of labour expended”
The marginalist theory & the neo-classical school function was, purely to justify the capitalist order as ; to justify wages,prices and profits as the result of exchanges carried out on an equal footing.
2) It does not take into account the dynamic character of competition and the continual disturbances of equilibrium. which it causes. It is essentially static and brings dynamics as at most an element disturbing equilibrium, whereas in reality equilibrium is only a transient moment in a spasmodic economic movement which is in ceaseless oscillation. It has no explanation to offer either for periodical crises or for structural crises.
1)Today, most economists readily admit that the equilibrium system of the neo-classicists is totally divorced from reality. It does not take into account the particular institutional framework of capitalism, which makes quite absurd the notion that wages are determined by “the product of the last unit of his time that the worker wishes to give up rather than devote it to leisure”.
Surely if you 'send an Army overseas' and take control of a resource rich country (like Iraq, India or the Congo) then divide it up amongst your domestic corporate sponsors the economy gains a great deal?
thank you keynes for our current boom and bust economy. where would we be without these economic crashes that we have every few years? where would we be without the easy excuse for governments to constantly increase spending? where would we be without your desire to constantly increase the standard of living so that one day, our economy can crumble when we realize we are living in a fairy tale world? thank you keynes.
Keynesian fiscal policy seeks to maintain a full employment economy on times of recession. Classical economists would do nothing, as I said in my video.
@radiohogan Jobs are meaningless even wasteful if they are not productive. You can pay a farmer more money from taxes to dig and fill in a hole repetitively for no reason. All the while he would not be farming. In fact farmers were paid not to farm during the great depression.
Surely you understand wealth is created by production not jobs?
keynes = FAIL. isnt this the same man who said stagflation was impossible? tell that to 1979. why do people still follow his theories? it is like taking humanitarian advice from chairman mao.
@radiohogan did friedman say that sustained keynesian policies could lead to both unemployment and inflation rising at once, something which was supposed to be impossible according to keynesianists (e.g. the Phillips Curve). then stagflation appeared in britain and america just as friedman had predicted.
@radiohogan If you haven't read "The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin than you only have a limited understanding of Capitalism. You can download it as a free pdf file.
@radiohogan didnt friedman say that sustained keynesian policies could lead to both unemployment and inflation rising at once, something which was supposed to be impossible according to keynesianists (e.g. the Phillips Curve). then stagflation appeared in britain and america in 1970s just as friedman had predicted.
@radiohogan I'll be honest with you, the fact that you're not in a position of influence doesn't make me want to put in the time and energy to explain to you economics (my academic profession). I have no problem with you believing the false doctrine of Keynesianism, I just wanted to point out that you're misguided. If you really want to know why, you have to accept the fact that The Man can't create wealth for you. Keynes has been debunked more times than you can probably count. No, really.
The keynesian philosophies are to blame for the governments enormous debt and people are discovering that as the debt increases the overall rate of GDP decreases. You can see that by looking at the statistics. Over that past 70 years or so since the depression, the people has subscribed to the idea that you can use fiscal policy to fight the business cycles. But it hasn't solved the problems and the business cycles mirror themselves by looking at the longterm government budgets.
I don't understand how you ignore the fact that Keynes' models, while brilliant, were wrong. Friedman's models of consumption function and permanent employment are right.
He didn't say the Federal Reserve "was jerking around the money supply so much." He said that the Federal Reserve did not increase money supply when it received gold from other countries like the U.K. and in effect, throttle back the supply.
Lord John Maynard Keynes wrote several books on monetary theory, well before he wrote "The General Theory" (1936). What "models" are you referring to? Why were they wrong? Give us a clue.
There wasn't much to Professor Milton Friedman's "The Consumption Function." It is a book full of equations that simply says consumers will continue to spend the same proportion of their income, as their income rises. The obvious is often right.
We disagree about what Friedman had to say about the Fed and the money supply. While toy are referring to the distant past (1930's), I am referring to Friedman's recommendations in the 1960's and 1970's regarding how to control the money supply. F wanted the money supply to grow at a stable unchanging rate. F wanted the growth of the money supply to be the same as the growth of the economy (3% at the time).
As a Neo Classical economist Professor Milton Friedman saw no role for government, in addressing or counter balancing the business cycle... We disagree.
Please list what you consider F's prescribed role for government in the economy, beyond an inflexible Fed.
We agree the two tools used by economists is fiscal and monetary policy. Did you watch this video? That is what it is all about.
Have you read Antonia Juhasz's latest book "The Tyranny of Oil?"
Stagflation could not exist in Keynes' model. It occurred as Friedman predicted.
Friedman also proved that the government was involved in the economy before the depression and caused it through inaction through the gold standard.
All economists believe in fiscal policy. Keynes' believed in autonomous spending; not government spending, but deficit spending by the government and private investing.
This person is dishonest. He misrepresents Lord John Maynard Keynes. Stagflation is the result of economists, bureaucrats & politicians who did not follow Keynes' fiscal policy. When Paul Volker became the head of the Fed (circa 1978), he implemented Keynes policy and inflation ended.
Friedman did not predict stagflation. He merely wrote about the work of others. Check it out. In fact, F only wrote 3 books - none of which are memorable.
South American democracies are notoriously unstable not due to Friedman, but due to corruption. Give US a half a dozen concrete examples of how "Friedman simply failed."
You imply that Friedman's inactions will have recessions last 20-30 years, but this is a fallacy. By not intervening, the market will find its bottom quicker. While this will be slightly deeper than a Keynesian approach it will be much shorter.
How does increased spending = increase in demand? Prove that and you have yourself a Nobel Prize yourself. If this was true, why should the government ever stop spending? I'll tell you why you are wrong. It's because every dollar that the government spends, it must first take more than a dollar out of the economy; immediately or borrowed.
There is a huge difference between now and Keynes' time. Our debt was not owned by other countries then, it is now. Don't ignore that.
If you read Samuelson, you will be introduced to The Multiplier Effect. Increased government spending or lower taxes, will increase consumer spending (aggregate demand) by a Multiplier Effect of 3 or 4. There is no need for me to prove it, as many economists have done so.
As to your question, "---why should the government ever stop spending?" When WW II pulled America out of the Depression, Charles Wilson decided to put America on a permanent war economy - permanent spending.
1)@Bfisher14 No your wrong. Swedish model were developed by two trade union economists, Gösta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner, after World War II. The Rehn-Meidner model respresents a unique third way between keynesianism and monetarism in its approach to combine full employment programs,a tight fiscal policy and wage policy of solidarity. A renewed interest in the Rehn-Meidner model from recent declarations by the EU to prioritise full employment without giving up the objective of price stability.
2)@Bfisher14 Rehn-Meidner Model succeded for about 40 years on their four main goals for the economic politics : a)Low unemployment b)Low inflation c)High growth
What "social service" does the military perform? Invasions, war crimes, torture, mass murder (over 7 million in 50 years), while eating uo 60% of the Federal tax dollar?
According to Nobel Prize winning Columbia U Professor Joseph Stiglitz, the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion (3000 billions) - "The $3 Trillion War." Did you receive $3 trillion worth of "social service?"
@radiohogan wow that answer was so wrought with so much bias and hate i dont even know where to begin. conceptually the military does provide a service in defending the country, whether you believe in Bush doctrine or not is immaterial.
Is that what "they" are doing, defending the country? Wow, how naive you are.
It is not about Bush. Let's go back to the Nuremburg Tribunals. FDR sent Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as a judge. Justice Jackson said the most serious war crime is to invade another country, because all other war crimes stem from the initial crime of invasion.
Now, count the number of war crimes (invasions) in recent American history - 50 years. Count them up. Read William Blum's Killing Hope
@radiohogan again you fail to see the point. i am talking conceptually as i said before and have no wish to discuss the definition of what the US is actually doing now. Wasnt the intention the founding fathers for the military to defend the country? Isnt that conceptually their purpose? Otherwise what purpose do they serve? Would you rather the US have no military?
Man oh man, I messed up again. So, are you saying a 50 year record of mass murder is not a pattern? Do you want to go back further? No problem, William Blum's "Killing Hope" will take you back to America's beginning. How about 100 years to the beginning of American Imperialism?
George Washington went to Fraunces Tavern in lower NYC to give his farewell address as commander of the successful revolutionary army. He advised America NOT to maintain a standing army.
@radiohogan your an idiot. i didnt even warrant this dicussion, i dont even support war. i just wanted to know is the military was a social program... which it is.
"So, are you saying a 50 year record of mass murder is not a pattern?"
where did i say that? stop trying to impress me with your knowledge and answer this... was the army ever intended to defend america? and if not then it has no purpose and as a result would you feel better if there was no army in america?
In 1960, President Dwight David Eisenhower gave his farewell address as president and warned us all about the grave danger posed by America's "Military Industrial Complex." Ike had also been America's Commander in Europe in WW II, NATO commander and President of Columbia before becoming president.
All empires are driven into bankruptcy by the Welfare Queens (Generals & Admirals) - Rome, England and now - America.
good video, too bad most of youtube has been entirely taken in by the constant implicit assumptions of perfect competition in free markets and so they see any government intervention as just "taking water out of one end of a pool and putting it another"
mortacrify 9 months ago
thank you for the video. i think it is very good. don´t worry about the rating. it is a very controversial topic. well done :)
verdi85 10 months ago
Well, now that Japan is gonna be needing some drastic recovery, they're going to want their money back from all the treasury bonds they bought. No more gov't manipulating artificially low interest rates...we're screwed.
QuartuvLarry 10 months ago
Thanks a lot. This video was great.
meritory 10 months ago
@meritory Thank you for the feedback.
radiohogan 10 months ago
the Chinese are certainly not following Friedman ideas.
BatusaiJack 10 months ago 5
Thank you, Sir! Very nice and informative explanations. And it was a good ideea to speak about war as a way to spend money without producing anything. Thanks again! And keep going!
Oana14Montreal 1 year ago
That this video ignores the question of how the booms and busts actually happens, and how both Keynes and actually Friedman ignored this also, makes it just boring. If you are willing to do this, then sure, it all sounds nice enough. But who in their right mind would ever think that you can in the long run spend and borrow your way out of a bad economic situation, putting the cost to the future. Sure, it might make you feel a bit better to buy a new car, but you will face the consequenses later.
mortalisk 1 year ago 2
Keynes talked of cutting taxes as a stimulus. It was Gordon Brown who told the world to spend a stimulus, it was his government controlled economy idea that Obama and others followed.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
why is it sad to say war produces nothing, i think its a good thing so we dont go to war too often, sadly we do though.
and war can be productive if you rob the losers of the war, just like a robber can buy a gun to hold you up with. I agree though war is a curse on the economy
Exus11 1 year ago
2)WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 2010.
"Conducted while the U.S. Congress fought over sweeping changes to expand access to health insurance, the November 2009 to January 2010 survey found Americans were divided over their access to healthcare. The U.S. health reforms became law last month."
zsylvana 1 year ago
no wonder why world is in such a deep shit, if radio hosts teaches us economics, lol
originaltrip 1 year ago
It took 6 months for eastern block countries that implemented free market after soviet union colapse to go from - 30% GDP to +10% without any stimulus plan and despite high interest rates. It was lack of government spending and intervention that made it possible. When people lost old unproductive Keynsian style jobs in public sector they used their hands, heads and wit to do actually something productive.
Marine475 1 year ago 25
@Marine475
Dear Readers: It was AFTER Professor Jeffrey Sachs brought Free Market programs to Russia that Russia descended into the 9th century. The neo classical Free Marketeers caused the Russian economy to implode (30%-50%). The ensuing Depression lasted a decade until four things happened: 1. The price of oil went from $9 per barrel to $90, 2. Valdimer Putin became president. 3. Putin returned the oil industry to state control. 4. Putin began a massive Keynesian spending program.
radiohogan 1 year ago 4
. <------ I will leave you to figure out what I am pointing and laughing about.
jfelce 1 year ago
DISCOVERED in the 21stC: The Underlying Law of Nature.
The top 3 General Characteristics of The underlying law of nature are:
#1. The Way of All Things
#2. The Basis of All Laws and Principles
#3. The Basis of All Health, Growth, Efficacy and Efficiency
Google it – as a start.
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
The empirical process for identifying the underlying law of nature was discovered in 2008. Soon we may all do so.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
I guess Keynes would have been all for the Weimar by your logic and description of that, Friedman would have shrank the Weimar, maybe you would find this intersting check out The Cultural Upheaval of Loose Money by Jeffery Tucker on YT, loose money gets people to be persuaded by horrendous ideas and that leads to war....the best book on Bush @James Bovard The Bush Betrayal...stop reading the echo and read the earthquake of Mises, you are looking at secondary causes. *Creature From Jekyll Island
econogate 1 year ago
@4:46 Really?? Are you joking?
Thrice13 1 year ago
@kristopheraugust
Did you graduate from a college or university? Did you study economics as your major interest (32 credits or more)?
radiohogan 1 year ago
18)Wellrenommed ,National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conclude: "But that is only part of what is needed for a complete account of the business cycle, and the theory can only be made coherent with a broadly Keynesian model of equilibrium unemployment. Trying to tie Austrian Business Cycle Theory to Austrian prejudices against government intervention has been a recipe for intellectual and policy disaster and theoretical stagnation."
zsylvana 1 year ago 18
15)National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) writes"
To sum up, the version of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory originally developed by Hayek and Mises gives strong reasons to think that an unregulated financial system will be prone to booms and busts and that this will be true for a wide range of monetary systems, particularly including gold standard systems. ."
zsylvana 1 year ago 3
13) NBER :"Rothbard blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis. US had free banking from the Jackson Administration to the Civil War and that didn't stop the business cycle "
zsylvana 1 year ago 6
@zsylvana Speaking on behalf of Austrians; We do not state that it is only central banking that creates the booms and busts, although this has been a primary driver in modern history. Rather, throughout history it has been government policy that expanded the quantity of money, thus fostering an environment for speculation and malinvestment i.e. Tulip Mania. May i remind you of the Austrians track record of calling busts with stunning accuracy compared with many others i.e. Krugman et al.
cabgt 1 year ago
12)NBER:
"The modern Austrian school has tried to argue that the business cycle they describe is caused in some way by government policy, though the choice of policy varies from Austrian to Austrian -- some blame paper money and want a gold standard, others blame central banks, some want a strict prohibition on fractional reserve banking while others favour a laissez-faire policy of free banking, where anyone who wants can print money and others (Hayek ) a system of competing currencies."
zsylvana 1 year ago
11) NBER :"The credit cycle idea can easily be combined with a Keynesian account of under-employment equilibrium, and even more easily with the Keynesian idea of 'animal spirits'. This was done most prominently by Minsky, and the animsal spirits idea has recently revived by Akerlof and Shiller. I suspect that the macroeconomic model that emerges from the current crisis will have a recognisably Austrian flavour.Hayek and Mises spent the rest of their lives running hard in the opposite direction"
zsylvana 1 year ago 4
10) NBER:" A closely related point is that,unless Say's Law is violated,the Austrian model implies that consumption should be negatively correlated with investment over the business cycle, whereas in fact the opposite is true.To the extent that booms are driven by mistaken beliefs that investments have become more profitable, they are typically characterized by high, not low,consumption.."
zsylvana 1 year ago 4
8) NBER continues:"At the time it was put forward, the Mises-Hayek business cycle theory was actually a pretty big theoretical advance." but: "arguments about rational expectations are second nature than it was 100 years ago. So, the Austrian story requires either a failure of rational expectations, or a capital market failure that individuals rationally choose to make 'bad' investments "
zsylvana 1 year ago
6)NBER writes:" The US experienced serious "panics", as they were then called in 1796-97, 1819 and 1837 [as well as milder fluctuations associated with the British crises of the 1820s and 1840s. The typical crisis of the 19th century, like the current crisis, began with bank failures caused by the sudden burst of a speculative boom and then spread to the real economy, with the contraction phase typically lasting from one to five years. "
zsylvana 1 year ago 3
5)NBER writes:"The case of the US is of particular interest since the business cycle coincided with a wide range of monetary and banking systems: from national bank to free banking, and including a gold standard, bimetallism and non-convertible paper money. This NBER data goes back to 1857, but there was nothing new about the business cycle then (Marx, for example, had been writing about it for a decade or more). "
zsylvana 1 year ago
4)NBER continues:
"First, some history and data. Austrian Business Cycle Theory was developed in the first quarter of the 20th century, mostly by Mises and Hayek, with some later contributions by Schumpeter. The data Mises and Hayek had to work on was that of that of the business cycle that emerged with industrial capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century and continued with varying amplitude throughout that century. "
zsylvana 1 year ago 4
3)NBER continues:
"The result is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma.Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, t provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections. "
zsylvana 1 year ago
2)(NBER) writes further:
"To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas."
zsylvana 1 year ago 2
1) As Mike and other like myself are interested in development of Economic knows that Austrian Business Cycle Theory was Debunked by National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) maybee the most wellrenommed reasearch institute in USA long ago that write:
"Most of the mainstream economists who've looked at the theory, from Tyler Cowen , Bryan Caplan
and Gordon Tullock at the libertarian/Chicago end of the spectrum to Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong."
zsylvana 1 year ago
In my opinion, the problem with the Keynes model is the error of regulatory and Government nature. When you tell the Government to only run in the red during bad times and raise taxes while decreasing spending during good times, what you run in to is where marginal decreases cause the Government to overreact and damage the economy. With Keynesian Economics, eventually all times become bad times, and as such, constant deficits are run until a country runs out of money IE Greece.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
Keynes NEVER addressed inflation as you state (lower govt spending, increase taxes), he only addressed deflation as that was the problem of the day in the 30s (increase G, lower T). He overlooked the fact that tight monetary policy in spite of increasing gold reserves was the root cause of the depression, but that's a digression. Inflation was not a problem while Keynes was alive, and unfortunately he died before he could warn his misguided followers that their response to it was wrong.
publicanimal 1 year ago
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
arzoyan 1 year ago
but the thing is, the fact that the government had so much money to spend their way out of the recession suggests that they had been taxing higher than the gdp and monetary expansion combined, but weren't spending it. that's what caused the depression. a continuing contraction in the amount of money available, but high taxing anyway.
samm1809 1 year ago
Your analysis of Keynes is alright, though to be fair you should have talked about how crowding out affects fiscal policy. However, you're incorrect about Milton Friedman on the depression. He explicitly stated that many of FDR's programs were temporarily necessary, but he also said that the Fed was responsible for the depression to begin with.
Megabyxos 1 year ago 2
idiot
BarackHOsama 1 year ago
@BarackHOsama
You are to kind.
radiohogan 1 year ago
Its the same thing with money, you have gold, its based on gold even though we arent on the gold standard. Lets say value is based on gold moron.. Okay so you cant just go on about the gold standard, shove your response about that. Value is based on gold, so gold is worth more than its ever been worth.. hmmm WHY? Its for the reason I last stated, you have a bar of gold that represents 4 peoples wealth lets say enough to live on, and add four more people.. now they are poor. thats inflation
TomJackson986 1 year ago
@TomJackson986
It is kind of you to tutor me in economics. Do you have a degree in economics?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I definatly will, I could care less about your prerequisites I am educated just like yourself. Self taught theories you say too, who says its self taught. You always learn from someone or somthing.
TomJackson986 1 year ago
If the United States buys its own bonds sure it will increase the supply of money, but do you understand inflation? Do you understand that we are destroying society! Obama is ridiculous and definatly a total Keynesian. I could care less if you defend that stupid theory, but honestly no amount of regulation, higher taxes, and higher spending would do anything to improve our situation, when you see the tough times we go through after we lose the ability to keep spend all this debt. youll see
TomJackson986 1 year ago
@TomJackson986
Do you understand deflation?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan Sure, it's a way of keeping prices in check and the currency keeping its value. It has a purpose, let it be.
fullel 1 year ago
@radiohogan Do you understand inflation? INFLATION! Do you understand money? Do you understand anything maybe.. ? Do you know that when you print more money and spend it, it becomes useless! You cant spend it twice, you cant print it twice. Every time you print a twenty, you lose money. Can I explain, you have four stoners, and theres a gram of weed, you have enough to get everyone high. You can probably understand this right? If you add four more people nobody will get high.
TomJackson986 1 year ago
@TomJackson986
Your channel has no videos of yourself - nada, zipperino. Why are you shy? Put your primitive (i.e self taught) economic theories up for all to view.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I dont put videos up of myself because I dont want to get critisized by people that dont agree with me, I dont have the time, today is Canada day so I have all the time in the world. But like I have to work, I go to college, and I am going to university in the United States afterwards if everything goes well there. Self taught, what do you mean by that. You have posted 250 videos this was your lucky one.
TomJackson986 1 year ago
Dear Mike.I don´t know why Austrian prozelytes on a video about two economists that both don´t have much in common with their pre WW1view on economics.The dicrepancy between Friedman and Austrian in methodogical approach is even bigger than by Keynes and Austrians allready in views on money and capital theory.Both rely on Wicksells capital theory that they draw different conclusion and developted diffrerent.Friedman was in his 3 books influenced by Irving Fischer,that Austrians disslike so much.
zsylvana 1 year ago 3
You are such a fail! No fricken wonder more than half the people hate this video, Friedman has a more mainstream view
TomJackson986 1 year ago
@TomJackson986
Would you care to comment on the content of the video?
radiohogan 1 year ago
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of production for profit in a world market of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and manipulation to perpetuate the conditions of exploitation in the interest of the Owning/Ruling elite. Capitalism is the monetary web of deception and suppresssion of humanity for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of dehumanisation and devaluation
arzoyan 1 year ago
Like listening to a potato suddenly given the power to speak.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
exactly. ( is the stick so deep you didnt see the joke?! get it- keynes, Kenya. ok it was weak, but not even a chuckle? ) i have to go get my unemployment check now.
sharpraiderbrown 1 year ago
you are a loser
davibean 1 year ago
adolf hitler was a keynesian. and barack obama is a half-keynesian. no, but seriously. what i am talking about is the complete failure of fraction banking coupled with keynesian socio-economics defeats those it is purported to aid. it is a shim-sham. every working part of keynes econ is a shell game.
sharpraiderbrown 1 year ago
@sharpraiderbrown
What did you study in college?
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@sharpraiderbrown
Yes, Hitler was a Keynesian 3 years before Keynes wrote the General Theory. Perhaps Keynes learned from Hitler?
Yes, Obama is a half Keynesian because he seeks to increase and lower spending at the same time. He is a confused economic illiterate.
What evidence do you have that fraction banking is a failure?
What is "Keynesian socio-economics?"
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan If Adolf Hitler was something for sure he was with no doubt a Austrian!
Born in april 1889 i Braunau am Inn,Austria.J.M Keynes was a member of Liberal Party
in England.and shared their views on Democracy,Free speech,etc.He also contributed with his knowledge as Economist and English patriot to defend his country against Nazi Germany.
zsylvana 1 year ago 8
@sharpraiderbrown John Toland, Wm. L. Shirer, Alan Bullock and other historians have pointed out numerous times that in the area of economics, Hitler was an ignoramus...he had little interest in the subject, which actually BORED him. His National "Socialism" was based on blood and soil, nation and race. It's economic system was a form of controlled capitalism; in other words, Nazi Germany was a military-industrial-govenment triangle, not some sort of socialistic workers paradise.
lannyusa 1 year ago 3
you must be a billionaire, with all your economic expertise. the long and the short of it is the hand is quicker than the eye.
sharpraiderbrown 1 year ago
@sharpraiderbrown
What are you talking about?
radiohogan 1 year ago
ha this guy never studied friedman
addyr100 1 year ago
@addyr100
Where Friedman is concerned, there isn't much to study - 3 books. Please notice Addy does not offer any information about F.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@addyr100
There isn't much to study. Professor F wrote 3 books. Have you read all 3?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@addyr100
There isn't much to study. Professor F wrote 3 books. Have you read all 3?
radiohogan 1 year ago
What gives you the audacity to talk out against a genius such as Friedman, he proves that government regulation is bad for the economy more logically than any of these elitist Keynesianists
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
One doesn't need audacity, just a fine education at a fine college.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan To say that YOU know something that Friedman doesnt does take audacity because you are just listening to what youre told Friedman paved the way for modern economics and was all together a higher of degree of economist than you so for you to say something like that about him is out of place because youre just a guy who observes the people he proved wrong The Economist wouldnt say that he was "The Best Economist of the Second Half of the 20th Century..Maybe The Whole Thing" if he wasnt
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Please be specific. What did I say about Friedman that you find audacious?
Aren't all scientists (including social scientists) supposed to be rigorously challenged? You place Friedman as a God - above question.
Why do you consider Keynesians "elitist?"
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I don't place Friedman as a god, he was a momentous character, and momentous characters deserve recognition above others in their field. And I consider Keynesians elitist because they think that the government is an all knowing body that can run the economy better than the private sector, (primarily having roots in extreme arrogance and thirst for power... Or so it seems)
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
The man wrote three books - definitely not a God. Prof. F was a totalitarian, pure and simple.
As to your anarchist world view, while respected, where have you seen anarchism practiced. Certainly, Friedman was an ass kissing elitist for his entire career.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan He was NOT totalitarian, and I have no idea why you would say that, (I swear, you people no nothing about right wing politics) he was a libertarian, which is obviously not a totalitarian, he believed in the maximization of individual freedom which is thought of as people like you as being anarchist because you unconciously accept that more government = less freedom.
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Professor Gregg Grandin of Yale and NYU writing in CounterPunch documents Friedman's totalitarian flavor. Just Google the article. Libertarian ideology is class based. It is the new disguise of the neo fascists.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan Though your statements on libertarianism are very ignorant, I'm going to ignore your translation; But Friedman was not a totalitarian, he was, in fact, the opposite, because he advoced minimal government interaction. Totalitarianism is defined as: excercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocraticated minimal govenment. Or in other words, teh opposite of libertarianism.
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Have you read Professor Gregg Grandin's paper about Friedman's totalitarianism?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan The fundamental argument behind your libertarian argument is a lack of knowledge of what it actually is: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. The modern left stance is actually more totalitarianistic because they advocate more control over... well... everything.
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Libertarians are fascists in disguise.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan Hello Mike.It´s strange when those followers of von Mise-Rothbard etc.
defend the probarly most fundamentalistic Positivist and Intrumentalist in Economic science Milton Friedman.A man that belonged to Repuplican Party and openly rejected Libertarians and Randists,Rothbardists a cranks,and cultists.in Newsweek Magazine.Rothbard and Friedman dispiced each others and von Mises thought Milton F.was a Socialist i read.Do they defend a Socialist??
zsylvana 1 year ago 22
@radiohogan Thomas Payne:Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one, so no I am not an anarchist everyone who doesnt support full government control is not an anarchist Milton was an ass kissing elitist Seriously
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Friedman was a flunky on the fringes of the Nixon & Reagan administration. Flunkies who take the Kings Shilling must Kiss Ass. It is what flunkies do.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan So basically everything you are saying is validated in the fact that he was an economic adviser to a few presidents? That pretty much invalidates itself.
gavin11214 1 year ago
@gavin11214
Dr F was not an "advisor" to presidents. He never rose to that status - just an ass kisser.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan He was actually rather modest but I can see how someone such as yourself who is desperate to disprove him would dig in the deepest crevices to find something to even suggest that ex. Friedman took money from his sisters piggy bank when he was 5!
gavin11214 1 year ago
typical baby boomer keynes lover
evek2345 1 year ago
@evek2345
Do you have any comments about the video I made?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan no but don't worry the baby boomers time for honoring themselves will soon becoming to an end, just like your failed keynesian economic theories.
evek2345 1 year ago
Can anyone help me? Which theory is best for a country that gets its money from export like Sweden.
mekrim 1 year ago
what keynes did was try to remove the punishment clause ... when a company fails ... the government should step in and bail it out . it seems humane to me on surface, but by doing this the government is putting its hand into my pocket and taking out my money to keep a mismanaged company running . the government is curbing my freedoms . its unconstitutional . keynes himself said in his book economic consequences of peace chapter 6 "europe after the treaty" about how the government can rob people
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool
You don't understand (or seek to malign) Keynes or economics.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan i have nothing against keynes , he was clearly a brilliant guy ... no doubt ... all i m saying is that what he asked the government to do then was required in 1930s . it was not really required in 2007-08 ... and all this blaming reganomics or keynesian economics and hayek bashing is pointless ... utterly pointless ... the bottom line is a man has to do what he thinks is right ... without hurting the interests of his fellow man and without asking him to sacrifice his freedom
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool
Capitalism is evil. The idea that capitalism fosters freedom is what Marx would call "false consciousness."
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan haha! kaynes himself said that marxism was illogical(in his essay end of laissez-faire) also, kaynes in his essays in persuasion said on das capital "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world." and there are many other philosophical doctrines would deem marx's philosophy rubbish ..
the principles are never evil, people are...
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool
In an earlier comment, I wrote that Keynes was not a Marxist. All Keynesians think all Classical and Neo Classical economists are without merit. We all know this. Marx was the last of the great Classical economists.
Marx's most interesting and relevant work is his observations about the inherent contradictions in capitalism that lead to massive problems, if not the destruction of capitalism.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool The world has not been kind to Friedmans policy, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.
zsylvana 1 year ago 7
@mintoo2cool Friedmans market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the global economy
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
@radiohogan marx was an idiot and his ideas (although he is free to express them) led to the death of over 100 million. central planning always fails, history doesnt lie.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Please provide an accounting of the 100 million people you claim were murdered by Marxists?
radiohogan 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear:countries that pursued neo-liberal policies that Friedman runned around the globe and preached ,lost the growth sweepstakes.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool Defenders of Friedmans policy want to shift the blame from market failure to government failure.But US banks mismanaged risk on a colossal scale,with global consequences, while those running these institutions have walked away with billions of dollars in compensation.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool Though Friedmanites do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light.and the more recent massive!Misallocation of resources to Housing!
zsylvana 1 year ago 20
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
the very core of friedmans point was that let the market reward the companies who are good and punish the companies that are poorly managed . he was constantly saying that capitalism is not only about profits ... its about both profits and losses . and according to him if a giant company fails .. you should let it fail because failing would not mean the end of the world. it would only mean that in future , in a truely free market smaller companies would spring out of the failed giant.
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool
As I said in the video, Friedman would do nothing in a recession or depression.
radiohogan 1 year ago
When Keynes told the government they can spend money, the government never ever listened to the rest. And they have been spending money ever since. Now we are fast on our way to hyper-inflation because of all of the excessive spending.
Friedman was right. Under Harding and Coolidge we had a stock market crash in 1920 that was in some ways worse than 1929. Harding lowered taxes and did nothing. Within 18 months the nation recovered. It took nearly 15 years after Hoover and FDR to recover.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
We disagree.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I will be the last one to argue with you. It appears you have made an intense study of economics and I never even took an economics class in college.
I disagree with Marxism because it ignores human behavior and individual liberty. The Keynesian idea of spending you don't have money just seems illogical.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh
Yes, I majored in economics. You bring up Marx. Neither Friedman or Keynes were Marxists. Marx wrote about behavior - particularly in his early writings. As to Keynes and logic, much of economics is counter intuitive.
radiohogan 1 year ago
7) Knut Wicksell showed that the rate of interest in equilibrium is determined by the relation between saving and investment; and Gunnar Myrdal, a pupil of Wicksell’s, went still further, explaining that this rate of interest actually depends on the return expected from investments’, that is, on the rate of profit, as also Karl Marx said.
zsylvana 1 year ago 12
6)The quantity theory of money implies that prices rise or fall depending on whether the quantity of currency in circulation increases or decreases, in relation to a definite level of equilibrium.It was in this way that the idea of a rate of interest resulting from the supply and demand of capital, a rate of interest which rises until the demand ceases because it is excessive, was refuted at the beginning of the century by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell.
zsylvana 1 year ago 15
5) It can be said that the marginalist school was never able to solve the problem of the “marginal value of money”, and that for this reason it remained dualistic, combining a subjective theory of value with an objective theory of money (e.g. the quantity theory). which correspond to different needs of equal intensity.
zsylvana 1 year ago 8
4)Many economists,was dissatisfied with the answers from the neo-classical school,the problems of investment (the rate of interest),money (the quantity theory of money) periodical crises.Neo-classical began breaking up on its weakest sides,difficulties in formulating a dynamic theory,theory of growth,starting from micro-economic data of marginal value,& difficulty of reconciling the theory of prices from supply & demand with a theory of prices resulting from the quantity of money in circulation
zsylvana 1 year ago 20
3)The neo-classical theory is not only divorced from social reality as whole. It is also divorced from the practical reality of everyday life. Despite all the teachings of the neo-classical school,businessmen continue to calculate their costs of production using “amount of labour expended”
The marginalist theory & the neo-classical school function was, purely to justify the capitalist order as ; to justify wages,prices and profits as the result of exchanges carried out on an equal footing.
zsylvana 1 year ago 10
2) It does not take into account the dynamic character of competition and the continual disturbances of equilibrium. which it causes. It is essentially static and brings dynamics as at most an element disturbing equilibrium, whereas in reality equilibrium is only a transient moment in a spasmodic economic movement which is in ceaseless oscillation. It has no explanation to offer either for periodical crises or for structural crises.
zsylvana 1 year ago 8
1)Today, most economists readily admit that the equilibrium system of the neo-classicists is totally divorced from reality. It does not take into account the particular institutional framework of capitalism, which makes quite absurd the notion that wages are determined by “the product of the last unit of his time that the worker wishes to give up rather than devote it to leisure”.
zsylvana 1 year ago 23
Surely if you 'send an Army overseas' and take control of a resource rich country (like Iraq, India or the Congo) then divide it up amongst your domestic corporate sponsors the economy gains a great deal?
CapedCrusader2006 1 year ago
thank you keynes for our current boom and bust economy. where would we be without these economic crashes that we have every few years? where would we be without the easy excuse for governments to constantly increase spending? where would we be without your desire to constantly increase the standard of living so that one day, our economy can crumble when we realize we are living in a fairy tale world? thank you keynes.
jsssm 1 year ago
@jsssm
Sarcasm and stupidity are very closely related.
radiohogan 1 year ago
You misrepresent Friedmans's position, that is why your video fails.
"Do nothing" is not his position. It's merely the his position on what the federal government should be doing.
You are a complete moron.
lees200222 1 year ago
@lees200222
I have read all of Friedman's books and studied him extensively when I took a degree in economics. You tell me; what would Friedman do?
radiohogan 1 year ago
radiohogan, i am interested in hearing your response to the usefulness of both the keynesian versus the classical approach in times of recession.
bloomerist 1 year ago
@bloomerist
Keynesian fiscal policy seeks to maintain a full employment economy on times of recession. Classical economists would do nothing, as I said in my video.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan Jobs are meaningless even wasteful if they are not productive. You can pay a farmer more money from taxes to dig and fill in a hole repetitively for no reason. All the while he would not be farming. In fact farmers were paid not to farm during the great depression.
Surely you understand wealth is created by production not jobs?
sirellyn 1 year ago
keynes = FAIL. isnt this the same man who said stagflation was impossible? tell that to 1979. why do people still follow his theories? it is like taking humanitarian advice from chairman mao.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Stagflation has nothing to do with Lord John Maynard Keynes.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan did friedman say that sustained keynesian policies could lead to both unemployment and inflation rising at once, something which was supposed to be impossible according to keynesianists (e.g. the Phillips Curve). then stagflation appeared in britain and america just as friedman had predicted.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
No.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan yes
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@radiohogan If you haven't read "The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin than you only have a limited understanding of Capitalism. You can download it as a free pdf file.
itrainsinoctober 1 year ago
@radiohogan didnt friedman say that sustained keynesian policies could lead to both unemployment and inflation rising at once, something which was supposed to be impossible according to keynesianists (e.g. the Phillips Curve). then stagflation appeared in britain and america in 1970s just as friedman had predicted.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Lol this presentation is tremendously bias in favor of keynes.
TheTomtah 1 year ago
@TheTomtah
Please elaborate!
radiohogan 1 year ago
Keynes has failed.
nuclearcollision 1 year ago
@nuclearcollision
Please elaborate on your unproven assertion.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan yeah seriously. what if i just said
nuclearcollision has an IQ of 80. is that okay? i didnt prove it, but it seems like its okay to just say things with no evidence...
zanfankid 1 year ago
@nuclearcollision
Please elaborate.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I'll be honest with you, the fact that you're not in a position of influence doesn't make me want to put in the time and energy to explain to you economics (my academic profession). I have no problem with you believing the false doctrine of Keynesianism, I just wanted to point out that you're misguided. If you really want to know why, you have to accept the fact that The Man can't create wealth for you. Keynes has been debunked more times than you can probably count. No, really.
nuclearcollision 1 year ago
The keynesian philosophies are to blame for the governments enormous debt and people are discovering that as the debt increases the overall rate of GDP decreases. You can see that by looking at the statistics. Over that past 70 years or so since the depression, the people has subscribed to the idea that you can use fiscal policy to fight the business cycles. But it hasn't solved the problems and the business cycles mirror themselves by looking at the longterm government budgets.
MrXZodiacInfinitY 1 year ago
@MrXZodiacInfinitY
I disagree with your series of unproven assertions.
radiohogan 1 year ago
I don't understand how you ignore the fact that Keynes' models, while brilliant, were wrong. Friedman's models of consumption function and permanent employment are right.
He didn't say the Federal Reserve "was jerking around the money supply so much." He said that the Federal Reserve did not increase money supply when it received gold from other countries like the U.K. and in effect, throttle back the supply.
You need to study or stop misleading people.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
Part I:
Lord John Maynard Keynes wrote several books on monetary theory, well before he wrote "The General Theory" (1936). What "models" are you referring to? Why were they wrong? Give us a clue.
There wasn't much to Professor Milton Friedman's "The Consumption Function." It is a book full of equations that simply says consumers will continue to spend the same proportion of their income, as their income rises. The obvious is often right.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
Part II:
We disagree about what Friedman had to say about the Fed and the money supply. While toy are referring to the distant past (1930's), I am referring to Friedman's recommendations in the 1960's and 1970's regarding how to control the money supply. F wanted the money supply to grow at a stable unchanging rate. F wanted the growth of the money supply to be the same as the growth of the economy (3% at the time).
radiohogan 1 year ago
It is factualy wrong to say Friedman saw no role for gov. regarding economics.
Keynes saw the Great Depression as demand driven. Friedman saw it as a failure of the Federal Reserve to steadily increase the money supply.
Therefore, Friedman was much more concerned with monetary policy while Keynes was more concerned with fiscal policy.
Although you are obviously biased in your views as you cite the "Bush Agenda" as a source on the impacts of economics.
Herbunder 1 year ago
@Herbunder
As a Neo Classical economist Professor Milton Friedman saw no role for government, in addressing or counter balancing the business cycle... We disagree.
Please list what you consider F's prescribed role for government in the economy, beyond an inflexible Fed.
We agree the two tools used by economists is fiscal and monetary policy. Did you watch this video? That is what it is all about.
Have you read Antonia Juhasz's latest book "The Tyranny of Oil?"
radiohogan 1 year ago
He grossly misrepresents Mr. Friedman's views.
odinswald 1 year ago
@odinswald
Hi O: Please give our audience a half dozen examples of how I misrepresented Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan I didn't say it but I'll elaborate.
Stagflation could not exist in Keynes' model. It occurred as Friedman predicted.
Friedman also proved that the government was involved in the economy before the depression and caused it through inaction through the gold standard.
All economists believe in fiscal policy. Keynes' believed in autonomous spending; not government spending, but deficit spending by the government and private investing.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
This person is dishonest. He misrepresents Lord John Maynard Keynes. Stagflation is the result of economists, bureaucrats & politicians who did not follow Keynes' fiscal policy. When Paul Volker became the head of the Fed (circa 1978), he implemented Keynes policy and inflation ended.
Friedman did not predict stagflation. He merely wrote about the work of others. Check it out. In fact, F only wrote 3 books - none of which are memorable.
Our man dose not understand Keynes.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan
South American democracies are notoriously unstable not due to Friedman, but due to corruption. Give US a half a dozen concrete examples of how "Friedman simply failed."
You imply that Friedman's inactions will have recessions last 20-30 years, but this is a fallacy. By not intervening, the market will find its bottom quicker. While this will be slightly deeper than a Keynesian approach it will be much shorter.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
See my many videos describing the many fallacies in the Austrian School economics.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@radiohogan
How does increased spending = increase in demand? Prove that and you have yourself a Nobel Prize yourself. If this was true, why should the government ever stop spending? I'll tell you why you are wrong. It's because every dollar that the government spends, it must first take more than a dollar out of the economy; immediately or borrowed.
There is a huge difference between now and Keynes' time. Our debt was not owned by other countries then, it is now. Don't ignore that.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
If you read Samuelson, you will be introduced to The Multiplier Effect. Increased government spending or lower taxes, will increase consumer spending (aggregate demand) by a Multiplier Effect of 3 or 4. There is no need for me to prove it, as many economists have done so.
As to your question, "---why should the government ever stop spending?" When WW II pulled America out of the Depression, Charles Wilson decided to put America on a permanent war economy - permanent spending.
radiohogan 1 year ago
Friedman obviously has better ideas. Keynesian economics lead to stagflation inevitably, Milton knew this.
Bfisher14 1 year ago
@Bfisher14
Please elaborate.
radiohogan 1 year ago
1)@Bfisher14 No your wrong. Swedish model were developed by two trade union economists, Gösta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner, after World War II. The Rehn-Meidner model respresents a unique third way between keynesianism and monetarism in its approach to combine full employment programs,a tight fiscal policy and wage policy of solidarity. A renewed interest in the Rehn-Meidner model from recent declarations by the EU to prioritise full employment without giving up the objective of price stability.
zsylvana 1 year ago 7
2)@Bfisher14 Rehn-Meidner Model succeded for about 40 years on their four main goals for the economic politics : a)Low unemployment b)Low inflation c)High growth
d)Equal incomes.
zsylvana 1 year ago 8
Where is Friedman ????? Isn't the title implying that he would debate this ???//
roodingle 1 year ago
isnt the military a social service? they are funded by taxes after all.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
What "social service" does the military perform? Invasions, war crimes, torture, mass murder (over 7 million in 50 years), while eating uo 60% of the Federal tax dollar?
According to Nobel Prize winning Columbia U Professor Joseph Stiglitz, the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion (3000 billions) - "The $3 Trillion War." Did you receive $3 trillion worth of "social service?"
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan wow that answer was so wrought with so much bias and hate i dont even know where to begin. conceptually the military does provide a service in defending the country, whether you believe in Bush doctrine or not is immaterial.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Is that what "they" are doing, defending the country? Wow, how naive you are.
It is not about Bush. Let's go back to the Nuremburg Tribunals. FDR sent Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as a judge. Justice Jackson said the most serious war crime is to invade another country, because all other war crimes stem from the initial crime of invasion.
Now, count the number of war crimes (invasions) in recent American history - 50 years. Count them up. Read William Blum's Killing Hope
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan again you fail to see the point. i am talking conceptually as i said before and have no wish to discuss the definition of what the US is actually doing now. Wasnt the intention the founding fathers for the military to defend the country? Isnt that conceptually their purpose? Otherwise what purpose do they serve? Would you rather the US have no military?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Part A:
Man oh man, I messed up again. So, are you saying a 50 year record of mass murder is not a pattern? Do you want to go back further? No problem, William Blum's "Killing Hope" will take you back to America's beginning. How about 100 years to the beginning of American Imperialism?
George Washington went to Fraunces Tavern in lower NYC to give his farewell address as commander of the successful revolutionary army. He advised America NOT to maintain a standing army.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan your an idiot. i didnt even warrant this dicussion, i dont even support war. i just wanted to know is the military was a social program... which it is.
"So, are you saying a 50 year record of mass murder is not a pattern?"
where did i say that? stop trying to impress me with your knowledge and answer this... was the army ever intended to defend america? and if not then it has no purpose and as a result would you feel better if there was no army in america?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Part II:
In 1960, President Dwight David Eisenhower gave his farewell address as president and warned us all about the grave danger posed by America's "Military Industrial Complex." Ike had also been America's Commander in Europe in WW II, NATO commander and President of Columbia before becoming president.
All empires are driven into bankruptcy by the Welfare Queens (Generals & Admirals) - Rome, England and now - America.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
Friedman>Keynes
xStryderhiro 1 year ago
@xStryderhiro
Please elaborate!