another victim of public education. it's not your fault. it's not a bad presentation. just a lot of missing information. continue your research if you are interested in the topic but don't ever assume that the information you presented here constitutes anything close to the whole truth.
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two Thomas Sowell
Nice comment at the end man! I believe economy must not be taken a huge part of life, rather develop an economy where everyone can benefit, including the wealthy and working class. The continuous pursuit of a better economy must not take our vision away from God, since He is The One who gives us knowledge to think about anything, including economic systems.
Principle of Self-Interest helps determine the Laws of Supply and Demand. Every choice a human makes is based on receiving a psychological or material benefit. Pitted against itself Self-Interest generates abundance. In a controlled market economies it assures scarcity and shortages. We were all born Capitalists demonstrated by the fact that out of Self Interest we took our first breath. Corruption is mental kryptonite.
Since when is he not one of the greatest economists. Show how much you know. Its okay i dont blame you for your ignorance. All you know and do is in a little box.
well, you probably think alex jones is someone to take seriously....isn't it funny that only nuts bring up mises as some important economist, although he contributed nothing towards modern economic science.
Mises' taught Hayek everything he knows; Hayek did nothing more than dress up his work, and he won a nobel prize for it. Mises was also able to predict the economic collapse of 1929, and real business cycle theory is nothing more than a poor rip off of Misesiean thought. Anyone who knows anything about economics has heard of Mises, and has probably read "The theory of Money and Credit."
Furthermore, all these so-called "serious economists" were wrong about everything. Marx held on to the labor theory of value, was wrong on labor markets, and didn't believe in money. Friedman was wrong on floating exchange rates, and the ability of the FED to control inflation. Keynes was completely wrong on business cycles; he had not clue as to the causes of business cycles. "Animal spirits" are meaningless, and Keynes treats it as a purely exogenous variable. So much for your "relevance."
If you're a politician, which economist's policies are you going to go with? The one that says you have to tax the people or get no govt progs? Or the one who tells you spend on anything, and buy votes to get re-elected? Thats why mises hasn't contributed, the career politicians take the money, and do what it takes to get re-elected.
You know, it's not like the stimulus or bailout was very popular... people who like Austrian Economics always come up with excuses why their school hasn't penetrated mainstream economic thought. Austrian economics seems to be a typical pseudo-science, taking a biased approach and working backwards...
How is it a pseudo-science when these people warned of the current bust, and no one listened? Ron Paul was IN Congress telling people this, and still went ignored. It isnt mainstream because its unpopular with politicians, and also because keynesianism is taught in schools without any alternative like austrian econ. The stimulus wasnt popular with the PEOPLE, the politicians voted it in without even reading it
@quietlike Yes austrian economics could have warned us of this bust. Keynes could also have warned us of this bust, many economists who still admire Keynes today warned us as well. Austian economists reject probability theory, which means they don't create economic models that can be tested in real world cases. They only theorize about the nature of the economy, without answering evidence. It's basically a pseudo-science.
Evolutionary Economic flow: Barter system -> Natural resources system -> Metals / Bronze system -> Paper and credit system (Capitalist system). Now, Karl Marx theorized one of 3 directions and it was this system evolving into a "classless" system. My branch of evolution is different and in the middle. Capital flow to the people between state and corporations. Look at my statement on the "orgami butterfly" vid.
I introduce to the world my new discovery: 'Market Foundationalism' it is an inverse of NATIONAL CAPITALISM. Which other ideologies are within the NATIONALIST ANGLE? National Socialism (Fascism) and National Communism (Soviet Union's model). Humanity only experienced 3. I have researched and discovered 5 more possible economic philosophies. Marxism is one but never was experienced and implemented not even by the Soviet Union.
volfan so glad you enjoyed the video read previous statements you might learn something as well I could care less if you believe my views are false but they are my views and I never posted this as historical fact but a compilation of my views on something learned on all five of these men. Plus guess what this is the internet nothing on here is true and if you don't believe that you are delusional
also, smith was a philosopher, not a politician so of course he himself didnt put his theories into practice, he didnt have the means. your views on adam smith are completely and utterly false
adam smith did believe that people should be selfish. in fact, he thought that selfishness, next to competition, is the most important factor in a prosperous economy. read the Theory on Moral Sentiments, or even a textbook before you post vids. smith thought that labor should be done for one's own self-gain, not for the betterment of the state, because helping yourself will in turn help the state. all of smith's theories were based on selfishness. the vid is wrong.
Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx incorrectly viewed and/or calculated Labor. Labor is both an economic and political factor for society. The financial strength of Labor,which is also the PEOPLE,makes the SOCIETY in general stable and guarantees continual growth of opulence.
"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour,that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased. " (p.34) (End of Paragraph 2, Chapter 5 - ' Of the Real and Nominal Price of commodities,or of their Price in Labour,and their Price in Money ' )
I think I misread, lol. I wasn't saying I disagree saying they thought that. I'm saying I disagree with the assessment that the strength of the laboring class creates stability. I think there's more to it than that.
Karl Marx also recognized the great Value of Labour and tried to politicized this group of capital as the "Proletariat". This is his mistake. Labour is not greater or lesser but equal to the state and Corporations. The "Lesser" idea is from Adam Smith and this also a mistake.
Adam Smith stated in his book - 'The Wealth of Nations' concerning Labor:
"LABOUR,therefore,is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities" & " By the quantities of Labour,we can, with the greatest accuracy, estimate it both from century to century and from year to year." Adam Smith was mostly a philosopher and he taught philosophy. His most renown book was based on his earlier work - 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments'.
Yes, all were wrong especially the Marxists idea because it missed the point! The point is not redistribution of wealth but the increased availability of wealth. Adam Smith mentioned that Paper currency is simply to backup the Metal currency (preferably Gold)!
This is a glorified list of economist that didn't get it right. with the exeption of Smith perhaps. A true monster of 20th century economic theory is Von Mises. If any of you want to learn real economy look up the Austrian School of Economics.
I realize that I have left out many economic theorists. I had to limit this presentation to those covered in the class and keep it under 5 min. Please feel free to post any links to videos that discuss some of these other theorist or create your own and I will add it as a video response to this one.
The concept of GNP now commonly called GDP for Gross Domestic Product was introduced by Keynes. What you don't hear much is Net Domestic Product. That is the result of subtracting DEPRECIATION of Capital Goods from GDP.
BUT
When consumers buy millions of cars they get added to GDP. But cars wear out and the Net Worth of consumers goes down as a result.
Our economists don't talk about or subtract the depreciation of durable consumer goods.
Economics and accounting are not separate subjects. Economics is merely the accounting for all of the economic units in a society. Economists treat the worker/consumers differently from the businesses however. Workers are supposed to be too dumb to do accounting. Our economists ignore what the workers lose in depreciation and don't compute it or talk about it.
Freidman was not a 'scholar'. He was a propagandist. His 'scholarly theories' have been debunked by the very people who put them into practice. And were abandoned.
another victim of public education. it's not your fault. it's not a bad presentation. just a lot of missing information. continue your research if you are interested in the topic but don't ever assume that the information you presented here constitutes anything close to the whole truth.
ftwmiller 10 months ago
"Keynes work began the study of macroeconomics"!!!!
Wow, why would someone who has no idea what they are talking about on some subject want to make a video about that subject?!
NickDanger3 1 year ago
The person who made this must have read all of a paragraph on each of the economists.
NickDanger3 1 year ago
Wow, this is utter and absolute garbage.
publicanimal 1 year ago
Nice Work
Well said In the End
Like this We are All Dead in the End
Ufreaker 1 year ago
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two Thomas Sowell
examinfo 1 year ago
Nice comment at the end man! I believe economy must not be taken a huge part of life, rather develop an economy where everyone can benefit, including the wealthy and working class. The continuous pursuit of a better economy must not take our vision away from God, since He is The One who gives us knowledge to think about anything, including economic systems.
TheEbi78 1 year ago
I bet the guy narrating does a great kermit the frog impression
butterwudmelt 2 years ago
this is the least informed worst video's i have ever seen. Its such rubbish.
homesdads 2 years ago
Comment removed
louiethegreater 2 years ago
Principle of Self-Interest helps determine the Laws of Supply and Demand. Every choice a human makes is based on receiving a psychological or material benefit. Pitted against itself Self-Interest generates abundance. In a controlled market economies it assures scarcity and shortages. We were all born Capitalists demonstrated by the fact that out of Self Interest we took our first breath. Corruption is mental kryptonite.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
5 stars for the end!
lucinos19 2 years ago
Comment removed
louiethegreater 2 years ago
What happen to Ludwig Von Mises.
BachGuitar3 2 years ago
since when is mises 'one of the greatest economists'? His work is totally irrelevant.
FreakishDonQuixote 2 years ago
Since when is he not one of the greatest economists. Show how much you know. Its okay i dont blame you for your ignorance. All you know and do is in a little box.
BachGuitar3 2 years ago
well, you probably think alex jones is someone to take seriously....isn't it funny that only nuts bring up mises as some important economist, although he contributed nothing towards modern economic science.
lol
FreakishDonQuixote 2 years ago
Mises' taught Hayek everything he knows; Hayek did nothing more than dress up his work, and he won a nobel prize for it. Mises was also able to predict the economic collapse of 1929, and real business cycle theory is nothing more than a poor rip off of Misesiean thought. Anyone who knows anything about economics has heard of Mises, and has probably read "The theory of Money and Credit."
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Furthermore, all these so-called "serious economists" were wrong about everything. Marx held on to the labor theory of value, was wrong on labor markets, and didn't believe in money. Friedman was wrong on floating exchange rates, and the ability of the FED to control inflation. Keynes was completely wrong on business cycles; he had not clue as to the causes of business cycles. "Animal spirits" are meaningless, and Keynes treats it as a purely exogenous variable. So much for your "relevance."
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
If it was not for Mises Hayek would have never been. The Austrian School would currently not exist. Shows how much you know.
lol :D
And your 24 in are evolved in politics and history.
BachGuitar3 2 years ago
If you're a politician, which economist's policies are you going to go with? The one that says you have to tax the people or get no govt progs? Or the one who tells you spend on anything, and buy votes to get re-elected? Thats why mises hasn't contributed, the career politicians take the money, and do what it takes to get re-elected.
quietlike 2 years ago
You know, it's not like the stimulus or bailout was very popular... people who like Austrian Economics always come up with excuses why their school hasn't penetrated mainstream economic thought. Austrian economics seems to be a typical pseudo-science, taking a biased approach and working backwards...
FreakishDonQuixote 2 years ago
How is it a pseudo-science when these people warned of the current bust, and no one listened? Ron Paul was IN Congress telling people this, and still went ignored. It isnt mainstream because its unpopular with politicians, and also because keynesianism is taught in schools without any alternative like austrian econ. The stimulus wasnt popular with the PEOPLE, the politicians voted it in without even reading it
quietlike 2 years ago
@quietlike Yes austrian economics could have warned us of this bust. Keynes could also have warned us of this bust, many economists who still admire Keynes today warned us as well. Austian economists reject probability theory, which means they don't create economic models that can be tested in real world cases. They only theorize about the nature of the economy, without answering evidence. It's basically a pseudo-science.
slurpeeday 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolutionary Economic flow: Barter system -> Natural resources system -> Metals / Bronze system -> Paper and credit system (Capitalist system). Now, Karl Marx theorized one of 3 directions and it was this system evolving into a "classless" system. My branch of evolution is different and in the middle. Capital flow to the people between state and corporations. Look at my statement on the "orgami butterfly" vid.
cris750 3 years ago
By the way, Keynes is within the NATIONAL CAPITALISM model but on the left side heading towards (Fabian) Socialism and National Communism.
cris750 3 years ago
I introduce to the world my new discovery: 'Market Foundationalism' it is an inverse of NATIONAL CAPITALISM. Which other ideologies are within the NATIONALIST ANGLE? National Socialism (Fascism) and National Communism (Soviet Union's model). Humanity only experienced 3. I have researched and discovered 5 more possible economic philosophies. Marxism is one but never was experienced and implemented not even by the Soviet Union.
cris750 3 years ago
volfan so glad you enjoyed the video read previous statements you might learn something as well I could care less if you believe my views are false but they are my views and I never posted this as historical fact but a compilation of my views on something learned on all five of these men. Plus guess what this is the internet nothing on here is true and if you don't believe that you are delusional
ceteal1286 3 years ago
also, smith was a philosopher, not a politician so of course he himself didnt put his theories into practice, he didnt have the means. your views on adam smith are completely and utterly false
volfan90eight 3 years ago
adam smith did believe that people should be selfish. in fact, he thought that selfishness, next to competition, is the most important factor in a prosperous economy. read the Theory on Moral Sentiments, or even a textbook before you post vids. smith thought that labor should be done for one's own self-gain, not for the betterment of the state, because helping yourself will in turn help the state. all of smith's theories were based on selfishness. the vid is wrong.
volfan90eight 3 years ago
they are DEAD and we have a derived COTARDS delusion ... fabulous
Transubstantiation2 3 years ago
The quote is "in the long run we are all dead"
John Maynard Keynes
mikeyooh7 3 years ago
i liked it so much
ragunathaieu 3 years ago
Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx incorrectly viewed and/or calculated Labor. Labor is both an economic and political factor for society. The financial strength of Labor,which is also the PEOPLE,makes the SOCIETY in general stable and guarantees continual growth of opulence.
cris750 3 years ago
I kinda disagree. Used to be that the laboring class was highly oppressed and societies like that were pretty stable.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour,that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased. " (p.34) (End of Paragraph 2, Chapter 5 - ' Of the Real and Nominal Price of commodities,or of their Price in Labour,and their Price in Money ' )
cris750 3 years ago
hm?
I think I misread, lol. I wasn't saying I disagree saying they thought that. I'm saying I disagree with the assessment that the strength of the laboring class creates stability. I think there's more to it than that.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Karl Marx also recognized the great Value of Labour and tried to politicized this group of capital as the "Proletariat". This is his mistake. Labour is not greater or lesser but equal to the state and Corporations. The "Lesser" idea is from Adam Smith and this also a mistake.
cris750 3 years ago
Adam Smith stated in his book - 'The Wealth of Nations' concerning Labor:
"LABOUR,therefore,is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities" & " By the quantities of Labour,we can, with the greatest accuracy, estimate it both from century to century and from year to year." Adam Smith was mostly a philosopher and he taught philosophy. His most renown book was based on his earlier work - 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments'.
cris750 3 years ago
Build from the bottom up. Demand economics works. "Labor is superior to Capitol because Labor procedes Capitol" Abe Lincoln
pebud2002 3 years ago
Yes, all were wrong especially the Marxists idea because it missed the point! The point is not redistribution of wealth but the increased availability of wealth. Adam Smith mentioned that Paper currency is simply to backup the Metal currency (preferably Gold)!
cris750 3 years ago
This is a glorified list of economist that didn't get it right. with the exeption of Smith perhaps. A true monster of 20th century economic theory is Von Mises. If any of you want to learn real economy look up the Austrian School of Economics.
Let freedom ring!
kike314 3 years ago
i do understand that ur presentation is more for fun then for education purpose...bit too ironic but i liked it :)
godbac51 3 years ago
I realize that I have left out many economic theorists. I had to limit this presentation to those covered in the class and keep it under 5 min. Please feel free to post any links to videos that discuss some of these other theorist or create your own and I will add it as a video response to this one.
ceteal1286 3 years ago
Marx was a British agent. You forgot Colbert, Hamilton, Carey, List, and LaRouche. FDR didn't understand Keynes' system.
Amiduffer 3 years ago
Thaks for the video.I think you should have included Michal Kalecki as well.
AiridasLietuva 3 years ago
I don't think I have heard of Michal Kalecki. If you want post a video response to this and attach it to the end.
ceteal1286 3 years ago
Isn't it 'In the long run we are all dead'?
tweak41 3 years ago
possibly but I do have the right to take some artistic license.
ceteal1286 3 years ago
The concept of GNP now commonly called GDP for Gross Domestic Product was introduced by Keynes. What you don't hear much is Net Domestic Product. That is the result of subtracting DEPRECIATION of Capital Goods from GDP.
BUT
When consumers buy millions of cars they get added to GDP. But cars wear out and the Net Worth of consumers goes down as a result.
Our economists don't talk about or subtract the depreciation of durable consumer goods.
It wasn't as big a deal when Keynes died in 1946.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you are say psikey
ceteal1286 3 years ago
More details are here:
tinyurl (dot) com/6hfqj5
tinyurl (dot) com/567wgm
Economics and accounting are not separate subjects. Economics is merely the accounting for all of the economic units in a society. Economists treat the worker/consumers differently from the businesses however. Workers are supposed to be too dumb to do accounting. Our economists ignore what the workers lose in depreciation and don't compute it or talk about it.
We are not supposed to be smart enough to notice.
psikeyhackr 3 years ago
Freidman was not a 'scholar'. He was a propagandist. His 'scholarly theories' have been debunked by the very people who put them into practice. And were abandoned.
documentaryunit 3 years ago
Check the previous post this was for a class and you listen to the audio you will hear me disagree with Freidman's plans
ceteal1286 3 years ago
Was this for a college class? It was concise and to the point. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago