The Political Economy of War | Thomas DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo presented this sample lecture from the Mises Academy's latest online course, "The Political Economy of War," which began on 21 September 2010.

For more information, visit http://academy.mises.org

Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Thomas
• DiLorenzo
• political
• economy
• social
• theory
• war
• history
• Ludwig
• von
• Mises
• Institute
• online
• academy
• introduction
• Austrian
• economics
• home
• high
• school
• understanding
• sample

[pretorious700]

@successfulbuild What's pathetic is your compulsion to leave the same dogmatic bullshit comments on every Austrian vid.

[condobeacon]

@successfulbuild let me guess...you have an obama sticker on your bumper....moron

[Panax07]

@successfulbuild By "Real" you mean gov-sanctioned schools that articulate a pro-gov line that the US is number 1, Keynesian Economics works, and War can be beneficial to an economy.

If a "real" is defined by the GUNverment then give me "Imaginationland U" anyday.

[DemandPerfection]

@heckler73 If you're referring to Black Swan events when you mention "wide disequilibrium", then you're right - I haven't seen Mises address those directly.

Though from what I've seen, it's the non-Austrians who primarily use mathematical models of aggregate statistics in an attempt to predict how often such events "should" occur, and (as you noted) often fail to predict accurately.

If you were speaking about something else, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[heckler73]

@DemandPerfection Thank you for the reply, but I'm afraid, from my reading of Chap 16.1 , Mises does not address the WIDE DISEQUILIBRIUM that occurs in the markets (all markets, not just in the speculative). Although, perhaps there is a particular part of 16.1 that you are referring to? Could you quote it for me? All I can see is that Mises sees markets with MINOR Disequilibrium (<5 Sigma). He does not address the FAT-TAILS that occur on a more regular basis than is theoretically presumed...

[DemandPerfection]

@heckler73 Mises does a rather good job of resolving that without math. I would recommend reading Human Action, Chapter 16, Section 1. (Google "mises xvi prices the pricing process" to find it.)

[successfulbuild]

The fact is that the people who have studied this stuff at a real University (not Mises University) are more than qualified to discuss this stuff than you. Austrians on YT have apparently shown the following: that physics is an axiomatic science (I guess starting from the axiom "matter is"), that they've resolved the liar paradox, and now they've proven all "mathematical economics" is a fallacy.

_

I don't want to miss the next advancement from Department of Mother's Basement.

[successfulbuild]

Finally, Rothbard never gave any "proofs" of the logical axioms and he certainly never made any known contributions to any other fields. His claim was that there was some "empirical evidence" for the axioms, although he never presented any. The justification for the "deductive approach" to economics just gets worse as time goes on. Robert Murphy claims that he "feels" that the axioms are correct. Of course, nobody cares what some idiot who thinks chaos theory disproves evolution "feels."

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill Nintendomanwill has given at least three different variations of his educational experience. When I first encountered this troll, he was "studying at Oxford." Later he changed it to studying at a college in the UK. And finally, in the Chomsky vs. Buckley video, he claimed he had plans to transfer to MIT.

_

The only way one of Robert Murphy's students will be accepted to a bona fide University is if they were cleaning it.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill Einstein as well was thought to be a "radical," "anarchist" etc. but was welcomed by academia although groups of conservatives often opposed him.

_

Furthermore, many "anarcho"-capitalists, including Caplan, are at publicly funded universities. Of course many Austrian "economists" are too, and they do nothing other than try and find more succinct ways to explain how Mises' axioms explain the universe (all fallacious ways, of course).

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill So the reason why Rothbard's "logical analysis" was rejected in economics is because the "statist acolytes" conspired to keep it out? And your proof of this is where? This is a ridiculous analysis as academia has often been a safe haven for all kinds of dissidents who opposed the governments' actions in more direct ways than "Austrian economics" - such as anti-war activists. Communists were still in academia during the red scare.

[successfulbuild]

@Nintendomanwill "Conceptual science" was a fad used in the 80s to attempt to explain the nature of physics, math, etc., without actually using math. It was a popular science technique, not an example of real science. Differential equations are accurate approximations of the world regardless of what an individual "conceptually" believes.