Applying Economics to American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[@h3um]

This guy is the best speaker of the all time!

[@davidlewis6728]

thomas sowell?

[@urielwizzy4680]

@@davidlewis6728 also.. showell is older much older

[@davidlewis6728]

@@urielwizzy4680 isn't Sowell in his upper 80s to 90s?

[@arcanekrusader]

I almost stood up and joined in the standing ovation at the end: then i realized I was alone, watching on YT :D

[@adambelnap]

Tom, this is one of my all-time favorite lectures of yours BECAUSE I understood that capital accumulation reason of our extraordinary wealth not from the balloon squeeze of wealth redistribution. I've sent the link to this video to my friends to demonstrate this point. Thank you!

[@JETZcorp]

This was the first video I ever saw from the Mises Institute, and it was the tipping point for me into capitalism and libertarianism. I still think this is one of the best talks on the internet. I've linked people to it many times to make some point or another. It's just great.

[@JessicaBelle81]

I absolutely love listening to Tom Woods. He's an awesome public speaker.

[@SaulOhio]

I keep linking people to this video because it makes such a great argument, explains the real issues so clearly. But some people never seem to be convinced. Such an irrefutable argument, yet they remain stubbornly ignorant.

[@DrCruel]

I disagree. If a rich and successful con man continues to try to sell you on bogus nonsense, even after you've repeatedly demonstrated the absurdity of his arguments, it's not because he doesn't get it. The "dissonance" might have more to do with the realization that his dogged, unreasonable persistence will eventually get your money into his pocket, regardless of what you have to say.

[@DrCruel]

***** Like I said. Socialists will continue selling their conspiratorial bullshit regardless.

[@DrCruel]

***** Not that I expect you to admit it.

[@SaulOhio]

DrCruel How and when has anyone demonstrated the absurdity of Tom's argument? In particular, I mean his thought experiment about the disappearance of all our productive machinery. And the productivity theory of wages which it is supposed to demonstrate.

[@DrCruel]

SaulOhio That's not what I said. I tend to agree with Mr Woods. I disagree with your claim that the naysayers are ignorant. The failure has more to do with a lack of principles rather than of intelligence or knowledge. Whether or not an argument is coherent or not is immaterial to a socialist. They aren't trying to come to some reasonable understanding of economic behavior, indeed quite the opposite. They're just trying to move ideological product. It's about getting your money into their pockets and on a regular basis, nothing more.

[@stevesevic7404]

I am just seeing rambling about free market v. Keynesian but I am at fault at this also. I think that may be a good point: it is time and sit back and consider everything on the table, including what is just in front of us.

[@Hitman49]

I can't believe I listened to the whole video which is nearly 37 minutes long. It shows how good of a speaker Tom Woods is and especially on topics that are too hard to even debate on such as child labor.

[@cr3160]

As someone who was born in Bangladesh, what is being said here is absolutely true. The "founding father" of the country (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) instituted socialist policies and tried to model Bangladesh after Stalin's Soviet Union (even collectivizing the farms). He was assassinated before he could go on with his plans to further socialize Bangladesh, and at his death he had left Bangladesh WORSE off than before and during the independence war. Now, let me tell you why this is so remarkable. Under Pakistani control, Bangladesh's economic output was deliberately taken and used to invest in Pakistan and almost not at all in the East, and in general East Pakistan was abused extensively by West Pakistani intervention. In those years, Bangladesh was suffering under crippling poverty and illiteracy. Things only got worse during the independence war due to the genocide of the Bengali people by Pakistanis and the destruction inherent in war. With all of this, it should've been impossible for things to get WORSE than when the Bengali people were actively being exterminated, yet Sheikh Mujiber Rahman with his socialist policies managed to do make Bangladesh poorer and more illiterate. After his demise, Ziaur Rahman took power, and he reinstated freedom of speech, freedom of the press, multi-party politics, and most importantly emphasized the free market. His reduction of government and the decentralization of the state saw extensive rise in the economic output of Bangladesh and literacy. His policies are the reason that to this day, Bangladesh experiences miraculous growth, because after he ended Mujib's socialist dreams, Bangladesh never went back. And now, while the constitution has socialism included in it, Bangladesh is largely free market. Yet for things to get better: they need more capitalism.

[@johnstewart7025]

Living in a country that has had 250 years of capitalism, I question his account of how children had to work because labor was worth so little before 1900 in the USA. Today, children don't have to work, but adults need two jobs, in many cases, because their labor is worth so little. His account would seem to indicate that what is needed is a larger GDP or a bigger pie. But, the laborer's slice has been shrinking and will likely continue to shrink as the pie grows.

[@ErikLiberty]

@@johnstewart7025 Many modern economic issues, including the need for multiple jobs, are because of government intervention in the economy. Regulations, taxes, and inflation are all thanks to government which distorts the market and reduces the value of labor. Despite that, people today are better off than Americans in the past. In the US, home sizes have doubled since the 60's. Per Vice: "Today chicken is America’s favorite meat, but before World War II, it was expensive and eaten largely by the wealthy. The average American ate no more than 10 pounds a year - about a tenth of what is consumed today." Check out the video by Learn Liberty titled: "Prof. Antony Davies: 5 Myths About Inequality" Also the video by Logically Answered titled: "Why Wealth Inequality Is Better Than Ever Before"

[@CurtHowland]

How wonderful that so much of the Mises institute materials are online. You don't have to cross the Pacific. For that matter, I've never been to Auburn.

[@thinbev]

Excellent speech Tom! I wish I was taught these subjects when I was in High School!

[@TomWoodsTV]

If you already understood that the way poverty has been conquered is by capital accumulation rather than wealth redistribution, then no, you didn't need this. You are part of the .001% of the American public who understands this point already. Still, other historical episodes are covered here as well.

[@oscar7557]

Tom Woods is an amazing speaker, i wish he was my economics professor, to bad i have a backward Keynesian.

[@dradeel]

I absolutely agree! He doesn't simply read something up from a sheet of paper like some boring preprepared speech, he doesn't use advanced language that can put people off and he while seeming to speak straight from his mind never lose his trail of thought. He's entertaining and remarkably educational.

[@brothermikefan]

wow. sounds like a race to the bottom. I'll read the article tomorrow though. talk to you later.

[@cobracarg]

@PapistWitness i hope so because i was there...

[@USfutbol]

I learned more from this then i did in my high school history class

[@NSResponder]

This guy is a great lecturer. I really wish I'd had more teachers like him when I was a kid. -jcr

[@mike8903]

Damn, Tom Woods gives the best damn lectures. Stand up comedian/economist

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

I love when Tom's MA accent comes out.

[@TomWoodsTV]

Actually, there is nothing about Keynesianism in this video.

[@pipem4n]

"Statism is Dead" by Molyneux. W kwestii lichwy - bardzo chętnie pożyczę od ciebie dowolną ilość gotówki na 30 lat bez procentu. Put your money where your mouth is, jak mawiają Amerykanie, nie strzęp języka po próżnicy, gdyż pożyteczną rzeczą dla społeczeństwa jest gdy głupiec i jego kasa pójdą różnymi drogami. W każdej innej kwestii, którą poruszyłeś tutaj - nie wiem kto ci tak beret zrył ale moje szczere kondolencje, coś okropnego.

[@YouilAushana]

18:00 still believing "a Christmas Carol" like Santa claus

[@chrisf1600]

Interesting video, i agree with many of the arguments put forward. But can someone please explain, what happens 10-20 years from now when machines are capable of doing many of the jobs that humans do today, and the cost of labor falls below subsistence levels ? It'll be wonderful to own a factory full of super-productive machines in such a society, but what about those folk who can no longer sell their labor for liveable wages ?

[@dco901]

Capitalism is about mutual beneficial transactions. If I have a car that I would like to sell and you have a desire for a car like I own, I can give you my car for an amount that we have agreed upon. So if you are willing to give me $5000 for my car. I would rather have the $5000 and you would rather have the car. We both win/ get ahead. The only time someone loses is when one party uses force against the other.

[@keeper06es]

Person C willingly works for Person A. Nobody forces him to hold that particular job. It's a voluntary arrangement--either can terminate at any time. By keeping the job, Person C has made the judgment call that working for Person A is better than finding another job or unemployment. It's all about opportunity costs. Economics is based on choices. Unless Person A breaks the terms of the contract (which Person C willingly entered into), there's no exploitation.

[@TheAntiMalthusian]

As to the 1930s, look at the unemployment rate plummeting, look at manufacturing output rising, look at consumer buying power going up, look at the trade deficit being reduced and a trade surplus being established, look at the GDP, these are simple historical indices you can look up in 30 seconds to see what was going on in the 1930s that FDR fixed after declaring an emergency that free-trade, laissez faire Republicans, counseled by Wall Street, created in the 1920s.

[@mpc91]

LaRouche is a nut, and his ideas are based on a fallacy, that economics is a physical science - like physics. After that, it's fallacy after fallacy based on this. It ignores entirely the idea that people act, and act individually to accomplish their ends. My favorite bit is his interpretation of the American Revolution, as being against free trade. In this he is 100% wrong. It was FOR free trade and against tariffs, state-granted monopolies, and the Navigation Acts.

[@mpc91]

I'm sorry, but you're the one in the bubble. You are confusing correlation with causation. The Austrians have explained why tariffs are a net negative on the economy. The fact that you have not listened to them in no way refutes this. Funny that you think the 1930's were part of period of growth and prosperity. And you have the gall to say anyone else's view of history is simplistic. You are one deluded hypocrite.

[@TheAntiMalthusian]

Austrians do their historical analysis in a bubble. In reality, America's industrial might was built while it was the most protectionist country on Earth. America has four periods of greatest growth and prosperity, the 1790s under Hamilton, the Era of Good Feelings under Henry Clay's American System, 1860-WWI under Lincoln's continuation of the American system, and the 1930s to 1971 under FDR and his Bretton Woods. All four of these periods were the most protectionist in America's history.

[@xcvsdxvsx]

you are correct when you say "child labor wasn't eradicated because of capitalism" but you are missing the point that capitalism mitigated child labor to the point where it became possible for it to be eradicated legislatively without leading to mass starvation. Public school did make it so any child could go to school but it defiantly didnt make it so that any child could get an education, just sitting around inside a building with a chalkboard isnt the same as acquiring an education.

[@BFJ628]

As far as American history is concerned, child labor wasn't eradicated because of capitalism, but because of legislation. These laws said children under a certain age couldn't work & must attend school. People realized the only way out of poverty was through education. Public schools made it possible for any child to go to school and get an education, regardless of income. Rep's played no part in this, if it was up to them it probably wouldn't have happened because they are against regulation.

[@nicosmind3]

One thing ALL socialists miss in their analysis of the market and many capitalists miss themselves when examining the market, or at least talking about it is this simple easy to remember fact. That in an economy theres a dichotomy. It serves no employer to have employees with small wages. That the more employees are able to afford the more products they can buy and the richer they make employer(including having more employers in society) vs the individual employer wanting to keep SOME wages low!

[@leafwatch]

You are correct that his ideas did work where allowed, 200 years ago. That the pop. was smaller is irrelevant; principles are right or wrong. For the last century we enjoyed your government controlling money, interest, regulations, everything here and in Europe. How did that work out? Why did all the wise overlords bankrupt their countries? Did they control the Too Bigs or did they enable them and bail them out? The free market enforces its own rules by customer feedback, competition.

[@radroatch]

@utubehayter ... You only position left is to side with the neo-cons logic, small democratic influence, large private influence, polyarchical control and what has this lead to, well the installation and support of dictatorships, your friend pot, gadaffi, pinochet, the shah, mubarak, abdullah, saddam to name some that come to mind, not to mention wars etc. all to maintain global hegemony Been good to vote on the nukes that killed 1000000 to 200000 in Japan as it they were already surrendering

[@radroatch]

@utubehayter ... What I was pointing out with it is we claim the 'virtue' of modern democracy but our economy and labor is based on hierarchy and dictatorship, replace MY with firm or ALL with country; then try replace MY with state and ALL with world, just look at the parallels I was talking about democratic ownership, with is very different, than the orthodox of modern democracy which is only marginally truly thus so not properly comparably My statement can be backed up by papers and co-op...

[@radroatch]

@utubehayter I replaced owner with dictator, not dictator with owner, yes there is a difference, but ok If a nation dictator decreed it and no uprising happen then yes my and ALL are both correct; ownership is a state of mind as well as an economic principle, does an owner truly own what he claims right to or just have control over it; ALL is the total of a set perimeter, firm, county, country, just bigger perimeters Private firms are mostly hierarchies or dictatorships, my paradigm was sound...

[@KagarBeardtooth]

@OaklandLYM I'm not sure how offering competing interpretations of history and economic facts is "brainwashing", but if anyone is to be accused of that, it should be the state. At least Dr. Woods' writings and lectures are based on facts in line with the most recent scholarship available rather than the discredited fairy tale versions of historical events that you normally encounter in public schools.

[@mpc91]

@radroatch - The market does a very good job weeding out those entrepreneurs with only a short term vision. They go under, unless of course the state bails them out. It's not just a profit system, it's a profit and loss system. Now we get back to my last point about firms that satisfy government. As for over-fishing, this is the tragedy of the commons. This happens when "the public" owns anything.

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... Hard to figure what you see as easy money, harder to figure why you see socialism as wrong in full because that would include much medical care, education, roads, military (you can't call the US/UK's defense), law/enforcement and many other infrastructures such as garage collection, regulating bodies, power plants, water works, and many innovation investments we benefit from It is curious that nearly all US lib's disproportionally value a selective, as well as against their rhetoric

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... The lack of incentive proves much better than crippling disincentive I would also point out if you change your wording of owner to dictator in that sentence as wrote, you are at odds with modern democracy and such governance could be communist or fascist; who says that a fair electoral system would not produce more competent leadership, when it clearly would be for the good of those voting and thus the institute, a control figure has disincentive to replace their self...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... This is technically socialist, but it follows the capitalist theory almost directly, while I believe counter acting fundamental flaws in it You will also see that coops are maintainable and successful at the very least in the current climate At the very least it could can be sighted that coops are just as innovative, I believe evidence shows they should be far greater so In these systems the need of leadership would be greatly reduced as it would have less necessity...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... and weakness, it means it is adaptable to supply and demand in many cases, but it also means the constant flux, under economic thermodynamics, makes it a system of transition by design, under hierarchical control it will always centralize, with governance or not This is why firms should be coops, once the hierarchical system is converted to a democratic system, under a educated society, this can be counter acted, along with other important reasons...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 I did not say I would throw out all capitalist principles, I think the profit motive is only part of what could be a larger more credible incentive motive, this for the foreseeable future should maintain the profit aspects that are beneficial I think the problem you have is you do not know what socialism is and only see it in non liberal forms, as I pointed out, it should become libertarian socialism in its end result, capitalism is a dynamic economic system, this proves its strength...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... To find the best option requires a lot of research and information, in the same way we trust say a doctor due to his medical knowledge above our own, the problem is that politicians cannot be trusted to convey this impartially, so we must highly educate our selfs independent of singular institutions My own opinions have been influenced greatly in my own process, and I am what I would call a more true libertarian, I believe that we need to have only coop democratic business...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... This case it came from, the at 1st capitalist market research, focus groups and consensus; and advancement of the new self psychology that were really developing in the last half a century, to the lesser simpler extent the whole century So it can not be claimed that it is applicable to any real degree prior to this point, as the means did not exist I agree that full equality would be somewhat casing a rainbow, but it is given that inequality should be greatly reduced...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... disagree on what do if it were The governance under any familiar form to our own would always categorize individuals, smaller or no, this is because of a very similar incentive as the profit motive you and other liberals seem to not always fully understand. If a science or technology are created they will be used to the own ends of the use for personal gain (this often amounts to a collectives gain) within the perimeter set...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ...that are determined as degenerate to the common liberties for all, above the grander liberties of an ever reducing number I do not however thing that amendments to the constitution are in anyway always in the general interest, I do not think that reforms that override it are either I am not a fan of our polyarchical system like yourself, it is you proclaimed ill thought out that solutions I have the problems with, with the exception of tackling the fed, though I image we would...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 A joke, maybe you are the one joking, if they are such then you should easily be able to point out the falsities in what I say I could point out many specific factual examples, better in 500 to point people towards a field than just using a few specifics as you pointed out that you did not like the specific I originally pointed out remember, so such a remark could be considered trolling...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... As I have said, I think, this is because the lack of, or opposition the direct profit motive in a transaction Ugly scares in history show how the market does not self regulate, right up to this point I might add; capitalist basic theory shows why Centralization is the problem of our governance, capitalism has been the main driving factor of this process, due to its own undemocratic, hierarchical, centralizing evolution...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ... This is due to its institutional transition of power that has had its limiters removed lol, I brought up the massive topic of externalities , of which exists numerous documented examples, over fishing is just one; and is some of the most grounded of economic theory [Economics 1 - Lecture 12: Externalities], that plus similar lectures and papers explain "what it means" in detail Governance in capitalism is required in cases of negative externalities...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 ...which both are not the black and white issue you see it as, politics and economics have many subtleties, that maybe are not be as subtle when viewed outside public discourse It is however clear they require balance, especially when dealing within the confined perimeters, even beyond that reality, neoliberal capitalism is a rapidly self implosive system, with its proclamation being the only part that can be maintained under most probably highly fascist control...

[@radroatch]

@tadaa11 Sigh, communsism and [central planned] socialism, along with fascism (naming the big 3 not 2 (remember the differences between them)), and it can be said proclaimed 'neocapitialist' policies can fit under the category as you see it, which is not to its impartial, fully informed conclusion, relative to the opinions you put forward Our western systems are kaynesian and central planned socialist in many aspects...

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 ...s Though the control of a mesoscopic created economy designed for the western fruition, due to democratic resistance against such evident geographical wealth gaps, we of course do suffer them to a lesser degree due to our oligarchical systems, but this because of the democratic failings It is also worth pointing out that the mesoscopic level is not good evidence for advocating a marcoscopic system

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 No, what your missing is that the profit motive most frequently, is only trading to meet immediate demand, therefore the externalities are not accounted for, as produces are not produced for the greater social optimum, just the related social optimum/s, without government the social responsibility enters a prisoner dilemma scenario eg, heavy population to create cheaper end product, over fishing, product misinformation and social hazards etc watch some lectures on externalities

[@mpc91]

@radroatch - I most certainly do not need to accept this. There are two ways a firm can be successful in our current system: either by satisfying the needs of the public, or of the government. That is where profit motivation works against the public good, when government becomes involved. Otherwise it is only through satisfying customers that a firm can succeed. Those looking to regulate the market always favor one actor over another for their own benefit.

[@mpc91]

@radroatch - History has shown no such thing. Rather, it's shown just the opposite. Capitalism has created prosperity the likes of which the world has ever known. Interference in the free market in its many forms has led to a great deal of suffering. We are suffering now in an economic crisis caused primarily by the Fed, not the free market. The depression was caused by the same factors - those of government interference, the creation of false credit and of moral hazard.

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 This statement to be blunt shows real ignorance, Hong Kong is not a closed system, nor is Hong Kong a place of free entry and exit, nor is Hong Kong a place of social optimality, nor has it pooled wealth though lack of government involvement, although technically as China is a communist country the private sector is the state anyway Hong Kong though is a good example how the term 'free trade' is exploited to justify usually intolerable practices

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 ...It would be nice if you could though at least find flaws in something I have stated, instead you have just repeated your original view point in a basic way History shows strongly the horrors that unregulated capitalism can cause, so would most economists, in fact externalizes under the basic capitalist theory show that firms have incentive to act against social interests, with many examples supporting this; I would go further saying that if you truly understand capitalist theory...

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 The term is well over a century old, but if you wish to call Noam's work crazy then go and find something real that can prove any of his arguments wrong, I have spent much time on looking into sociological trues and I find that they are no public figures that state the intertwining reality like Chomsky does, this is why people only ever attack him with either plain lies, ad hominem, straw-men or ingorance, because this isnt very successful normally instead he is just marginalized...

[@mpc91]

@radroatch - No, it's really not. When using your crazy Noam Chomsky jargon, I'll use whatever punctuation I choose to. The free market does stay free, unless government starts enforcing regulations. They do not stop the flaws - they create them. Government is needed to prevent fraud, protect private property rights, and enforce contracts. But the free market will take care of the rest.

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 Is property distribution credible for full libertarian rights, not with barriers on entry and exit after this length of time The tax system has been infiltrated China is a terrible example and prospers at the detriment of hundreds of thousands due to high centralization, the lack of free entry, very low wages, currency exchanges, and being communist the businesses are technically state owned Want to know about inequality then look at Chinese migrant workers or wage slaves in Lao or DRC

[@radroatch]

@mpc91 Slave wage is a term you can use without "" Free markets never stay free, due to things like behavioral economics, game theory and the thermodynamics of economics; this is why we have regulations, they are to try and stop the flaws, but in the end they only delay the effects, or create ones, this is not to say that they are still not the best option Free entry and exit are both barriered, this occurs in capitalism after time...

[@mpc91]

@radroatch - They are stuck at a "slave wage" not because of free markets, but because of a LACK of free markets. Are private property rights respected? Is it easy to start a business there? Is their regime certainty? Are taxes reasonable? If these things are in place, then these economies will flourish. It happened in Hong Kong, which was destitute 50 years ago, and today - prosperous.

[@mpc91]

@radroatch But the free market DID NOT CAUSE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. The Federal Reserve giving out artificial credit caused the Great Depression. Keynesian philosophies did however, extend the Depression for a great many years. Hoover and FDR trying to "stimulate" the economy with massive government spending kept it going, as did other new restrictions on business. It was only the easing of restrictions and shrinking of government in 1946 that ended the depression.

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO ...is correcting the problem with laissez fair Kayneisain is not a great economic system, but it is the best form of capitalism, I believe the best economic system is a socialist one, that might sound radical but it isn't; in the foreseeable future the largest changes would be to reduce centralization, increase education and legislate firms into becoming cooperatives under a kind of market socialism; this would correct the theories flaw of the firms AC curve regarding empolyees

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO Kayneisain economic theory is the government should save money in the booms and invest in the busts, thereby always maintaining the economy: this has not happen due to our economics and politics, I would go further and say this would not create anything close to social optimum posible and that is why the politics of the situation are where they are On a macroscopic level demand can only increases if economic growth is in effect, this is unsustainable and is the reason kayneisain...

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO ...to justify investment, therefore if the investment could not produce the rate of return there would be no investor, as MWTP had been crippled in the creation of mass poverty, no economic recovery would happen without stimulation; if you can think of a conventionally acceptable way of doing this that is not though government, then you would win a nobel prize The free market destroys itself as it is not a closed system The industrial revolution proves this wrong

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO If this were true then why was the great depression caused by the free markets before kayneisian economics even existed and why was the WW, which caused investment by the state, regarded as defibrillating the economic Kayneisain capitalism did not work as well as it could have, but it worked a lot better than what was happening at the time that caused its implementation. Under the principles of economics you only invest when rate of return is seen as beneficial enough....

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO Inflation is a necessity in all forms of capitalism under the 'multiply effect' logic, in combination with Kayneisianism, introduced to correct laissez fair capitalism and get the US out of the great depression, the problem was that the math to Kaynes does not work for the economics that have arose (if at all); this theory along with the intervention of regulation and worker rights by government to alleviate the force of classic capitalism could only act as a buffer...

[@radroatch]

@TheSWTORMMO ...this situation is kept this way by the powerful capitalist countries using our ‘free market’ On the meso level in the western countries wealth has shifted beyond a certain point what you now see is the lines of the two going the opposite way as social mobility reduces as wealth concentrates If you allow inequality in society after time with gradual change, the wealth will be accumulated by a few, it works in the similar way to speciation though evolution

[@sfiorare]

@mpc91 - no, everyone's bias isn't partisan, do you even understand what it means? partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. i can say my political bias isn't partisan, because i don't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, support a party, cause, or person, i'm nonpartisan nonpartisan - not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group.

[@mpc91]

@sfiorare - I'm sorry, but now you're arguing like a six year old. I'm not claiming that Woods or I lack political bias. But you are claiming that there are people without political bias. There are apparently these automaton history professors and scholars who dedicate their lives studying history without forming an opinion on it. To ignore that every person has some level of bias is to be completely incapable of understanding any sort of history in any meaningful context.

[@mpc91]

@SlaughterMezz - Funny, but your explanation defies any sort of economics. If people have the impression that something is free, or if that someone else is paying, they will get more of that thing. That will greatly increase the demand, and thus the cost. But with government setting the prices, the supply will not increase. So either the quality drops, and sick people wait while hypochondriacs flood the doctor's office, or the costs skyrocket. The free market would do better.

[@mpc91]

@sfiorare - They may spend their lives doing exhaustive research, but to claim they are unbiased is at best naive, at worst deluded. If someone is going to dedicate their life to anything, you'd think they'd probably develop an opinion or two along the way. And to think that the MIses Institute is more biased than any University is even more naive. To call people who disagree with you know-nothings and miscreants just shows your absolute arrogance.

[@Goodatconnect4]

If you liked this one, you'd love his "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920" speech. It lays out the ABCT, important information on a calamity that, in just about every measure, started out worse than the Great Depression of 1929 and ended in a year when the Fed did nothing, and is all around a great primer for Austrian Economics, as well as the many books that are available on the website for free.

[@MegaChevelle396]

@christo930 Hello christo, it seems both parties have lost their way regarding prosperity for all Americans. We are all hoping to see some intelligent protection of the economy, so long term jobs and opportunties are a reality for young Americans again. The so called Christians of the Repub party of the last 20 years do not represent all Christians, the Repubs and many Dems use religion to get elected and then renege on their promises. Obama said he was going to fix NAFTA and renegotiate WTO.

[@MegaChevelle396]

@christo930 He appears to be an AnarchoCommunist American history revisionist, he very carefully forgets to mention the American School of Economics [protectionism, jobs, funding thru tariffs] that was the economic policy of the US government from 1789 to 1913 and was still mostly followed from 1913 to 1975. That is almost 200 years, hard to miss in a talk about American economic history! Learn what made life in the US great, check out the American School on wikipedia

[@sfiorare]

@sfiorare - The Federal Reserve System has a structure designed by Congress… The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to Congress. The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review.

[@sfiorare]

@jaguarclaw - The Federal Reserve is not controlled by private banks, but by a publicly appointed board of governors. Many confuse "owning" and "controlling". Private banks, while they may own shares in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, do not have any control over the Federal Reserve System, much like how a private individual may own shares of a large corporation, but has little say in the day to day operations.

[@sfiorare]

@DRNevans - many historians and economists spend the majority of their lives doing exhaustive, unbiased research; unlike woods, who has chosen to hitch his wagon to the mises institute, which is well known to be an extremely politically biased organization; woods twists and alters facts in a way to pander to know-nothings and miscreants that don't want to face facts; he reminds me of creationist that make up a new version of history to match their religious and political beliefs

[@CurtHowland]

@Luigi84289 Have you seen the graph of the price level from 1776 to the present? It's amazing. . The recessions of 1819, 1836, even the 1861 war show up as minor blips in a steady down-trend until 1913. Efficiency increased, stuff got cheaper to produce, competition ensured that efficiency was passed on to the consumer. . Then came 1913, and the wholesale printing of money. Not only have prices gone up and up, the swings have been tremendous!

[@Candyliz2003]

@LibertyWins2012 *aside* Just read a brief synopsis of McGee - disagree. Can't set aside what I have experienced as a small business in the world of WalMart, Sam's Club and Cost Co. I also spent about 15 years in a buying club - the ability to purchase larger quantities at a reduced price per item will always drive out the competitor unable to handle the amount of stock on hand or unable to put up the capital.

[@Candyliz2003]

@mcduffiesteven "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher." SCOTUS

[@Candyliz2003]

@mcduffiesteven That is false. Just take a look at what the steel and oil barons did to make their initial fortunes. It's the same story. Once they had forced out their competitors they allowed prices to resume at the original mark and as the market allowed they raised prices in accordance with what the market would allow. You really don't think that the refineries run out of oil and that's why we see prices skyrocket (like the last time we hit $4+ /gal) do you? it's all manipulation for profit

[@Candyliz2003]

@mcduffiesteven You are wrong. Google "WalMart ruins small businesses" and you will be met with several choices and you will find something to bolster your side of the argument. I can tell you that since I have been a small business I have seen businesses fall by the wayside for precisely the reasons I gave above. I cannot compete with WalMart on price, but they cannot compete with my customer service and the fact that my product is made here and is fresher because of it.

[@Candyliz2003]

@mcduffiesteven What us. happens is WalMart comes to town, drops prices to extreme levels that they can make up in other areas (lost leader) and forces the mom & pop businesses out because they cannot compete against the unfair trade practices employed by WalMart. Then Walmart resumes the pricing that would have been comparable to what the mom & pop competitor would have had and in some cases they will be higher because they have a captive audience (in sm. markets like rural communities).

[@Candyliz2003]

@Jaycephus01 You are right about our who organized our revolution but in your haste to be condescending you missed my point. I suggest you re-read it. This time try to consider WHERE unions came from. There is a logical progression if you actually use some logic. Space to make statements here requires brevity. try to make the leap. I think you have the potential if you leave some of your pro-capitalist leanings on the sidelines while you process some information.

[@Jaycephus01]

@brothermikefan Ummm... easily? Seriously, you have got to be kidding. I've attended public high school, Texas Tech, junior colleges, and a technical school. Only the public school was truly a govt. institution, and even though I was an honor student taking 'adv.' courses with an A average, I had to take remedial math courses at Tech before I could begin taking the actual math courses in my CS degree plan. And through all that, the most bang for my buck was from the technical school.

[@AkiRa22084]

People know how to downvote, yet know nothing about sarcasm. NOBODY knows what caused the 1929 depression! Wikipedia has more than four viable theories. In the meantime my economy professor with decades of working experience insists it was the free markets fault, while shanedk says otherwise. Don't forget McCain changed his tune from less regulations to more regulations. Maybe Michael Moore is the correct one in this "debate".

[@Candyliz2003]

And then inter-state commerce has how many govt. entities to deal with? (Bad enough for truckers who have to get licenses) How much GOVT. do you want? We are the UNITED States. Under what you suggest how long before each state would have their own military (yes, I know there's the Guard)? And when something like Katrina or the Calif. wild-fires happens will those states call their people home from whatever they are doing? Ever heard of the Iowan Navy & Air Force?

[@Candyliz2003]

Another tech example is "standards" of measure or protocols. Sometimes the market will determine a standard based upon consumer preference. Sometimes the standard is forced because of the ability of one provider to be able to make their product more available. Sometimes there is no agreement on a standard and a technology is left to languish or is only available to the wealthy or the innovators who demand it for themselves.

[@Candyliz2003]

The idea that there weren't tyrannical industrialists during the early industrial age ignores so much of history! The age of enlightenment coincided with the industrial revolution and gave us the French and American Revolutions thanks to imposed practices (incl. unfair tax which favored the monarchy= rich landowners). The poor got sick of getting poorer and thanks to education & enlightenment got organized (hello "union").

[@Candyliz2003]

Oversimplified caricature of opposing views. Statements re. no. of union members compared to rest of pop. is skewed - many workers unable to unionize BECAUSE of employers or because the position they are in is so weak and so poorly paid they have no way to organize (save for the rise of someone like Cesar Chavez). No more OSHA, FDA, EPA? You really think the use of DDT would have ended without govt. intervention? It is in use to this day in S. & Cen.America because it's cheap & no law banning.

[@kev3d]

Between the Federal reserve Act being passed til 1980, there were 14 recessions or depressions, Including great depression. Recessions of course would happen with or without the federal reserve, but they would be comparatively shallow and short lived. Unlike the depression, where government interference dragged the depression out from 1929 to the 1940s (as late as 1943 by some measurements)

[@kev3d]

First come, first served? What kind of basis is that to grant money? And why only once a year? What if an inventor requires capital at some other point? It is far better for private banks and venture capitalists to loan money to various projects and businesses, the market will sort out which ideas work and which ones don't. There is no need for government to get involved especially if taxpayers have no say in the matter.

[@kev3d]

What if a company of 30 people comes up with a way to make LEDs at a third the cost, but they are in California and the half cost people are in New York? Who decided who gets the grant? What do you do then? Give grants to everything? What if the half price guy is a terrible businessman? Why support his practice? And the tax on the companies? Do you tax those that are struggling too? And if so, how do you define struggling? The market solves these questions, not governments.

[@CurtHowland]

> How am I promoting aggression toward others? By telling me I may not hire someone at a wage which they and I agree to, if it's lower than what YOU think is fair. In order to prevent the voluntary exchange of my money for their labor, coercion by violence or threat of violence, must be used against one or both of us. That is how you are advocating violence against people who have done no harm.

[@ThePsychoticnut]

which I would consider slavery, I propose not restricting the free association of individuals which would be ultimate freedom. Society would naturally weed out the negetive interactions in this system. No it's not perfect and there will be people who will attempt to take advantage. How is that different from what you propose or what we have now? The differance is that my way is liberty where others provide slavery.

[@ThePsychoticnut]

want but don't necessarily need. But is this greed? I wouldn't say so but I digress. The point is that forces within a free market are sufficient to maintain people in a state of freedom and comfort while providing enough to see that those less fortunate are taken care of. I don't advocate "more of the same". I think the state of affairs we are in prove that a state regulated capitalist economic structure doesn't work. Rather than attempting to control the actions of all parties ...