Anti-Market Mythology | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Archived from the live broadcast, this Mises University lecture was presented at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 25 July 2014.

[@U2GuitarTutorials]

Tom is awesome! We need more educators like him. So thoughtful and logical.

[@chronosx7]

The summary about the state of the environment in the USSR by the end really stands out. Environmental damage is often one of the arguments used against capitalism but those comments alone offer a different perspective on the matter.

[@doug7232]

This man should be US president

[@tarstarkusz]

Why do we need terms like "Path Dependence", when you can just say "defacto standard"? None of these keyboards are any better than any other, it's just that everyone knows how to use QWERTY and there is a very high training and learning cost with virtually no benefit. While it is probably true that the top 2 or 3% of typist could use a more efficient keyboard faster, the quality of the average keyboard and people's fingers are the real limit.

[@spec24]

From the New Yorker: "You may have read in the newspapers a couple of weeks ago that a young sculptor named Michael Lantz had been awarded a $45,600 commission to do two groups of statuary for the recently completed Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington. [...] The figures which Lantz will do for the F.T.C. Building will be in two groups - one at each end of the building. In each group will be a man holding in check a powerful workhorse. "Man controls trade," he explains. "Trade is an enormous thing. But man, by his intelligence, controls the horses."

[@cobramcjingleballs]

till the horse bucks XD

[@SaulOhio]

spec24 Men engage in trade, so to propose men controlling trade means you propose some men controlling other men. Why do some people not understand this?

[@spec24]

SaulOhio I wasn't proposing anything. I was merely quoting an article form the New Yorker which better clarifies the actual intent of the statues discussed. If you're pro government (or looking for windmills to fight) then, of course, "man" means government. If you are pro liberty then "man" means... man. As in you, me, and every individual engaging in trade. We, ourselves, create and control trade because we decide whom we will trade with and whom we will not trade with. This, more than any stupid government regulation, controls trade. Control of trade, of course, is a non-sequitur as the mere act of trading is what "controls" it..

[@SaulOhio]

spec24 I wasn't accusing you of proposing anything. The people who commissioned the sculptures are.

[@spec24]

SaulOhio My apologies then. When you said "..means you propose.." it was hard to not to infer you meant me. Take care!

[@reachforacreech]

i heard the anti trust laws were formed by big business in order to protect themselves form competition because they were grandfathered out of the clause.dont remember where i heard this or if its true.

[@scottdeciantis3933]

reachforacreech Many laws that are supposedly passed to regulate corporations are actually passed by pro-corporation legislators (which is just about all of them, though they're selective about which industries they support, ie., which ones fill their pockets, er ... I mean contribute to their campaigns). Certain types of regulation handcuff big corporations, but handicap smaller businesses, which ends up helping the corporations. So, while politicians (especially progressives) tell the people they are anti-big business because they supported Regulation X, Y, or Z, the legislation only helped the biggest corporations in the long run.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Pretty much. Regulations today are almost always lobbied for by the giants in those industries. See: net neutrality A lot of the ISPs opposed it, but all the tech firms supported it.

[@51MontyPython]

Adam Smasher Why did they support net neutrality?

[@sdozer1990]

@@51MontyPython Net neutrality is just another regulatory burden on smaller ISPs. How many normal people even THINK to start an ISP? It'd be a pretty good idea to start one if there weren't so much red tape. What if you couldn't, as an ISP, make money from businesses to subsidize the costs for consumers? You'd give up unless you already had oodles of cash. So, big telecom companies, like AT&T, support net neutrality. It sounds so good. It's the opiate of the masses.

[@Knaeben]

Today financial big businesses basically WRITE the laws. When George W. was in office, they basically said, 'hell, lets just drop the pretense and let the financial institutions write the legislation". That's why they largely run the country now. Any laws they make are either in their favor or fobs to distract.

[@erikvanvelzen]

I am interested about a non-competitive market arising from all parties merging voluntarily. It seems plausible and seems to happen in for example telecom.

[@Jacob-gj8hz]

Sounds a little bit like government lol. No, I do think you have a point here, but I think as long as you have a free market, a competitor can come in and offer a better service or price.

[@ipeteagles]

market freedom is capped