Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Presented by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. at "The Failure of the Keynesian State," the Mises Circle in Houston, sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis. Recorded Saturday, 23 January 2010. Includes introductory remarks by Mises Institute president Douglas E. French.

[@panpiper]

I was failing micro & macro at first, until I read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. I promptly started getting the highest marks seen in that college in years. It was not because I understood the crap they were teaching. It was because all of a sudden, I actually understood economics! They did not realize the extent of my heresy. They hired me to run their economics resource center and be the 'official' tutor. I corrupted hundreds. ;-)

[@Beethovens7th]

"Keynes must die so the economy may live." Hahahahaha I love it.

[@Tigerfire75]

The best point about socialism and the Soviet Union specifically is they produced the most shoes in the world yet people still didn't have shoes. They didn't have the shoes they wanted.

[@kaykizzil]

Dumbest reply I've ever seen on KZbin

[@Tigerfire75]

@@kaykizzil wow so either you are new to KZbin or you don't understand. The Soviets said they produced the most shows yet with out the free market that didn't matter. The people couldn't get the shoes or even shoes they wanted.

[@indobalkanizer6557]

@@Tigerfire75 Commie cunts are nothing but mere trolls, they won't understand these facts coz they always live in the state of denial.

[@kenburns4547]

Austrians say Keynesians are wrong, and vice-versa...they can argue all day, and while Austrians are right, the average person doesn't have the time or the specialized knowledge to figure that out by comparing theory... or does theory really translate to morality. But a simple show of hands, will show you that almost every person already believes that they should control their own money-- which not surprisingly, is the Austrian method, while Keynesians say "Father government knows best." That's how political science beats economics via common sense morality: i.e. "thou shalt not steal."

[@dragknuckle]

I called Obama a Keynesian and was accused of being a "birther."

[@tomforsythe7024]

Ken Burns You can't make a comment like that without some explanation. How are Obama's economic policies not rooted in Keynesian interventionism?

[@dragknuckle]

Ken Burns I understand now.

[@kenburns4547]

dragknuckle That's just it: nobody understands just how fucking serious the problem is... but I look on the bright side, like with the Titanic: i.e. it took a huge disaster to wake people up to the danger, and so that incident, while tragic, actually saved lives. I have no false hope that this "Obama-nation" will have similar positive results, but let's face it: the economy was bound for collapse ever since the federal government began killing and imprisoning anyone who separated their home-states from its abusive dictators run amuck; so it was only a matter of time, and Obama is our equivalent of the Titanic.

[@totalgamerguy3707]

Except in America we're still battling Keynesians left and right... Also, I'm 17, go to school 35 hours a week and work my two part time jobs for a combined 25 hours.. So I have a 60 hour week plus homework because I do dual credit and AP classes and I have friends who do the same and I know many more who are not my friends who do the same and I love to learn about the economy and political sciences. The only day I have free in my week is Sunday, and most of Sunday is church and cleaning in my house. Anyone can learn things about the economy and about politics if they try, I mean you could watch 2 1 hour talks on KZbin on different days on Keynesian economics and on Hayek's economics and make a decision based on history that they can also learn on places as accessible on KZbin. That, or go read a book. Read a book on Keynes over a few months and then on me on Hayek for a few months and then read up on our history. Anyone who decides to get involved can learn these things easily.

[@MrLibertarian94]

Funny how all you Keynesians respond by saying "well it would have been worse" because you know that Keynesianism has no credibility.

[@indobalkanizer6557]

All of their hypothetical criticism is nothing but a mere explanation of the status quo!

[@gerardusyosari327]

Thank you Mises Institute for enlightening my economic journey in grad school. May the light of this tradition enlighten the minds of more students and professors in Asia. Greetings from Singapore. 😊

[@margyrowland]

I’m a nobody who listens to several economic lectures. Mises is my favourite. Love from Australia 🇦🇺

[@cantree2574]

Yoooo that’s me

[@pgplaysvidya]

This is what I get for studying austrian economics before learning [in detail] any other school of economics. Now every time I hear anything about keynesian economics I want to scream. Bravo.

[@sonofode902]

10 years past after... An Indonesian who never has interest in Economic studies, come to very much obliged the Mises Institute for sharring their videos, ideas and thougts. Gin, PS: As a token of gratitute, may I add, about Keynesian versus Free Market... --- In the Tao Te Ching, written more than 2,000 years before Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” Lao Tzu instructed the sage‐​ruler to adopt the principle of noninterference as the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity: “Take no action and the people of themselves are transformed … Engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” He recognized that “the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” Corruption stems not from freedom but from freedom’s being overly constrained by government. Like water, the market is resilient and will seek its natural course - a course that will be smoother the wider the path the market can take and the firmer the institutional banks that contain it. ---

[@sotospeak415]

He sounds so similar to Rothbard it's kinda scary... Or encouraging... Both?

[@mystifiedoni377]

Only noticed it for this video. He was definitely inspired by him. Though all of his more recent talks (last few years at least) I don't hear that. Maybe he noticed and didn't want to sound like a direct copy of Rothbard.

[@TheLifeTrekker]

I love these videos. The growth in the Austrian school of thought has been getting lots of traction recently. I have personally gone from one extreme to another. Thanks Tom, great as usual. In the long run we're all dead-Yours truly, Keynes

[@ekcoylejr]

Tom Woods is a funny and entertaining guy. Which is easy when your material comes from Keyensians.

[@CurtHowland]

"You cannot invade the United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." --Admiral Yamamoto

[@Slipknotyk06]

@utubehayter - That's what I've been saying the whole time really. I was stating that by consenting to their employment, marginal productivity (the difference between the value of the service they provide, and amount they're paid) is not theft. Marginal productivity is part of a legitimate business model, as is profit.

[@Ethercruiser1]

Another great lecture by Thomas Woods. I like the slogan: "Keynes must die so the economy can live." In the end, if America would just re-discover its small government, free market & level playing field Capitalistic roots, it will do good again. Sadly under both big government, Progressive GOP & Democratic leaders, we are still headed in the wrong direction & towards a fiscal collapse.

[@immaculatesquid]

Ethercruiser1 trump

[@rohansingh-wt7hi]

Well said, where do you stand now 8 years later ?

[@Ethercruiser1]

@@rohansingh-wt7hi Worse than I thought! We are self destructing, the crown of world leadership has passed to China & the US paper dollar is headed for extinction.

[@decapitatespammers]

"His professor came out the first day of class and wrote JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES on the board. Well now I want to live in a world where the professor who dares to do that trembles as he walks into the classroom, knowing that there are people who are going to call him on it." Wow.

[@fountaincap]

How would Austrians counter the post-WWII argument I've heard, which is that the only reason the U.S. economy was so robust after the war is that the U.S. was the sole superpower left standing in the Western world while everyone else had been bombed to the stone age? Therefore, the U.S., largely undamaged during the war, could export its products to all those countries that needed to rebuild.

[@josuebarboza9809]

Why is there a need to counter such point, the point Keynesians, progressives and liberals alike make is that since top marginal tax rates were at 90 percent, then that's what caused the period of economic growth. While it's true that tax rates were so high, very few payed such rates, and that money went to pay the war debt. Spending levels went down after ww2, not up. It was also a period were regulation levels were down, which is what Austrians advocate.

[@Sid1138onYT]

+fountainhead So, the fact that millions were killed and $trillions (2015 dollars) of wealth was destroyed is a good thing? US Economic growth from 1946 to 1963 occurred because the government shrank, taxes shrank, workers showed up in huge numbers (former soldiers), interest rates dropped (government ran a surplus), and yes, the much of the world was rebuilding. However, US was not the only country that didn't get destroyed during the war. Check out what happened to Argentina - once one of the strongest economies around and the strongest in South America. It's economy died because of the government.

[@RococoLex]

+Josue Barboza There is a need to counter such a point, because many people are convinced by arguments like these that Keynes wasn't wrong. It's not just about being right, it's about convincing people of your theories as well.

[@RococoLex]

+fountainhead If I understand your point correctly it is this: How can you be sure that decreased government spending and regulation were the main cause of the post-war boom if there were also other factors, like global hegemony and lack of competition, that might have contributed? My answer is as follows: 1. The main point is not that these things caused the boom, but that they DIDN'T cause an enormous depression and huge unemployment, as the Keynesians predicted. 2. Being able to export products is not beneficial on its own, it would be more beneficial to consume these products domestically. Why being able to export is normally beneficial, is the fact that you can focus production on products in which you have a comparative advantage and import things that another country produces relatively more efficient. Comparative advantage is often misunderstood, so I'll post a short explanation here, just in case: www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/law-comparative-advantage.asp). In one sentence: It's all relative. 3. The reason why foreign aid and loans to the EU, which financed the export you're talking about were beneficial is that it was an investment that created more global wealth, which in the long run is better for everybody (although these benefits are rarely evenly distributed and there are always some temporary losers). They were investing in the EU economy, not because that profited the US in the short run, but because that profited EVERYBODY in the long run.

[@noyb154]

Anyone whose argument begins "the only reason" is wrong from the start.

[@soopermexican]

Fantastic. Loved it. I look forward to the day when this strain of thought is called American, instead of Austrian. Seriously, aren't they socialists now?!

[@ytgv3fc7]

Almost done listening to it now. Very good information. Not that I ever supported Greenspan but truthful information always has higher value when it's difficult to come by.

[@SovereignBlade]

Very enjoyable and invigorating video! I will share with many friends. Thank You Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, Fo' Sure :)

[@nthperson]

The best adaption to Austrian economic theory to the real world is offered by Prof. Fred Foldvary (San Jose State University). What I find most insightful in Professor Foldvary's analyses is his understanding of property markets as a fundamental driver of what we think of as "business cycles." He finds his inspiration from a number of classical political economists, in particular, Henry George. Among the mistakes made by Keynes was his assertion that land markets were no longer important to economic growth or how wealth is distributed. He followed the long list of neoclassical economists in this assertion. Fred Foldvary reminds us that land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) do not respond to the price mechanism as does labor and actual capital goods. Thus, he aligns with Henry George in calling for the public collection of the rent of land. As a libertarian, Professor Foldvary argues the case for distribution of most of this fund to citizens as an income supplement or dividend. Real democracy can be relied upon to determine at the community level what portion of the rent fund ought to be used to pay for desired public goods and services and what portion ought to be distributed.

[@nthperson]

Jason Shults I am glad my comments were of some value to you. I would not go so far as to say the economics I took in college were worthless, but they certainly did not contribute to a sound understanding of what causes business cycles or has lead to the concentration of income and wealth plaguing the world's societies.

[@RococoLex]

+Edward Dodson If only we could reach a "real democracy"... Interesting points, though.

[@solank7620]

Edward Dodson To say that land does not respond to price mechanisms is beyond laughable. All assets must obey supply and demand. I suspect his position is being misrepresented, because I can scarcely believe someone would claim such a thing. Wanting to redistribute land income is some communist BS. That would totally disrupt the land market. Its a disaster waiting to happen. It’s Keynesian type thinking as Woods says in the video - thinking in terms of aggregates rather than the micro. The last thing we need is more taxes. As for what leads to concentrated wealth, that’s easy: physics. Physics goes by the exponential distribution. The masses of animals, masses of stars, volumes of land masses, usage of words in a language - everything goes by this. Wealth would inevitably be concentrated. Physics despises equality, outside of equal and opposite reaction. What matters is merit and mobility. The freer the market, the greater the meritocracy and the higher the mobility. The highest inequality is also found in socialist countries - not that inequality matters at all. Suffering matters. Inequality is nothing.

[@ytgv3fc7]

Fear can also be an encouragement. If I'm minding my own business and someone is acting like they want to do harm to me, I might do harm first to ensure my survival. Same for nations. Situations are all unique: what is the level of agression, private and public, what weapons are involved, what are the stakes for losing, the same of acting in error, and so on.

[@ytgv3fc7]

By ensuring living space is available, and is covered, and by ensuring food is available and is covered, and nothing extra, the worst is averted and those who can work can be given every opportunity to work, and to learn to work better and smarter if one is able.

[@jscottupton]

People can debate who predicted what and when. But it seems to me that the matter of central planning's inability to accurately set prices, set interest rates, or pick the right investments proves what the Austrians are saying.

[@tgraham76]

It makes me feel good to know Tom woods has 4 kids!! lil bit of hope for the future!

[@mites7]

The lower the interest rate, especially when the inflation rate is higher than the real rate means that anyone taking a loan was essentially borrowing for free. It also distorts the true cost of future projects by making unprofitable ones into good ventures, incentivizes people to borrow across the board, from main street to wall street, and harms savings. There's no stronger incentive to borrow than when you're being paid to do it.

[@samuelfrade2652]

Dr. Woods quotes extensively from Hayek. Does anyone know what works he is quoting?

[@ytgv3fc7]

I was also very clear about "division of labour" in multiple time frames: in a single time frame it can make PLENTY of sense to divide, specialize and work quickly; in a longer-term time-frame a person who uses multiple "unrelated" skills in a new job that requires them all, or who can mobilize his/her labour elsewhere or smaller distances/costs to keep working, is better utility / survival.

[@kimberHD45]

Very well put response.

[@dale117]

Loving the colors on that tie.

[@jdagilliland]

The politicians will never change. We must replace them.

[@ytgv3fc7]

There are multiple reasons for lacking productivity: physical or mental disability, refusal to work, inability to learn to work BETTER yet still be productive enough to survive, and so on. I can really only see a logical result of starvation, that is not unfair, to a person who is too lazy to get/make their own food. Life has always expected we do such things. It's entirely different NOW if that person is denied only because you STOLE the food first.

[@shamgar001]

I was practicing guitar while watching this when I heard this at 20:27 : "No toilet paper...is this a good trade-off for going to the gulag?" I had to put my guitar away and pause the video so I could laugh for a good minute.

[@ytgv3fc7]

To be more clear: the mining act in Canada that allows this does not in any way say who DOES own the rights, simply that you do not own them for having a residence on top of the minerals, oil, metals, etc. that are beneath you.

[@grraadd]

thanks - I have to check that up :-)

[@clawtheunconquered]

my father was a realtor and he warned the other realtors the housing market was ready to collapse. Leave it to say, he was hushed up and so he quit.

[@WARLock1228]

Can't remember if I responded to this or not. One way I can think of is that when you simply increase the money supply and give it to people, you're not actually giving them more wealth, just more paper. You're not really give me three more apples, you're just cutting my one apple into four pieces. Basically, people who should actually be saving money are now spending it because they think they just became richer.

[@purpleivory2]

The recession was officially over by June of 2009. By that time we had spent less than 8% of the stimulus package. For anyone to say that the stimulus prevented another great depression is sidesplittingly uproarious.

[@yohaha]

Wall Street got drunk because the Fed provided all the booze. Hey, if I am guaranteed all my loss and I get all the cheap money I want, I would take all the high-risk short term profits I want.

[@ytgv3fc7]

I'm no banking expert but I think that sounds like a real plan. With real disclosure from private banks, and with real competition, there's real choice and real freedom. I think you have a winning plan. And honestly, if people are cautious enough and help out those who need it individually, even without a hint of socialism, it just might work. Long term.

[@clawtheunconquered]

@Salvysahagun interstate highway system: so the federal reserve act was post-50s?

[@PureAdrenaline97]

It's sad that there is only 37,552 views on April 29th 2012 when this video was posted more then 2 years ago.

[@mpc91]

@wintereis57 - What is going to lead to reckless investment? Is it the repeal of a regulation that has nothing to do with investment, or the assurance of the government that if you fail, you will be bailed out. What would make a tight rope walker take more chances, rules against recklessness, or the addition of a net?

[@mustang1912]

1. Wage growth is far behind productivity growth, and with cost of living increases the bottom half has been hard hit. 2. The income gap exists for both types of income. 3. Social mobility in the US is the lowest it has ever been.

[@mites7]

interest rates have EVERYTHING to do with finance. EVERYTHING. Everything we price in the derivatives markets, every project undertaken by an investment firm, any forecast done by the corporate finance dept at any company uses the interest rates to determine if future projects will generate value.

[@dreamihad]

In 1946 you have to keep in mind that we were exporting stuff to most of the world for rebuilding , since our industrial base was still in fantastic shape .

[@jdowfleetwood]

@iksandrr Wow, excellent rebutal to the points made in this video.

[@Slipknotyk06]

I find it funny how, on a video debunking Keynesianism, the liberals commenting decide to discuss Marxism.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@Pglarsen no, I type fast and if I think of something useful for many comments, I might even save it while I'm at work and then insert it into a comment when I get home.

[@tallswede80]

Very interesting. Thank god for tom woods.

[@rumco]

Best LvMI speaker! :)

[@ytgv3fc7]

#1 incentive: can't argue on that. If you pay more of anything to do something, that is where the incentive will go. #2 calculation: measurement using machines and communication (using same) indicates where real needs and resources are better than pricing. Even today's markets admit as much by including volume and capitalization and resource estimates of oil, gold, uranium, and so on. Pricing is insufficient. #3 central planner: not required, since a decentralized network beats it easily

[@CurtHowland]

Bias does not make someone wrong. Woods may seem biased because he has a strong position, but his position is based upon facts not opinion. It is people who pretend they are not biased who end up lying.

[@ytgv3fc7]

Most sensible people would call that "regulation". As in laws to regulate activities, put people in jail, extract fines, and so on. But as soon as the government is involved the hyper-capitalists will call it regulation and government interference with the free market. It's been quoted here quite often in this article's comment-list.

[@Katalmach]

The alternative is to have private gains and socialized losses. This will only encourage companies to act recklessly and in a manner that is harmful to almost everyone but themselves. If there were actual risks this kind of behaviour would quickly diminish.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@ParapaDrifter critical to community survival and I know not to make the wrong choice on that. Winter roads: well this is a severe problem. We've got different changes in density/size with different temps, shifting soil and salt damage. I have continually looked at how roads can be improved while not sacrificing ability to USE them in the heavy winter (salt?). This is actually a very difficult problem.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@Pglarsen not really. I just link together related videos, articles, and collect groups of bookmarks in the high-priority order and then look at them all in a row. It minimizes the time it takes to process the data. For those that I anticipate no response or that I will make no comment they go into another stream/collection. If I can't get useful information from writing a comment, I typically won't. But it's also tempting to tell off blatant idiots.

[@ytgv3fc7]

I've been looking at other articles, noting the messages I haven't replied to yet. Most of what I'm looking at is the under-pinning of inflation, money supply, gold, stocks, commodities. Sorry I was busy. It's on the list... back in a bit

[@SaulOhio]

Low interest rates encourage riskier investments. The metaphor of a sports team is often used to explain. You pick the 8 best players available to you for your team, rejecting the less able players. If you are then allowed to pick 2 more players, you have to choose form ones you rejected before. The more players you are allowed to pick, the less qualified the new picks will be.

[@mrpedalsworth]

SaulOhio, what are you talking about? The draft is coming up, and I don’t see how this even makes any sense at all?

[@justbaseball]

It is noteworthy to mention that no one in America is old enough to have experienced true "free market capitalism". We have all been raised in a quasi-socialist and Keynesian economy. Our economy has been going to hell since the government first interjected itself. The government’s involvement made America a corporatocracy by spawning the self-serving relationships between government, big industry and special interests.

[@ytgv3fc7]

So when I say "ensuring space is available" what I'm saying is it is RIGHT NOW available to many of us and if we fight back against the capitalists we can keep it that way. If we lose the fight we will have to pay a lot more for imported food and even local food, and not have as much choice. What I propose is avoiding the loss of it. It's not gone yet. Not where I am.

[@ytgv3fc7]

Some variations of genetic programming actually only simulate biological evolution, and act strictly in machines; some do not actually physically control robots or labs but simply write output programs, instructions, plans, blue-prints, for a machine later to be told to use, or a person/team. But it works, and very well, enough to compete with humans for making NEW patents.

[@eurohim]

It's takes the Government to make something as useful like paper and make it utterly worthless.

[@ambagoli21]

within a system, it doesnt matter what the direction or flow of money is, your average will always be your average. doesnt matter whether it is (50+50+50)/3=50 or (25+75+50)/3=50 or any which way for (a1+a2+a3)=150 where in the previous equation a1=25, a2=75, a3=50. the only way average income will go up is if you increase the sum of a1::a3. And when all your money comes from a printing press, that means the GDP directly tells us inflation. GDP per capita is no indicator of a "good economy".

[@manoman0]

@vince33x The FED is a gov. entity? They themselves stated they were not. You forgot the "not"?

[@mfm77x38]

This, of course, is not actually an argument but a list of unsupported claims.

[@ytgv3fc7]

In Canada, for example, we have a very deadly situation that doesn't exist in the USA. In America you can be threatened or bribed but there's a legal process to fight an attempt to directly get what's on or under your land, like oil, gold or uranium. In Canada you have no such legal righst. NONE. A company walks in, claims, and boots you out. Period.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@synestheticmonotony if, however, someone wanted to insert something into any trading system of real inventory, something in place of gold which had no use at all but was equally rare, it wouldn't fly. It may have value to almost no one or to no one at all because of having no use. It is for this reason gold is not setting a price - it is merely another item of another inventory, already counted and able to be shown globally to all interested parties the real quantity.

[@stealthswimmer]

like I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Fisher hypothesiss. Furthermore, increasing the money supply through the central bank lowers interest rates. The rates only go back up after the money is loaned out, spent, and prices begin the rise. Anyways, I was just making a guess here because I haven't read the Austrian perspective on the Fisher hypothesis.

[@ytgv3fc7]

Being collective yet distributed would also be socialism: groups of working, sharing individuals, groups of groups and overlap between groups, with no central control. At some fundamental level, without introducing profiteering, the actual pattern resembles that of investment with dividends. With a critical difference: capitalism will favour profiteering but also will favour massive wealth ratios.

[@stealthswimmer]

(continued) also, prices don't all go up equally. Certain prices may go up, others may go down, and others may stay the same. So even relative prices change (prices in relation to other prices). from wikipedia: "If rr is assumed to be constant, rn must rise when πe rises. Fisher Effect: The one for one adjustment of the nominal interest rate to the expected inflation rate." Again, this is my guess here - Austrians would probably say that this stuff is incorrect.

[@CurtHowland]

> And yes, I read the economic calculation. So, since you've taken the time to check out one of the sources I've provided, can you provide any sources for your conviction of the workability of pure Communism that I may not have already read?

[@mikewtp]

@Visfen I don't mean in an absolute sense. I mean equality of opportunity (not only in developing states).

[@Visfen]

@wintereis57 You think this laws in any way would have curbed the financial speculatory bubble? Why? As with the crash in 29 the problem was an extensive credit expansion which fuels an unsustainable investment trajectory where because of abritrary price setting of interest rates you both have increasing consumption and investment at the same time, the problem being that there are simply not enough physical resources in the conomy to fulfill these projects. This is text-book ABCT.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@synestheticmonotony think of all the stock markets we have right now and what they all do. What I am proposing is no more complicated than proposing direct trade of holdings of one thing for another without a price in the middle. The inventories are already counted, are ALWAYS counted. It is no different to ensure all production inventories are quickly counted and traded directly by contract and having GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM as REAL MONEY means production delays can be accounted for.

[@clawtheunconquered]

@Salvysahagun Also, Jefferson spoke out against tariffs and taxes--and told the American people to keep away from both-- but when it came to paying off Hamilton's gross national debt he was forced to make a compromise. He might have enacted a temporary tariff but he eliminated every single direct federal tax and vowed America will never again see another federal tax collector at his door. obviously he broke his promise...

[@ytgv3fc7]

All we need is an information network, and we certainly have one, to relay where resources are, where they are needed, and to choose to move them. We can measure all the alternate routes/methods and costs in real physical terms like joules, litres/barrels oil, time, momentum, without resorting to "dollars" or credit or intangibles. Because now we have COMPUTERS. Starting to sink in?

[@reapfreak]

Thomas Woods is awesome. Probably the easiest Austrian to listen to.

[@clawtheunconquered]

@Salvysahagun i meant all they could see was inflation meaning inflation to them is a strong economy.

[@Skandalos]

ad 1. thats no problem at all because productivity growth mostly results in falling prices. And the increase in the costs of living are 100% due to government induced inflation and taxing.

[@ytgv3fc7]

well, there's an interesting argument, and I think something in the technology world is about to give you and I no certain answer. It's called a Fab machine. It means taking quite a few basic materials and 3-D printing them. So it's the resource-cost for those materials, the machine, perhaps a time-trade off if you can build it from parts, rather than higher cost to buy it finished, with open-source of course. The line's about to be blurred. I can't say you're wrong, you might be right. But...

[@Pglarsen]

@ytgv3fc7 Two quick questions; where are you from? and how old are you?

[@CurtHowland]

> in California and even in Detroit? No. What is your source? > rampant cut-taxes With tax cuts, people would keep more of what they earn and have more wealth. Products cost less because businesses don't have to charge higher prices to pay their own taxes, so earning is even more powerful. About 87% of all prices goes to pay taxes and regulations.

[@SaulOhio]

So the same happens with investing and interest rates. Low rates encourage more people to invest more money. Instead of choosing just the safest investments, people choose a larger number of investments, many of which will be riskier than what they would invest in if they had less money to invest. And of course the lower rates mean the payoff is bigger, making risk that much more attractive.

[@mrpedalsworth]

SaulOhio, it’s Government that lowers interest rate by the amount of money they print and put into the economy. Government also affects how risky banks are willing to be by federally insuring loans. This is what caused the housing bubble. If you remove the government backed loans, and government injection of cash into banks, then lest risky higher interest loans would only be possible. Which goes against Keynesian principles.

[@SKUNKBALLScom]

ok I read some older posts of yours to try to figure out what your angle was.. I agree that Civil War 2 will be more of a change than Ron Paul becoming president, but don't get me wrong, I would like to see RP win too.

[@CurtHowland]

> All we need is an information network... You still haven't read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" if you continue to make this same sad argument. There already is an efficient communications system for the allocation of scarce resources: Prices.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@doughtymqan actually I have seen it myself, that with products being different in price but customer service being better with the high priced product, people are going for the high priced product many times. I don't know why. I guess it's a preference. I'm thinking of cell phones, that industry.

[@Slipknotyk06]

@ytgv3fc7 - Marginal productivity is what empowers the Capitalist system. It's important as it aids savings and investment. There is going to be a gap between the value of the service you provide and the your compensation. However, in the Communist state, you are not guaranteed compensation. You have no ability for redress against government, but in the system set forth by most states, you have protection against force, fraud, and coercion from corporations.

[@Slipknotyk06]

@ytgv3fc7 - The purpose of a company is NEVER to take all they can from the workers. Ever. Thus, there is ALWAYS an incentive to keep the labor force happy. Always. The purpose of a company is ALWAYS to make a profit. Abusing your labor force severely compromises that ability. You're just assuming the conditions needed for your caviot to exist, actually exist.

[@TheReboundingWorld]

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. It is a preposterous notion.” - Dr. Peter Mansfield

[@clawtheunconquered]

@clawtheunconquered i meant all they could see was inflation meaning inflation to them is a strong economy.

[@erastvandoren]

I don't agree that every boom is artificial. It's just the human nature to rush to a seemingly most profitable activity. But it's absolutely true, that market has to correct that with a crash.

[@zkrtrt]

Likewise, pedantry and convoluted arguments do not imply correctedness nor truthfulness. Quite often false premises are enshrouded in complicated verbiage in order to make them "seem" truthful.

[@SaulOhio]

Lending for the purpose of investing IS making a bet. People do borrow in order to invest. Banks borrow in order to lend, and every loan is a bet. All of this is regulated by interest rates. If the central banks didn't try to regulate, the interest rates, which would be dependent on saving, would do the regulating.

[@mrpedalsworth]

SaulOhio , the federal reserve sells bonds as a loan, then gives it to banks to loan. I don’t think you have a full grasp on what you are implying.

[@ytgv3fc7]

ah, good point about the aspartame. No, I won't disagree with you on that, you definitely got information right. So with no regulation, wouldn't we have that problem about aspartame and A LOT MORE? If you think we'd have less I'd like to know reasons why I should be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced if there are good reasons.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@synestheticmonotony the managers typically are the danger to work safety and wage levels being dropped so low people can't get by. This may not always be the case. I have certainly seen where some workers have been the real cause of work-place danger and management has had little power to stop it if a union is there with an imbalance. Depends.

[@ytgv3fc7]

@ParapaDrifter That qualifier changes everything, thank you. We need a lot less bureaucrats and a lot more useful people keeping everyone else useful who asks for a hand-out or hand-up, so we can make more accurate choices about why / how this is helpful. I understand why giving money to a homeless person with a mental problem will NEVER be returned to me and I have a choice to do that or not. I understand why ensuring my fire dept is not broke is definitely (more)

[@TheReboundingWorld]

WEB: In July '96, a 915 ft. spiral of 151 circles appeared in full view of the busy A303 road, opposite England's ancient monument Stonehenge, Wiltshire, within a 45 min. period one Sunday afternoon. A pilot, gamekeeper & guard confirmed it hadn't been there before 5.30 p.m. - yet shortly after 6 p.m., the massive formation was being spotted by passing tourists. Much smaller man-made designs have taken several hrs. to complete. This also disproves the myth that all crop circles appear by night.

[@joepeeler34]

"Each govt. is unable to print money when they have to." Yes, but ECB can decide to print. It's similar to the American states not having a printing press while the federal government does. If you look at the EU member states like that, it's not that much different that here. I don't know why you picked the EU as a success. I mean, have you noticed what is going on over there. The EU project, ECB, and paper currency are failing there, too. It's your ideology that is bankrupt.

[@CurtHowland]

> contract law IS regulation. Your error is in not understanding coercion. A contract is voluntarily agreed to, otherwise there would be no contract. A regulation is IMPOSED, at gunpoint, upon people who never agreed to it. That's why tax rates change and you have no recourse. You can't "unsubscribe". If your credit card company changes its contract terms, you can refuse the terms and void the contract without any penalty what so ever. Coercion. It makes all the difference.