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?

[@JessicaBelle81]

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

[@arcanekrusader]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@thinbev]

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

[@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.

[@4li5t4ir]

@CurtHowland I thought that I was the only one who consistently found myself rewatching Tom Wood's videos. It's just the right amount of information and entertainment.

[@NSResponder]

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

[@eyecoin]

He is a great speaker. Keeps things entertaining while clearly explaining economic theory. Tom is a great stand in host on Peter Schiff's radio show.

[@CurtHowland]

The standing ovation at the end gets me every time I watch this video.

[@USfutbol]

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

[@mike8903]

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

[@mattytripps]

tom woods is the best speaker I've ever heard by a long shot

[@LarsAndersenFrihed]

Great speech!

[@pipe34101]

what a great series. I wish they taught this stuff at my schools

[@JHancock1776]

An extremely educational 1/2 hour of your time...worth every second!

[@Michael-vf2mw]

Which 6 minutes weren't?

[@Talodus]

I really enjoy listening to Tom Woods and Peter Schiff because I want to hear the truth, not something that will make me feel good or pacify my fears about the world.

[@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"

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

I love when Tom's MA accent comes out.

[@Sociotarian]

I showed this (to about 15 min. before I ran out of time) in my Social Stratification course today, contrasting it with Michael Moore's propaganda, "Capitalism, A Love Story." He characterizes capitalism almost in exactly the way you describe, and I thought it would serve well as a counterpoint to that narrative. I took for granted that my students lack almost any knowledge of any of the history, economics, or current political-economic issues. Glad this was available for the counterpoint to MM.

[@Ethercruiser1]

Wow, what a great speaker who in a very interesting way was able to pass on to high school students a lot of information & new ideas in a very captivating manner. I'm sure a few eyes started to open & I hope a few minds were turned back towards small government & capitalism rather than big government & socialism or crony capitalism.

[@oscar7557]

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

[@SaulOhio]

And he's not even an economist. He's a historian. But he has chosen the right economic theory.

[@SaulOhio]

Its important to note that not only the money has to be saved, but the steel to make the tractor, the food to feed the workers who make the tractor so they can spend some time building the tractor instead of working in the fields to feed themselves, and so on. Some people think that just printing up enough dollars might accomplish the same thing, but while workers are building the tractor, people starve because there aren't enough people growing food.

[@ScottieSharpe]

Tom Woods is one of the great libertarian thinkers. Just awesome.

[@pretorious700]

this channel is awesome

[@PaulOBrienSEOBrien]

There are few circumstances where you hear a lecture, a talk, that clearly should just be a standard part of high school curriculum. This is one of those times.

[@matti1003]

This is a brilliant video because the lecture discusses capitalism, but it also indirectly exposes the fallacies of communism (with the whole productivity vs wages debate).

[@kevinz1985]

Great lecture.

[@MisterLibertarian]

@ Reckless3057: The sources for the American Indian topic are on pages 266-267 in Woods's book "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask."

[@Taiyama2]

Aw, man, this was done right in Auburn, where I live? I totally forgot about this. Crap. Guess I'll go to the next one, I suppose. Good thing the Mises Institute is right next door to where I eat lunch everyday.

[@revolutiononarecliner]

Preach brotha Woods! Preach!!

[@TheAntiMalthusian]

You have an unbelievably simplistic understanding of history.

[@ErikLiberty]

How did you draw that conclusion?

[@NSResponder]

I wish I could have had teachers like this when I was a kid. -jcr

[@bobby4500]

i love this guy

[@francescomalvetani2679]

Grande Tom!❤

[@md.kamalhossain4850]

Excellent

[@enotdetcelfer]

Excellent... excellent...

[@CurtHowland]

Ok, one more comment. The students gave him a standing ovation. How many history lecturers get that, huh? Go, Tom, Go. There's a reason there are two of your books on my shelves.

[@Taiyama2]

It's funny because I got lost trying to find it when I first heard about it, walked into that place I mentioned where I eat lunch every day to ask for directions, and was informed that the Mises Institute was right next door. I have no sense of direction at all.

[@Mocoso7]

Good video!!!

[@chrisf1600]

Thanks for the response Mike. I've heard it argued that in a highly automated society, demand eventually falls off a cliff since very few have surplus income (which I think is what your 2nd para is saying). At that point the whole system grinds to a halt. Your positions seems to be that a free market always finds a way around these problems - that any type of intervention inevitably makes things worse. I'm not sure which version I believe yet, but you've given me lots to think about - thanks

[@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.

[@brothermikefan]

I didn't go to school for this so forgive me if I'm not conveying this in a scholarly manner. It's just a gut feeling I have based on what I've learned in the past year.

[@Candyliz2003]

@mcduffiesteven "Corporatism" is when union, management and government work together. In what way are the big biz guys insulated from the smaller competitors?

[@wildCATcanACT]

Can I get a link of your citations for this? I would really like to look into this further.

[@brothermikefan]

A long term strategy that doesn't kill the planet or ourselves.

[@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.

[@pumasheen]

@GuitarmandanXo the point of successful dirigiste policies--and it's pretty well documented because almost all now wealthy industrial nations have done it--is not to dictate WHAT will be produced, but to dictate that it will be produced domestically and not in other more advanced nations. it is about transplanting innovative, wealth-producing economic activities that benefit foreign economies into your own domestic economy and gaining benefits.

[@Reckless3057]

I want to see his sources on the American Indian thing. Anyone know where i can find this?

[@freeze3319]

4:12 I like the accent Tom puts on there "Hey I'm producin' here!"

[@AeroSpace1210]

I am Enlightened. 0:48

[@brothermikefan]

I said on a yearly basis. We give out one grant at a time on a first come first served basis in different industries based on certain criteria. Just like student grants. After that the market takes over.

[@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.

[@Xasew]

Before 1913 there was Unit Banking regulation, bailouts through the suspension of specie payments, the 1st and 2nd Bank of the United States, the "American System" and these are just off the top of my head.

[@globbo100]

Tophu1021,please tell me where you are getting these convoluted ideas about unemployment being caused by jobs being shipped overseas? Most Austrian Economist worth their salt would tell you that only the opposite occurred and that many jobs, both here and overseas,were created.

[@pumasheen]

@Luigi84289 the point of protectionist policies was to protect producers. you don't build wealth by consuming, you build wealth by producing. the side effect of protecting manufacturers is you get workers who are more skilled. the skill level of the country increases as a result of building up your country's productive abilities. this leads to more skilled workers, more division of labor, and more need for things like engineers and scientists.

[@brothermikefan]

The greatest works of art were comissioned by kings.

[@mikeblain9973]

There will always be a relationship between cost of subsistence and average incomes (within a range) in free markets. Long term rise in costs only happens with increased money supply (printing), but that tends to also raise wage levels eventually. Also, factory technology (investment) will only progress at the rate set by demand for products. Demand means there must be income surplus to subsistence. Interference in markets will cause the real problems (eg. price caps create shortages)

[@Saiphes]

bibliography on the native american stuff available - particularly on property rights?

[@Xasew]

I seriously don't get your answer. How does it relate to what I said? Rothbard's economics was value-free. He even criticized Mises' utilitarian "value-free" laissez-faire(chapter 26 of Ethics of Liberty, part C; can be found online).

[@hearingjuan]

It makes perfect sense if you ask yourself one important question. -Why?- Why do booms and busts occur? Why after about a hundred years of booms and busts occuring, are the same companies still on top? It is not an Austrian Economics revelation...rather an understanding of the Central Banking system. So its obvious to ANYONE that understand a monetary system, not just an Austrian economist. The disagreement with Austrians, is not in understanding the problem, but rather in what the solution is.

[@ErikLiberty]

It isn't true that the same firms are on top. See the AEI article titled, "Fortune 500 firms 1955 v. 2016: Only 12% remain, thanks to the creative destruction that fuels economic prosperity" The solution to the boom-bust cycle is to get rid of central banking. See the video on KZbin titled: "The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles". Tom Woods said this video explains in 5 minutes what usually takes him a 30 minute speech to get across. Furthermore, there is a CNN article titled, "Squandering the family fortune: Why rich families are losing money" which states: "Rags to riches is a familiar narrative, but when it comes to preserving family fortunes, more often it's rags to riches to rags. Nearly 60% of the time a family's money is exhausted by the children of the person who created the wealth, according to Roy Williams, president of wealth consultancy The Williams Group. In 90% of the cases it's gone by the time the grandchildren die. "....Perhaps the most famous example is the Vanderbilt family. Cornelius, the patriarch, built a fortune on railroads and shipping during the mid-1800s. Adjusted for the size of the economy, he was the second richest American ever, worth over $200 billion -- well above Bill Gates. "Yet his children -- and especially, his grandchildren -- lived lavishly, building huge mansions in New York City, Newport, R.I., and elsewhere, and did little to preserve the fortune. By the 1970s, the family held a reunion with 120 members attending, and there wasn't a millionaire among them, wrote Michael Klepper and Robert Gunther in their book The Wealthy 100."

[@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 ?

[@Candyliz2003]

This guy is right up there with Ann Coulter and her revisionist history surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

[@ErikLiberty]

How did you draw that conclusion?

[@brothermikefan]

So how would a company give you far better results in education?

[@BFJ628]

That's why workers first unionized for better wages which would allow their children to go to school without having a drastic effect on their well-being. Every book on labor history in the US affirms this. It was workers unionizing and demanding better wages among other things, not unregulated capitalism or children laboring in a mill or mine from sunrise to sunset for pennies that improved the standard of living for people at the bottom.

[@ErikLiberty]

Arguing that minimum wage laws and unions raised wages and protected the helpless workers from unbearable sweatshop conditions is confusion of correlation with causation. An economist would argue that laws and unions cannot raise wages, which are determined by the iron laws of supply and demand. What did raise wages was something that is often ignored by people like Chomsky, something that happened at the same time the unions and politicians were taking credit for helping the workers, mainly increased productivity of the workers. New technology and capital accumulation meant that the average Joe didn’t have to sew with a needle and thread anymore, but could use a sewing machines instead. Thus he became more valuable to his employer, since he could produce much more in the same amount to time. As a result, the demand for Joe increased, which raised his wages, by the iron laws of supply and demand. Tom Woods wrote: "The vast bulk of the existing scholarship on American labor history is essentially unreadable. It takes for granted all the economic myths of unionism, the essential righteousness of the union cause, and the moral perversity of anyone who would dare to oppose it. Major incidents in the history of American unionism, as with the Haymarket incident of 1886 and the Homestead Strike of 1892, are often misleadingly described in order to conform to the ideological demands of this one-dimensional morality play. "Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860-1890, and another 37 percent from 1890 to 1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. American workers had the eight-hour-day well before Europe did, and they earned much higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all." Economic historian and professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo wrote in his book "How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present": "Competition in labor markets is also the reason why child labor has essentially been eliminated. Young people originally worked in the harsh setting of factories because they had to as a matter of their and their families’ survival. But as workers became more and more productive and better paid-thanks to the investments of capitalists-they could afford to keep their children at home and in school instead of sending them to work. "Legislation banning child labor only codified what the free market had already created. Child labor in agriculture followed much the same path. More than a century ago, one of the advantages of large farm families was that all the children could pitch in with the farm work. But mechanized agriculture-that is, increasing doses of capitalism-made agricultural workers more productive. Consequently, fewer workers were required, which reduced the need to have children work in the fields. Capitalism saved many children from backbreaking agricultural work. "Interestingly, there was never an organized propaganda campaign against child labor in agriculture, even though the work performed on a farm could be every bit as hard and grueling as in any factory. The most likely reason for this is that labor unions were the driving force behind the anti-child labor crusades, and unions were concerned about child labor in large part because it represented competition for union labor. In other words, the unions’ first concern was their own membership rolls and dues revenues, not necessarily the welfare of children."

[@MrCitsidas]

People who don't believe in the market economy really scare me! I wish Mises, Hayek and Friedman would come back and sit them down for a long chat.....each person, one by one, till they get it.

[@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!

[@cobracarg]

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

[@SaulOhio]

Unions may have helped some workers GET the prevailing market wage through negotiation, but they had no power to raise that market wage. They occasionally caused unemployment or reduced the wages of other workers by trying. That is because real wages are determined by productivity.

[@gocrew6900]

@worldnewsbbc1 Would you be able to explain what makes Austrianism stand out from other branches of economics, and then explain why it is rubbish?

[@brendonholt2319]

Tom kicks ass

[@brothermikefan]

And I'll take up as much commenting space as I please thank you very much.

[@sniped101]

wow... faved this..

[@OldCottage2]

So I can simply ignore the regulations then?

[@brothermikefan]

Tom said it all when he said he preferred to deal with reality instead what the politicians want it to be. I just happen to agree with the politicians. I think humanity must strive to determine its own fate rather than surrender itself to the whim of invisible forces that have nothing to do with long term strategy and may even cause its destruction even if food prices go up. We can have well informed overlords in govt or overlords eating chips on couches that are educated by commercials.

[@ErikLiberty]

The market, driven by the voluntary actions of individuals, is not a chaotic force but a finely-tuned system of cooperation and mutual benefit. It is through the freedom of individuals to pursue their own interests that society finds its greatest prosperity and harmony. The "invisible hand," as Adam Smith described it, aligns individual incentives with societal benefits, leading to innovation, efficiency, and wealth creation. Contrarily, entrusting our fate to "well-informed overlords" in government assumes that a small group of individuals can possess the knowledge and motivation to make better decisions for millions of people than those people can make for themselves. This is a dangerous fallacy. Government intervention often leads to inefficiencies, corruption, and the erosion of individual freedoms. History is replete with examples of government failures, from economic mismanagement to outright tyranny. Furthermore, the dichotomy between government overlords and "overlords eating chips on couches" is a false one. In a free market, individuals are empowered to make their own choices, based on their own values and information. This decentralized decision-making process is far superior to any centralized plan. Markets, through the price mechanism, provide the information and incentives necessary for efficient resource allocation. Prices reflect the true value of goods and services as determined by consumer preferences, not the whims of bureaucrats. As for food prices and other essentials, it is precisely through market mechanisms that we ensure their efficient production and distribution. Government interference, through price controls or subsidies, distorts these signals and often leads to shortages, surpluses, and a misallocation of resources. In conclusion, I advocate for a society where individuals are free to determine their own fates through voluntary exchange and cooperation. It is in such a society that we find true prosperity and human flourishing. The market is not an invisible force to be feared but a powerful tool for organizing human activity in a way that is both ethical and efficient.

[@brothermikefan]

@@ErikLiberty I made that comment 14 years ago. I have no idea what i was even talking about. Thank you for your thoughtful response however.

[@ErikLiberty]

@@brothermikefan You are very welcome. I'm curious what your political beliefs are 14 years later. How would you describe yourself politically today?

[@brothermikefan]

@@ErikLiberty I took a closer look at what i was saying and i pretty much agree with it today. I'm not in favor of an unrestricted market. There should be laws that protect us and the environment. If we left everything to Invisible hand we would consume the planet to it's destruction. (Oops, I just looked around and that's what we're on track to do.) I give our species about 200 more years. In the meantime the market will use AI to replace more workers. We will either have to institute a Universal Basic Income or we will let the market roll over us again. All of that increased productivity and profit will otherwise go straight to the top like always. The first Industrial Revolution caused riots. That's why we have Labor Day in the United States. We also have things like the 40 hour work week, the weekend, etc thanks to govt.

[@ErikLiberty]

@@brothermikefan I could always be wrong, but allow me to give an alternate perspective. In my view, all economic and environmental problems stem from government warping the free market. For basically any problem you can think of I can connect it to the government being the root cause of the problem. Take logging companies clear-cutting forest land, for example. Government currently owns most forest land and they lease it out to logging companies for a limited amount of time. This gives an incentive for them to clear-cut it while they have the chance. When the companies own the land permanently, however, they have an incentive to plan for the future and replant trees as they cut them so that they will have a steady income in the future and won't go bankrupt. For other aspects of the environement, check out the lecture by anarcho-capitalist professor Walter Block titled: "Free-Market Environmentalism | Dr. Walter Block". I'd provide links but KZbin would probably hide my comment. Regarding robots, the Hulu documentary The Next Thing You Eat offers this insight: "When ATM's were first coming out, people were pretty concerned that bank teller jobs are gonna get replaced. ATM's made banks more accessible and more affordable. More people opened up bank accounts. So as a result of ATM's, there are more teller jobs, actually. We are kinda in the same place with robots. The truth is that we are learning how to scale our minds just like we scaled our muscles with engines. Now AI is gonna help us do a lot more then we can do individually." The article that affected my view the most on this was the Mises Institute article by PhD economist Peter St. Onge titled: "Let’s Hope Machines Take Our Jobs: We Want Wealth, Not Jobs". As far as unions, the argument that minimum wage laws and unions raised wages and protected the helpless workers from unbearable sweatshop conditions is confusion of correlation with causation. An economist would argue that laws and unions cannot raise wages, which are determined by the iron laws of supply and demand. What did raise wages was something that labor activists ignore, something that happened at the same time the unions and politicians were taking credit for helping the workers, namely increased productivity of the workers. New technology and capital accumulation meant that the average Joe didn’t have to sew with a needle and thread anymore, but could use a sewing machine instead. Thus he became more valuable to his employer, since he could produce much more in the same amount to time. As a result, the demand for Joe increased, which raised his wages, by the iron laws of supply and demand. As Tom Woods writes in "Forgotten Facts of American Labor History": "Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860-1890, and another 37 percent from 1890 to 1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. American workers had the eight-hour-day well before Europe did, and they earned much higher wages. Unionism never accounted for more than a third of the American labor force, and that was at its height. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all."

[@iiooioooi]

great great great ......

[@brothermikefan]

Corruption is one thing. Social planning is another thing. They don't always have to go together.

[@brothermikefan]

Which brings to mind another point. The govt gets involved in investing not only in new and expensive things but also in things that provide enrichment to the community such as the arts or education which would otherwise not be profitable in terms of money. Are private investors going to care if your kid's school has musical instruments or not?

[@TomWoodsTV]

Actually, there is nothing about Keynesianism in this video.

[@brothermikefan]

Worthy projects like investing in our infrastructure such as upgrading our electrical grid, laying down broadband, building high speed railways, putting money into new energy research, etc. These are things the market would have no interest in doing but once they are accomplished they would benefit greatly from. Google is dying for someone to upgrade our broadband capability. No one company can do it for the entire country. It's something we the people have to do.

[@brothermikefan]

Wars are fought by governments. Wars for oil are fought by oil men.

[@brothermikefan]

I meant that we collect taxes once a year. First come first served means that the first ones to meet the criteria for the types of things the gov't is looking to promote gets the money to develop them. There are grants like this for all kinds of things. Some orgaizations tailor their whole business models based on criteria for getting government grants. Non-profits for instance. Also grants for the arts. Once the money runs out that's it. First come, first served.

[@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.

[@cynthiaall]

Where are the high school students?

[@tripletwentyy]

What about Infiniti automobiles?

[@mpc91]

Please to be giving an example.

[@Neuman357]

First of all, thanks for not starting with an insult which is usually the norm. Second, which John Wayne movie? Probably not the Green Berets.

[@conniepayne4425]

I don't think TheAntiMalthusian meant that the 1930s were prosperous. But economic improvement did begin during the Great Depression (partly thanks to WPA and other New Deal government programs), and continued into the 1970s.

[@pumasheen]

@mcduffiesteven "yes, and those countries that are industrial nations that have the least free economies have low standards of living." the concept to grasp here is change over time. the point of well controlled economies is to catch up to more advanced economies in order to gain the benefits of diversified industries. once this has been achieved, economic controls can be relaxed. almost all now wealthy industrial nations have followed this pattern.

[@zrcattle]

7:30 in the video the high school students can been seen

[@OldCottage2]

What if I just refuse to pay the fines?

[@johndoe-xj1jo]

He should have mentioned that full employment would also exist in the first thought experiment.

[@david52875]

@pwd3679 is the nemesis of logic.

[@FletchforFreedom]

Entrepreneuril action coupled with the end of wage and price controls, openning of international trade, lowered government expenditure and taxes and the unleashed power of the market - the only thing that ever ultimately creates jobs and prosperity.

[@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.