Money, Morality, and the Economic Crisis (Dr. Thomas E. Woods - Acton Institute)

Acton Lecture Series (October 7, 2009) - Dr. Woods discusses his diagnosis of the crisis and proposed solutions and how these are close to the opposite of the conventional wisdom, which blames the meltdown on the free market and "greed." He also shows that there are indeed moral failings at the heart of the crisis, but that blaming mere "greed" leaves us to wonder why bouts of greed should appear only in sudden, cyclical clusters.
Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the author of nine books, including two New York Times bestsellers: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Woods won first place in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. In addition to his writing appearing in dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals, Woods is a frequent guest on multiple FOX News programs, MSNBC, and C-Span as well as on over 200 radio programs. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. Woods lives in Auburn, Alabama, with his wife and three daughters, and maintains a website at thomasewoods.com

[@SameBasicRiff]

I love Tom Woods so much!

[@bernadettesandoval3990]

So glad Acton invited Tom Woods!

[@RuFFRyDas87]

Tom is the man!

[@EmperorGarm]

You should contact Tom Woods and challenge him to a debate and share your insights and expose the flaws in the half you watched to the rest of us.

[@Xasew]

Google: "Human Action audio book" Also available in pdf, html and epub.

[@longbeachboy57]

Much obliged :)

[@longbeachboy57]

Where can I download the 900 page book? Anybody?

[@rayshawn3824]

While I watch this I'm thinking of how I'm getting messages. Key words and phrases I'm not sure what to think

[@campbdj]

You had me at the baseball reference.

[@karstensorensen1736]

First, the Federal Reserve Bank does not print "fiat" money and Woods describes it. The Fed lends money to banks against promissory notes from the bank getting the money. From an accounting perspective, no new assets are created as the Fed has the promissory note as an asset offsetting the money lent as a liability. (Accountants probably use asset and liability opposite, but the result is that they cancel out.) When the Fed gets the money back, the note is voided and there is not more money. Woods is proposing a fixed amount of money, backed by some asset, e.g. gold. He describes in the video that over time, the cost of assets would decrease or that the money would increase in value. This is deflation, the opposite of the inflation that he fears. In an economy, deflation is very destructive as people will hoard money rather than spending it since everything becomes cheaper over time. The problem with current discussions of the economy is that debate is based on anecdotal analogies. For example, the kitchen table analogy on the need to cut expenses when times get tough. In an economy, one company's (or person's) expenditure is another's revenue. Hence, cutting expenses, say during a recession, can send the whole economy into a downward spiral.

[@jissardg3014]

Karsten Sorensen On the point about hoarding. Actually there is hoarding going on right now. People around the world are hoarding US dollars. Imagine what will happen if people started actually using them to buy US products. Yes prices would rise to respond to the new demand. So if people hoarded which they usually don't, since most people prefer to consume right away instead of postponing it, the prices would adjust, as when the hoarding stops. Cutting state expenses would cause a downward spiral. That is very much true. There are businesses that would lose and may even close. It still needs to happen though. The release of domestic funds would mean that they may be used in other parts of the economy. Foreign debt also needs to stop, if there is any anyway. Deficit spending in general since governments don't really produce market goods for sale really means an increase in consumption over investment in capital. Especially in the case of foreign debt it means that the goods will come from the market supplying the currency e.g. China or Russia in the past. Since yuan cannot be used to buy gov debt yuan buys dollars and that changes the price of yuan relative to dollars. And that makes Chinese goods cheaper so they are preferred. Now that doesn't mean that the Chinese don't want their money back to buy US products in the future. So a stop in deficit spending will result in a downward spiral, but the economy will recover as business will be created now that foreign currencies are not so cheap(foreign debt) or capital is freed(domestic debt). In the future after repaying a healthy part of the debt tax cuts need to take place returning even more money back in private hands. The whole process will be lengthy and painful. But mistakes have consequences in the real world and there are consequences when you consume stuff you didn't make from loans you took. The alternative would be to continue increasing the debt. When people stop lending you though it will be worse than now. More debt to repay. Or start printing or create imaginary money with the fed risking the abolition of the dollar as reserve currency and a gigantic comeback of dollars in the US economy(painful too). You see when banks get fed money for free they lend it. When they lend more than what they have they actually create money just like if they printed it. The more fed handouts happen the more they lend. Especially when they are promised bailouts. So the fed does create money. When the fed gives away dollars at 0% interest rate or a very low one it is like giving gifts to the bankers. When prices rise they will still have profited from the transaction. Since the prise of dollars is of course not 0% or even close.

[@markvoelker6620]

Karsten Sorensen: "When the Fed gets the money back, the note is voided and there is not more money." The Fed doesn't ever get the money back. That's the problem.

[@EmperorGarm]

Okay! From an undefined argument to an unspecified time in which the arguments will be presented. :-)

[@micycle8778]

54:15 "They'd dig up something I said 15 years ago" Oh wait... They already did that without him running for office

[@NickShoup]

I won't tell the fire marshal if you don't.

[@noneofyourbusinessna740]

Why is the federal reserve privately owned by people most don’t even know who ? What do those symbols mean on the American paper currency ?

[@albachman]

Funny that Leftists made it this way, and now complain about "income inequality"

[@EmperorGarm]

Me? What makes you think I'm a debater or have a background in economics and history? No, I came here to learn something, and since you have counter arguments to his I want to see your them in action. *I* am not the one to have the argument with. What I am doing is challenging your assertion that "it is flawed" in regards to Woods' position and want to see it in action. Why you would want to debate me except to maybe poke some fun? I am not his representative nor his student.

[@EmperorGarm]

Why not take the video and write an article highlighting the mistakes and going through them one-by-one? What are you going to accomplish here except nothing?

[@immaculatesquid]

Tom should run for president. After Trump its proven a thinskin can win

[@Garegin]

even though I'm very sympathetic to "compassionate leftist" aka "church social teaching" it suffers serious theoretical problems. One is the problem of responsibility for life choices. If I choose to have a big family, is that the society's fault?. Should society bankroll my lifestyle choices? I was perfectly free not do so, but I did so anyway. This is a serious issue, because the lower classes tend to have children at a younger age and then complain that society is not willing to financially sustain them. Well, this was your lifestyle choice. I understand being charitable to people who were born blind or crippled, ie through life's misfortunes. Is the boss of Keyfood morally obliged to pay $40 to a cashier because he was five mouths to feed? Is that his fault because that person didn't hit the books in high school and is uneducated.

[@EmperorGarm]

I'm not his agent. If you actually have the balls to go through with it, go to his website and contact him yourself.

[@EmperorGarm]

If you're not willing to share your truth on a public forum, falsehoods will continue and truths wither away. So yes, I call you out on your cowardice until you take the challenge.

[@MrToddrific]

Good try, but those are assertions, not arguments.

[@JosueTheBigot]

If I heard him correctly, Tom said that if we had a gold and silver backed money supply, each coin would eventually be worth so much money that we would need to slightly inflate the currency in order to keep denominations at a reasonable level. My question is this: if the government has the power to inflate the money supply to keep denominations at a practical level, what would stop them from doing so for other reasons? After all, the US dollar was once backed by gold. We all know how that turned out.

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

Petra Maier yeah they are called bank notes

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

Petra Maier those are not bank notes they are intimations (although they are called bank notes)

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

Petra Maier well now I am challenging you XD all I did was say what those peices of paper are called and then respond to your response. should have been clear I was challenging what you said I even started with "yeah" which was me agreeing with you

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

Petra Maier yes it can that is why I did not say did not say I clearly agreed with you

[@654321poiuytrewq0987]

Petra Maier like I said there was no point I was just adding to what you said. imitation: the act or instance of intimating (that is what I mean by immations

[@EmperorGarm]

I want to see you arguments. You're unwilling to go through even the most basic steps in proving your statement. I don't believe you know what you're talking about, have the courage to back up your undefined stance and seem an ignorant naysayer unless you prove yourself. If you want to youtube argue him, go to his channel and argue him there. I am not his agent, I'm not going to "let him know". It's your responsibility to prove yourself, not mine to fetch him for you when I do not know the man.

[@dwaindibley4137]

Tom Woods doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't understand the Fed or the banking system.