Shocking that relying on rulers makes your lives worse and the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. Who could ever have know this? Few Americans do today.
It was really caused by the Federal Reserve and the tariffs just made things worse. See the video, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression & the New Deal' where historian Tom Woods and Michael Malice explain. Thomas DiLorenzo in his phenomenal book, 'How Capitalism Saved America' (pp. 171-173) explained the tariffs like this: One of Herbert Hoover’s first acts as president was to begin the process of raising tariffs, which had always been the hallmark of Republican Party economic policy. In April of 1929 he asked Congress to raise the average tariff rate; Congress took his advice and haggled over the shape of tariff legislation for the next nine months. In March of 1930 Congress sent Hoover a tariff bill to sign, sponsored by Representatives Willis Hawley of Oregon and Reed Smoot of Utah. Hoover signed the bill despite a protest letter signed by more than a thousand economists-a majority of the membership of the American Economic Association. The stock market plummeted sharply on the day Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, which should more appropriately be labeled the Smoot-Hawley-Hoover tariff. On the eve of the Great Depression the Smoot-Hawley tariff increased tariff rates on about 800 separate items, from sugar beets and wool to shoes, textiles, and chemicals. The average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent, the highest in American history up to that point.29 Many of the tariff rates were so high that they cut off imports altogether. World leaders who had hoped to aid their own economies through increased trade with the United States were shocked. Twelve countries retaliated immediately, with Spain placing a prohibitive tariff on American-made automobiles, Switzerland boycotting American products altogether, and Canada imposing higher tariffs on 125 American export items.30 As a result, world trade shrank dramatically, and the Depression deepened. At the beginning of 1929 the seventy-five most active trading countries had accounted for some three billion dollars per month in trade, but by March of 1933 their trade had shrunk to less than half a billion dollars per month-an 83 percent reduction. The United States suffered the most: the volume of exports was 53 percent lower in 1932 than it had been in 1929.31 The Smoot-Hawley tariff had another unintended consequence: the 23 percent increase in tariffs on Japanese imports strengthened the political hand of the fascists vis-à-vis the liberals in that country and helped lead to Japan’s militaristic nationalism. “The major lesson from Smoot-Hawley,” conclude international trade economists Wilson Brown and Jan Hogendorn, “is that trade wars provoked by protection can cause a meltdown of world trade, that reductions in trade can make depressions much worse, and that the political results can be doleful.”32
@TomRanger-v4o I've heard of them and kinda familiar but really don't understand how they worked. Or why they were advocated for. How could free trade work today when you have countries like Honduras or Bangladesh (or even Mexico) that operate on a different cost of living and expenses? Do you feel NAFTA was a true free trade deal or did it unfairly favor large corporations? People moving from Mexico have long been a scapegoat for wages being driven down but now I hear that people moving from the US to Mexico to have a lower cost of living, are actually driving up prices south of the border. I kinda feel like the US and Mexico are like a body of water that uses locks to deal with different water levels. At some point it would be ideal for their standards to equalize but how would you do that without hurting a bunch of people in the process?
Why is democracy good for the govt but not within the business? Shouldn't all workers (corporate civil servants) be granted a share of the company (company citizenship)? Shouldnt it be one shareHOLDER one vote in the business, akin to one person one vote in the govt? If you think not, then why isnt it ok to have an absolute ruler for the country? He has property rights too and can do whatever he wants. Sure, he could have a board of directors elected by shareholders, but only those whith the biggest shares can make a difference.
@@Kaede-Sasaki Because a company owner also feels the pain of loss the most. If you want partial ownership, you must be in it not just for the profit but also are with the owner during losses, bankruptices and debt. In a government politicians don't inherit debts and losses they cause, the ordinary taxpayers and future generations do.
@tinyleopard6741 Only because the citizens (employees) overthrew the absolute rulers (owners) and became joint owners themselves with one person, one vote. Why is political revolution fine, but not economic revolution?
Could you make a video on Milei’s Argentina and the economy before him?
Excellent video!
free people saving the world.
Shocking that relying on rulers makes your lives worse and the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. Who could ever have know this? Few Americans do today.
5 FREE MARKET Policies with OBVIOUS Natural Climate Benefits
1:08 do you have a video going into why you feel trade wars triggered the Great Depression?
Read up on the Smoot-Hawley tariffs
It was really caused by the Federal Reserve and the tariffs just made things worse. See the video, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression & the New Deal' where historian Tom Woods and Michael Malice explain. Thomas DiLorenzo in his phenomenal book, 'How Capitalism Saved America' (pp. 171-173) explained the tariffs like this:
One of Herbert Hoover’s first acts as president was to begin the process of raising tariffs, which had always been the hallmark of Republican Party economic policy. In April of 1929 he asked Congress to raise the average tariff rate; Congress took his advice and haggled over the shape of tariff legislation for the next nine months. In March of 1930 Congress sent Hoover a tariff bill to sign, sponsored by Representatives Willis Hawley of Oregon and Reed Smoot of Utah. Hoover signed the bill despite a protest letter signed by more than a thousand economists-a majority of the membership of the American Economic Association. The stock market plummeted sharply on the day Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, which should more appropriately be labeled the Smoot-Hawley-Hoover tariff.
On the eve of the Great Depression the Smoot-Hawley tariff increased tariff rates on about 800 separate items, from sugar beets and wool to shoes, textiles, and chemicals. The average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent, the highest in American history up to that point.29 Many of the tariff rates were so high that they cut off imports altogether. World leaders who had hoped to aid their own economies through increased trade with the United States were shocked. Twelve countries retaliated immediately, with Spain placing a prohibitive tariff on American-made automobiles, Switzerland boycotting American products altogether, and Canada imposing higher tariffs on 125 American export items.30
As a result, world trade shrank dramatically, and the Depression deepened. At the beginning of 1929 the seventy-five most active trading countries had accounted for some three billion dollars per month in trade, but by March of 1933 their trade had shrunk to less than half a billion dollars per month-an 83 percent reduction. The United States suffered the most: the volume of exports was 53 percent lower in 1932 than it had been in 1929.31 The Smoot-Hawley tariff had another unintended consequence: the 23 percent increase in tariffs on Japanese imports strengthened the political hand of the fascists vis-à-vis the liberals in that country and helped lead to Japan’s militaristic nationalism. “The major lesson from Smoot-Hawley,” conclude international trade economists Wilson Brown and Jan Hogendorn, “is that trade wars provoked by protection can cause a meltdown of world trade, that reductions in trade can make depressions much worse, and that the political results can be doleful.”32
@TomRanger-v4o I've heard of them and kinda familiar but really don't understand how they worked. Or why they were advocated for.
How could free trade work today when you have countries like Honduras or Bangladesh (or even Mexico) that operate on a different cost of living and expenses?
Do you feel NAFTA was a true free trade deal or did it unfairly favor large corporations?
People moving from Mexico have long been a scapegoat for wages being driven down but now I hear that people moving from the US to Mexico to have a lower cost of living, are actually driving up prices south of the border.
I kinda feel like the US and Mexico are like a body of water that uses locks to deal with different water levels. At some point it would be ideal for their standards to equalize but how would you do that without hurting a bunch of people in the process?
Wow the tech deregulation argument is a huge proof of profound misunderstanding of how cloud computing of works.
Why is democracy good for the govt but not within the business? Shouldn't all workers (corporate civil servants) be granted a share of the company (company citizenship)? Shouldnt it be one shareHOLDER one vote in the business, akin to one person one vote in the govt?
If you think not, then why isnt it ok to have an absolute ruler for the country? He has property rights too and can do whatever he wants. Sure, he could have a board of directors elected by shareholders, but only those whith the biggest shares can make a difference.
...
Error 404
Disappearance protection
@@Kaede-Sasaki Because a company owner also feels the pain of loss the most. If you want partial ownership, you must be in it not just for the profit but also are with the owner during losses, bankruptices and debt. In a government politicians don't inherit debts and losses they cause, the ordinary taxpayers and future generations do.
@tinyleopard6741
Only because the citizens (employees) overthrew the absolute rulers (owners) and became joint owners themselves with one person, one vote. Why is political revolution fine, but not economic revolution?