The saddest thing about this talk is that 8 months later there are only 6,756 views. To quote Mises - "As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake."
Humor, or making fun of the socialist egalitarians, is a good way to give them ideas. Remember Bastiat's thing of "It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."? Bastiat used it as rhetorical hyperbole, but modern socialists do make that exact accusation, then get confused, wondering what my point is, when I respond with the full Bastiat quote. They usually respond something along the lines of "well, yea, because if government doesn't do it, it *won't* get done."
Free market capitalism became monopoly capitalism and then monopoly capitalism became Imperialism. The Imperialist nations fought two world wars so the could crown a the American Imperialist Investors Empire supreme. With two big too fail corporations and the biggest of private banks bailed out with government funds its a bosses capitals of close too zero risk making profit maximization the only goal. .
This is a great video as well, and I'm especially glad it's posted since I had to miss this one live; but my favorite talk of the week was Thomas J. DiLorenzo's, The Curse of Economic Nationalism. I've not seen it posted yet. Would someone direct me where I can see that one or link it here if I'm missing it somehow, please?
"Venezuela has not implemented socialism! It is not socialist!" This is the common refrain we here from socialists when presented with the economic horrors in Venezuela (not to mention the human rights abuses). The point, however, is that the leaders in Venezuela TRIED to implement socialism. They are doing their best to make public the means of production by nationalizing entire industries, controlling money and credit, etc. That's the point. We may never get to see a *real* instantiation of socialism. It may be impossible (see Mises' "Calculation Problem" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"). The point, however, is that these countries are TRYING to instantiate socialism. And they have failed to the tune of enormous human misery and tens of millions of dead.
Edward Skrod it’s like Kung Fu or MMA... its never the pure thing but just one person or one countries expression of the art... it is after all the mixing of theory and actuality. A blue print isn’t the building... but it’s damn well related-
I'm 87 generation which in the socio-political context of my country is generation born in the more harsh and non-democratic socialism (Polish People's Republic), but actually we live in the softened version of socialdemocracy (Republic of Poland) with crony capitalism. Whereas our parents have stronger bounds with the previous system, my generation tend to more free and ingenuine capitalism even thought more recently many individuals get their brains washed by the new Left and neo-Marxists ideas.
I am a little confused. The time I tried reading (in German, by the way: it is and was forbidden to native German or Austrian to read or possess this book) "mein Kampf", I didn't read about Abraham Lincoln. So can you cite this as mentioned in the talk, please?
Don't dismiss the food chain or ecosystem with your fish analogy. Those are also markets which, in turn, makes them economies as well. The difference is that we're human with free choice. We are all governments as individuals. The government as seen today is more like animals than humans.
Bernie is a communist and it's extremely obvious. He also is smart enough to not say he is, and backtrack and pretend like he's "just a democratic socialist." What he ultimately wants, is state control of the means of production. Socialism. And socialism is what real communism actually always is in practice anyways.
Yes.....thats the thing. It's ultimately all the same. Go take a look at TIK History's videos on Hitler's Socialism. He addresses this point at one point in one of them. The communists who were "international" socialists....would be fighting for a world without borders.....with centralized economic control. That's a one world government. A one world govt ruling over one world.....makes that world one nation. So the communists were national socialists.... At the same time, like you said, Hitler wanted national Socialism for the Aryan race. But he wanted that race to rule the whole world. So he was also an "international" socialist in that sense. But like the communists...he wanted the eile world to be one nation....so it's more accurate they nithe the Nazis and the communists were ultimately both national socialists. The real difference was that Hitler was a race socialist. And the communists were "class" socialists.
It would be very interesting to watch a debate between Profs T. DiLorenzo and R. Wolff in an open forum on the virtues and vices of Socialism. BTW a total Capitalist system has its vices as well look at what the States is experiencing now, barely any growth and mounting debt and no real solutions in hand.
Not one country or state in the world is capitalist right now. They all use government controlled currency and interest rates. You can't have free markets if you don't have free money.
Maybe I should the word total, instead most of the western world economy system is more "leaning" towards a Capitalism one but using fiscal and monetary policies as levers to manage the economy. Even using these 2 levers this economy is not working to the level the "capitalist" system is suppose to work. It has been more 10 years since the last recession and growth rate is fluctuation between 1-2 per cent. I don't know much about Austrian economic system, do you think it will work I am not so sure by listening to what Prof. Walter is talking about.
Where is capitalism today? Certainly not in the US.We’re now at least 50% socialist headed still higher.Oh and what isn’t socialist is crony capitalism
One thing you should know is that there is no Capitalism anywhere in the world. Capitalism isn't really an ideology as much as its a nod to market forces. Capitalism is what happens when man gets out of the way.
Let's take an interesting example: Patent of intellectual rights. During the early years of classical music, Bach and Mozart were NEVER able to patent their creations. They published them and sold them, but were never able to actually control their use. Thus Bach now would ]now be fabulously rich, being able to SUE anyone else who created a fugue, which was the essence of his art. Nobody else could write one without paying a royalty. Bach's lawyers would make that absolutely certain. So, in essence the advance of classical music would be BLOCKED and it is highly unlikely that Beethoven would have been able to afford the royalties to be paid to the Bach estate should he write a fugue and publish or perform it. Along with patent comes stultification. The person who invented computer spread sheets never patented them, being a university professor who made a great salary and did not care about becoming rich as Midas. So, the entire industry of software "stole" the idea and gave birth to a complexity and usefulness of computers that is unheard of in almost any other technology. Mr. Nicholl, there are advantages to the smart individual who creates and patents. But society itself suffers from that "advantage." Just understand that as part of your polemic in favor of Government regulation. sanjosemike
The classical music analogy is very interesting and totally valid here. Patents really do ruin art, and I believe the patent situation partially explains the decline of modern music and television in particular.
I don't understand why the poor people who do almost all of the actual work in the country are so disillusioned with serving us while we sneer and spit and give them meager subsistence in exchange for them producing everything and destroying any chance for their upward mobility by absorbing every penny of gain they obtain. Weird right? Clearly no one should want to be socialist and everyone has every reason to be capitalist. To be clear I am using tone similar to the video only with a succinct counterargument. Still, I understand, the speaker is from a very highly propagandized generation.
Think Critically this is utter nonsense, and you are either delusional or living in a far less amicable culture than I am of you see people proverbially “sneer and spit” at poor people. And it is just on its face absurd that they do all the “real work”: in capitalism, without fraud or coercion, wages tend to match the marginal productivity of the worker. And arbitrarily jacking up wages would only make more people unemployed as it becomes less economical to hire them. If you want to help the poor, greatly slash spending and taxation - starting with the bloated military industrial complex, then abolish the Federal Reserve and its inflationary policy that redistributes wealth from the average citizen to big banks, big government, and connected corporatations as an insidious and regressive tax. Then cut regulations and restrictions that make it harder to enter many fields of the economy, which are designed to squeeze out small business and individual newcomers from their industries to enrich the existing players who wrote them. But whatever you do, don’t turn to socialism: where the masses starve, the politically connected feast, and dissenters are murdered by the millions. A drop of historical or economic awareness should be a cure for any fondness for socialism.
You cannot change the premises on which you base your presentation that much and still call it socialism, it is dishonest, disingenuous and not worthy of this Institute.
That IS what socialism is though. It is not anything, but state ownership of the means of production. No matter how much socialists lie and evade this. If the state does not own and control the means of production.....then it is a free market. If socialist "communes" exist inside that....that's fine. But that's still a free market where everyone else can be capitalists. Mixed markets have capitalism (private) AND socialism (public/state.) Full Capitalist markets have no socialism (state interference or control) and full public sector/state control of them enas of production....is full socialism. Socialism IS the govt involvement in the economy, to various degrees. If the govt has full control of the economy....that's Socialism. When people say they want to get rid of capitalism.....the only way to do that is with state taking full control of the menask of production.
democracy leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism. Karl Marx. all he spoke of here was socialism. let it go. it doesn't work and it never will
It appears to me that you are actually insulting the workers by insinuating that they are incapable of actually running the factories. And then you even go further and say they are so stupid that they can't even figure out that that would actually be in their interest and instead posit that they just wanted a higher wage. It's actually very enlightening to hear how you obfuscate and misrepresent the facts to serve your own purpose. Basically what you are saying is that the workers are ignorant slaves and need the capitalists to create the jobs for them. That's what you are saying right? Consider this, people are people and if "people" i.e., owners (thieves and exploiters) can figure out how to run the production, well then the workers (ignorant slaves) can figure it out too. The fact of the matter is, is that the capitalist stumble through the process using trial and error just like anyone else would have to. The proof of this is that the capitalists can never seem to predict the future either. Their companies fail all of the time and then rely on government bailouts to keep them afloat, -- case in point: The 2008 mortgage meltdown. So really when you get down to it, you people do not actually practice capitalism. Government bails outs and subsidies are not "capitalistic." Let me just say this before you jump to conclusions too. I voted for Donald J. Trump and I've built a business before that was successful. I created jobs for a small number of people. But after hearing both sides of the argument I simply cannot believe the lies of the capitalists any longer. A lot of people are waking up too and I would expect for the capitalists to do very poor in the next presidential election. I know I will no longer vote republican, democrat, or libertarian.
as verbose as your comment is- if I could be shown just one example of a country flourishing in Socialism, I'd give it a chance, otherwise Im backing Capitalism.
Life in Germany has become increasingly worse at least from a monetary perspective, especially since the Euro has been introduced. Life in Germany is still better than in other European countries which - imo - is largely due to the (still) high German work ethics and German efficiency from the time after the war until today. The people in Germany have worked hard to make a living and have saved a lot of money. But the ever-growing social state inside Germany and the way the EU and the banks of the EU are organised is highly ineffecient, because the whole system is built on wrong incentives. The latest wrong incentive - afaik - is to invite all the people of the world to come to Germany and giving the false hope of a better life. But how can the social state survive when more and more people need to be taken care of while less and less people work for a living and save money for bad times? Maybe the machines will do the trick.
this is not a scientific but propaganda lecture, not worth listening And by the way, making fun of Stieglitz, the speaker only demonstrated his own ignorance
The saddest thing about this talk is that 8 months later there are only 6,756 views. To quote Mises - "As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake."
Glad to see this. Sharing with the kids I know.
Humor, or making fun of the socialist egalitarians, is a good way to give them ideas.
Remember Bastiat's thing of "It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."? Bastiat used it as rhetorical hyperbole, but modern socialists do make that exact accusation, then get confused, wondering what my point is, when I respond with the full Bastiat quote. They usually respond something along the lines of "well, yea, because if government doesn't do it, it *won't* get done."
Free market capitalism became monopoly capitalism and then monopoly capitalism became Imperialism. The Imperialist nations fought two world wars so the could crown a the American Imperialist Investors Empire supreme. With two big too fail corporations and the biggest of private banks bailed out with government funds its a bosses capitals of close too zero risk making profit maximization the only goal. .
Great talk. Informative and easily undersatood. Love talks by Tom DiLorenzo.
This is a great video as well, and I'm especially glad it's posted since I had to miss this one live; but my favorite talk of the week was Thomas J. DiLorenzo's, The Curse of Economic Nationalism. I've not seen it posted yet. Would someone direct me where I can see that one or link it here if I'm missing it somehow, please?
"Venezuela has not implemented socialism! It is not socialist!"
This is the common refrain we here from socialists when presented with the economic horrors in Venezuela (not to mention the human rights abuses).
The point, however, is that the leaders in Venezuela TRIED to implement socialism. They are doing their best to make public the means of production by nationalizing entire industries, controlling money and credit, etc. That's the point. We may never get to see a *real* instantiation of socialism. It may be impossible (see Mises' "Calculation Problem" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"). The point, however, is that these countries are TRYING to instantiate socialism. And they have failed to the tune of enormous human misery and tens of millions of dead.
James Nicholl Citation needed
Edward Skrod it’s like Kung Fu or MMA... its never the pure thing but just one person or one countries expression of the art... it is after all the mixing of theory and actuality.
A blue print isn’t the building...
but it’s damn well related-
Never seen or heard of a successful socialist economy.
This is incredible. He could be delivering this exact speech in May 2020.
I'm 87 generation which in the socio-political context of my country is generation born in the more harsh and non-democratic socialism (Polish People's Republic), but actually we live in the softened version of socialdemocracy (Republic of Poland) with crony capitalism. Whereas our parents have stronger bounds with the previous system, my generation tend to more free and ingenuine capitalism even thought more recently many individuals get their brains washed by the new Left and neo-Marxists ideas.
I am a little confused. The time I tried reading (in German, by the way: it is and was forbidden to native German or Austrian to read or possess this book) "mein Kampf", I didn't read about Abraham Lincoln. So can you cite this as mentioned in the talk, please?
This video should be compulsory starting in high school right into university.
Great stuff. Well done, Tom.
What is all the big Corp and banking bailouts if not socialism?
Don't dismiss the food chain or ecosystem with your fish analogy. Those are also markets which, in turn, makes them economies as well. The difference is that we're human with free choice. We are all governments as individuals. The government as seen today is more like animals than humans.
The speaker refers to Bernie Sanders as a "communist" Really? This statement told me all I needed to know about the credibility of the speaker.
Isn't Bernie Sanders a democratic socialist? What is democratic socialism?
rarer critical comment , majority just love to consume banal propaganda instead of objective knowledge
It is hard to find good discussions, and I don't waste my time either.
@@tao7376 funny to hear that from state‐funded democrats.
Bernie is a communist and it's extremely obvious. He also is smart enough to not say he is, and backtrack and pretend like he's "just a democratic socialist." What he ultimately wants, is state control of the means of production. Socialism. And socialism is what real communism actually always is in practice anyways.
More Von Mises Libertarian claptrap.
Wouldnt the nazis be international since they invaded into other states?
Expanding the nation as opposed to being nationless.
Yes.....thats the thing. It's ultimately all the same. Go take a look at TIK History's videos on Hitler's Socialism. He addresses this point at one point in one of them. The communists who were "international" socialists....would be fighting for a world without borders.....with centralized economic control. That's a one world government. A one world govt ruling over one world.....makes that world one nation. So the communists were national socialists.... At the same time, like you said, Hitler wanted national Socialism for the Aryan race. But he wanted that race to rule the whole world. So he was also an "international" socialist in that sense. But like the communists...he wanted the eile world to be one nation....so it's more accurate they nithe the Nazis and the communists were ultimately both national socialists. The real difference was that Hitler was a race socialist. And the communists were "class" socialists.
14:58 of the video reminded me of a website that said that because most economists lean liberal we should vote for democrats. Pathetic...
Fidel Castro is worth 8 billion dollars started out with no money in the 50s
It would be very interesting to watch a debate between Profs T. DiLorenzo and R. Wolff in an open forum on the virtues and vices of Socialism.
BTW a total Capitalist system has its vices as well look at what the States is experiencing now, barely any growth and mounting debt and no real solutions in hand.
Not one country or state in the world is capitalist right now. They all use government controlled currency and interest rates. You can't have free markets if you don't have free money.
Maybe I should the word total, instead most of the western world economy system is more "leaning" towards a Capitalism one but using fiscal and monetary policies as levers to manage the economy. Even using these 2 levers this economy is not working to the level the "capitalist" system is suppose to work. It has been more 10 years since the last recession and growth rate is fluctuation between 1-2 per cent.
I don't know much about Austrian economic system, do you think it will work I am not so sure by listening to what Prof. Walter is talking about.
Wolff debated an economist on the Soho forum. Just search it on UA-cam, he got his ass utterly decimated.
Where is capitalism today? Certainly not in the US.We’re now at least 50% socialist headed still higher.Oh and what isn’t socialist is crony capitalism
How about 10 things you should know about Capitalism.......
One thing you should know is that there is no Capitalism anywhere in the world. Capitalism isn't really an ideology as much as its a nod to market forces. Capitalism is what happens when man gets out of the way.
Let's take an interesting example: Patent of intellectual rights. During the early years of classical music, Bach and Mozart were NEVER able to patent their creations. They published them and sold them, but were never able to actually control their use.
Thus Bach now would ]now be fabulously rich, being able to SUE anyone else who created a fugue, which was the essence of his art. Nobody else could write one without paying a royalty. Bach's lawyers would make that absolutely certain.
So, in essence the advance of classical music would be BLOCKED and it is highly unlikely that Beethoven would have been able to afford the royalties to be paid to the Bach estate should he write a fugue and publish or perform it.
Along with patent comes stultification. The person who invented computer spread sheets never patented them, being a university professor who made a great salary and did not care about becoming rich as Midas. So, the entire industry of software "stole" the idea and gave birth to a complexity and usefulness of computers that is unheard of in almost any other technology.
Mr. Nicholl, there are advantages to the smart individual who creates and patents. But society itself suffers from that "advantage." Just understand that as part of your polemic in favor of Government regulation.
sanjosemike
The classical music analogy is very interesting and totally valid here. Patents really do ruin art, and I believe the patent situation partially explains the decline of modern music and television in particular.
James Nicholl the Phoenician trade network and large cities did not have a government.
Anyone that know anything about what is really going on should realize that there is no such a thing as Socialism or Capitalism for that matter.
I don't understand why the poor people who do almost all of the actual work in the country are so disillusioned with serving us while we sneer and spit and give them meager subsistence in exchange for them producing everything and destroying any chance for their upward mobility by absorbing every penny of gain they obtain. Weird right? Clearly no one should want to be socialist and everyone has every reason to be capitalist. To be clear I am using tone similar to the video only with a succinct counterargument. Still, I understand, the speaker is from a very highly propagandized generation.
Think Critically this is utter nonsense, and you are either delusional or living in a far less amicable culture than I am of you see people proverbially “sneer and spit” at poor people.
And it is just on its face absurd that they do all the “real work”: in capitalism, without fraud or coercion, wages tend to match the marginal productivity of the worker.
And arbitrarily jacking up wages would only make more people unemployed as it becomes less economical to hire them.
If you want to help the poor, greatly slash spending and taxation - starting with the bloated military industrial complex, then abolish the Federal Reserve and its inflationary policy that redistributes wealth from the average citizen to big banks, big government, and connected corporatations as an insidious and regressive tax.
Then cut regulations and restrictions that make it harder to enter many fields of the economy, which are designed to squeeze out small business and individual newcomers from their industries to enrich the existing players who wrote them.
But whatever you do, don’t turn to socialism: where the masses starve, the politically connected feast, and dissenters are murdered by the millions. A drop of historical or economic awareness should be a cure for any fondness for socialism.
what the hell was russian citizenship in soviet union? so sad thomas insults russians by calling soviets russians. shame. im done with u
You cannot change the premises on which you base your presentation that much and still call it socialism, it is dishonest, disingenuous and not worthy of this Institute.
That IS what socialism is though. It is not anything, but state ownership of the means of production. No matter how much socialists lie and evade this. If the state does not own and control the means of production.....then it is a free market. If socialist "communes" exist inside that....that's fine. But that's still a free market where everyone else can be capitalists. Mixed markets have capitalism (private) AND socialism (public/state.) Full Capitalist markets have no socialism (state interference or control) and full public sector/state control of them enas of production....is full socialism. Socialism IS the govt involvement in the economy, to various degrees. If the govt has full control of the economy....that's Socialism. When people say they want to get rid of capitalism.....the only way to do that is with state taking full control of the menask of production.
You are conflating socialism with communism. The two are not the same. More sophistry!
democracy leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism. Karl Marx. all he spoke of here was socialism. let it go. it doesn't work and it never will
It appears to me that you are actually insulting the workers by insinuating that they are incapable of actually running the factories. And then you even go further and say they are so stupid that they can't even figure out that that would actually be in their interest and instead posit that they just wanted a higher wage. It's actually very enlightening to hear how you obfuscate and misrepresent the facts to serve your own purpose. Basically what you are saying is that the workers are ignorant slaves and need the capitalists to create the jobs for them. That's what you are saying right? Consider this, people are people and if "people" i.e., owners (thieves and exploiters) can figure out how to run the production, well then the workers (ignorant slaves) can figure it out too.
The fact of the matter is, is that the capitalist stumble through the process using trial and error just like anyone else would have to. The proof of this is that the capitalists can never seem to predict the future either. Their companies fail all of the time and then rely on government bailouts to keep them afloat, -- case in point: The 2008 mortgage meltdown. So really when you get down to it, you people do not actually practice capitalism. Government bails outs and subsidies are not "capitalistic."
Let me just say this before you jump to conclusions too. I voted for Donald J. Trump and I've built a business before that was successful. I created jobs for a small number of people. But after hearing both sides of the argument I simply cannot believe the lies of the capitalists any longer. A lot of people are waking up too and I would expect for the capitalists to do very poor in the next presidential election. I know I will no longer vote republican, democrat, or libertarian.
as verbose as your comment is- if I could be shown just one example of a country flourishing in Socialism, I'd give it a chance, otherwise Im backing Capitalism.
There are no pure Capitalist countries, all are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism IE social programs, it is a matter of degrees.
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/germany/
Life in Germany has become increasingly worse at least from a monetary perspective, especially since the Euro has been introduced. Life in Germany is still better than in other European countries which - imo - is largely due to the (still) high German work ethics and German efficiency from the time after the war until today. The people in Germany have worked hard to make a living and have saved a lot of money. But the ever-growing social state inside Germany and the way the EU and the banks of the EU are organised is highly ineffecient, because the whole system is built on wrong incentives. The latest wrong incentive - afaik - is to invite all the people of the world to come to Germany and giving the false hope of a better life. But how can the social state survive when more and more people need to be taken care of while less and less people work for a living and save money for bad times? Maybe the machines will do the trick.
Well, I guess it all comes down to true socialism versus fake socialism. Corporations still dominate germany so that may be a factor.
this is not a scientific but propaganda lecture, not worth listening And by the way, making fun of Stieglitz, the speaker only demonstrated his own ignorance
Of course it is, because you didn't like it.