im so grateful to have found this channel. iv always watched old videos of Austrian economist but could not find a page dedicated to it that uploaded regularly. I had no idea the mises institute existed. so great
His point on the cigarette pricing / bartering (also true in prisons) is a good example that the medium of exchange MUST IN ITSELF BE SCARCE and BE OF VALUE. (The two often go hand in hand. Scarcity causes Value ) Too many total cigarettes lowers the worth of a single cigarette and hence price inflation.
I think he would love crypto, but would be well aware of the dangers that come with a digital currency. Im extremely cautious of the state getting involved with crypto, won’t take long for the state to eventually get it under its control.
@@mack626 If we talk about Bitcoin specifically I don't think any government is able to control it. It is way too decentralized and anyone can posses some bitcoin literally in brain. They may however confiscate some bitcoin on exchanges and other third party custodial. They also may pass some nasty laws that will prohibit some things but good luck enforcing it and finding out who is breaking the law.
@@hal9000svk I don’t think anyone has the ability to control bitcoin, but I also think Bitcoin has some major flaws that will eventually lead to another digital currency taking its place. Especially if it is a state sponsored currency, you have to remember that the majority of people actually trust the government. I don’t think it’s far fetched to suggest the state has the ability to shill a crypto while secretly having major influence over it. This is all uncharted territory.
Ah, and now there's Bitcoin. And even if the public is used to dollars, the world wide adoption of Bitcoin in a small percentage of the population along with its rise in value due to its scarcity will eventually lead it to be the new evolution of money worldwide. Let's see what happens 5 years from now!
The country where barter was the common trade means was never found. Meaning barter was never the main means of economic activity. David graeber explains this very well.
I do think free markets are better than govt intervention but I can't answer this question from my friend. He says, "I agree government enterprise is inefficient than private enterprise. But what is wrong if government taxes middle class and rich to provide affordable things for poor like education and health, even if it is inefficient? If you remove so-called inefficient government programs, the poor wouldn't be able to afford basic necessities." What is wrong with that line of thinking? How would Murray Rothbard respond?
I think there's multiple things wrong with it, the first being that in America, roughly $12,000/yr will get you a roof, a car, a phone, all the food, clothes, and other things you need to survive, you just have to be willing to live with roommates. If you made minumum wage (7.25) and worked full time, you would make 14,000/yr. I'd say 90-95% of people are physically and mentally able to work, meaning 90-95% of people can climb that income ladder starting at minimum wage and hope for the best. That just leaves 5-10% that the rest of us need to take care of. That part used to be picked up by charity, by communities, friends, families, churches, all voluntarily and out of good will. There's no reason why it couldn't happen anymore, it could, but people are looking at it from a perspective of the whole united states, instead of the people in their own community, that they could possibly help. I have no problem with a flat tax that benefits poor people the most, my problems with income tax personally have to do with the unfair nature of progressive income tax, and payroll tax withholding infringement on privacy. I should add that I believe the IRS should be abolished and each state and locality can administer their own tax collectors and then give the federal government the money if need be.
It assumes the government is the only way this can be achieved. The free market can solve this issue. For example poor areas are crime ridden so business may fund recreational and educational opportunities ( gentrification ) to both reduce crime to their business and in order to tap a supply of cheap labour.
“If you remove the government programs, the poor wouldn’t be able to afford basic necessities” Ask your friend to prove their thesis. Can they justify their framing of the question. Are they saying charity doesn’t work ?
@@jakebullet1731 Bingo. Most of the time statists (even the ones who don't know they are) word their questions in very leading ways, where the paradigm indicates central planning being the only inevitable solution to any and every problem. Gov't would need to steal money from one group to give to another. The free market can provide equally effective and arguably more efficient solutions than the govt solution.
You're right. Monetary theory is the Achilles heel of Austrian economics. Of course not all all followers of the Austrian school are in agreement with Rothbard, there is at least some pushback.
I love listening to Rothbard's lectures. His books are great too.
im so grateful to have found this channel. iv always watched old videos of Austrian economist but could not find a page dedicated to it that uploaded regularly. I had no idea the mises institute existed. so great
Rothbard's Ghost: "STAAAAAACK THOSE SAAAAAATS! STAAAAAACK THOSE SAAAAAATS OR SUFFER MY CURSE!"
Monetary “cranks”. The way he said that the first time.
His point on the cigarette pricing / bartering (also true in prisons) is a good example that the medium of exchange MUST IN ITSELF BE SCARCE and BE OF VALUE. (The two often go hand in hand. Scarcity causes Value )
Too many total cigarettes lowers the worth of a single cigarette and hence price inflation.
All War is Evil
No More War
30:18
Rothbards? Bitcoins? 🤔
37:20
A lovable diagram 😊
I would love to hear Rothbard's take on Bitcoin.
I want to pay in BTC and you want to receive BTC. Private transaction between citizens in a medium of their choosing.
I think he would love crypto, but would be well aware of the dangers that come with a digital currency.
Im extremely cautious of the state getting involved with crypto, won’t take long for the state to eventually get it under its control.
@@mack626 If we talk about Bitcoin specifically I don't think any government is able to control it. It is way too decentralized and anyone can posses some bitcoin literally in brain. They may however confiscate some bitcoin on exchanges and other third party custodial. They also may pass some nasty laws that will prohibit some things but good luck enforcing it and finding out who is breaking the law.
@@hal9000svk I don’t think anyone has the ability to control bitcoin, but I also think Bitcoin has some major flaws that will eventually lead to another digital currency taking its place. Especially if it is a state sponsored currency, you have to remember that the majority of people actually trust the government.
I don’t think it’s far fetched to suggest the state has the ability to shill a crypto while secretly having major influence over it. This is all uncharted territory.
so long as we have power and computers it is real. if not non of this matters anyways. digital assets are still assets.@@zackaryst7847
I hope the Penguin gets to finish his lecture series before Bats crashes the party.
Love Rothbard btw.
Well we are experiencing bitcoin first hand =)
Satoshi listened to this lecture.
Denationalize the dollar and allow money to compete freely on the market
Came for the Rothbard, stayed for the flopperoos
Very relevant to why Bitcoin Cash works better as money than Bitcoin BTC.
34:08 to 34:10 0nce money be one’s what?
U could probably get a sandwich for 3 seconds of an eleizabeth warren lecture.
yuck
Ah, and now there's Bitcoin. And even if the public is used to dollars, the world wide adoption of Bitcoin in a small percentage of the population along with its rise in value due to its scarcity will eventually lead it to be the new evolution of money worldwide. Let's see what happens 5 years from now!
The country where barter was the common trade means was never found. Meaning barter was never the main means of economic activity.
David graeber explains this very well.
What’s your point?
I do think free markets are better than govt intervention but I can't answer this question from my friend. He says, "I agree government enterprise is inefficient than private enterprise. But what is wrong if government taxes middle class and rich to provide affordable things for poor like education and health, even if it is inefficient? If you remove so-called inefficient government programs, the poor wouldn't be able to afford basic necessities." What is wrong with that line of thinking? How would Murray Rothbard respond?
I think he's gonna answer with something like "Because it's took someone elses money without their consent."
I think there's multiple things wrong with it, the first being that in America, roughly $12,000/yr will get you a roof, a car, a phone, all the food, clothes, and other things you need to survive, you just have to be willing to live with roommates. If you made minumum wage (7.25) and worked full time, you would make 14,000/yr. I'd say 90-95% of people are physically and mentally able to work, meaning 90-95% of people can climb that income ladder starting at minimum wage and hope for the best. That just leaves 5-10% that the rest of us need to take care of. That part used to be picked up by charity, by communities, friends, families, churches, all voluntarily and out of good will. There's no reason why it couldn't happen anymore, it could, but people are looking at it from a perspective of the whole united states, instead of the people in their own community, that they could possibly help. I have no problem with a flat tax that benefits poor people the most, my problems with income tax personally have to do with the unfair nature of progressive income tax, and payroll tax withholding infringement on privacy. I should add that I believe the IRS should be abolished and each state and locality can administer their own tax collectors and then give the federal government the money if need be.
It assumes the government is the only way this can be achieved.
The free market can solve this issue. For example poor areas are crime ridden so business may fund recreational and educational opportunities ( gentrification ) to both reduce crime to their business and in order to tap a supply of cheap labour.
“If you remove the government programs, the poor wouldn’t be able to afford basic necessities”
Ask your friend to prove their thesis. Can they justify their framing of the question.
Are they saying charity doesn’t work ?
@@jakebullet1731 Bingo. Most of the time statists (even the ones who don't know they are) word their questions in very leading ways, where the paradigm indicates central planning being the only inevitable solution to any and every problem.
Gov't would need to steal money from one group to give to another.
The free market can provide equally effective and arguably more efficient solutions than the govt solution.
i dont get the red crayon joke
The joke is that he receives these letters from people who are like young children, writing in crayon.
5 months too late, but glad to be of service.
This is utter nonsense
Good job
You're right. Monetary theory is the Achilles heel of Austrian economics. Of course not all all followers of the Austrian school are in agreement with Rothbard, there is at least some pushback.
how so?
Stop, Luke.
@@coletrain5667 Stop