Godfrey Bloom: An Introduction to Austrian School Economics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 тра 2022
- Talk given by Godfrey Bloom at the second meeting of the Oxford Mises Society.
Godfrey Bloom is a libertarian author with six books published on both military history and Austrian School Economics. Buy his book 'The Magic of Banking - The Coming Collapse' at tinyurl.com/397rau68.
He worked in the City of London as an investment manager for thirty-five years and won an international prize for fund management (fixed interest) with Mercury Asset Management.
He represented Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in the European Parliament and was a staunch campaigner for Brexit for twenty-five years. During his term of office, he attracted over sixty million views on his chamber speeches exposing State bank and tax malpractice on Facebook and UA-cam, thought to be an all-time record. He brought experience if not influence to the mainly lay EU Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, putting both members and the European Central Bank President under unaccustomed pressure.
Godfrey Bloom passed out of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1976 and served as logistics liaison officer to the 4th Armoured Division in Germany. He is an associate member of the Royal College of Defence Studies and has presented papers and lectures to the RCDS, Joint Services Staff College, National Defence University Washington and many universities. His speciality is procurement and geopolitical military strategy.
Godfrey Bloom is holder of the Territorial Decoration and bar, Sovereign’s Medal, Armed Forces Parliamentary Medal and European Parliamentary silver medal.
Recorded at Corpus Christi College, Oxford on 18th May 2022.
thanks for sharing this knowledge with the public
Finally someone makes some sense of this. Actually is a bit saddening we live in this Kensyian nightmare
With wit and wisdom. Love the conversation. Thank you!
This is a reality check
Better than the exemption card, let's make tax voluntary, I explain:
You pay tax for every government service you want to use, if you don't want one particular government service then you don't have to pay the tax.
That would open the government to competition and allow peoples to have a relation with the government service based on consent.
Simple and fair.
wait you want toll booths or ID scanners at every road, hospital, water fountain, and public facility in the country?
sounds like a fucking nightmare
"sounds like a fucking nightmare"@@jake______
You prefer to pay more for convenience?
For example the vast majority of damage made to the road system come from the truck (90%+).. It result in much high maintenance cost.
Why would you subsidise the truck industry by paying their usage of the road.
Wouldn't you prefer keeping more of your money to yourself?
Not too mention it is not that hard to make toll road easier to use or some road might be made free for car and only truck will have to pay. (because business want you to move to their place they might pay the road infrastructure to keep road free for car for example)
or just make most of it private. your school, your doctor, your bank...
could be done all in the background through an anonymous wallet thing@@jake______
this would just be making the government a “private” entity. same would be accomplished with no taxes
Well done 👍
Great talk but how do we get rid of these people?
An intellectual titan
I love logic
Fantastic
Where's the Q&A
Thank you for your efforts Godfrey.
We must continue to educate, ourselves first, and then everyone else. Until enough grass roots education move to change the system through legislation by independent representatives.
Heres why and what to do.
Our world has 4 fundamental practices that are problematic.
If we dont understand the causes of a problem we will address the symptoms or actors, not the causes.
1st Large private and Central banks have obtained the Exclusive franchise to create ALL new Currency as Debt, at interest. An increasing population needs an increase in currency, but it is ALL created as debt bearing interest.
This indebts the whole world, every person, every government, in totally unpayable debts, enslaving us all to bankers through personal debt or ever increasing oppressive and unjust taxation, permits, licences, registrations, regulations, rates, duties, fees, fines, levies, surcharges, adinfinitum, of which an increasing volume goes straight to the debt creators, who created it for free. (At zero cost to themselves.)
2nd. Virtually no limitation plus fractional and recirculating fiat currency allows banks to effectively create massive new Currency volumes as DEBT, blowing massive bubbles (in housing/stocks) which devalues everyone's savings, work, pension by raising all prices. We call this inflation, but it's really devaluation. Shrinkflation adds to our reduction and desolation.
The fix ?
Go back to Sound Metalic Money and stop all banks and financial institutions loaning out more than they have on deposit, but further, DO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING BUT Metalic Money TO BE CALLED AN ASSET OR COLATERAL. Real Estate loans have been classified as collateral. This allows the bank to call the loan an asset, and sell it, or loan against it, which helps blow real estate bubbles, which today are in excess of 80 % of loans, compared to 20 % 40 years ago. We must invent new Currency only for real new production of useful goods.
Return legal currency creation to national treasury departments with a zero Inflation policy.
This will not create inflation like some bankers/economists would have you think. It is not WHO creates currency that drives the constant devaluation of your work & money, it is THE VOLUME per population/ productivity.
The banks increased the base currency supply by over 65 % since March 2020 & 300% since 2008. This is multiplied as real estate bubbles lever up equity to back increased loans. You can't spend it off planet, and we've had no increase in population or productivity. How can it not devalue our savings, wages and retirement funds by a similar % as it enters the economy ?
3rd. Fiat currency whether paper OR DIGITAL has no intrinsic value, thus it cannot be used as a long term store of value, particularly in an ever expanding fiat system. In fact taxation and the 'legal' currency label attached to fiat creates artificial demand for fiat currency.
The fix ?
Return to Silver, Gold, Copper & Nickle currency, designated by weight, not cents/dollars. These will find their own local value. These can't be printed to oblivion, have intrinsic value, and are a safeguard against bankers counterfeit loans. Continue to keep the manufacture of Gold & Silver rounds by private mints & foundries to help keep the government mints honest as to premiums. Do not allow bankers and economists of the current system to con you into believing there isn't enough Metalic Money. You mix 1% gold, 99% copper or Nickle and you have Gold backed currency. Same with Silver & Nickle. Mint 10th ounce, 2 10ths, 5 10ths and 1 ounce. Or grams in similar fashion. Never give it a 'value number,' which is a lie. Give it its weight & purity, and let the market decide what it will buy. Call it 'slow money," like 'slow food.' It's slower for sure, but it's 10 times better for you.
Probably necessary to nationalise mines & pay shareholders out in metals. We are aiming at a more just, more perfect union, and that requires we treat shareholders justly and make them whole while preserving a mining and exploration industry. So gently, thoughtfully, carefully on this one.
4th The 'world bank' and IMF are your friendly international arms of the Federal Reserve, who loan worthless US currency invented at zero cost to enslaved nations of people to purchase necessities, when their own commodities or worthless currency would do just as well. This ensures the indebtedness of nation's simply to survive.
Correct these 4 Principles and >80 % of a nation's problems would disappear. Do not allow your masters the Debt slave creator's to tell you it can't be done. They are not seeking your best interests, but theirs. It is easily done.
Beware. The FED, IMF, WEF wants you totally enslaved with Digital currency. Convert your garbage fiat currency into Gold and Silver or prepare for destruction.
Come to think of it, you better prepare for destruction anyway. The bankers motto is : 'Preserve your Capital at all costs.' The bankers are buying Gold. We the people can afford Silver.
Interesting comment sir, as a budding Economics student where can I study the material upon which you've based these conclusions? Thanks in advance.
@@hamzanocap that's a question as big as the history of Money.
Ask the question, where does money come from ?
Then discover the answers.
Ive gotten into numismatics and have been hoarding pretty much all hard metal currency that comes into my possession.
Sounds like the Austrian School of Economics might get more recognition if they just changed to a more appropriately descriptive name, like the Idealistic School of Economics. Take his example of not wanting to pay tax on gasoline. How do you suppose Britain and her western allies balance the power OPEC holds over oil prices? They give them something in return of course, and that thing would be security, which is funded by, you guessed it, tax payers. I guess the government could just print the money to fund military development, but that wouldn’t be very “Austrian” would it. Every school of economics has something to offer, but adherence to just one school makes you an idealist.
How is national security implemented in the Austrian school?
Is it implemented today?
"How is national security implemented in the Austrian school?"
through private service.
Interestingly enough, private security service already exist, there is more private security agent than cops. There is more private arbitration than government arbitration.
not everything must be private in the austrian school. law for example would probably be state owned. i guess the army too
interest rates on bank lending in 1906 was around 18% interest are a added cost of all goods and services as the uk gov stopped spending as much and don't think there was a central bank that regulated the rates
Very interesting but actually I was looking for academic content (authors, thesis, paradigms, etc.)
He is getting the fractional reserve banking thing wrong. it is not retaining 10 percent. it is lending 10 x the deposit.
The State is akin to a lifetime pirate like BLEEDING WART .....that requires your time .
Mystical! My replies to the comments have disappeared twice already. Since I don't expect the Oxford University von Mises Society to shut down serious discussions, there must be a mystical bug in the software used to manage comments?
love this guy!
#Gold & #Silver to the 🌕 baby Sound Money > fiat currency. #EndTheFed
It's great with a "bucket of money". But most people spend what they earn. If they earn a lot of money, they spend a lot of money. So when the day comes and you get a 5 figures medical bill, or 6 figures educational bill, what is average Joe supposed to do? I'm not a fan of a big state, but to me the painting Bloom is painting is too simple.
"So when the day comes and you get a 5 figures medical bill, or 6 figures educational bill, what is average Joe supposed to do? I'm not a fan of a big state, but to me the painting Bloom is painting is too simple."
Just have a private health insurance, much cheaper than government health insurance.
I agree. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the Austrian economic model is heavily criticised within the economic field, for not being scientific enough. It is rejected by most economists. However, it is in the interest of the most wealthy businesses to prop up this rejected theory as valid as it means a push for less regulation and ironically less government transparency, as it’s usually tribunals and anti corruption bodies that are the first to have funding cut. How people think our cost of living crisis and such could be solved with unbridled capitalism is nuts to me.
@@alexmancera6566 it is not nuts. if you have property rights, you may build more housing.
Wouldn't cost that much of the money you're earning isn't constantly debased over 100+ years
Buy insurance
In my opinion, some statements from the Austrian School of Economics should be discussed because they do not seem to correspond to reality.
My assumption: Before the exchange the value exists only as an expected value. For and with the exchange, both exchange partners assign the real value to both the exchanged goods and the value equivalent.
Situation:
For example, a potential buyer is strolling through a shopping center and spots a TV for sale at $1,500. However, he himself estimates that a reasonable value allocation to this device is only $1,000.
Then that potential buyer won't be able to buy that device for $1,000.
It could be that he is wondering whether this device offers enough advantages that he would buy it for $1,500.
a) He decides to buy this device for $1,500. In doing so, he adapts his subjective value concept to the seller's specifications. Both come to a common value and if the desire to exchange (not evaluation, but weighted need) is still strong enough for both, an exchange takes place.
This turns the expected value for this TV of $1,500 into a real value.
The expected value for the value equivalent, the money sum of $1,500, also becomes a real value.
The buyer's subjective value is brought into line with the seller's subjective value, i.e. it goes beyond his conscious processes - he adapts to the seller's specifications.
In order for the initially purely subjective value quantities to become an objective value quantity, there must be something that makes these, usually initially different, subjective value quantities appear objective as a common value quantity, even outside of the conscious processes.
The objective aspect of the shared value between buyer and seller is called intersubjective. But there are other objective elements of value. These are the purchase contract/invoice, the transfer of money in exactly this value size and the transfer of the exchange goods and the value equivalent in exactly this value size. There are also other objective characteristics, such as VAT based on exactly this value, this TV set can no longer be purchased by another buyer, etc.
With the exchange, this TV set actually becomes part of the total scope of all goods subject to economic exchange.
The transfer of money from the buyer to the seller takes place completely objectively in the amount of $1,500; he gives the TV set in return for exactly the sum of money $1,500, not $1,000 and not $1,800, which he might have preferred.
The combined value of the buyer and seller, which is also relevant to society, is $1,500, no more and no less.
b) He values the device at $1,800. Nevertheless, he will not give the seller $1,800 in return, but only $1,500. The rest is the same as what was said under a).
c) He decides not to buy the device.
This means that the asking price of $1,500 will continue to indicate an expected value, but not a real one. It remains a subjective value concept from the sales area.
The potential buyer can also think of a subjective value for this device. But no matter whether he thinks it's $1,000, $1,800, or $1,500, it remains a one-sided, subjective value without any social significance.
• Money
An amount of money reflects a right to a percentage share of all goods that are exchanged economically.
The monetary amount of, for example, $1,500 reflects the same entitlement to goods for both exchange partners, e.g. from a shopping cart, from average prices of goods in society, from the quantity of goods sold in a shopping center within a month, etc.
• Value assignments and needs
It is not a different evaluation that is the driving force for an economic exchange, but weighted needs.
If different valuations lead to a purchase/non-purchase, a buyer in a shopping center would have to buy everything that he or she values more cheaply than the offer price suggests.
But nobody buys like that.
People buy according to needs. Since people's needs are usually greater than their ability to satisfy them, they have to weigh their needs and sometimes buy things that seem to them to be of less value than they ultimately buy.
What you just described is the interplay between the subjective marginal utilities of the individual actors acting within the market and how it’s basis for the objective exchange rate(market prices) And the formation of the supply demand schedules for various goods and services. All of this is outlined in Murray Rothbard‘s book Man, Economy and State. Id highly recommend reading it.
@@joeyc4492
Not entirely, I am describing value formation, which the followers of the Austrian School of Economics, including Murray Rothbard, view completely differently.
For them, the value is something purely subjective and, in their opinion, exchanges are made on the basis of different subjective evaluations.
• Value is a relationship between people, includes subjective and objective elements
I show that value is a relationship between people, that such a relationship must include subjective elements, but also objective ones, since it goes beyond a single human being, i.e. beyond a single consciousness, and exists both between the exchange partners and between the exchange partners and of society. Value in the economic sense is not a singularity.
• The common quantity of value - the most important element of value
The most important objective element of value is the common value that the exchange partners agree on. If they cannot agree on a common value, there will be no exchange - the purchase contract/invoice cannot contain an offer price and a purchase price that deviates from it.
The common value goes beyond the buyer's subjective consciousness processes and also affects the seller's subjective consciousness processes. Neither of them can change this common value without destroying the common value relationship.
The common value also has an effect in society to exactly this extent, e.g. through the transfer of money from one account to another.
Exchanges are therefore always equivalent in value, based on the common value.
• Money - entitlement to goods
A sum of money corresponds to a right to a percentage share of all goods subject to economic exchange. This right is the same for both exchange partners - based on the same shopping basket, the same average goods prices, etc.
The objective exchange rate(market prices) is therefore not just any price, but this price is an expression of the common value.
The buyer gives up this right to goods in exchange for the goods - only in accordance with the common value, i.e. no more and no less.
The seller accepts this right and gives up his goods in return; he can neither remove anything from the goods nor does he have to add anything. And he only receives a right to goods in the amount of the mutually agreed sum of money.
If a buyer buys a TV set at £1,500, he may think that this set is actually entitled to goods worth £2,000, but this has no economic significance - it is his private subjective valuation. He buys it, objectively for himself, for the seller and for society, at £1,500, only this value and only this right to goods is assigned to the TV set for and with this exchange.
The seller may think that his TV is only entitled to £1,100 of goods on the market, but objectively for himself, for the buyer and for society it is exactly £1,500, no more and no less.
• Weighted needs lead to purchase
When it comes to buying/selling, people have to weigh their needs because their needs are usually larger in scope than their ability to satisfy them.
Different evaluations do not lead to a purchase, as a department store visitor would otherwise buy anything that he or she considers to be of lower value than the offer price suggests.
A buyer buys based on need, and it can also happen that he buys something that he values lower than the offer price suggests.
@@joeyc4492
Not entirely, I am describing value formation, which the followers of the Austrian School of Economics, including Murray Rothbard, view completely differently.
For them, the value is something purely subjective and, in their opinion, exchanges are made on the basis of different subjective evaluations.
• Value is a relationship between people, includes subjective and objective elements
I show that value is a relationship between people, that such a relationship must include subjective elements, but also objective ones, since it goes beyond a single human being, i.e. beyond a single consciousness, and exists both between the exchange partners and between the exchange partners and of society. Value in the economic sense is not a singularity.
• The common quantity of value - the most important element of value
The most important objective element of value is the common value that the exchange partners agree on. If they cannot agree on a common value, there will be no exchange - the purchase contract/invoice cannot contain an offer price and a purchase price that deviates from it.
The common value goes beyond the buyer's subjective consciousness processes and also affects the seller's subjective consciousness processes. Neither of them can change this common value without destroying the common value relationship.
The common value also has an effect in society to exactly this extent, e.g. through the transfer of money from one account to another.
Exchanges are therefore always equivalent in value, based on the common value.
• Money - entitlement to goods
A sum of money corresponds to a right to a percentage share of all goods subject to economic exchange. This right is the same for both exchange partners - based on the same shopping basket, the same average goods prices, etc.
The objective exchange rate(market prices) is therefore not just any price, but this price is an expression of the common value.
The buyer gives up this right to goods in exchange for the goods - only in accordance with the common value, i.e. no more and no less.
The seller accepts this right and gives up his goods in return; he can neither remove anything from the goods nor does he have to add anything. And he only receives a right to goods in the amount of the mutually agreed sum of money.
If a buyer buys a TV set at £1,500, he may think that this set is actually entitled to goods worth £2,000, but this has no economic significance - it is his private subjective valuation. He buys it, objectively for himself, for the seller and for society, at £1,500, only this value and only this right to goods is assigned to the TV set for and with this exchange.
The seller may think that his TV is only entitled to £1,100 of goods on the market, but objectively for himself, for the buyer and for society it is exactly £1,500, no more and no less.
• Weighted needs lead to purchase
When it comes to buying/selling, people have to weigh their needs because their needs are usually larger in scope than their ability to satisfy them.
Different evaluations do not lead to a purchase, as a department store visitor would otherwise buy anything that he or she considers to be of lower value than the offer price suggests.
A buyer buys based on need, and it can also happen that he buys something that he values lower than the offer price suggests.
As Joey said, you basically described the Subjective Theory of Value.
You have in your example, 2 people with varied levels of value assigned to the television. However, in scenario A, you state that the buyer did pay the $1500 rather than the $1000. This means that while $1000 was initially preferred, the buyer still valued the TV more than $1500. Everyone would love to get more for less (stated preference) but in the end, all that matters is the decision (demonstrated preference).
In scenario B, the seller pays less than he would have initially. This is perfectly acceptable for a multitude of reasons. The buyer may have an over-inflated sense of need, the seller may prefer to take less in order entice a quicker sale, the list can go on and on and on.
Scenario C: Much like the rest, a buyer and seller may be at an impass where product and money are valued more by their holders than what the other offers for trade in which a trade is not made. This is still in line with Subjective Value.
But, you also leave out Scenario D, where someone is not at all interested in a TV, making the price point of that good irrelevant. You actually touched on this in your closing argument of "Value Assignment and Needs". You are correct in that if everything had an objective positive value, then people would buy everything they see. Naturally, we do not see this because not all people hold a value for all things. Some values may even be negative in certain scenarios.
Even among what we would designate "need" vs. "wants", remember that these too are also subject to a subjective level personal evaluation and are not standard across all individuals. Need vs. want can be a tipping point in an individual's value scale thereby influencing their value judgement, but not all people will have the same needs or levels of needs and it all translates to a value judgement.
@@joeyc4492
A month ago I sent this answer, but now I see that it is gone - so here it is again:
Not entirely, I am describing value formation, which the followers of the Austrian School of Economics, including Murray Rothbard, view completely differently.
For them, the value is something purely subjective and, in their opinion, exchanges are made on the basis of different subjective evaluations.
• Value is a relationship between people, includes subjective and objective elements
I show that value is a relationship between people, that such a relationship must include subjective elements, but also objective ones, since it goes beyond a single human being, i.e. beyond a single consciousness, and exists both between the exchange partners and between the exchange partners and of society. Value in the economic sense is not a singularity.
• The common quantity of value - the most important element of value
The most important objective element of value is the common value that the exchange partners agree on. If they cannot agree on a common value, there will be no exchange - the purchase contract/invoice cannot contain an offer price and a purchase price that deviates from it.
The common value goes beyond the buyer's subjective consciousness processes and also affects the seller's subjective consciousness processes. Neither of them can change this common value without destroying the common value relationship.
The common value also has an effect in society to exactly this extent, e.g. through the transfer of money from one account to another.
Exchanges are therefore always equivalent in value, based on the common value.
• Money - entitlement to goods
A sum of money corresponds to a right to a percentage share of all goods subject to economic exchange. This right is the same for both exchange partners - based on the same shopping basket, the same average goods prices, etc.
The objective exchange rate(market prices) is therefore not just any price, but this price is an expression of the common value.
The buyer gives up this right to goods in exchange for the goods - only in accordance with the common value, i.e. no more and no less.
The seller accepts this right and gives up his goods in return; he can neither remove anything from the goods nor does he have to add anything. And he only receives a right to goods in the amount of the mutually agreed sum of money.
If a buyer buys a TV set at £1,500, he may think that this set is actually entitled to goods worth £2,000, but this has no economic significance - it is his private subjective valuation. He buys it, objectively for himself, for the seller and for society, at £1,500, only this value and only this right to goods is assigned to the TV set for and with this exchange.
The seller may think that his TV is only entitled to £1,100 of goods on the market, but objectively for himself, for the buyer and for society it is exactly £1,500, no more and no less.
• Weighted needs lead to purchase
When it comes to buying/selling, people have to weigh their needs because their needs are usually larger in scope than their ability to satisfy them.
Different evaluations do not lead to a purchase, as a department store visitor would otherwise buy anything that he or she considers to be of lower value than the offer price suggests.
A buyer buys based on need, and it can also happen that he buys something that he values lower than the offer price suggests.
How things change in a year. I wonder if he's still living in a bubble?
I wish he'd go live in a place without government. There are such places, you know: No taxes, no roads, no police, no firefighters, ....
Yeah no way could we figure out how to pay for those services without the state 😂
corruption is a deregulation of gov.
Police, fire, electric, water, sewage, health, diseases, stubborn (maybe hostile) neighbors, common defense, etc..."if men were angels there would be no need for government."
You can't go to work on your exemption card benefits - you can't use the public roads. Anything that's a public good should be excluded to your use. Handy to forget that as an Austrian Economist.
The government doesn't build any roads, roads are build by private construction companies. The government just takes your money and contracts these companies, often at inflated prices due to incompetence and corruption.
Respectfully I suggest watching the video once again.
No. All the services you mentioned would be charged per instance instead of charging citizens for services that cost fractions of the bill and stealing the rest. Please do some research on costs of development and maintenance of infrastructures and social services first, then compare those to the tax and tariffs revenue.
You've got your exemption card, which means you don't want anything the state has to offer, You wake up, stare at the ceiling for awhile, then get in your Skoda and drive to work . . . on what? The road you had built yourself?
And you'd better hope your house never catches on fire.
"You've got your exemption card, which means you don't want anything the state has to offer, You wake up, stare at the ceiling for awhile, then get in your Skoda and drive to work . . . on what? The road you had built yourself?"
You pay for the road you are using
"And you'd better hope your house never catches on fire."
You get an insurance that will include fire protection service.
@@anteeko So every road will be, in essence, a toll road? And that toll wil differ from taxes how, exactly? Also, tell me more about that fire protection service - who will actually put the fire out? Or does no one put the fire out, and the holder of the insurance just rebuild?
Disclaimer: to me, this sounds like the classic deadbeat approach. Like, let's go back to the days when people, if they were lucky enough to get out of a burning house, watched it burn to the ground.
You are welcome to think government is the problem. I don't feel that why. IMO, an approach like "I don't want to pay for any other road than the one I'm using" reflects either an ignorance of how we all benefit, if indirectly, from other people using other roads to get to work, or it's just plain selfishness.
@@kensheck2049
"So every road will be, in essence, a toll road?"
Maybe, maybe not. For example the road to a commercial center will likely be free because you want as many customer as possible.
"And that toll wil differ from taxes how, exactly?"
Because it is voluntary, if you don't need or use the road: you don't pay for it.
Why someone never using the road pay just as much as someone using it everyday?
Why someone using the road on a normal car pay just as much as a truck driver company that damaging the road far more therefore generating more maintenance cost than regular car?
Let everyone pay for their usage, it is more fair.
>Also, tell me more about that fire protection service - who will actually put the fire out?
The fire brigade.
(BTW private fire brigade servie exist, it is not like I talk science fiction here)
"Or does no one put the fire out, and the holder of the insurance just rebuild?"
Insurance will be involved in the cost for repair whatever of not the fire brigade manage to put the fire out or not
"Disclaimer: to me, this sounds like the classic deadbeat approach. Like, let's go back to the days when people, if they were lucky enough to get out of a burning house, watched it burn to the ground."
If the fire brigade didn't came to your place in the time frame agreed in the contract they will be liable. I see not reason why they would somehow not provide the service they are obligated by contract.
If they don't they will be punished.
In any case, the insurance company will have to provide compensation.
"You are welcome to think government is the problem. I don't feel that why."
The government is the problem because they have little incentive the fix problems they claim they will do.
"IMO, an approach like "I don't want to pay for any other road than the one I'm using" reflects either an ignorance of how we all benefit, if indirectly, from other people using other roads to get to work, or it's just plain selfishness."
I grew up in the country were 100% of the highway are private.
Guess what the road that are the best maintain, safest roads? the highway.
The cherry on top? highway user get to pay to maintain it.. meaning every people driving through my country pay to maintain the road. Foreigner pay for the roads in my country, no tax system can do that.
If it was managed by the state, my tax will be higher (I will have to pay for road I don't use and foreigner will have a free ride) and the road will be in poorer condition (as the state has proven to care little about road condition and safety).
@@anteeko What country did you grow up in?
In my country, the USA, the best maintained roads are Interstates (although we could do a better job, but we Americans are myopic about how interconnected we are) and the worst maintained roads tend to be private roads. In fact, I live on a private street and all my neighbors bitch about how much it costs to maintain it.
Fire brigades - what a quaint idea. 🙂
Just BTW, I''m reading a book right now in which the author points out that several features of the iPhone (which is the phone I use) were features that were the direct result of government investment in technological innovation. The internet, GPS, touch screen, and voice control were all innovations that came out of government laboratories.
Anyway, you are welcome to think the every-person-for-himself approach is best. You're nowhere near convincing me that is the best approach. And clearly, I am not going to change your mind. Ah, well.
@@kensheck2049
"What country did you grow up in?"
in Europe
"In my country, the USA, the best maintained roads are Interstates (although we could do a better job, but we Americans are myopic about how interconnected we are) and the worst maintained roads tend to be private roads. In fact, I live on a private street and all my neighbors bitch about how much it costs to maintain it."
Seems like you already knew about private and you already knew there are other way to finance it than toll road?
You literally use one everyday yet you are surprise by the concept?
And yes road cost to maintain:)
Why other should pay for your road? your community has to pay the cost. whatever you look at it, it is more fair than asking other to pay for you.
As for the US infrastructure is not known to be well maintained. so I am not sure your point about the government doing a good job at maintaining the road is valid.
www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c
>Fire brigades - what a quaint idea. 🙂
Like for the private road the concept is nothing new:
www.industrialfireworld.com/529483/private-sector-alternative
>Just BTW, I''m reading a book right now in which the author points out that several features of the iPhone (which is the phone I use) were features that were the direct result of government investment in technological innovation. The internet, GPS, touch screen, and voice control were all innovations that came out of government laboratories.
Possibly,
I am not sure what is your point here. It is not like nobody would have ever researched those concepts without government intervention.
Private investment support research too and again I see no reason why your tax should be used to finance research.
You prefer the government using your tax money to do research that profit the private sector or saving more money and being able to retire earlier?
Let people invest in research themsleves if they want do or met them keep their money.
"Anyway, you are welcome to think the every-person-for-himself approach is best. You're nowhere near convincing me that is the best approach."
My approach is not "everyone for themselves".
You see it yourself you use a private road everyday. Private project/research/services provide for everyone in the same way government does.
My approach is about consent, liberty and responsibility.
I should decide what I do with my money and be free to get the services I want/need and not rely on a government that has little incentive to help and deliver on their promises but have every incentive to spend as much as possible.
In reality a life without heavy government would not look much different than now, you would only get the advantage from more competition and therefore get to keep more of your money and stop subsidising things you don't use.
That spot ETF question was good. Too bad he didn't answer it
Unbelievable. Knowledge of the weaknesses of AE is completely absent.
Outdated framework
This guy is so far off the mark I would imagine it is highly embarrassing to anyone with a similar entitled accent.You make your money off the backs of the people you wish to deny a dignified existence later in their lives.Another rich man with a trick!
Everyone who claims to be with Austrian school is always very ideological, and this explanation shows that it’s all about griping about the state. There are many countries where the state is toothless and provides no services. When they find out they’ll all rush to move there… Hopefully.😂
On the contrary they should remain in thier home state and change it to be like those which you describe
Dumb comment
A country with failing government institutions is libertarian in the same way that a church with crumbling walls is atheist
this mf has spent his life trying to consume wealth - either in the army, bureaucracy, or as a paid politician
now he thinks telling people about his fantasies counts as value creation
the major problem with Austrian economics is it mainly looks at the business side when they get their money as do all of us through gov spending either direct or indirect they also create the conditions that require more regulations as the capitalist economic system promotes privatizing all public goods and services for profit that healthcare, housing, food production, air and water. if all those were privatized humans wouldn't be able to survive we are seeing that now.
Austrian Economics: There is very little PUBLIC SPENDING (by definition) and it’s heavily scrutinized to be justified!!👏🏼🤔
Learn some history about the socialism countries last century, North Korea vs South Korea; East Germany vs West Germany
Except that more often than not, the regulation actually lays the ground for need of more regulation to fix what the regulation caused in the first place. Government officials aren't magical wizards, I'm sorry to inform you.
Implying the Austrian school is the most problematic school of economics probably means you should read more on economics, and get off the Keynesian teat.
Common sense is revolutionary in these times.
The biggest challenge in making sense of anything today is language which has shifted too much.
If we go to the French Revolution the biggest claim they had was the "Abolition of feudalism" but people owned more than one property and they continued to lease and rent out their vacancies and lands. But they did this changing the language instead of using the proper titles they used "landlord". The people living in the rentals were "renters" not serfs. In practice nothing changed for the majority of the rural population. The only shift in the quality of life was at the very top of the society. Also, the French "presidents" of the "republic" moved to the royal palace which is where a king would normally go. Also just like presidents are elected Kings were always elected by the vote of the most influential people of the time. Presidents are also elected by the votes which are gathered by the support of the most influential people in society.
Nothing has really changed, only the language gives us a veneer of choice and freedom.