This is a fabulous explanation of why colectivist economic systems do not work and nearly always end in disaster.
@roharatube
4 жыл бұрын
@Doug Kirk If they don't realize what a big mistake it was and go back to a free market like Scandinavian countries did then yes, always.
@kimobrien.
4 жыл бұрын
This man's a liar. Because if you read "Socialism Utopian and Scientific" You will find that Engles lauds the early Utopian socialists. In fact it's always the pro capitalists who call us utopians. That we created a worker's utopia in the USSR. When a lecture starts with a lie why should anyone continue listening to the lecturer? www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm
@MegaMahuro
4 жыл бұрын
@@kimobrien. If only Engels wealthy family and their wealthy industrial and banker associates in including the ones we today know as Rothchilds, had not paid Marx to write Des Kapital in London, where he was giving all the pampers of capitalism to do so....
@roharatube
4 жыл бұрын
@@kimobrien. The Soviet Union was a "workers utopia?" Whaaaaaaa? Listen, I know people who grew up in Soviet Russia and Romania. They didn't describe any utopia I can tell you. I also have read a few books about it. You should try reading things written by people other than Marx and Engles. Try Solzhenitsyn.
@kimobrien.
4 жыл бұрын
@@roharatube I never said we created a workers utopia you seem to keep playing with yourself on that issue like other morons do. Go back and re read what I said. I meet comrades who meet Leon Trotsky personally. He spent 21 year in exile before being assassinated and was the Organizer of the 1921 Red Army victory and knew all the original leaders of the 1917 revolution including Stalin and Lenin.
@christianmcdowell3052
4 жыл бұрын
This is one of the most concise sets of direct examples of the efficiency loss in central planning compared to markets
@dks13827
4 жыл бұрын
Free enterprise.
@purpleflame334
4 жыл бұрын
Great lecture. Thank you for sharing.
@rogerdodger5415
4 жыл бұрын
I really wasn’t expecting much from the title... but this was a very interesting learning experience. I wish whoever was running the show had said “don’t worry, you’re fine on time. Take as long as you want “. It seemed he had more to say. 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸❤️
@DavidInSydney1
3 жыл бұрын
So well explained, I’ve learned a lot. Thank you Professor Salerno.
@HerseySyntheticOil
4 жыл бұрын
#trump2020 lets get this great country back on track. Great video.
@Yellowgary
2 жыл бұрын
You realise you’re on a mises video? Trump and minarchists/anarchists radically disagree
@galacticambitions1277
Жыл бұрын
So given that property rights are government enforced (unless you're living under anarcho-capitalism) market price setting is the government outsourcing a function it has concluded it cannot itself effectively perform. Capitalists are price-setting contractors.
@patrickmccormack4318
4 жыл бұрын
Question for Joseph T. Salerno: Do you teach History of Economic Thought? In your lectures, do you discuss the work of Karl Marx, Henry George, Mason Gaffney and other prominent authors of "progressive" economic ideologies?
@CDavid1951
4 жыл бұрын
Most OEM bumpers are made out of plastic and feature an aluminum or steel reinforcement bar hidden in the middle. Some bumpers may also contain polypropylene in order to help absorb energy during an impact. Bumpers are not made from fiberglass.
@bobtonner
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you, David. I cringed listening to that part of the lecture
@ChrisPyle
4 жыл бұрын
His overall point was valid even though he clearly knows nothing about cars lol Was definitely cringing on that one
@venceremosallende422
2 жыл бұрын
Read Paul Cockshott, he explained it
@KurtSlotkowski-hj8jd
4 жыл бұрын
Didn't Charles Fourier write a book entitled "the hierarchies of cuckoldry and bankruptcy"? For that I advise people to look up the section of Thomas Acquinas book City of God on libido dominandi.
@undercoverspy20
Жыл бұрын
stalin RIPBOZO
@seansingh8862
3 жыл бұрын
I haven't laughed this much at socialists' expense since I first saw Benny Hill's socialist skit!
@bryanb.386
3 жыл бұрын
Both the Utopians, and "Scientific" (emphasis on the quotation marks) are out of their minds.
@politicallyunreliable4985
4 жыл бұрын
He's not wrong. However, could he have someone else do the talking next time. So annoying.
@dks13827
4 жыл бұрын
Heaven on earth would last for 12.......... 12,000 years. Everyone knows that.
@davidreynolds9649
4 жыл бұрын
some believe it will last 1,000 years, some believe that heaven is heaven and is not to be found on earth.
@DimitrisAndreou
4 жыл бұрын
At the slide at 45:00, I think the 3rd bullet wasn't Mises' argument. He would readily grant that all these practical issues would be non-existent because the socialist planner would be omniscient. But knowing the equilibrium point isn't a plan of how to get from here to there: what steps do you first take to reach the computed equilibrium? Each step is also a change that itself can modify the equilibrium point... Here is the relevant chapter from human action: mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/862
@matheus.fialho
4 жыл бұрын
Mises does discuss this point, exactly as the 3rd bullet states. Cf: mises.org/library/equations-mathematical-economics-and-problem-economic-calculation-socialist-state-0 Of course, later, in Human Action, he clarified the central point that equilibrium can only be a mental construct and doesn't reflect the dynamic nature of the market and, even at that point of perfect knowledge, calculation is still impossible. But yes, you are essentially correct, although Mises did write on this.
@DimitrisAndreou
4 жыл бұрын
@@matheus.fialho I wasn't aware of that article but here's the crucial point: "But we know nothing of what the demand would be if another price prevailed. " -- this is what I'm summing up in my comment: changing the price structure towards the way of the computed equilibrium, is itself a change modifying the computed equilibrium. The 3rd bullet on the slide is a weaker argument, making reference to "change" in the abstract. One could answer that, "what if the adaptation was fast before any important change could occur?" But Mises argument is stronger: the adaptation itself also causes changes.
@matheus.fialho
4 жыл бұрын
@@DimitrisAndreou Oh, I see... Now I realize that, at first, I hadn't undestood your comment. Rereading it now makes more sense and, indeed, Mises' point on this is even more fundamental than what it was shown in the slide, as you said. Thanks for clarifying this!
@jamesknik3753
3 жыл бұрын
Couldn’t the ECP be debunked with de-centralized planning than
@vectorhacker-r2
2 жыл бұрын
The problem is not the centralization of control it’s the exchange mechanism. If there is no exchange there can be no meaningful prices and without meaningful prices, there is no sensible calculation that can be done.
@mikkip2302
4 жыл бұрын
Can someone explain how I can use this brilliant evisceration of socialism to argue against ‘social democracy’ and the welfare state where the means of production are not owned by the state and private property exists?
@ChrisPyle
4 жыл бұрын
I’ve heard that a lot as well and the simple answer is this. In both cases, with or without private property, the fatal flaw is the lack of incentives to produce more. That absence or reduction in incentives (higher and higher taxes) combined with the incentive to not work at all (welfare state) is what leads to a decline in production and a smaller and smaller economy. Remember, there is no such thing as free healthcare. Doctors require payment, hospitals cost money, free to most people doesn’t mean government funded through taxation even though it is. Just my two cents lol
@geoffgjof
2 жыл бұрын
Ask them if they'd be ok with the government confiscating all their stuff to benefit society. When they say no, ask them how much of their stuff they'd be ok with the government taking from them. If they say they don't want the government to take anything, they don't understand what they're arguing, but then you can talk to them about how taxes is the government taking their stuff. Make sure you talk about payroll taxes because even poor people pay those and they are the hardest hit by them. Everyone loses 15% of their wages to payroll taxes. Think about what you could do with 15% more in your pocket each paycheck. If they throw out a number, ask them how they decide that number? Ask them if that number should be the same for everyone. If they say rich people should have more taken, ask them what the government will be able to do to them if it's able to take advantage of rich people. That's a large amount of power that can lead to anyone being completely destroyed, including them, if the majority of people decide that that's how things are going to be now
@MegaMahuro
4 жыл бұрын
With reference to the house made in Montana and shipped over, is he saying in parallel that globalism is good capitalism? Like fuits from south america shipped to china to be packaged and then exported to the USA?
@Mooxieclang
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, global free market capitalism is good.
@vectorhacker-r2
2 жыл бұрын
You think your example is ridiculous, but what the market is optimizing for, even in your example, is lower cost of producing the goods in order to maximize the profits. In the case of your example, the reason for this is because the global fruit market wants fruits year round and not all regions produce fruits year round, so the process is optimized to take advantage of fruits being grown in other regions. As for why they are packaged in some far off Asian country, that’s easy. Two things come into play, one labor costs are lower and infrastructure for packaging already exist, and the fruit tend ripen on the way to the packaging facility. It’s also much more cost-effective and efficient to ship things through water than it is to do so by truck, plane, or even train. A shipping container costs the same no matter what’s inside, so it’s always less expensive to ship long distances by ship than it is by any other means. That also means that it shipping tends to favor places that can work close to the ports or have a short distance from the ports, to be able to take advantage of the costs savings of shipping over other means of transport. It’s all these factors and more that make for to what some see as ridiculous, but what really is efficient.
@DimitrisAndreou
4 жыл бұрын
I wish Salerno went to the heart of the problem: why can't a single mind (or gigantic computer) come up with a price structure. He mentioned it's too complicated but this is not Mises argument, this is Hayek's argument.
@markuscroubere1140
4 жыл бұрын
But he did. 1. Socialism abolishes private property in capital goods and natural resources. 2. Since the socialist State is sole owner of the material factors of production, they can no longer be exchanged. 3. Without exchange there can be no market prices. The problem is not in calculation power, it's a problem of existence. There are no prices. No production cost calculations. No profit and loss functions. What you're inputting in your supercomputer is literal garbage. Optimization only works when you have a definite system of equations to solve.
@lperkins2
4 жыл бұрын
@@markuscroubere1140 And yet, we would not say Caruso on his island is not engaging in economic calculation when deciding between producing fish now or a net to produce fish later. The fundamental problem with a lack of prices is it requires inter-personal value judgements. Caruso by himself knows how strongly he wants fish vs bread vs shelter. Without offers of exchange, he cannot know how strongly Friday wants those things.
@kimobrien.
4 жыл бұрын
@@markuscroubere1140 Seems to me we can keep track of the labor time put into products and use that in place of a capitalist price structure. The idea that the huge value given to the owners of capital gives them an incentive to do anything but increase the value of their property is utopian in thinking. Why invest in anything that might not result in a bigger return on investment when you can invest in the sure things made of fictitious capital?
@lperkins2
4 жыл бұрын
@Ubiquitary This is what I get for listening to it as an audio book. I will try to remember the difference!
@lperkins2
4 жыл бұрын
@@kimobrien. And yet a ditch dug with a spoon is not of more value than a ditch dug with a shovel.
@glenwhaley8003
4 жыл бұрын
Assuming the attendees to Professor Salerno’s presentations are well-marinated in neoclassical causality, can we agree . . . 1) that general economic optimality is the object of economic calculation . . . 2) that ‘the real, live, objective macro economy that is out there’ is observed to accomplish dynamically stable and efficient adjustments to the ever-changing shapes of its production and utility tradeoffs (at least insofar as its markets remain unencumbered) . . . 3) and that this dynamic stability owes to the economy’s spontaneous tendency to continuously establish the conditions of whatever unique optimum implicit in its current production and utility tradeoffs? Having agreed to these three notions, would it not follow that incisive economic calculation is always being accomplished - somehow, somewhere, on this planet earth? If it were not, how might we account for the stability and efficiency we observe? Is consigning what we see to a mere mystery really worthy of the Western scientific tradition? The Austrians’ allegations that artificial economic calculation is not possible are, then, merely assertions without evidence that formal analogs to what the economy is observed to do are impossible to develop. Because ‘that which is impossible’ cannot, by definition, be instantiated, their claim will remain forever unproved. Such a claim can, however, be disproved by counterexample. If your installation of MS Office is current and complete enough to run VBasic, then you can operate an instructional videogame that will generate a limitless sequence of emulations exhibiting efficient economic calculation. See: www.sfecon.com/KZitem Demo.xlsm (The VBasic programs embedded in this ordinary Excel workbook will needlessly alert your anti-virus software. No one wants to damage your computer.) Enjoy; and please report back with your findings.
@snippletrap
4 жыл бұрын
You can have a socialist economy, it just won't be very efficient. What you can't have is a socialist catallaxy.
@kimobrien.
4 жыл бұрын
So if capitalism is so efficient why do Federal Reserve stats show a decline in the use of capacity use (usage of productive facilites) from 90% in 1967 to 65% today? If capitalism works for everyone why did the US want to create hunger and desperation in Cuba? Afterall shouldn't Cuba have gone back to capitalist methods like China and the USSR?
@dnehs1054
4 жыл бұрын
But the fundamental problem is not calculation but human attitude and interpretation of things. It is so easy to trick the human mind that most often than not a good manipulator can separate people from their money.
@bernadettesandoval3990
4 жыл бұрын
In socialism, this is a major problem.
@alrizo1115
4 жыл бұрын
What makes a person is the society he lives in. Supply, Demand and competition can exist in a socialist society. Once a community realize that each and one of them depends on one another, they will tend to do their job and serve his/her worth. After all it's for them why they are working. Also, Give rewards to the innovators. A person who no longer tries to just survive will not try to eat other fellow humans but thinks of how he can contribute and grow. If he/she isn't able to work, give him/her a deadline, find the reasons why he/she can't work. If you are that afraid of entire socialist system, why not even have a basic social safety net? Then make the next move from that point.
@Casmige
4 жыл бұрын
He's hard to listen to for some reason. Something about his smarmy collectivist bolshivekspeak.
@davidreynolds9649
4 жыл бұрын
It's caused by your ears.
@dyingalive
4 жыл бұрын
"The essential mark of socialism is that one will alone acts" The world view of the abrahamic religions have maximally to all powerful gods that created and planned everythgin. Would that make them inherently socialist?
@TheLoyalOfficer
4 жыл бұрын
To a slight extent, yes. But remember - all of the main religions have scriptures that discuss responsible business practices. They are broadly, if moderately, capitalistic. Take a look at the economics of the Koran, for example. As long as you pay your Z'akat, you are pretty much good to go with starting your own biz, etc. Although no debt, etc.
@dinamarcus3694
4 жыл бұрын
@dyingalive - If you read the story carefully, Abraham begins his life as Abram, and while the change of name might seem trivial, there is an important difference in meaning. Abram means "exalted father," ie. an elite, whereas Abraham means "father of a multitude." According to the Abrahamic religions, all humans are created in the image of God, thus they leave the possibility that all humans might develop to their full potential. Yet there are still powerful elites in the world who imagine themselves to be gods, and see the rest of us as either slaves or livestock. This basically describes human history.
@xhesil8848
4 жыл бұрын
I think you just explained how Socialism is inherently religious. It tries to fill the role of God with the State.
@johnkosi6798
4 жыл бұрын
@@xhesil8848 didn't he just describe the 0.1% and 99.9% as well? Socialism is a flawed model but taking issue with concentration of wealth is reasonable. (Not that this issue is specific to capitalism as socialists seem to believe)
@xhesil8848
4 жыл бұрын
@@johnkosi6798 I don't take any issue with income inequality, I do take issue with some of the ways it occurs. Anti-competitive Corporatism, Trusts, Monopolies and Oligopolies are all ways that generate income inequalities without improving the product for the customer. Shoddy business practices are a very real thing, too. Mass-Importing also has negative effects on a market, because it moves monies from a national economy to another without replacement, ultimately devaluing the Importer's market as a whole, because the market's real cash flow is negative.
Пікірлер: 113