Sir Elliot's Weekly Discussion-- Economics, Friedman, and Youtube

First off, I'm pretty sure that either all or most of the first video is included in the second video.

More on topic, Milton Friedman is the man. I like how he describes himself as a liberal even though most people would classify him as a conservative or libertarian. I also enjoyed his analysis of the minimum wage laws and social security.

 

Libertarianism is an extension of classical liberalism. Modern liberals aren't really liberal at all, so it's possible he was using liberal in its true sense rather than the stolen sense that modern liberals employ today. But I can't be 100% sure on that, since he may not have been entirely libertarian himself.

But yeah, the minimum wage arguments he makes have been made numerous times by many others as well. It all ties back into the natural right of self-ownership and free-market economics. We each own ourselves as individuals, and thus we have a 'property right' in ourselves and our labor. This is understood as true. Subjective value is also understood as true. So with self-ownership and subjective value, it stands to reason that we should each individually be able to exchange our labor for whatever wage we wish for any particular form of labor. Similarly, an employer should have the freedom to individually engage in the exchange of money for the labor of others. Minimum wage does not allow for this.

Minimum wage is a form of coercion. It mandates two things:
1) That individuals cannot rent their labor freely
2) That employers cannot rent the labor of others freely

Instead, minimum wage seem to advocate a labor theory of value. While minimum wage does not necessarily dictate how much labor in general should be worth, it does dictate that labor in general can be worth no less than a set amount. Furthermore, minimum wage laws do not even adjust for inflation, making the otherwise righteous premise of the mandate irrelevant. Additionally, it can be argued that minimum wage laws produce undesired consequences for unemployment.

Here's another interesting video with regard to minimum wage laws. Jan Helfeld interviews Nancy Pelosi, exposing her double-standard (and arguably the overall fallacy) on the minimum wage issue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo]YouTube - Pelosi's Double Standard on the Minimum Wage[/ame]

 

Wow, this is fantastic stuff. I can't believe I've never heard of Milton Friedman. Goes to show you what little I know about economics.

 

Milton Friedman did some good work, but he also had faults in some of his ideas too. I wouldn't necessarily recommend him for a broad understanding of economics.

 

Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis

What's to dislike?

 

As I said, Freidman did some good work, but not all of his ideas were entirely sound.

As a for instance:

The Case Against the Fed - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

 

That's arguable. Me, personally, I wouldn't want to start off learning economics from someone who has some proven foundational flaws in their theory. Of course this is not to say there is any perfect theory, but I would probably rather learn from those who have built upon the good, working concepts of Freidman, for instance, and then after reaching that understanding learn of Freidman's ideas so I'd be able to distinguish the sound from the unsound.

 

Yeah? Anyone specific you wanna throw me?

 

I spent the late hours of last night watching a host of youtube videos and I agree. I'm almost appalled that I've never heard of this guy. Whats even more astounding is that my GF is a History and Government/Economics teacher for 8th grade and I'm sure she's never heard of him either. Hell, I teach HS (not economics. but still) and everyday I'm learning more and more that Education in America is not really teaching kids the important stuff.

 

I'd personally recommend Rothbard and Mises first and foremost, though I wouldn't necessarily stop there either. Hoppe, Hayek, Freidman, Hazlitt, etc are also some good follow-up suggestions.

I'd go with Rothbard first, prior to Mises, simply because Rothbard lays the groundwork for a lot of foundation which needs to be understood for one to fully grasp Austrian economics; foundation which may not appear to be necessarily economic at first glance, but economics is about much more than just dollar and cents. Mises also lays groundwork, though his is of a slightly different nature, namely praxeology, though Rothbard also discusses praxeology too. But Mises may also be a more difficult read, than is Rothbard; so reading Rothbard first may preemptively alleviate some of that difficulty.

In any case, they're both brilliant in their own right.

It's not surprising that you or your gf, being public school (?) teachers aren't familiar with these people or their insights, tbh. Their economic thought is contrary to Keynesian economics which is what is accepted today, and (most of) their political philosophy is also contrary what is accepted today: statism.

I'd be ignorant of any of their work had I not accidentally stumbled onto the Ludwig von Mises Institute several years ago.

 

Thanks for the info

Actually, We are both employed by private/charter schools.. which is kind of scary in itself. Because the curriculum is the same for both - it's not like we could change what we teach if we wanted to. "Private" just means that the administration is done through a company that is paid from same $$ that funds public schools.

 

Shade's got it right. Friedman is cool but weak on monetary policy... which is essential to a properly functioning economy. Rothbard is my favorite read of the Austrians.

I went through the entire public education system without being introduced to any of these economic concepts. Not until my later years of college did I discover Austrian economic theory.

My European Economic history professor didn't even consider the impact the Bank of England had on Britain when she lectured us on the Glorious Revolution, but rather attributed their coming economic success and imperial expansion to the newly passed Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. When I made the case by showing the number of wars following and preceding the Bank's creation (Only one war in the 17th century, but endless war in the 18th) she was slow to admit that the state's new ability to finance war was the leading cause of British supremacy until the 20th century.

We're definitely kept in the dark about economics on purpose.

 

Will do. (just not today, I'm a little swamped)

It would be a great topic. I tried to bring it up in this thread:
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...tys-problems-there-solutions.html#post6615797

 

Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a good start too.