UFC Renato Moicano's Passionate Plea: 'Read Ludwig Von Mises!' | Niemietz Answers
Join Niemietz Answers as he covers the most pressing questions on Ludwig von Mises, the influential Austrian economist. In this episode, Niemietz responds to the recent UFC fighter, Renato Moicano, and his call to explore Mises' work and the Austrian School of Economics. Learn about Mises' life, from his early years in the Austro-Hungarian Empire to his emigration to the United States amidst political turmoil. Discover Mises' unwavering dedication to economic principles and his contributions to shaping economic thought in the 20th century.
Uncover Mises' groundbreaking contributions to economic theory, including his role in initiating the socialist calculation debate and his insights into the inherent flaws of centrally planned economies. Gain insight into Mises' vision of a minimal state that protects individual rights while fostering free-market dynamics. Don't miss this engaging exploration of Mises' ideas and their enduring impact on modern economics and political philosophy.
FOLLOW US:
TWITTER - / iealondon
INSTAGRAM - /
FACEBOOK - / ieauk
WEBSITE - iea.org.uk/
When he mentioned that I couldn’t believe, it felt unreal. Something’s definitely happening
How long will these mixed economics last, I wonder?
Nice thanks
1929 was a controlled demolition and we will see a repeat of this fairly soon.
Thanks for the video! This is very understandable! It invites discussion! • The market is the place where value is created What even the followers of the Austrian School of Economics do not realize: The market is not only the place of exchange, the market is above all the place of value creation! The connection between market, value and money shows, but only if the market can work unrestrictedly (not uncontrolled!), what is in an economic sense in a given social (economic, technological, political, cultural, religious, historical, foreign trade, etc.) as well as natural Environment how important to them. Important in an economic sense means that, for example, very little value is assigned to a glass of water in a private household, namely the proportional costs for the provider, for the fittings, etc. - nothing more is necessary. In a restaurant, you assign a significantly higher value to a glass of water because the environment requires additional costs that you accept - additional rooms, services, furniture etc. A person dying of thirst in the desert will drink a glass of water assign even higher value. Political influences on value formation are achieved through laws, e.g. that catalytic converters must be used in cars, how companies must treat wastewater, etc. There is political control of the market in all societies! • The “invisible hand” according to Adam Smith Adam Smith used the metaphor “the invisible hand” to describe market activity. From my point of view, what he means is that due to the multitude of exchange processes and thus the countless value formations on the market, the diversity of market participants (companies, other institutions, private individuals), their different interests, possibilities and experiences, their different knowledge, etc ., one can assume that overall they shape the value equivalence of exchange goods quite well through their market activities (value creation) - in accordance with the given level of social development in terms of economy, technology and politics. As a whole, this will result in value equivalences between the individual goods (natural raw materials, technical equipment, agricultural products, concert performances, etc.) that are quite optimal for everyone, unlike when determining the “value equivalences for everything and for everyone” from a central point it is possible. • There cannot be a “free market” in the sense in which this term is usually used! The market doesn't think, the market doesn't direct. The market can't say you have to supply 1,000 tons more grain and you can't buy that product at $50! The market can only reflect what is being sold or bought and what could be sold or bought. Everything that is offered on the market and how is determined by people, as is everything that is bought there and at what price. Selling and buying have to be planned (OK, in private households things are bought quite spontaneously from time to time), i.e. people have to observe the market and then decide what they want to offer, how and in what quantity. Nowadays, algorithms help with this. But they don’t (yet) have any interests of their own. There can only be a “free market” in the sense that the market is free from oversteering: In Germany, for example, the market is currently significantly oversteered in the housing sector - the solvent demand cannot be met. The electricity market is also becoming more and more overtaxed - in the city of Oranienburg no new electricity connections can be approved, existing ones cannot be expanded, and in other places there are warnings and shutdowns. In the GDR there was a comprehensive economy of shortages because the market was not being used sensibly. With an overdriven market, the economy is steered towards ineffectiveness! • There is always a mixed economy Virtually every market activity is planned. There is also central planning in every society, e.g. how should railway lines or power lines etc. But central planning may only be applied to projects where the central is unavoidable and where the decision-makers can also plan competently. This is not the case with all the different products in their different designs, for which decision-makers have no way of knowing how high the demand will be in accordance with the solvent demand. Economics is not about absolute demand quantities. Purchases are made based on weighted needs. People have to give importance to needs that are to be satisfied economically, since their ability to satisfy them is usually smaller than their ability to do so. At this point, the followers of the Austrian School speak of different evaluations that are supposed to lead to the purchase. If that were really the case, a potential buyer would have to buy everything in a department store that he values from his value assignment (described by the followers of the Austrian School as 'from his price assessment') higher than the offer price suggests. But no one shops like that. You buy according to weighted needs, but always with equivalent value, i.e. based on rights to goods that are always the same size for both exchange partners under the same conditions. • The prices under socialism are fantasy prices In a certain sense this is true, but it can be made more precise: the prices assigned to labor products under socialism corresponded to expected values. This is because the economy under socialism was based on Marx's theory of value (labor theory of value). With it the value was created with production: W = c + v + s. W value of a work product c constant capital (the costs for raw materials, supplier products, premises, electricity, in Marx's case also machines, etc.) pro rata per product. v variable capital (proportionally the cost of labor per product - for Marx only that of human labor) s surplus value (is generated by the (in Marx only human) workers in the so-called unpaid working time). Marx applies this formula to the production side of commodity society. For him, the market has no significance for the creation of value. But only a buyer on the market can pay for the surplus value. An entrepreneur can only estimate what surplus value he can demand on the market, i.e. there is only one expected surplus value there. In addition, the surplus value is not paid on the costs, but on the replacement of the costs. Since surplus value is part of value, there can only be one expected value on the production side of the commodity society. The value formula needs to be specified for the production side: W|expected = c|cost factor, replacement expected + v|cost factor, replacement expected + s|expected. Only on the market, when a buyer buys the product, the real value is formed: W|real = c|cost replacing + v|cost replacing + s|real. Since real values were not taken into account under socialism, it was impossible to determine at any point in the economy what was how effectively produced and used. The economy became more and more ineffective until it collapsed.
Mises was right about a mixed economy. Just look at a place like Sweden, and you have economic tyranny that drives economic activity lower because the government chooses the winners and losers. Sweden became rich when it was capitalist and poorer when it embraced socialism.
Trust me, if you're not economically savy you're not capable of knowing the bad from the evil advice when it tries to enlist you to a commune.
How does Von Mises differ from Hayek?
Hayek it's much more interventionist than Mises. To Mises the State only had 2 functions security and justice(smaller government), on the other hand Hayek it's more flexible about the with other thing the State can intervene.
@@lejandaoreserva This is wrong and oversimplified. It is wrong BECAUSE it is oversimplified. If you take monetary matters Mises believed in a central bank issuing a gold standard currency, Hayek believed in the denationalisation of money. Who is more interventionist? Hayek is more flexible true, because he goes into the nitty gritty details of policy. Mises only paints with very broad brush strokes, always discussing the big picture. He is a social philosopher, rather than what we could call a modern economist. Hayek is a social philosopher too but he also did technical economics. This is why he might seem more flexible.
@kayedal-haddad9294 if you want to understand the difference between Mises and Hayek you should focus on their methodology. Politically there is very little difference between the two. Mises' methodology is an aprioristic one called praxeology, where all laws of economics are supposed to be derived from the a priori principles of human action. In reality, very few points of this methodology has been given an applied form. One example is how our mortality gives the a priori principle to time preference and interest theory (and through that, capital theory) because we prefer the same consumption experience sooner than later ceteris paribus. Hayek's methodology is much harder to define, I don't think he declares it as clearly as Mises, but he is more mainstream there. I think he can be regarded as an early pioneer of behavioral economics. He rejects the Chicago idea of "all is true that can be empirically tested" but he is not as averse to empirics as Mises. I think 90% of Hayek's work consists of emphasizing what we CANNOT know in economics, how economics is a complex emergent order that cannot be explained in detail. This ties in heavily with his psychological views.