BBC special on now; Heyek, FED, Libetry Dollas

[Luno]

"Masters of money", Just watching this now on BBC world. Think it's a 3 part series. They are hitting the nail on the head. Waiting every second to hear Bitcoin mentioned.!!!

Just ended... they didn't.

Worth a watch anyway.
            -BBC the master of investigative journalism.

Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and others took part in this special.

[hazek]

What was it called?

[Lethn]

I think I've seen that before, they don't mention Bitcoin, it wasn't too bad though considering it was the BBC, is it the masters of money?

[Dalkore]

I found it online, about to watch the 3 episodes.  Thanks for the tip.

[hazek]

I found it online, about to watch the 3 episodes.  Thanks for the tip.

Title?

[Luno]

it is "Masters of money"

[hazek]

it is "Masters of money"

Thanks!

[DobZombie]

Any scene releases yet?

[DobZombie]

These were aired 69 Days ago...

*removed by mod*


3 different versions of each episode


mod note: I don't think posting that is wise.

EDIT : I didn't realise we couldn't name a file.  I could understand not being able to link to it.  Oh well.

The gist of the file names said there are 3 part. 1st called Keynes, 2nd Hayek & 3rd was called Marx

[Adrian-x]

Thanks,
something to watch on the way home this week.

[mcgravier]

Pure win. I love BBC.

[mentalove]

wow thanks for this post, i downloaded the 3 part series and it was awesome. i am going to read the communist manifesto and learn more about marx. we always hear about hayek vs keynes but i know little about marx. 

[doobadoo]

wow thanks for this post, i downloaded the 3 part series and it was awesome. i am going to read the communist manifesto and learn more about marx. we always hear about hayek vs keynes but i know little about marx.  

Yes, and read marx and think carefully as you read.  You will often find that Marx's economic logic often falls in on itself.  His biggest stupidity is something called the "Labor Theory of Value."  Marx suggests that fundamentally its the work that goes into something that makes it valuable, and that all the work should be valued equally by society.  But this type of thing just falls in on itself if you just think it through.  Imagine hiring workers to dig a tremendous ditch in the middle of nowhere, a lot of work goes into it, but what really is the value?  Imagine the same resources used to build a tremendous bridge over a wide river linking two great cities.  (Where previously slow and expensive boats and passenger ferries were used.)  The bridge has obvious value in decreasing the time, energy and resources used to cross people and things.  Those savings can be called the 'benefits' of the bridge.   Now we can calculate the value by weighing the benefits against the costs.  

The fundamental flaw of socialism and the marx way of looking at economic issues is a failure to explain how decision making regarding what to build, how much to make and how best to build it is ever arrived at.  In most historic implementations of Marxian ideology such as soviet communism and the various flavors of socialism, the lack of an accurate mechanism to weigh 'prices vs costs' or 'benefits vs resources expended' are at the root of their failure, and i think this is a well understood point amongst dare i say, real economists.

After you read marx, may I suggest Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which is just 60 pages and is free: http://www.fee.org/library/detail/economics-in-one-lesson-pdf-doc-audio#axzz2EQ2VTal2

There is a pdf, or .doc file which is complete and an mp3 which is just a summary.

[doobadoo]

Also check out Bastiat's The Law, which i believe was written as a direct response to Marx by a Frenchman Economist about 3 years after the Manifesto was written.  Also public domain:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html

[Adrian-x]

I enjoyed all 3 thanks,
Some surprising takeaways:
I have a renewed respect for Keynes after seeing his motives and proposed solutions.
Maybe I misinterpreted, but I understood " Beggar-Your-Neighbour" to mean impoverish your neighbour through unfair trade or use of force. That said Keynes's driving motivation was to ensure international trade would benefit the whole rather than to let the strong nations take advantage of the poorer nations. +1 for Keynes insightful understanding on the benefits of international triad.  I still think he is mistaken that consumption is a driving force in the economy though.

Surprisingly Milton Friedman came out as the evil free market champion who defended centrally controlled Monetirisim policies. Ironically the resulting economic dilemma we find ourselves in today is the greatest force prohibiting environmental sustainability, global prosperity and Laissez-faire markets. Fortunately we have the problem solved by Crypto currencies.

Friedrich Hayek, was given a good rap, although presented as a pawn in a nasty clash between left and right politics, he was at least credited with having a theory for Laissez-faire markets that would solve our dilemma today, but unfortunately a theory no one was willing to test, as it will require we have to deal with a metaphorical economic hangover.

Karl Marx, was given a surprisingly good rap, while I agree with "doobadoo" assertion that the Labour Theory of Value is fatally flawed as outlined above. (Adam Smith does illustrates how labour is calculated into value very well) Marx surprisingly is mostly aligned with Adam Smith, however what was so nicely illustrated in the documentary was the one point Marks differed from Smith on, and that is the ownership of property (not personal property but land)  

[doobadoo]

Surprisingly Milton Friedman came out as the evil free market champion who defended centrally controlled Monetirisim policies.

Yes, and remember its not really "free market" to promote a centrally controlled and arbitrary monetary authority.  Centrally controlled by banking insiders (last i checked the man on the street generally stares back blankly if you ask him or her by whom and how the central bank should be run.  It is thus the banking interest arguing against "no one" as to how and who should run the central bank.) 

It is arbitrary in the sense that the monetary unit is not a fixed definition.    That is, the central bank guesses by some debated methodology how much money to place into circulation.  This compares to a non-arbitrary definition of money, which either fixed its supply and issuance schedule (bitcoin) or ties its supply to market/natural forces eg a gold or silver standard (a monetary unit, as a precise and unchanging weight of gold or silver).   See US mintage act of 1792.

In short, i can't stand when folk sling Milton Friedman around as some kind of champion of free markets.  Yes, he said that currency and prices of goods should float according to market prices, but the yardstick, the currency, would be controlled and centrally planned.

[Adrian-x]

In short, i can't stand when folk sling Milton Friedman around as some kind of champion of free markets.

Milton Friedman, is the cause of inflation and centrally controlled economies, I was ignorant to that fact before watching the documentaries.  I shudder to think the problem is invisible to the man on the street. The existing system must have been derived by evel genius.

[Gatorhex]

If you really want to know how our current money system works...

YouTube "Money as Debt"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8

The current fiat dollar is a debt note!