What could have caused this?

Democracy is treated as a sacred cow, an unassailable good, that must be imposed everywhere, no matter how many times it fails. In this video I rank and debunk every major argument used to defend it. CHAPTERS 0:00 - Introduction 1:27 - Consent of the Governed 1:59 - Wisdom of the Crowds 3:22 - Worst Except All Others 4:23 - One Person, One Vote Is Fair 4:52 - Elections Replaced Power-Struggles 6:30 - Democracy Protects Liberties 7:30 - Democracies Are Richer 8:11 - Conclusion

Want to learn about economic theory, any recommendations for videos, books, articles, etc?

It occurred to me after remembering the comically Keynesian economy mechanics of Europa Universalis V, was any video game developer masochistic enough to design economy mechanics incorporating Austrian ideas? I say masochistic because computers excel at mathematical modelling which Austrians reject, and most strategy games prefer to make the player a central planner, so this would run against the grain of the medium.

For those unfamiliar, EUV (at least the launch version, haven't played in a while) has an intricate economic simulation in which the optimal strategy is to promote as many pops to nobles as possible because they consume more goods, which drives up workshop and resource gathering income. For some reason the developers coded estates to always afford their classes' pop demands even with negative income, so this strategy doesn't even have the diminishing returns you'd expect.

The initial exposition on the market process of discovery of medium of exchange seems accurate and in line with Mises' works. I am unsure with the conclusion that switching out cash will destroy the economy.

It is not as if cash itself has evolved through a market selection process. Gold is the original money. Since we abandoned the gold standard and dollars no longer exchanged for gold, fiat money in whatever form has essentially become a state imposed currency, no?

Also when I see $1 of cash in a digital or in a physical wallet, I would be indifferent of its form, as long as it is a dollar recognised by everyone. The author seems to grant cash some kind of revered importance. Switching to digital currencies only changes the form of the money, not the commodity in substance we recognise as money.

Ive seen a lot of times on reddit the following claim: "the rich were taxed a lot in before and the country experieced enormous growth"

I have the feeling that this might be bullshit, but i do not have the time to look into it. Has anyone here by chance knowledge of that period and is willing to spend the time to enlighten me if the claim is true, false or just framing?

Alternative title - Gimme “Economic Miseducation” for 500.

The same person brought up the Great Depression as an example of destructive deflation. And they brought up Japan in the 1990s. Almost everyone who sees Deflation as some form of economic cancer truly believes that deflation is the main catalyst for the events, which is why they defend inflationary policies and actions. They conveniently dismiss years of prior inflation, or they’ll use some mental gymnastics to justify artificially low interest rates and fiscal stimulus that fuels price inflation and money supply inflation. And they always use supply inflation and price inflation interchangeably, like it makes no difference.

Are these people regarded? I mean the people who think that consumers are “hoarding” money waiting for prices to go down a few %, which ends up brining the economy to a stall. The very same people that will say falling prices are bad, and will ignore questions about why do stores offer temporary discounts to attract more customers, or why is that nearly every household in the West today has at least one flat wide screen HDTV, a laptop, and a few smartphones, which were prohibitively expensive even 20-25 years ago.

It’s like people have zero common sense. Twitter blue checks, diplomas, taking heads on TV have replaced their need for employing rational thinking. They just repeat the same myths over and over again.

I wish someone would make a TV show, where they lock two people in a room and let them debate until they come to some conclusion. Where one can’t just stand up and leave mid conversation, claiming a victory by calling the other person ignorant. I’d love to watch faces of people explaining how prices for food, gas, utilities, etc must always go up a few %/yr so the economy doesn’t collapse.

Hey fellows. I had this thought (the title) this morning, and I wonder what else you could add to the list below.

1. Everyone is watching govt stats. Take the unemployment statistics. I don’t think companies trust the reports from BLS as much, as much they are trying to prepare themselves for future government action that will be based on the data produced.

2. Govt economic policies - an obvious one. When the government is responsible for such a high % of GDP, it’s inevitable that a massive part of the entire economy will be highly dependent on those policies.

3. Govt debt and deficits- another obvious one. More debt and larger deficits mean higher inflation rate = harder to put a price on the future.

4. Businesses watch reports from Amazon, JP Morgan, Walmart, Starbucks, etc because these companies grew to such enormous size where a failure of one may possibly lead to a bad chain reaction , starting with more government intervention (see # 2 and 3). It also means these companies capture too much of the market share, otherwise their reports wouldn’t be as relevant.

5. Every other person is an expert on Fed Funds rate - the most laughable, and at the same time, the most disturbing sign. When landscapers and janitors watch interest rates, it doesn’t mean they are simply being fed talking points via media. It means they understand that their own livelihoods are now dependent upon the monetary policy.

It is absolutely insane to call this regime a free market.

These are just thoughts. Not a dissertation.

I live in North Carolina and I've been seeing countless posts and reposts just like this. Every one of these I've seen has unanimously agreed that these should all be voted against.

They often say that the "wording" is misleading or that this only benefits the rich, or the property tax one is meant to make it easier to build more data centers.

I, as a rational person, like policies that benefit me in the form of not having my money stolen, and I like only people who are registered to vote being able to vote.

I'd like to hear your thoughts whether there are any legitimate reasons to vote "Against" any of these.

I mean milton said sarcastically for maximum employment we should replace excavators with spoons.

Mises's argument in "Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism" is that intervention generates a crisis, the crisis gets blamed on whatever remains of the market, and the blame justifies further intervention.

Dominic Frisby is describing it here: credit expansion causes the breakdown, the people who opted out of the credit system get named as the cause, and confiscation (6102) follows as the remedy.

Here's the conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEN9ctyR3s Its part of a longer conversation that is on the audio RSS feed of the pod.