Thomas DiLorenzo – Myth Of The Robber Barons

On August 15, 2012, in Home, by admin

Professor DiLorenzo untangles twisted history regarding the so-called “robber barons.” (2005)

Merv Christ, owner of The Prime Cut (Bakersfield, CA), joins John to discuss why minimum wage laws have made life more difficult for low skill workers and spelled the end for movie ushers and gas station attendants.

Tagged with:

Thomas DiLorenzo – Myths About Capitalism

On August 1, 2012, in Home, by admin

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo address common misconceptions about capitalism.

John Stossel – Better Ideas In Education

On July 26, 2012, in Home, by admin

Public education has seen little change in the past several decades, despite diminishing results. In these excerpts from his documentary, “Stupid In America’” John Stossel explores some better ideas.

Tagged with:

From his TV special “Stupid In America” John Stossel reports on the success of charter schools and the effects of the teachers’ unions.

Tagged with:

Milton Friedman – A Limit On Spending

On July 16, 2012, in Home, by admin

Professor Friedman proposes a mechanism that empowers politicians to say no to special interests.

Should Government Regulate Monopolies?

On February 29, 2012, in Home, by admin

Before considering government regulation of monopolies, Prof. Lynne Kiesling encourages us to think about the regulation that markets naturally provide. In any market, in the absence of government interference, each business is constrained by the following:

1. Consumer demand
2. The availability of substitutes
3. The entry, or threat of entry, of new firms

Historically, despite these competitive pressures, people have identified what they feel are monopolies in markets. In order to fix the problem, they often advocate government regulation in the form of breaking up large firms or regulating profits. Although these regulations may have merits, they reduce the profit motive that lures the innovators to come in and compete against the monopoly. Additionally, government regulations often create legal barriers to entry, which crushes smaller competitors.

The good news is that markets, on top of naturally regulating monopolies, generate wealth and technologies that systemically reduce the cost of starting new ventures over time. This, in turn, increases the competitive pressures on larger firms and reduces the likelihood of monopoly.

Watch more videos:

Tagged with:

Prof. Lynne Kiesling discusses the history of regulating electricity monopolies in America. Conventionally, most people view regulation of monopoly, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act, as one of government’s core responsibilities. Kiesling challenges this notion, and finds that government regulation of monopoly actually stifles innovation and hurts consumers.

The American electricity industry was booming in the 1890s, with several small firms competing against one another. Over time, Kiesling argues that the fixed costs began to escalate, increasing the cost of entry into the industry. Put another way, large competitors gained a significant competitive edge over smaller competitors through economies of scale. Eventually, in places like New York and Chicago, Kiesling claims that the competitive process led to one large firm.

These monopolies were feared by the public, and led to demands for government regulation. The electricity industry, knowing that regulation was coming, used these demands for regulation as cover to construct legal barriers to entry. Ultimately, the regulations passed by the government reduced competition by granting legal monopoly privileges to powerful firms within a certain geographical territory.

In modern times, we are seeing the real cost of these old one-size-fits-all regulations:

1) People aren’t adjusting their energy consumption behaviors. For instance, in peak hours, technological solutions that could smooth electricity consumption are being ignored.
2) The electricity industry doesn’t evolve and account for new types of renewable energy.
3) Innovations have been discouraged.

If these archaic regulations were removed, innovations and improvements beneficial to consumers would flourish.

For more information, check us out here:

Watch more videos:

Tagged with:

Social Cooperation: Why Thieves Hate Free Markets

On January 27, 2012, in Home, by admin

Many believe that market economies create a dog eat dog environment full of human conflict and struggle. To Prof. Aeon Skoble, the competition in markets does not create conflict, but rather, encourages people to cooperate with one another for mutual benefit.

For instance, suppose a thief steals a suit from Macy’s. If Macy’s knew who the thief was, one could argue that Macy’s has an incentive to keep this information from their competitors. By withholding information about the thief, it would make it much less likely that thief would get caught while robbing Macy’s competitors. However, in the real world, competitors share information about theft with one another, creating a valuable information network. Competitors share information because it is in all of their mutual interest to crack down on theft. If a business chooses to ignore the information network, they lose out on valuable information.

The example above is just one of many examples where competitors have a strong incentive to cooperate with one another. In a certain way, we’re all merchants who trade with one another. We all individually depend on networks of reputation and trust to own a car, own a home, and have a job. In a world of competition and scarcity, we are not only capable of cooperating with one another, but we frequently do.

These voluntary systems of social cooperation, often called organic or spontaneous orders, are not planned from the top down by enlightened rulers. Rather, they emerge overtime as individuals interact with one another. These spontaneous orders are all around us, and include important things like language, fashion, internet memes, prices in a market, and law.

Going back to the suit thief, it may very well be the case that some individuals abstain from crime because of the threat of jail. However, it is also very likely that crime is prevented through networks of trust and reputation. The next time you hear that the problems that society faces can only be solved by applying force from the top down, you are right to be skeptical. Peaceful and voluntary mechanisms that encourage and facilitate cooperation are all around us.

Watch more videos:

Tagged with:

According to Professor James Otteson, one of the greatest challenges often presented against individual liberty and free markets is that they are atomizing. Essentially, it is claimed that people within a commercial society begin to view one another as competitors. This critique goes as far back as at least Karl Marx.

Although there is some truth to this, what is often overlooked by these critics is the enormous amount of social cooperation that takes place within a commercial society. For instance, a raggedy old wool coat may seem simple enough, but bringing that coat to the market required countless individuals to cooperate with one another. It required people to raise and take care of sheep, harvest wool, transform wool into a usable material, dye material, cut material, sew material into a coat, and transport the coat to market. Each one of these steps required social cooperation and tools made by other people. This insight goes as far back as at least Adam Smith.

Bringing this insight into the 21st century, with all the goods and services that are available to us, you can begin to see the massive amount of social cooperation that takes place in a modern commercial society.

Watch more videos:

Tagged with:

Archived from the live broadcast, this lecture by Tom DiLorenzo was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Mark Thornton.

Tagged with: