Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 16, 2018.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2UwDL4HCxM
Professor Per Bylund of Oklahoma State University, author of How to Think About the Economy joins Jeff and Bob to dissect how economics went so badly wrong. A discipline rooted in theory, axioms, and deduction has devolved into statistics, models, and hard science envy. Is the economics profession doing any good, or active harm?
Per's new book How to Think About the Economy: https://Mises.org/Primer
Gary North and Walter Block debate "Is it Smart to Get a PhD in Economics": https://Mises.org/HAP380a
Find free books, daily articles, podcasts, lecture series, and everything about the Austrian School of Economics, at https://Mises.org.
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/mises/
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/mises.institute/
Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/misesinstitute/
SoundCloud ► https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/
Apple Podcasts ► https://podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/mises-institute/1280664810
Rumble ► https://rumble.com/c/c-2212754
Odysee ► https://odysee.com/@mises/
Podcasts ► https://mises.org/library/audio-video/
00:00 Introduction
01:13 Economics Denialism
04:44 Economics as a Hard Science
12:39 Theory in Economics: Is it Useful?
24:56 Incentives to Study Economics
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymXn_DnI4xM
Business is a form of applied economics. Its purpose is to make people’s lives better. Profit is the signal from society that business is doing a good job in the customer’s estimation. This is a completely human system, a form of human action and interaction. Business schools take the approach of mainstream economics, that mathematics is the tool of choice, expressed in data analytics, accounting, financialization, and numbers-based plans and strategies. The Austrian school approach offers a very different path. Professor Per Bylund joins the Economics For Business podcast to highlight some important differences.
Show notes: https://mises.org/library/bylund-austrian-school-approach-business-versus-business-school-approach
Austrian School Versus Business School: A side-by-side comparison (PDF): https://Mises.org/E4B_187_PDF
How To Think About The Economy: A Primer by Per Bylund: https://Mises.org/Primer
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2unKPhvh2iA
It is a myth that "we don't make things in America anymore." Thanks to automation, we simply need fewer people to make more stuff.
Original article: https://mises.org/wire/manufacturing-jobs-are-overrated
Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian.
Radio Rothbard is available online at:
https://Mises.org/RothPod
RSS: https://mises.org/itunes/688
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radio-rothbard/id1352049982
Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/m/Iitxpnarezvjovg3kqnyp5iexfm?t=Radio_Rothbard
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/sets/radio-rothbard
Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=174467
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIotyiaylik
Far too often, the discussion over “energy” begins with a variety of assumptions that go unchallenged. The first is that energy policy should first and foremost be about environmental impact. The second is that traditional fossil fuels are obviously bad for the environment. This leads to the third, that society must obviously change its energy usage to stop an environmental disaster from happening.
These assumptions are so ingrained in the conversation that even opponents of green policies often base their arguments on them. Team blue may say that we need more taxes and regulations to force a change in energy use. Team red may argue that only by getting the government out of the way will business innovate its way out of fossil fuels.
What everyone seems to agree on is that fossil fuels are a bad thing and that transitioning to alternatives is a necessary part of a better future.
But what if these assumptions are wrong?
Should energy concerns be focused primarily on the environment rather than human well-being? As we’ve noted, the environmental impact of so-called green energy is greater than many believe, but even if this were not the case, would an energy source that is unable to support as many people as fossil fuels but is less environmentally harmful necessarily be “better” for society?
Proponents of the energy revolution argue that environmental crises will prevent human thriving. They warn of violent weather and destroyed farmland. Yet this is not what we’ve seen. In fact, climate deaths have declined over time, despite the media’s attempts at rebranding extreme weather events as modern phenomena. Farmland and food supplies have increased. Interestingly, many of the same individuals concerned about global warming and rising sea levels are continuing to buy houses and property on beautiful coasts.
In fact, the actual findings of the institutions that push the hardest to change our energy consumption do not match the severity of their rhetoric.
For example, government officials looking to promote alternative energy celebrate the work of Nobel Prize–winning economist William Nordhaus. While Nordhaus will often talk about the need for an energy revolution, his own work tells a different story.
A 2018 United Nations report he assisted with outlined a variety of global polices—such as phasing out fossil fuels—needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
While the headlines lauded the report as clear evidence of the need for a green energy revolution, a careful analysis of Nordhaus’s economic model revealed just the opposite. As economist Bob Murphy has noted, Nordhaus’s own findings show that the economic costs of achieving the report’s policy goals would be greater than the projected damage done by a higher rate of global warming.
To recap, the UN’s own analysis, conducted by a Nobel laureate specializing in the economics of climate change, shows that its policies would be more detrimental to the economic well-being of society than they would be beneficial to the environment. This is without question what would happen if the UN’s goals became reality. Many nations, such as China, seem to understand this and have made it clear that they will not be complying with these policies.
The hysterical nature of contemporary energy discussions has been great for the activist class, but it has had terrible consequences for intellectual debate, government policy, and the economy. The justification for this aggressive approach is the repeated warning that a failure to act will result in global catastrophe. In our next video, we will look at the poor track record of doomsday environmentalist prophecies.
______________________________________
Want to learn more?
For more animated content, check out Economics for Beginners at https://BeginEconomics.org.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J42lUgFJyqY
Understanding The Unrealized requires us as entrepreneurial businesspeople to think better, and to resist settling for what is merely feasible in a regulated, risk-mitigated world. We must ask what could be possible in a different world, and act on that basis. Sound economics supports such action. Per Bylund takes us through his thinking about The Unrealized.
Show notes: https://mises.org/library/bylund-unrealized
Per Bylund's book, The Seen, The Unseen, And The Unrealized: https://Mises.org/E4B_134_Book
Mises U 2021 presentation, "The Seen, The Unseen And The Unrealized": https://Mises.org/E4B_134_Lecture
"The Broken Window Fallacy" by Robert P. Murphy: https://Mises.org/E4B_134_Article1
"Compounding Shortfalls in Innovation" by Hunter Hastings: https://Mises.org/E4B_134_Article2
"Mark Spitznagel: At What Price Safety?" — another take on The Unrealized from an investing perspective: https://Mises.org/E4B_134_Article3
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEhbTDseiU
Business strategy in books and business schools has tended to towards metaphors of sports or war. There are playing fields or battlefields, and the strategy question is “Where to play, and how to win?” In other words, it’s competitive strategy, where one firm wins and others lose, within some pre-set boundaries of industry structure. This is hardly useful for the start-up or SME entrepreneur, or indeed for any executive in any company who is dedicated to delivering customer value.
Austrian entrepreneurship, built on foundations from Austrian Economics, focuses on the strategic question of how to facilitate customer value. That requires a 100% focus on the customer — not competitors or industry structures. Per Bylund explains how adherence to this one core principle drives a very different approach to business strategy.
Show Notes: https://mises.org/library/bylund-entrepreneurial-strategy
Voice of the Customer (PDF): https://Mises.org/E4E_23_PDF
Economics For Entrepreneurs is also available on...
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/economics-for-entrepreneurs/id1453233518?mt=2
Google Play: https://play.google.com/music/m/Iz2umketq6fu5npyjpb57b7z2cq?t=Economics_For_Entrepreneurs
Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mises-institute/economics-for-entrepreneurs?refid=stpr
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/sets/economics-for-entrepreneurs
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7A1kY8ksk1qL2oNf0i97Zp
and via RSS: https://mises.org/itunes/735
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEhfWsiIY2Q
In the old days, the Federal Reserve operated in obscurity "behind the curtain". Today, they are front-and-center for the stock market. Total credit card debt in the US is now over $1.1 Trillion. In this episode, Mark looks at the disconnect between the Fed, the stock market (featured in the last episode), and the Real Economy.
Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues.
Get your free copy of Dr. Guido Hülsmann's How Inflation Destroys Civilization at https://Mises.org/IssuesFree.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpKRma0i0Wo