Markets or Mandates?

by Don Boudreaux on June 29, 2011

in Standard of Living, Video

Here’s a superbly done video – rich with facts – on the importance of economic freedom.  (HT Tom Elia)

Be Sociable, Share!



45 comments    Share Share    Print    Email


W.E. Heasley June 29, 2011 at 8:36 am

Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. – Milton Friedman

Spontaneous order, emergent order….micro economic intentions to produce a macro economic order….requires freedom. The vast sea of real time mundane knowledge in a free environment trumps the narrow authoritarian based concept of “special knowledge” of the very few. -Or- the plans of the few (disaster) vs. the plans of the many (success).

Methinks1776 June 29, 2011 at 12:31 pm


jjoxman June 29, 2011 at 9:47 am

A fine follow-up to the video would be to read Peter Leeson’s “Two Cheers for Capitalism?” article in Society.

Greg Webb June 29, 2011 at 11:25 am

Excellent video…thanks for posting it Don.

muirgeo June 29, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Who can point to the number one reason we are falling off the chart of economic freedom.

Methinks1776 June 29, 2011 at 1:30 pm

I’m pointing at you.

jjoxman June 29, 2011 at 2:13 pm

And all non-thinkers like him.

Methinks1776 June 29, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Especially ones who insist on acting despite that handicap.

Scott June 30, 2011 at 9:41 am

I’m curious what Muir thinks the answer to his question is.

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 11:37 am

You assume he has the power to think based on what?

All I’ve ever seen from him is streams of misspelled and poorly punctuated unconsciousness.

W.E. Heasley June 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm


Now that’s funny!

muirgeo June 30, 2011 at 3:04 am

What’s it like being a 5th grader stuck in a grown womans body.

T Rich June 30, 2011 at 6:33 am

I am sure that Methinks doesn’t know. Perhaps you can tell the rest of us what it is like for you?

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 9:27 am

No No sir, remember he himself said he thinks like a newborn baby.

muirgeo June 28, 2011 at 7:13 pm

“Here’s the problem or the difference in the way we see things. As a pediatrician and a father I tend to look at the rules from the perspective of a newborn baby. You guys are always thinking of the rules as they pertain to you.”

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 9:32 am

Yes, I know it really is a stupid thing for him to say, and he said it very stupidly as well, but that is muirduck for you.

He may be stupid, but he exceeds even that when he attempts to communicate.

T Rich June 30, 2011 at 10:40 am

Thanks, Vid. I missed that recent bit of asininity from Muirduck.

He really is an idiot (I think I have finally figured out what YASAFI means) to make a statement like that. What makes him think that the way a newborn thinks is more informed/superior than anyone of us thinking about how a rule or reg impacts on them? (even granting him that stupid premise – it is still nonsense on stilts).

muirgeo June 30, 2011 at 11:19 am

Wow… the old, ” I know you are but what am I ” come back… I am completely beaten… your good!!! You learned that where?… In 5th grade?

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 11:38 am

YASAFI and TFI are both interchangeable with Muirdiot.

T Rich July 1, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Methinks, agreed about the interchangability of TFI and YASAFI, but YASAFI has a more theatrical quality as it can contain eyerolling exasperation for the nitwit that it is directed at (and is there anything smaller than a nit that we can compare his wit to?).

CRC June 29, 2011 at 4:35 pm

I would say it is the mindset, subconscious as it maybe, wherein some people think other people are their property.

Scott June 30, 2011 at 6:43 am

agreed, CRC

Dan J June 29, 2011 at 5:07 pm

Govt interventionism and increasing regulations

muirgeo June 29, 2011 at 9:45 pm

Said the rentier fella from JP Morgan….

cmprostreet June 30, 2011 at 11:09 am

Are you saying the rentiers at JP Morgan believe government regulation and intervention are the main threats to economic freedom? You do realize that rentiers would NOT be in favor of economic freedom, but would be in favor of government intervention, right? (e.g. for JP Morgan, when the government stepped in to manage the sale of Bear Stearns).

muirgeo June 30, 2011 at 11:21 am

JP Morgan is Rentiers Organization. It’s filled to the brim with libertarian philosophers seeking the best government rent they can while destroying the rest of the productive economy.

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 11:43 am

JP Morgan is brimming with people whose shoes you are not fit to shine, you decrepit bit of rodent excrement.

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 11:45 am

Cmprostreet, I think it’s obvious for whom the above was meant despite having to use the reply button to your post.

Mesa Econoguy June 29, 2011 at 11:08 pm

See Methinks’ answer. Thanks.

Scott June 30, 2011 at 6:42 am

Genuinely curious… what does economic freedom mean to you?

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 10:24 am

From seeing his drivel for over four years I can answer that for muirduck.

Economic freedom to muirduck is absolutely terrifying, an anathema.

Your free choice scares the shit out of him.

muirgeo June 30, 2011 at 11:29 am

If you are talking to me… economic freedom as espoused by a libertarian means freedom for the small number of people who own all the property and all the means of production. For everyone else economic freedom means indentured servitude… at best.

To me economic freedom s a small subset of what it means to be free. Economic freedom means improving the odds of success for every child born into society over increasing the privileges of the privileged class.

It means a fair set of rules to maximize economic efficiency with an understanding that those who do disproportionately succeed will put back into the system to keep it function.

Believing in economic freedom means understanding what total bullshit it is what libertarians believe in…. It has nothing to do with economic freedom and even less to do with freedom in general.

Libertarians expect all of society to protect the elite classes massive accumulations of wealth and nothing more. It’s a damn childish philosophy and anyone who holds it has not really thought it through or is somewhat of a sociopath.

Dan H June 30, 2011 at 11:37 am

Libertarians don’t expect the elite classes to be protected. Libertarians expect that the same rules that govern the “elite” should govern the “non-elite”. Freedom includes not only the freedom to create and keep wealth, but to lose it if one is not smart about their decisions.

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 11:44 am

That would be time 1,856,957 that moron has been told that.

muirgeo June 30, 2011 at 12:12 pm

In a libertarian society most people will have no wealth or property to protect because large companies like JP Morgan will control even more wealth and property and most of the means of production. So the wealth protectors will mostly be private hires and captured government officials serving the few elites and keeping the unpropertied from harassing the Nobles.

You guys… you’re philosophy is so Middle Ages ( the Dark part)… been their done that… no thanks,

Methinks1776 June 30, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Why don’t you deposit your turds on your petting zoo and your offspring instead of here?

Greg Webb July 1, 2011 at 7:39 pm

George, you know that is not true. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan executives give lots of money to so-called progressive politicians. It’s called crony capitalism or, perhaps better, bipartisan big government-big business cooperation.

yet another Dave June 30, 2011 at 11:56 am


Here you continue to misrepresent the libertarian position, even though it has been explained to you perfectly clearly many dozens of times.

If your goal is to look profoundly stupid, please continue as you have been – you’re doing an excellent job achieving that goal. If, on the other hand, you wish to be taken seriously you need to first understand that which you oppose. To date you’ve shown no evidence of such understanding.

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 12:25 pm

BTW YA Dave,
If you didn’t take a look-see back to the “Economic growth does not eliminate scarcity” post, I left you one last comment, if you’d favor me with a reply if you have one. I think I clarified my point even more.

yet another Dave June 30, 2011 at 1:24 pm

vid – thanks for the tip. I just posted a reply that hopefully is intelligent and insightful…

…or at least not incomprehensible :-)

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 4:40 pm

and another, we are getting closer.

kyle8 June 30, 2011 at 2:18 pm

So we will just jot you down as an enemy of freedom, individual rights, and progress.

OK, we pretty much thought that already.

vidyohs June 30, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Oh to be sure you got him pegged, Kyle8. Here is an excerpt from the archive of muriduck stupidity:

All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
3. “Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM”

T Rich July 1, 2011 at 12:54 pm

It cracks me up that you have kept track of Muir’s most comical stupidity. I guess that all of his ramblings have some value, if only for their comic relief at a later point. At the time he deposits them, they are merely the turds that Methinks so accurately described.
T Rich

Cassie July 16, 2011 at 10:49 am

Frankly I think that’s abosleulty good stuff.

buciqlwoaa July 17, 2011 at 7:53 am

ztrre0 cwpsvlddqwdq

Previous post:

Next post: