WEBVTT

NOTE Fractional Reserve Banking

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.000
Our next speaker is Dr. Walter Block. I mentioned that Walter was Ken Garcina's teacher, teacher of many other economists.

2
00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:11.000
He holds a chair in economics at Loyola University in New Orleans.

3
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:17.000
He's a senior fellow of the Mises Institute, was a student and a colleague of Murray Rothbard's.

4
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:21.000
He got his PhD just up the street at Columbia University.

5
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:26.000
He's the author of a whole library of academic papers, popular papers, books,

6
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:31.000
and of course, defending the undefendable being, I guess, his most famous work.

7
00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:36.000
And Walter's going to talk to us today about fractional reserve banking and a number of related topics.

8
00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:44.000
Dr. Block.

9
00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:48.000
Hello, thanks for the kind introduction.

10
00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:54.000
The title of my talk was Fractional Reserve Banking, but I will be speaking about a few other things

11
00:00:54.000 --> 00:00:59.000
and I asked Pat to put all of them on the title and she refused because it was too long.

12
00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:05.000
In addition to fractional reserve banking, I'll be speaking about my man Milton Friedman and his 3% rule,

13
00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:11.000
the present depression, a little bit about immigration and the welfare state.

14
00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:15.000
I have to confess that I'm sort of not au courant with what's going on.

15
00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:20.000
I spent all yesterday traveling and I was reading a book. I was sort of out of pocket.

16
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:32.000
So I don't know exactly what the Fed is doing, except what I just heard from David, but what I gather from this is that here comes Zimbabwe or Germany in 1923.

17
00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:42.000
It's just a horrendous increase in the quantitative easing, quantitative easing no more than one, two and three, but forever.

18
00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:52.000
I'm very much taken with some of David Stockman's reductios ad absurdum, this idea that, well you know, if we're going to double or triple, why not quadruple or quintuple?

19
00:01:52.000 --> 00:02:00.000
Maybe Krugman will be happy for the first time. This sort of reminds me of the reductio ad absurdum we use against the minimum wage law.

20
00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:07.000
You know, if the minimum wage law is so good at 8 or 10 or 12, well why not make it 100 bucks and then we'll all be rich.

21
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:16.440
Another reductio ad absurdum is what David said about if we keep printing money until

22
00:02:16.440 --> 00:02:21.800
unemployment goes down, well, the printing of the money causes unemployment to stay up.

23
00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:25.320
It's very similar to the rent control in New York City.

24
00:02:25.320 --> 00:02:30.000
They say, well, we've got to keep rent control going until the housing crisis is gone, but

25
00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:35.140
rent control causes the housing crisis, so it's sort of a recipe for forever going on

26
00:02:35.140 --> 00:02:44.580
Okay, my first topic is fractional reserve banking, which I regard as basic or crucial

27
00:02:44.580 --> 00:02:46.860
to what's going on here.

28
00:02:46.860 --> 00:02:48.740
It's just creating money out of thin air.

29
00:02:48.740 --> 00:02:57.500
So we have a person who has a hundred bucks and he deposits it in my bank and I give him

30
00:02:57.500 --> 00:03:01.060
a demand deposit for a hundred bucks, which means he can get that hundred bucks whenever

31
00:03:01.060 --> 00:03:31.060
and then because I'm a fractional reserve banker I go to someone else and I say okay I'll lend you 90 bucks I want to keep $10 as a reserve we have a fraction reserve of 10% and I give that person 90 bucks also with a demand deposit and that person can come to my bank at any time and demand the 90 if we keep going in this series with a 10% fraction we get $1000 created out of 100 but let's just take 190

32
00:03:31.060 --> 00:03:36.060
Well, where did this extra money come from? It came from out of thin air.

33
00:03:36.060 --> 00:03:42.060
You know, the people that favor this stuff, they're very ambivalent about bank runs.

34
00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:48.060
You know, if we had a bank run, that would stop it. But then they have laws against bank runs, which supports the system.

35
00:03:48.060 --> 00:03:53.060
There was this wonderful movie, It's a Wonderful Life, where they had a bank run.

36
00:03:53.060 --> 00:03:58.060
Unfortunately, they took the wrong view on free banking that was sort of supporting the system.

37
00:03:58.060 --> 00:04:28.060
and now we have the FDIC. Thank God for the FDIC because they'll stop bank runs. They're ready to print as much money as anyone, any bank needs to stop the bank run. So without the FDIC, we could have a salutory bank run to stop the fractional reserve banking, but with them, it's sort of, with the FDIC, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of, it's sort of,

38
00:04:28.060 --> 00:04:34.700
just caught in forever. Now, the people who favor fractional reserve banking, and there

39
00:04:34.700 --> 00:04:40.740
are some Austrian libertarians who do, and they should be ashamed of themselves, they

40
00:04:40.740 --> 00:04:45.080
say that, well, suppose people agree to it. Suppose that the person who gave me the hundred

41
00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:50.240
bucks agrees to have a demand deposit for a hundred bucks, and knows that I'm only

42
00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:53.800
keeping ten dollars in reserve, and suppose that the person that I lend the ninety bucks

43
00:04:53.800 --> 00:04:59.920
also knows this. Well, my view is that not all contracts are valid. A murder contract,

44
00:04:59.920 --> 00:05:08.920
I contract with Lude and murder David Stockman, that's not a valid contract. Or I agree with

45
00:05:08.920 --> 00:05:12.400
Diana Forberge that I'm going to sell her a square circle. Well, that's not a valid

46
00:05:12.400 --> 00:05:16.040
contract because there is no such thing as a square circle or a pink elephant or anything

47
00:05:16.040 --> 00:05:20.740
like that. So just because people agree to something doesn't make it valid. You can agree

48
00:05:20.740 --> 00:05:29.740
There's something more important than contract in the free enterprise ethic, and that's property rights.

49
00:05:29.740 --> 00:05:35.740
And the idea here is that you can have more titles to property than there is property.

50
00:05:35.740 --> 00:05:42.740
Suppose there are 10 million cars in New York City. I don't know how many there are, but let's take that as a round number.

51
00:05:42.740 --> 00:05:49.740
There are also titles to 10 million cars. Now suppose I start printing up more titles to cars than there are cars.

52
00:05:49.740 --> 00:05:53.740
And now we're going to have a clash over who has the rights to these cars.

53
00:05:53.740 --> 00:05:57.740
That's not a legitimate kind of an operation.

54
00:05:57.740 --> 00:06:01.740
Now, this doesn't mean that you can't have a fractional reserve parking lot,

55
00:06:01.740 --> 00:06:05.740
or the airline sometimes overbook,

56
00:06:05.740 --> 00:06:09.740
but when you have a fractional reserve parking lot, it doesn't mean that you have a guaranteed parking lot,

57
00:06:09.740 --> 00:06:13.740
it doesn't mean you have a demand deposit, it means that you have a lottery ticket.

58
00:06:13.740 --> 00:06:18.740
In effect, you have a fishing license or a lottery ticket to go look for a parking spot,

59
00:06:18.740 --> 00:06:25.380
Parking Spot. But if we sell 500 tickets for parking spots and only 200 parking spots,

60
00:06:25.380 --> 00:06:30.660
well then the odds are 40% you're going to get one. So what these people are really coming

61
00:06:30.660 --> 00:06:35.660
down to saying is that money should be a lottery ticket. They don't have the chutzpah to say

62
00:06:35.660 --> 00:06:40.420
that, but that's what it really means, that it's a lottery ticket and that's the basis

63
00:06:40.420 --> 00:06:46.700
of our monetary economy, which is rather silly.

64
00:06:46.700 --> 00:06:50.940
The second point I want to make or the second topic I want to raise is Milton Friedman and

65
00:06:50.940 --> 00:06:57.140
his 3% rule. Now, if you ask Ben Bernanke who is his mentor, who is his guru, who does

66
00:06:57.140 --> 00:07:02.880
he channel, who does he look to for inspiration, it's Milton Friedman. And Milton Friedman

67
00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:07.720
has got a lot of problems. Murray Rothbard used to say that people specialize in what

68
00:07:07.720 --> 00:07:12.440
they're horrible in. Like Milton Friedman is good on minimum wage, he's good on free

69
00:07:12.440 --> 00:07:18.600
the trade, he's good on central planning, except in the monetary area, but he's horrible

70
00:07:18.600 --> 00:07:23.480
on money, and what does he spend his time on? Money and maybe the educational vouchers,

71
00:07:23.480 --> 00:07:29.320
which he's also horrible on. Milton has this famous three percent rule that the Fed should

72
00:07:29.320 --> 00:07:35.980
increase money in such a way that the price level rises by, well actually the price level

73
00:07:35.980 --> 00:07:42.160
stays flat, and he expects that the economy is growing by three percent in terms of productivity

74
00:07:42.160 --> 00:07:47.920
and therefore the price level will stay flat if the Fed increases it by 3%.

75
00:07:47.920 --> 00:07:54.400
Later in his life he had to realize that if that's all the Fed had to do, it would be,

76
00:07:54.400 --> 00:07:58.520
you know, any high school kid with a calculator, even without a calculator, could do it and

77
00:07:58.520 --> 00:08:02.640
it doesn't leave room for creativity and to show that, you know, you have a PhD and you're

78
00:08:02.640 --> 00:08:04.560
at Princeton or something.

79
00:08:04.560 --> 00:08:13.600
So the point is that it's silly to ask the Fed to do that because they won't do that.

80
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:18.640
Now somebody said we're all Keynesians now and David Stockman said that, Nixon said that,

81
00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:21.400
that's true, but Milton Friedman also said that.

82
00:08:21.400 --> 00:08:27.400
He has a reputation as a free enterprise but he's just a Keynesian.

83
00:08:27.400 --> 00:08:34.540
Samuelson quoted him to that effect and Friedman objected and what Friedman said was that when

84
00:08:34.540 --> 00:08:44.580
When it comes to the tools of analysis, let me say this again, when it comes to the public

85
00:08:44.580 --> 00:08:51.940
policy prescriptions, there are vast differences between us monetarist Keynesians, he didn't

86
00:08:51.940 --> 00:08:55.940
use those words, and those then were our fiscal Keynesians, but when it comes to the tools

87
00:08:55.940 --> 00:09:00.800
of analysis, quote, we're all Keynesians now, but it seems to me that the tools of analysis

88
00:09:00.800 --> 00:09:17.800
Money is a trade intermediary. That's the essence of money, but it's also a unit of account.

89
00:09:17.800 --> 00:09:27.800
And I, when my kids were small, we had a babysitting co-op, and we had five couples, and each couple would babysit for another couple, and then would get a credit so that the other couples, one of the other four, would babysit for us.

90
00:09:27.800 --> 00:09:31.640
so that the other couples, one of the other four, would babysit for us.

91
00:09:31.640 --> 00:09:36.040
Imagine if there were Milton Friedman in our condominium development who started creating

92
00:09:36.040 --> 00:09:40.560
extra chits for babysitting work.

93
00:09:40.560 --> 00:09:49.640
It would just drive our little economy berserk in a way that is now being driven berserk.

94
00:09:49.640 --> 00:09:54.040
There's nothing wrong with deflation, although if you ask Bernanke, that's the most horrible

95
00:09:54.040 --> 00:09:55.040
thing.

96
00:09:55.040 --> 00:09:59.700
Look, when computers first came out, they were very expensive, and as they got better

97
00:09:59.700 --> 00:10:04.640
and more efficient, the price went down. The same with TVs, the same with air conditioning,

98
00:10:04.640 --> 00:10:09.160
the same with a lot of things. There's nothing wrong with a price fall. If we had a gold

99
00:10:09.160 --> 00:10:18.160
standard, we would have handcuffs for the people in charge. They couldn't create the

100
00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:21.980
money at the rate that they're doing this.

101
00:10:21.980 --> 00:10:28.700
You might ask, why is it that most economists favor the Fed, or at least most economists

102
00:10:28.700 --> 00:10:30.580
that work in macro money?

103
00:10:30.580 --> 00:10:34.020
And there's been research done on this, I think Larry White and some other people have

104
00:10:34.020 --> 00:10:39.140
done research on this, and what they've found out is that the Fed stuffs money down the

105
00:10:39.140 --> 00:10:42.100
throats of macro and money economists.

106
00:10:42.100 --> 00:10:47.500
They give them prestige, they give them publication in their very prestigious journals, very prestigious

107
00:10:47.500 --> 00:10:50.740
because they've got a lot of money to make them prestigious.

108
00:10:50.740 --> 00:10:56.380
So the whole economics profession, at least the macro money part of it, which is the relevant

109
00:10:56.380 --> 00:11:03.500
parts of these issues, have been bought and sold and support the Fed, which makes it harder

110
00:11:03.500 --> 00:11:07.380
to push against them.

111
00:11:07.380 --> 00:11:14.180
Let me talk a little bit about the present depression, and I use that word advisedly.

112
00:11:14.180 --> 00:11:18.380
A lot of people realize that the thing started with the Boston Fed.

113
00:11:18.380 --> 00:11:24.060
What the Boston Fed found out in 91 or 92 was that there was racism in the Boston banks.

114
00:11:24.060 --> 00:11:25.800
Why was there racism?

115
00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:30.660
Because black people were not getting as many mortgages as white people.

116
00:11:30.660 --> 00:11:31.660
And therefore, it's racism.

117
00:11:31.660 --> 00:11:37.820
And therefore, we've got to stop the way that banks were determining who gets a mortgage.

118
00:11:37.820 --> 00:11:42.300
And the way banks were determining who gets a mortgage is you have collateral, you have

119
00:11:42.300 --> 00:11:45.900
a down payment, you have a credit rating, you have a job, you have a fixed address,

120
00:11:45.900 --> 00:11:51.500
Things like that, which was racist, because black people, even of the same income as white

121
00:11:51.500 --> 00:11:57.940
people, didn't have as much collateral or credit ratings as white people.

122
00:11:57.940 --> 00:12:03.980
The proof that it wasn't racist is that Oriental people or Asian people of the same level had

123
00:12:03.980 --> 00:12:07.460
even higher mortgage acceptability on the part of the bank.

124
00:12:07.460 --> 00:12:14.660
So if the banks were discriminating on the basis of any color, it was green, namely they

125
00:12:14.660 --> 00:12:19.840
They were acting in a coherent way, namely asking people or asking themselves, is this

126
00:12:19.840 --> 00:12:23.420
here a candidate for a mortgage likely to repay or not?

127
00:12:23.420 --> 00:12:26.200
And if he's not likely to repay, we're not going to give him a mortgage, and if he is,

128
00:12:26.200 --> 00:12:27.400
we will.

129
00:12:27.400 --> 00:12:33.480
But this was deemed racism, and then HUD and Freddie and Fannie and the boys or the girls

130
00:12:33.480 --> 00:12:39.100
or whoever they are started saying, well, you know, if you banks want to get any favors

131
00:12:39.100 --> 00:12:43.320
from us or you don't want to get indicted by us, you know, you're going to have to give

132
00:12:43.320 --> 00:12:44.360
loans to everybody.

133
00:12:44.360 --> 00:12:47.640
So you had this liar-loan kind of business.

134
00:12:47.640 --> 00:12:50.760
Well, as I say, most mainstream economists

135
00:12:50.760 --> 00:12:54.880
realize that this was the start of the crisis, the housing crisis.

136
00:12:54.880 --> 00:12:56.560
And then we had the mortgages, which

137
00:12:56.560 --> 00:12:59.480
were non-paying mortgages, and now people are

138
00:12:59.480 --> 00:13:01.840
underwater with their mortgages.

139
00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:03.960
Very few people, David Stockman among them,

140
00:13:03.960 --> 00:13:06.320
I mention him because he preceded me,

141
00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:09.320
realize that there was another thing going on also,

142
00:13:09.320 --> 00:13:10.560
and that's the interest rate.

143
00:13:10.560 --> 00:13:12.860
And as David said, and I certainly support him on this,

144
00:13:12.860 --> 00:13:17.160
This is a key Austrian insight that the interest rate has a role to play.

145
00:13:17.160 --> 00:13:20.700
It has a micro-economic role to play.

146
00:13:20.700 --> 00:13:23.740
It's a price of a sort and it relates long-term and short-term.

147
00:13:23.740 --> 00:13:29.980
And if it's screwed up, if it's artificially lowered, then long-term investments look better,

148
00:13:29.980 --> 00:13:34.260
relatively speaking, than they would otherwise at a normal or at a market rate of interest.

149
00:13:34.260 --> 00:13:39.460
Well, what kind of things are long-term in the sense that either it takes a long time

150
00:13:39.460 --> 00:13:41.340
to make them or they last a long time?

151
00:13:41.340 --> 00:13:45.020
Well, houses and cars would be one of them.

152
00:13:45.020 --> 00:13:52.420
So the crisis, the Austrian sea, was created, yes, by these racist kind of things and giving

153
00:13:52.420 --> 00:13:56.220
people free mortgages when they didn't deserve mortgages and they couldn't repay it, but

154
00:13:56.220 --> 00:14:01.380
also by messing around with the interest rate, artificially lowering the interest rate, which

155
00:14:01.380 --> 00:14:09.980
leads entrepreneurs, improperly, into long-term investments which are not sustainable when

156
00:14:09.980 --> 00:14:13.820
And the savings rates of the people are taken into account and which always has to come

157
00:14:13.820 --> 00:14:17.740
in and undermine those investments.

158
00:14:17.740 --> 00:14:24.260
Ludwig von Mises was once asked, what's the key determinant of a capitalist society from

159
00:14:24.260 --> 00:14:26.420
a non-capitalist society?

160
00:14:26.420 --> 00:14:30.580
And he thought for a half a second and he said, capital markets and the stock market.

161
00:14:30.580 --> 00:14:39.400
And David was saying that this is very true, that the way the Fed is orchestrating things,

162
00:14:39.400 --> 00:14:46.360
The capital market and the stock market, bond market are being misconstrued and interfered

163
00:14:46.360 --> 00:14:49.920
with, and this really strikes at the heart of capitalism.

164
00:14:49.920 --> 00:14:53.780
If you mess with housing or unemployment, it's bad, but it's more peripheral.

165
00:14:53.780 --> 00:14:58.760
This is the very essence of the free market system.

166
00:14:58.760 --> 00:15:02.560
Sometimes people wonder, well, you know, should we get rid of the penny?

167
00:15:02.560 --> 00:15:06.060
I think in Canada they're getting rid of the penny, in the US they're thinking of getting

168
00:15:06.060 --> 00:15:07.260
rid of the penny.

169
00:15:07.260 --> 00:15:12.380
My response is, don't get rid of the penny, get rid of the Fed, because the Fed is making

170
00:15:12.380 --> 00:15:14.500
the penny worthless.

171
00:15:14.500 --> 00:15:19.520
If you take the hundred years before the Fed was created in 1913, and roughly the hundred

172
00:15:19.520 --> 00:15:24.120
years since the Fed has been created, what the Fed was supposed to do is preserve the

173
00:15:24.120 --> 00:15:30.220
value of the dollar and reduce the oscillations of depressions and inflations and things like

174
00:15:30.220 --> 00:15:31.220
that.

175
00:15:31.220 --> 00:15:35.580
But if you look at the hundred years before and after the Fed, the oscillations before

176
00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:41.740
for the Fed were very, very minor, whereas the oscillations after the Fed are very major.

177
00:15:41.740 --> 00:15:45.740
So they failed in that job. And then if you look at how they preserved the value of the

178
00:15:45.740 --> 00:15:52.740
dollar, well, the dollar was worth, say, a dollar in 1913. It's worth something like

179
00:15:52.740 --> 00:15:58.880
three or four cents now. So they've dissipated about 96%, 97%, 98% of the value of the dollar.

180
00:15:58.880 --> 00:16:02.620
This is why Ron Paul and other people are calling not only to audit the Fed, which is

181
00:16:02.620 --> 00:16:11.140
is maybe a good first step, but to end the Fed, let me talk just a little bit about Keynesianism,

182
00:16:11.140 --> 00:16:17.780
which animates everyone. You know, for the Keynesians, if the economy is going too slowly,

183
00:16:17.780 --> 00:16:23.700
we have to hit on the gas pedal. If the economy is going too fast, we have to hit the brake.

184
00:16:23.700 --> 00:16:29.060
Arthur Burns was once asked, when he was the chairman of the Fed, well, what happens if

185
00:16:29.060 --> 00:16:48.060
If both occur, if you have an inflation and unemployment, if the economy is going too fast and too slow and then he said ha ha ha, we'll have to resign, well, they should resign, they should all resign and we shouldn't have any Fed because the Fed is central planning.

186
00:16:48.060 --> 00:16:53.060
I mean, have we learned nothing from East Germany and West Germany, from North Korea and South Korea?

187
00:16:53.060 --> 00:16:57.060
You'd think what we've learned is that socialism and central planning doesn't work.

188
00:16:57.060 --> 00:17:03.060
But the Fed is central planning of a very important part of the economy, the monetary sphere.

189
00:17:03.060 --> 00:17:09.060
Everything that we do, except for water, every interaction, half of it is money.

190
00:17:09.060 --> 00:17:15.060
So this is sort of the heartbeat of the economy, and we have the Sovietization of it.

191
00:17:15.060 --> 00:17:21.060
It's time we got out of the Sovietization of the monetary system.

192
00:17:21.060 --> 00:17:30.060
Let me now talk about immigration. This is sort of a potpourri of subjects. I want to talk about a few different kinds of things.

193
00:17:30.060 --> 00:17:38.060
There's a problem among libertarians, should we have free immigration or not?

194
00:17:38.060 --> 00:17:44.060
And the obvious problem with free immigration is that if you had free and open immigration and you had a welfare state,

195
00:17:44.060 --> 00:17:51.780
Well, then people would come here and get welfare, and that wouldn't really be a very

196
00:17:51.780 --> 00:17:53.260
good kind of a system.

197
00:17:53.260 --> 00:17:57.780
We'd be inundated with people, as Margaret Thatcher would call it, the shirkers, not

198
00:17:57.780 --> 00:17:59.540
the workers.

199
00:17:59.540 --> 00:18:03.620
So people say, well, if you have the welfare state, you can't have free immigration.

200
00:18:03.620 --> 00:18:07.580
Well, my answer is, well, get rid of the welfare state.

201
00:18:07.580 --> 00:18:09.260
Then we can have free immigration.

202
00:18:09.260 --> 00:18:13.700
But still the problem would be, well, then you have masses of people coming here to take

203
00:18:13.700 --> 00:18:28.340
My other insight or answer or response to that is, what you have to do is privatize everything.

204
00:18:28.340 --> 00:18:34.020
My motto is, if it moves, privatize it. If it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything

205
00:18:34.020 --> 00:18:41.460
either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything. Then if somebody would have come to the country,

206
00:18:41.460 --> 00:18:48.460
in this country, they would have to have permission from somebody else beforehand in order to have the right to come there.

207
00:18:48.460 --> 00:18:52.460
See, there are really three things that go on in international trade.

208
00:18:52.460 --> 00:18:58.460
One is the free movement of goods, free trade. The other is the free movement of investment, also good.

209
00:18:58.460 --> 00:19:00.460
And the third is the free movement of people.

210
00:19:00.460 --> 00:19:07.460
And what the critics of open immigration, such as Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe, said is that there's a difference between the free movement of goods

211
00:19:07.460 --> 00:19:11.460
and the free movement of investment on the one hand and on the other hand the free movement of people.

212
00:19:11.460 --> 00:19:17.460
And what's this difference? Well, in the case of the free movement of goods, you have to have two people that agree to it.

213
00:19:17.460 --> 00:19:23.460
You know, if I'm going to export a good to you, you have to agree to import it and vice versa.

214
00:19:23.460 --> 00:19:31.460
And the same with investment. If I'm going to invest in your oil well in Venezuela, well I think I should do that, but if I were going to do that,

215
00:19:31.460 --> 00:19:37.460
You have to agree to accept my investment money to buy a share in your oil company or whatever.

216
00:19:37.460 --> 00:19:44.460
The problem that these people, the critics of free and open immigration, see with immigration of people

217
00:19:44.460 --> 00:19:49.460
is that you don't have a bifurcation or you don't have two people agreeing.

218
00:19:49.460 --> 00:19:53.460
You just have one guy sort of initiating and he shows up and says, here I am.

219
00:19:53.460 --> 00:19:56.460
Well, that's because we don't have full private property.

220
00:19:56.460 --> 00:20:00.460
If we had full private property, nobody could show up unless they had some sort of permission

221
00:20:00.460 --> 00:20:06.220
to be on someone else's private property and I think that that would solve that problem

222
00:20:06.220 --> 00:20:11.180
as best we can solve problems on this side of the Garden of Eden where we are limited

223
00:20:11.180 --> 00:20:15.320
to imperfection.

224
00:20:15.320 --> 00:20:20.980
Let me talk a little bit about the welfare state.

225
00:20:20.980 --> 00:20:26.180
There's a lot of talk now Obama wants the 1% to pay their fair share even though the

226
00:20:26.180 --> 00:20:32.720
The top 1% pay, what is it, 70% of all taxes? I don't know the exact numbers, but the 1%

227
00:20:32.720 --> 00:20:38.640
pay an inordinate amount of the tax level, and then you have a lot of people that pay

228
00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:44.360
no taxes at all and have the right to vote to get the 1% to give them money. You know,

229
00:20:44.360 --> 00:20:50.820
they say that no man's life or his property is safe when the legislature is in session,

230
00:20:50.820 --> 00:20:57.560
or that, what is it, the Congress's futures market and stolen goods, well that's what

231
00:20:57.560 --> 00:21:08.100
you have when you have overwhelming government and when you have this welfare state ideal.

232
00:21:08.100 --> 00:21:15.540
Now what's going on with that, why, why do even economists who are much better than sociologists

233
00:21:15.540 --> 00:21:20.460
and much better than literature people on campus at least in terms of adherence to the

234
00:21:20.460 --> 00:21:25.100
but even mainstream economists, not Austrian economists but mainstream economists buy into

235
00:21:25.100 --> 00:21:29.980
this and support it and provide some sort of veneer or coverage, intellectual coverage

236
00:21:29.980 --> 00:21:32.180
for the welfare state.

237
00:21:32.180 --> 00:21:35.780
And what it is, is diminishing marginal utility of money.

238
00:21:35.780 --> 00:21:37.140
What does that mean?

239
00:21:37.140 --> 00:21:41.780
It's a big word or a big bunch of words.

240
00:21:41.780 --> 00:21:47.060
What it means is that you get more utility out of your first dollar than you get out

241
00:21:47.060 --> 00:21:48.100
of your last dollar.

242
00:21:48.100 --> 00:21:53.740
Your first dollar is for food and things that keep your life going and your last dollar

243
00:21:53.740 --> 00:21:58.140
you can light up your cigar with a hundred dollar bill and if you're rich enough because

244
00:21:58.140 --> 00:22:01.180
the last dollar means very little to you.

245
00:22:01.180 --> 00:22:06.620
Notice that the Austrian view would say that you can't really have cardinal utility of

246
00:22:06.620 --> 00:22:11.860
this sort, namely you can't count utils because there are no units of utils, whereas only

247
00:22:11.860 --> 00:22:17.940
Austrians insist that the only way of looking at utility is ordinal utility, namely ordering,

248
00:22:17.940 --> 00:22:22.900
I like this tie better than this watch or I like the watch better than my pen, but you

249
00:22:22.900 --> 00:22:29.900
can't say that I like the tie at 10 utils, the watch at 5 utils and the pen at 1 util

250
00:22:29.900 --> 00:22:34.980
and therefore that this is worth twice as much, the tie is worth twice as much as the

251
00:22:34.980 --> 00:22:36.740
watch or anything like that.

252
00:22:36.740 --> 00:22:41.060
And you certainly can't have interpersonal comparison of utility where I like the tie

253
00:22:41.060 --> 00:22:47.500
at 10 utils and you like it at 5 and therefore maybe I should grab your tie and then utils

254
00:22:47.500 --> 00:22:51.820
would be increased, but that's what they're really saying.

255
00:22:51.820 --> 00:22:58.780
What they're saying is that if you take $1,000 away from a rich guy who has many thousands

256
00:22:58.780 --> 00:23:06.600
of dollars and therefore values the last thousand to a very small amount, and you give that

257
00:23:06.600 --> 00:23:14.200
thousand to a poor person and he values it at a great amount, therefore this forced transfer

258
00:23:14.200 --> 00:23:19.040
The transfer of income from the rich to the poor really increases human welfare when we

259
00:23:19.040 --> 00:23:21.200
count it interpersonally.

260
00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:25.840
And mainstream economics does support this sort of a thing.

261
00:23:25.840 --> 00:23:30.220
And as I say, it's only the Austrian School of Economics that would cast great aspersions

262
00:23:30.220 --> 00:23:31.220
on this.

263
00:23:31.220 --> 00:23:37.460
One, you can't count utils, and two, you certainly can't make interpersonal comparisons.

264
00:23:37.460 --> 00:23:47.060
The way that I like to counter this is say, okay, one reductio ad absurdum that I try

265
00:23:47.060 --> 00:23:53.020
to use when I'm debating someone on this, I say, well, you know, my opponent here, he's

266
00:23:53.020 --> 00:23:57.500
got a suit and tie, I'm sure he's got a house, he's got a car. There are people who are starving

267
00:23:57.500 --> 00:24:03.860
in Zimbabwe or in Africa or in Latin America. Why does he have all these things? Why doesn't

268
00:24:03.860 --> 00:24:09.820
And he acted consistently with his theories, namely, he's guilty of hypocrisy.

269
00:24:09.820 --> 00:24:14.780
I remember I tried to reductio ad absurdum once against, I was debating someone in environmental

270
00:24:14.780 --> 00:24:20.620
economics over overpopulation and I said, my opponent, who's coming up to the lecture

271
00:24:20.620 --> 00:24:25.460
stadium, podium in a minute, says there are too many people.

272
00:24:25.460 --> 00:24:26.460
We have overpopulation.

273
00:24:26.460 --> 00:24:33.420
Well, he has it within his power to reduce the size of the population by one.

274
00:24:33.420 --> 00:24:38.060
And the fact that he's standing there shows that he hasn't availed himself of this opportunity.

275
00:24:38.060 --> 00:24:41.860
So if he doesn't take his theory seriously, what should he be?

276
00:24:41.860 --> 00:24:46.100
It was a hostile audience, but I got booed at that.

277
00:24:46.100 --> 00:24:50.140
But that's one way to deal with these people.

278
00:24:50.140 --> 00:24:55.380
How do you deal with people who have this view that we should have class warfare and

279
00:24:55.380 --> 00:24:57.540
we should take money from the rich?

280
00:24:57.540 --> 00:25:03.120
One way to deal with them is to say, well, money is one thing, but let's talk about something

281
00:25:03.120 --> 00:25:11.720
Let's talk about IQ points. Suppose there were a machine where you have a 150 IQ and

282
00:25:11.720 --> 00:25:16.000
this guy has got a 100 IQ and you put both of you in the machine and you flip the switch

283
00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:21.880
and now you both come out with a 125 IQ, namely a medium point halfway between the 150 and

284
00:25:21.880 --> 00:25:27.840
the 100. Would you get in that machine? Would you put your kids in the machine also with

285
00:25:27.840 --> 00:25:42.840
What do you think of the idea of forcing everyone into that machine, namely, let's have really egalitarianism, let's have real equality, not just in terms of money, which is superficial, and is based on IQ in the first place to a great degree.

286
00:25:42.840 --> 00:25:54.840
Let's have IQ redistribution. And their answer is, oh, well, that's too theoretical, we can't do that. And I said, but, you know, imagine we could have a machine like that in 500 years, we probably will have a machine like that.

287
00:25:54.840 --> 00:26:01.600
Too theoretical. So I said, how about eyes? I notice you've got two eyes. There are people

288
00:26:01.600 --> 00:26:07.520
who are blind and have none. Why don't you give them one of your eyes? Now it's true,

289
00:26:07.520 --> 00:26:11.360
if you are missing an eye, you don't have good depth perception, you might not be as

290
00:26:11.360 --> 00:26:17.560
good a driver or something, but you know, you can live with one eye and the person who's

291
00:26:17.560 --> 00:26:22.600
blind would gain a lot of utils by getting one eye, whereas you would lose only that

292
00:26:22.600 --> 00:26:36.600
I recommend that to you for your consideration.

293
00:26:36.600 --> 00:26:40.200
I think I'm about out of time, so I'll thank you for your attention.