Hi Tom, love your videos! Just wanted to check, though. Isn’t it true that Germany was the most technologically innovative country in the world throughout the last fifty years of the 19th century and well into the 20th?

Here’s Kealey, part of whose point is that the popular linkage of science funding with national prosperity is misplaced, on Germany:”The German government’s subsidy of research and development has often been adduced as a contributor to Germany’s economic miracle, but where is this miracle? Germany’s economic growth since 1870 has merely fitted the predictable curve, given its initial poverty. Because Germany overtook Britain, economically, during the 1960s, people often suppose that Germany’s superiority is of long standing, and they make the usual misleading comments. Consider this statement by Margaret Gowing, the Professor of the History of Science at Oxford University: ‘Britain, hithero industrially supreme, had been very obviously outclassed in the Paris international exhibition of 1972, most notably by Germany.’ And, being typical, it is a typically incorrect statement. As late as 1914, Germany only enjoyed 75 percent of the level of industrialization of Britain. In consequence, germany only enjoyed 75 percent of Britain’s wealth as determined by GDP per capita. This was one reason it lost the Great War.”

He goes on to discuss German poverty and mass emigration in the ninetenth century, and writes: “The germans were so poor partly because they were taxed so crushingly to pay for their famous universities, technology, metallurgy and chemicals. germans actually and literally starved; the dirigiste economy frustrated agricultural development to foster industrialization, and a series of terrible harvests from 1845 precipitated mass malnutrition and death.”

And then: “Most governemnts started to fund civil R&D in imitation of the Germans, and few governments seem to understand that (i) the rise in the German economy was unremarkable, and largely an exercise in catching up, and (ii) throughout the period of German militarism that so scared other governemnts into imitation, Germany was actually a poorish country — certainly poorer than thelaissez faire USA or the laissez faire UK of the day.”

I really expect no less from Salon.  They have the same lack of imagination that make Pravda back issues such a hoot to read. 

Helping others, builds compassion and empathy in people, it is  part of the human experience and letting the government do it for us, robs us of this growth and causes people to become more self centered and selfish. 

Never mind this post, Judge Napolitano shot this down in under a minute. It’s just propaganda but it shows what people around the world are saying.

The only way I can make sense of this is to assume the date “1972″ concerning the ‘Paris international exhibition of 1972′ is a typo and, given the context, I’m guessing it should be “1872″, is that right?

Can someone direct me to the resource page that Tom is talking about?  Lots of interesting stuff covered in this video, thanks Dr. Woods!

At the end of the video I give the url and it appears on the screen: http://www.tomwoods.com/salon

tom,

great replies.  myths that wise wrote are wide-spread.  i think these myths will continue until a detailed alterior plan versus high-level message is presented and the core reasons researched on why people say these things about paul in the first place:

a.  what is wrong w/ departments and fed, etc… is something that the paul revolution has succeeding in.  however, what they want to hear is a Transition Plan and Solutions for Replacement.  and, people who use rp’s work like romney do not give him credit for it and run off with it and hence gain votes away from paul.  that will continue to happen until we put our foot down and stop the “theft” so to speak and take credit for the age of ron paul.  that way, people better know the difference b/w libertarianism and establishment/status quo. 

educating the masses w/ specifics will help get votes versus sticking to broad message only as that message is already out and not much sense in rehashing the same words, but refreshing that message and adding in specifics that will answer questions without leaving holes for myths.

for example, the concept of churches and local governments and whoeverelse at the local level doing whatever they want sounds freaky all at once and invokes the thought of anarchy.  hence, the myth that libertarianism will result in somalia like anarchy with people running around wild and writing their own rules. 
this is also where the myth that paul is radical comes from – the idea that all this cutting will happen all at once and shock the system.  this myth is from how paul presents his plan by just saying he will cut 5 departments.  instead, he should state that corp subsidies and crony capitalism will be removed and it is nonproductive jobs that will be cut which will be absorbed by private sector jobs and necessary functions will be consolidated into other dept.

b.  these 5 dept, etc.. have both good and bad elements.  by saying cut, it appears paul is saying the few positive elements will be eliminated as well and people have to deal with it on their own.  this is where the transition plan and replacement solutions come into play to put an end to myths.  paul has a great restore america plan, but it has not been marketed and explained well and hence not gained more rp votes.

c.  rp supporters trust paul will transition programs out well, but rp needs to have a revised marketing and strategy to gain that trust in other voters.  perhaps this is where non-official campaigns like revolutionpac comes into play verus being more about spreading pauls’ message rather than explaining it in a different way so that it seeps into the masses.

d.  being opposed to tarp has not gained too many votes.  first of all, voters are almost as hypocritical as the politicians they repeatedly vote into office.  so, voter mentality is difficult to change and educating voters on how to vote and how to discern is necessary.  as voters focus on which politicians have soundbites that cater to their short-term emotions, paul’s appeal is not as widespread as it should be.

if a group of rp supporters could personally hand RP these soundbites and tell him why and how to use it, i am certain that paul would use it and his polls would rise quickly.

tell voters that if they are against tarp, why vote for a politician who will disappoint again with doing more tarps.  of course, they will do more bailouts and much of it in secrecy as the world financial system is weaker than 3 yrs ago and hence these politicians will be bailouts again and again as their track records prove.  voters do not understand the future ramfications on them and the economy if they elect politicians who are in favor for tarp.  hence, romney/newt/cain gained traction even while favoring tarp.

this is all good stuff, but how come none of our popular speakers ever mention any of these kinds of things?  like, whenever i listen to ron paul or judge napolitano, i never hear them mention any of these historical data and analysis like i hear you and dilorenzo say. 

Andrew Napolitano reported recently that the Fed secretly transfered $7.7 trillion to banks late in 2008, making the $700 billion dollar TARP bailout look puny by comparison:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1301578958001/bringing-the-war-of-terror-home/?playlist_id=158146

I have to add, Jen, that I personally think there is nothing good at all that will be lost by eliminating the 5 departments Ron Paul has on his laundry list.  As Bastiat and Hazlitt both taught us, we need to pay attention to what is not seen just as intently as we pay attention to what is seen.  Those 5 departments survive entirely on malinvestments, the diversion of resources that would otherwise have been used far more wisely by the capitalist-entrepreneurs who were compelled to give them up to the government sector.  Those lost resources lead straight to our 9.0% unemployment rate (that’s the BLS U3 number — Bill Barnett reminds us that the U6 number is 18%, and John Williams at Shadow Stats estimates closer to 20%).

So much to learn from Tom Woods. I even learned more about Ron Paul.

John, thank you. Unfortunately not. I made the video because I didn’t have time to write an article.

How can we get Tom on the Daily Show? He’s like kryptonite for intellectually lazy progressives.

That seems like a sensible tone to take with a guy who has four little children and a crushing load of professional obligations. I can’t “bother” to transcribe my YouTube because I am focused on those trivial things. I do have 11 books and hundreds of articles, so it’s not as if one needs to hire a private detective to uncover my views.

Just saw this video… Tom, you are a shining light. Thank you. Are you on Google+?

Excellent video as usual. Just one question. I guess Im not as computer savvy as others. But each time you create a resource page how do you get to it from within the site?