To add to your point, the futility of copyright enforcement in the digital age created a new industry in the form of DRM and YouTube auto-takedown algorithms.
Enforcement is more pertinent than policy. If their policy allows for such videos, but in practice removes them, it doesn't really matter what their policy is.
Spoiler: US Government spent more money than they had in gold reserves culminating in the breaking of the Bretton Woods agreement with European nations. The USD from 1973 became a fully fiat currency. So yes, if it deals with the US economy after 1970's, as the graphs indicate, it's inseparable from USD inflation most likely caused by government spending.
Thanks. It's good to challenge your views, so I'll listen in a bit. However, I must say that as an ex-libertarian (that left the creed because of its serious flaws) I am apprehensive about the neutrality of a show hosted by Tim Wood, a "Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian" (Wikipedia) that's received fellowships from the Institute for Humane Studies (funded by the Scaifes, Kochs, etc.).
> I am apprehensive about the neutrality of a show...
I'd also assume any show that bills itself as "Paul Krugman's column refuted, week after week!" is more of an ideological security blanket than real intellectual engagement or critique.
I'd personally categorize Paul Krugman as an idealogue. You might think the same of Bob Murphy and Tom Woods, but the aim was to offer a counterpoint to Krugman's ideas.
I believe you'd find the intellectual engagement and critiques within the podcast, not the subtitle.
> I believe you'd find the intellectual engagement and critiques within the podcast, not the subtitle.
No, I doubt it. If they think they can refute [1] like clockwork future columns they've never seen, it's almost certain they're just rehashing dogmas for the faithful. I have better things to spend my time on than that.
The "Analysis/Bias" section of Washington Times basically boils down to: founded by religious people, uses language and SEO that they don't like, and publishes articles from scientists they don't like. I don't consider Washington Times as a paper of record necessarily, but I do think fact-checking is a much harder problem than people are willing to grant and the evidence listed in that section wasn't very edifying.
