In short, you can't let a centralized system determine the needs of dispersed and economically volatile groups. Only individual price mechanism can give you a clear picture of needs and desires in a given place at a given time. (E.G. "Price Gouging" when disasters strike)
So if insulin goes a thousand dollars. Because of the free market and millions of people die. Would the government setting a price control not be a good thing? Clearly this isn't akin to socialism I get Hayek idiotically thinks so. After all he wants to defend why the rich get to control everything. After all it's assumed they earned it. But whatever happened to those novels when Capatialism came. Money existed before...anyway I don't buy Hayek argument. It sounds like a huge cop out just let the invisible hand do it's thing. Which is a big misunderstanding of Adam Smith. Adam Smith did believe that limits have to placed on man..clearly you can't do whatever you want. If people acted on there self interest humanity wouldn't have grown. People helps each other thinking in terms of myself is counter productive. Socialism at least mimicks this human social behavior more closely than Capatialism.
@@monsterhunter445 the whole point is that people act in their own self interest (by wanting to profit)when offering products and services that other people Desire or need. 2) if u payed any attention to Hayek u would understand that tje pricing system acts as guiding signals in the free market, so if insulin costs say 1$ ando suddenly the price goes Up to 1000$ as u suggested it would send the Signal that insulin is in very high demanda (therefore need) ando production of it id not enough, this would make entrepreneurs jump in to get a Piece of the pie, new ones Will arrive and produce ando the existing ones would reinvest to increase production as well (wanting to keep and increse their market quota) the competition ando the increased production lower the prices of insuling and the market equilibrates again. And finally 3) goverment intervention by fixing prices at an arbitrary amount they just decide by hand would just cause scarcity as people would stop producing insulin (Also creating a black market of It). So hayeks is right on everything.
@@monsterhunter445 someone doesn't understand the law of supply and demand actually If there isn't much supply then no matter how much u Lower the price u can't provide insulin to all! Also the rich aren't monsters that will use all in the stock too. Am not saying it is perfect, perfection is utopia but it is better in allocation of resources
@@monsterhunter445 ur last line is wrong Socialism ignores human behaviour and free market is philosophical so it is very much close to human behaviour! U completely got wrong there.
"Is to assure for all a certain minimum below which nobody needs to fall"... Hayek supported a "Minimum income" NOT minimum wage. We can, as a society, provide for the minimum needs of the poorest amongst us. We can do so while maintaining a free market while at the same time not forcing anybody to contribute. Indirect taxes are such a way. DON'T BE CLOSED MINDED ABOUT CERTAIN DOMESTIC SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Price Theory is the fundamental idea that prices are set by consumers, NOT by producers. So when a merchant 'sets' the price of his goods he's NOT setting arbitrary prices according to greed; He sets his prices according to what people are willing to pay for his goods. If prices are too high he won't sell as many goods and that equates to lower revenue and thus lower profits. Profits are maximized when revenue is maximized; higher prices does NOT yield higher profits. Neoclassical Economics.
Altruism/charity can only exist when people feel free to give or share. People only feel free to give or share when they know there is a possibility of them or the one who received the charity to advance past poverty and to wealth... even if that advancement is not the goal nor ever acheived. If a person isn't free to make money, they tend to be less likely to not give any money (or time) away because they know that it would only harm both parties.
Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, Sowell, Mises or even Rand may not agree on everything, but they are all along the same wavelength. They believe in free markets. They believe in individual freedom. I enjoy reading and listening to all of them.
5:15 "So it does happen that so far as coomercial activities or economic avtivities are concerned, we will benefit our fellow man most if we are guided solely by the striving for gain." This is the concept of the metaphorical "INVISIBLE HAND" from Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Gee.. and here I thought capitalism was evil... at least that's what all my liberal friends keep telling me.
Wrong. The invisible hand was used in an entirely different context, where Smith assumed that british manufacturers would be biased towards their homeland - and not outsource/offshore manufacturing centres, because an 'invisible hand' would ensure they kept true to their nation.
@@johndarson5316" [The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species"
I ask you the same thing I asked theredscourge. Can't show you the article, because they didn't translate it into English, but they said Rothbard criticized him on this matter as well
Nuts to altruism. The pursuit of profit is noble; the reward of the needy for being needy in injust. One should reward value, and that is what justifies the free market: that it is not kind, but just.
Are you sure? My contry's Mises Institute posted a negative cristicism of Hayek stating that his safety net idea was wealth redistribution (they said it's in his book, which I didn't read, so I don't really know).
Austrian school of thought has economist disagreeing with Hayek But it isn't income redistribution from any logic actually, it is just setting a limit so that all people are able to compete.
@zvi 303 1. Mercy is an excuse for injustice 2. Need is not a claim on anyone's life and wealth 3. Looking after your own children is not altruistic 4. I am sick of being told what is human and what is not (since we have free will, being human is whatever we want it to be) 5. Free market capitalism is selfish, and this is something to be celebrated, not tiptoed around with petty sophistry.
I don't think so. I think he meant, it's up to an individual to "redistribute" his wealth as he sees fit. That is, to help those who he sees as "below standard". It should not be forced upon him to do so. Otherwise this cannot be considered charity, but can only be stealing.
"Economy (in capitalism) is immoral or ammoral which means that there is no compassion" Looks like somebody need to read Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and re-examine things a tad. Time is valued. To reward a person's time, you pay them money. If a person has a skill that is rare or is willing to do that which others won't, they get more money for that. If they don't spend it all, or know how to use that time/money, they capitalize on it. Capitalism is inevitable.
"must have the right " I see your error. A right isn't something that a person can give or take. No government can grant one, only supress one... but only barely. A poor person have the right to learn because it is inate with in that person. They have the right to heal for the same reason. But no person can take anothers time/money/property without the other's permission. That isn't a right because it comes from outside the person. Moralism fills the gaps, socialism steals and rips open gaps.
This is not what Hayek is saying. The world depends on justice AND mercy. With your attitude, mankind would not have lasted beyond one generation; all of the children would have died. There are people who need our help, not because they are lazy of self-destructive, but because they are simply unable to provide for themselves. People who do not look after them are not human. And we can do that of our own free will.
"ensures minimal existence to anyone" How to ensure wealth is created? Socialism ensure redistribution wealth, which ensure laziness. My grand parent live in Mao socialist paradise, and we must move to Indonesia, so we can have food (I am serious). Shin Dong run from DPRK, move to China only look for food. "ignore poor" Because we are ignored by Indonesian government, we are force to work. And everybody do the same, so everybody have food. As i said socialism is religion.
What he said, is that rich people don't have to care about poor people, because they are not family. Well old man, I must say to you that the economic model of kapitalism takes away the right to poor people to sow his own food on the ground because you build highways, roads and building in tarmac. By putting these poor people in a kapitalistic system where they can't make their own food and say we can't give you a job or something to live is to me a modern slavering system. Socialism is logical.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 You can't even spell Capitalism let alone understand it! Capitalism has eradicated poverty look at the global poverty rate! In 25 years it halved! Its expected to go to zero in 2030! That is because of capitalism and the spread of it globally, look at ex-socialist countries and how their poverty has decreased dramatically! Coincide that with Venezuela... The only logical thing is capitalism, it has provided the vast majority of wealth, it has created all the great inventions we live with. It has created equality! Equality in the access to knowledge! Google is free wifi in many places is free, knowledge is becoming free that can be attributed to capitalism. If you love socialism so much why not try to go to North Korea? (They allow tourists now) let me guess you want to eat right. You want a smart phone you want a wifi connection you want freedom of speech (which has never been in a socialist country) you want a car (which used to have a five year wait under socialist germany) you want many things... Capitalism provides it, I don't understand how someone can be socialist when all the facts (which are free thanks to capitalism) point to capitalism being superior. I hope you change your mind.
Capitalism centralises the wealth while socialism (being social) spreads the wealth in porpotion with the activities that people do. A capitalist that consumes the scarce resources of the Earth has to share a part of his wealth with others who are also people of this planet.
+SanQae No, Hayek proposes a minimum safety net for all which does not imply wealth redistribution. There are many mechanisms possible for that. A general consumption tax, for example. Or a system which is based entirely on voluntary contributions. It is called charity. We do it all the time. We give to those who ask us for help at the street corner.
Also milton Friedman advocated for a negative income tax that would incentivise work unlike what is used today by the government (welfare) which has tremendous flaws and incentiveses unemployment
@@btc1m654 yes Friedman negative income tax and hayek's minimum income can be connected together and we can build something of it. Both possess similiar motive. Friedman was more concerned with removing welfare and Hayek was more concerned about basic needs of people so that they can compete
"Capitalism centralises the wealth " This is a myth. Capitalism actually spreads wealth more efficiently and fairly. "socialism (being social) spreads the wealth in porpotion with the activities that people do" A free market, unencumbered by artificial forces, spreads wealth based on time and skill. Only when an external, artificial force, such as government, does this tend to not happen. "the scarce resources of the Earth" Another myth. Conservation of mass/energy. See science.
See the gini coefficient of the US. You can see it started to go up dramatically right after the Fed started to lower rates. Truly is insane how people attribute inequality to capitalism when socialism and communism has much much higher inequality. In czechslovakia normal people waited 20 years to get a house. A politician? A couple weeks. That is inequality tho it isn't easily measurable which makes it seem like its isnt there.
@@bsabruzzo we do! Wanted to spread more info about inequality and how some people might attribute low inequality to socialism but only because it's not easily measurable
Your argument against socialism is actually a pretty weak one (people get lazy, etc.). In fact, Mises and Hayek have shown that is not even theoretically concievable, even if all of society (including all "leaders") were virtous and benevolent. It's first and foremost an information/calculation problem. You simply can't allocate resources without prices, or subjective valuation on a free market. Not even to mention how extremely immoral soicalism is.
People do get lazy too obviously if all know they are earning same at the end. But in a totalitarian or authoritarian system this might not be the case. Socialism has it's types so yeah we have talk accordingly
Quite correct: health care, like all private goods, is not a right. The only right that a person has is the right to be left alone. That right implies that the person must not be coerced and his stuff not be taken. That should be the full extent of the law.
Hayek is very overrated. If his precepts were pursued, America would still just be selling beaver furs and fish. That would have been the American competitive advantage. Very, very overrated theories from this man - and to see why they've been pedestalized, take a look at who benefits.
I wonder what made America rich? Oh that's right freedom of speech and capitalism. Both things Hayek very much advocated for in his book the road to serfdom. I'm guessing you didn't read since your making false assumptions
America got rich off of its people's merits, its national character, it's subversion of free market principle by way of subsidy and corporate charters, and military might. Free market worship is not, and has never ever turned a country rich. Not a single nation has followed Hayek's more extreme forms of market purity and come out in good shape - probably because no nation would ever be foolish enough to rescind it's sovereignty.
@@johndarson5316 what country went from third world country to a first world country the fastest? Hint: they adopted the most pure form of capitalism even Milton Friedman visited the country and talked about how it will have a bright future. I'm guessing you still don't know because if you did you wouldn't have written your comment. The country is Hong Kong, one of the most capitalist country to ever exist. Unfortunately after china took it, they made land unownable. Hong Kong isn't enough? The second most capitalist econom Singapore. Also one of the richest nations. On their road to riches and prosperity they had a close to pure capitalist system. Still do tho less. Why not look at the facts my friend? I'm sure your goal in economics is the same or close to mine (mankind prosperity) capitalism has done that and contributed greatly. I wish you wouldn't take a stereotypical view and dismiss capitalism and be marxist or socialist or whatever is cool now.
You are an idiot. Hong kong was not autonomous, but a client state of the British - dumb example. As you're seeing now, it can't even defend itself from Chinese influence, in spite of agreements for it to be a separate system. Furthermore, you mentioning Singapore evinces you need to read beyond the narrow scope of Austrian-School canon - since the government has owned, currently owns, and will continue to own virtually all land in the country. Furthermore, its extreme legal restrictions on citizenship for prospective immigrants fly in the face of free-market principle. If you believe in a national right to maintain sovereignty against foreign influence, the last people to look to are the irrelevant and insane Austrian libertarians. There is a reason that Singapore is a single citizenship country, where you can't hold a foreign passport and participate in government.
@@johndarson5316 you don't have to resort to words like "idiot" I'm pretty sure my IQ is higher. Furthermore Hong Kong had great autonomy before 1997, you should read about it before making a knee jerk reaction.
