"Marx contra Hayek" with Anwar Shaikh 

Hayek philosophically sounds like Hobbes but replaces the person of the monarch with the impersonal market.

This was really good, balanced understanding of many different positions. I just wanna say its weird to say Milton ''blamed the government' for the depression, that's more of an Austrian position, Miltons words if I recall correctly were 'the fed failed to *prevent* the depression'

can you provide the link to Krugman's repudiation

43:00 anyone know where i can find keynes's critique of hayek or a book that touches the subject. Thanks

12:57 does any one have the link he mentioned about Krugman's lecture?

It's very important to remember that in Hayeks day unions wanted much more than just better wages and working conditions. They wanted to control what could be produced, how much could be produced etc. Just look at the unions demand against Ford near the Ford hunger march etc.

5:50 There is no role of money/financial sectors in the models of Central Bankers! BoE could not explain it when asked

If true, it would be shocking that even in China neoclassical econ approaches dominate. This shows how deep in trouble we are we Marxists and Marxian economists. A revival of Marxist economics and a serious attempt at innovation and completion of the Marxist project of those 6 volumes of his work is key.

I’ve been reading about Hayek’s theories and the one that struck me as particularly narrow minded was his belief that a person’s success in life comes down to their individual skills and luck, therefore there is nothing that any outside influencer can do to impact that success. But I can refute that easily. If you are born in lets say inner city Baltimore, your chances of success are far lower than if you were born in the Hamptons. You can chalk this up to luck, as you are lucky to be born in the Hamptons and unlucky to be born in Baltimore, but that doesn’t mean that there can be no outside influence on this. The government can invest in the education, health and nutrition of children, which will vastly improve the luck of the child born in Baltimore, and thus improve his chances of success in life. That in turn improves the economy as you are increasing the pool of potential innovators in your society. His entire world view is built on this flawed belief. He does a great job of building out his economic theory from that point, but it is still built on a flawed foundation.

I've been doing International political economy for years now. One issue I have is that this school was created because of these problems of neoclassical economics and hayekian assumptions. As Susan strange commented in on her works. Sadly today it's just become a different strain of neoclassical dogma

22:00 Hayek says that the problem are young people who are socialistic in general. And it is necessary to teach them that in capitalism morally low people will get more than they deserve and morally high people will mostly fail. And it is necessary to teach young people that this notion is good

Thanks for the shout out in the beginning of your talk, even if it's a tad uncharitable. The Keynes vs. Hayek rap videos were not actually funded by Charles or David Koch, though I'd be fine if they were. About 200 different donors supported them, and I'm deeply thankful to those folks for supporting the work. The new Mises vs. Marx video is a project I created with AIER through their endowment. I think like my fellow filmmakers across the ideological spectrum, we seek out support from those who believe in our approach to exploring ideas. That's what we've done with the raps and I hope everyone enjoys them. Lord Robert Skidelsky said that portrayal of Keynes was "not a complete portrayal of Keynes, but completely correct". I'll stand by that endorsement of Russ Roberts and my presentation. I really enjoyed our conversation and for anyone interested, we posted that conversation on my podcast. Google "anwar shaikh emergent order podcast" and you can listen to the whole fun, warm and intellectually sprawling exchange. Next time, I hope you'll accept the video interview invitation! It'll be even more fun!

There are some errors in ideas about Socialism: * The main mistake is the classical interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value by Marx: - Although value is described as a social relationship, it is treated like an object. - The value is considered to be produced on the production side of the commodity society. But there is no value there, not even according to Marx. According to Marx, a (initially only potential) commodity only becomes a commodity when its use value becomes use value for others through exchange (!). Only then the work expended on it is qualified as socially useful and only then as value-creating. Before that there was only one expected value on the production side of the commodity society. This is formed from the costs incurred to manufacture the work product and from an expected surplus value that appears sufficient (or, in difficult situations, but not usually or in very good situations as makeble). The Marx’s value formula must be adapted for the production side of the commodity society: W|expected = c|cost factor; replacement expected + v|cost factor; replacement expected + s|expected. The social usefulness of the work product is only made clear when it is bought on the market. A buyer can only pay surplus value on the market, but only if he fully reimburses the costs c + v beforehand. According to Marx, surplus value, in turn, is a component of value. Consequently, for this reason too, the value can only be established on the market. The value formula for the market side of the commodity society: W|real = c|cost replacement + v|cost replacement + m|real. Value is a social relationship, a relationship between people. Such is formed between people and only works there, the value between exchange partners. Value is the quantified abstract social usefulness of goods. If a work product, a natural good etc. is not sold, it remains the property of the owner and is therefore not socially useful and so no value is given related to it - private work is not “value creating”. - Since, according to Marx, value is produced, the classic interpretation of the LTV does not capture the importance of the market for value forming. The creation of value in the market is important for the efficiency of society. Under Socialism this was ignored and the entire economy was made inefficient until the system collapsed. Efficiency is not to be equated with maximum production output, because it contains all political requirements, e.g. for environmental relief. * Another mistake in the classics of Marxism: It is said that the working class will take power and shape a true democratic society. Practice has shown and shows that dictatorships, some of them extremely bad, were always established. This is because the working class cannot take power, it has to work. As a result, there are always “doers” who do this “on their behalf. And they are afraid of losing power, so they will always shape a dictatorship. I experienced this myself in the GDR and in present-day Germany this is happening again through the Left, the Greens, the Reds and the Blacks (who were transformed into socialist by Mrs. Merkel): They dictate mass migration, they dictate energy ideology and destroy the country's energy supply (that has nothing to do with “green energy”), they have brought the media under control - as once in the GDR, real problems are not allowed to be reported be violence by refugees, the full cost of migration, its impact on the future of society; They have the judiciary, as once in the GDR, politically oriented in matters of migration - migrants are allowed to do practically anything. Anyone who takes action against it, they try to push out of their jobs. The dictatorship is also being expanded at the universities (Allensbach study), and I have seen it myself several times; In schools, teachers no longer dare to speak their minds. The left has no concept of preventing this dictatorship, it is inherent in it.