Brilliant. Agree or not from 0-100% of what he's saying, he's a very smart guy who survived the misfortune of National Socialism and other misguided disasters of the early 20th century. We should at least consider what his historic perspective is telling us.
@@yydd4954 Hayek was not a mathematician, but he was certainly well trained in mathematics. He carried out the statistical analyses at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research.
@@humanaction6744 oh wow As much I know he lacked interest in mathematics and Austrian school don't like statistical and mathematical methods or scientific methods Idk which work of Hayek even has statistical analysis? He was a philosopher, he was more into qualitative analysis
@@yydd4954 the pure theory of capital is plenty of graphics which involves maths. To say that an economist doesn't know about mats, even if is Austrian, is wrong. Of course, he wasn't better than fisher or some of the best mathematical economist of his time. He wasn't an ignorant tho.
@@NicolasSpiaggi02 what kind of maths bro? Normal formulas or more Btw I will look forward to read that book of Hayek too Hayek wasn't a studious kid of his class He got low marks in maths 😅
It's quite ironic that pro-capitalists like Hayek who are supposed to be selfish and heartless have such faith in people and human goodness seeing the light and choosing liberalism over authoritarianism.
A true genius. Such an over-used word. But in his case its true. RIP Professor Hayek. One of the handful of truly great economists in history. I'd put him in first rank with Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.
When he says "Britain now needs drastic measures," and that a cure will be "fairly painful" he was absolutely right. What a brilliant man. Thatcher, using Hayek's formulas, was a huge reason Britain broke from the claws of Labor and began to prosper once again.
It's been over 20 years since this interview, the world hasn't ended, and the youth are waking up to sound economic policy! Good call Hayek, there is a light at the end of the tunnel after all.
Altruism "not coming in" is a consequence of the theory not an "assumption" as you assume. He is talking about the knowledge problem arising from the division of labor in society. Even totally altruistic people do not have the knowledge to coordinate without price signals arising out of market exchange to guide them. Hayek's own evolutionary theory of human nature suggests that humans are intrinsically altruistic due to adapting to small tribal societies.
His views are laughable. It might be true, that widely distributed information is best used in a decentralized market system. But where are the negativ externalities taken into account!? There are so many problems or benefits not integrated into the price system. So hayeks argument fucks itself
@@yydd4954 you better use empirics. So many problems have to be tackled by the state in theory and were practically successfull too. It is much more unlogic to think that markets solve problems always better the you could with state intervention. Adverse selektion in the insurence market of the US proves this perectly. But most of hayeks advocates do not even know any empirics or theories about this phenomena…
@@ticktricknik successful in short run* And it majorly failed whether the keynesians or the socialists Also great recession happened because of government intervention. Most importantly free market system is of long run and people are impatient otherwise long run matter the most. Also importantly government intervention leads to cronyism which sucks.
@@ticktricknik market do work better than planning, there's no doubt about it. Allocation of resources are better Government role can be crucial for creating a competitive environment in market, like there is need of infrastructure and links, there is need of good international relations. So these things are definitely there Market works simply on supply and demand idk why it's so hard for u to understand
"You are asking people to do the one thing which history seems to suggest nobody ever does, voluntarily to relinquish the power they have." MEET RON PAUL 2012!
Law is there to preserve freedom of individuals, and it does so by restraining everyone from stepping on others' freedom. That's the opposite of the rule of jungle, where might makes right. Under the rule of law in the sense of Locke or the founding fathers is the US, the jungle is transformed into a cooperative market of voluntary actions that raises the standard of living for all (though not equally, since people don't work equally hard or are equally lucky etc.)
Könntest du bitte erklären, warum es theoretisch nur unter Eingriff des Staates zu Monopolbildung kommen kann? Ich habe diese These schon öfter gehört, aber kann sie mir nicht erklären.
Auch in einem freien Markt können Monopole und Kartelle entstehen, jedoch sind diese in fast allen Fällen sehr instabil und zerfallen auch schnell. Stellen wir uns vor: Firmen in der Möbelbranche schliessen sich zu einem Kartell zusammen. Sie erhöhen erfolgreich die Möbelpreise, indem sie die Produktion einschränken und somit das Angebot reduzieren. Die erhöhten Möbelpreise sind ein Signal für andere Unternehmer. Diese realisieren, dass sie in der Möbelbranche hohe Profite erzielen können, da die Differenz zwischen dem Verkaufspreisen am Markt und den Produktionskosten hier stark angestiegen ist. Manche Unternehmer gründen nun neue Möbelfirmen und senken durch die erhöhte Produktion die Preise. Das geht so lange, bis die Gewinne in der Möbelbranche nicht mehr höher als diese in anderen Branchen sind. Und somit zerfällt das Kartell. Hier kann man auch sehen, dass dieser Prozess am besten funktioniert, wenn neue Unternehmen einfach in die Branche eindringen können und ihnen keine unnötigen Hindernisse in den Weg gestellt werden. Historisch gesehen werden die meisten unkompetitiven Branchen durch staatliche Interventionen produziert. Eine Intervention, die für viele Probleme verantwortlich ist, aber meist vergessen wird, ist das Patentwesen. Es macht konkurrieren in vielen Bereichen ohne Bewilligung illegal.
Uh, laws don't throw you in jail - a judge does... and he works for the government... We have constitutions, federal and state, that (should) limit the coercive power of government... And if I disagree with my representative's vote, or I believe him to be corrupt, I can vote against him, or even run against him... I believe that's how all that works... Regarding corporations, they are solely legal entities - and they consist of people with whom I can chose to do business with or not...
@ConscientiousMind They only don't do it because it would be very unpopular to do so. If the people who opposed them even slightly understood why it is good in the long run, well, they would not be in the opposition in the first place now would they?
I consider myself NATURALLY liberal in the classical sense. If you buttress the understanding of individualism against racism and sexism, if you are a non-conformist and reject authority then these conclusions come naturally. Even being raised among socialists didn't dissuade me. I think its a matter of intuition.
Mises, Hayek and the Austrians have and will continue to predict every economic downturn since the early 1900s. Why? Not through mathematical formulas, that Krugman and Keynesians love to toss around, but through observance of history and rational thought. 10 or 20 years, we will be looking back at these videos and saying "Why didn't we listen to them"
You don't understand the dominance of corporations? They don't throw people into jail directly. They just lobby congress men to pass laws that do. You don't seem to understand the corruption in US politics. For self interest of corporation and its CEO, bankers can scam you tons money and not going to jail. Not only that, they get rewarded. Would you like that?
No it hasn't. In fact quite the opposite is the case. For example, Hong Kong is very rich, and China is very poor. People don't get rich at the expense of the poor, you can only get rich by enriching other.
pt3: Der Markt kann nicht jedes Bedürfnis erfassen. Das ist nicht sein Ziel, weil deine Bedürfnisbefriedigung für keinen Marktakteur der Zweck ist. Profit ist der Zweck und Handel und Produktion die Mittel. Deshalb kommen auch auf jeden Obdachlosen in den USA 5 leerstehende Häuser, und auf 20 mio. Tonnen von Supermärkten weggeworfene Lebensmittel in D. 1 mio Menschen die von der Tafel abhängig sind. Bedürfnisbefriedigung ist in einer reinen Marktwirtschaft ein Nebeneffekt, mehr nicht.
LOL..true. But in order to really believe in something deeply you usually have to be introduced to the form of your opposition. That way the masters of the philosophy one adheres to can demonize the other side.
Malthusian thought doesnt contradict the principles of libertarianism. Malthusianism, for those who know, is the philosophical dissection of an exact science which rides on the hypothesis that all living things have a means of sustenance and that this sustenance is finite - and this is something all concerned citizens and especially leaders within a community should be most aware of when making decisions that determine public policy.
The problem with malthusianism is that it has historically been spectacularly wrong. As the world population expanded in the last two centuries, less and less people have suffered from hunger.
in Chile that is called the "chorreo" (drip) logic. This way of thinking has not reach success in Chilean statistitcs, especifficaly in the the distribution of wealth.
*facepalm* the cornerstone of neoliberalism is that bubbles should be made impossible by letting the market decide interest rates so that borrowing costs would make bubbles too expensive to produce. Also neoliberals believe that sound monetary policy i.e using real money and not paper should be followed because it makes inflation, a key component in an inflationary bubble, next to impossible.
Central Plan oder totaler Markt. Ist das also nun der Antagonismus den ich hier verhandeln darf? In einer parallelen Diskussion darf ich erklären warum es keines totalitären Ökonomismus bedarf um eine Gesellschaft vor dem verhungern zu bewahren.Warum müssen Marktradikale ihre Ansichten eigentlich immer mit Extremen kontrastieren? Wahrscheinlich um dieses riesige Spektrum an Alternativen zu kaschieren, das sich zwischen dem einen und ihrem Extrem befindet...
Clearly, you are deeply confused over the concept of the rule of law... I suggest you consider the following from John Locke: So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom."
Most of the flaws in his theory are results of ambivalence and self-reflection leading him to minor or major contradictions. Hayek is very much the opposite of dogmatic when compared to most theorists and philosophers.
Classical liberals cannot be dogmatic because they are in favor of progress and of an open society. Bot conservatives and socialist though have a clear result in mind they want to accomplish.
Your comment is literally unintelligible... "Collapse of self interest driven economy"? When is human action ever driven by anything other than "self-interest"? Do you devote all of your resources to charity? Do you expect your wants, needs, and desires to be satisfied by someone else? Will you pay my power bill, please? I know it's in my interest and not yours to do so, so you shouldn't have any objections, right? And how do "corporations" dominate anything? Can they throw you in jail?
''mill called the conservative party 'the stupid party' there is no such thing as a libatarian on the right'' Non sequitur much?? Mill a Classical Liberal attacked the conservative party of his day for being anti intellectual. Your point does not follow from that.
Let me quote Orwell on what anti intellectualism means in this context ''a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic world view'' (Why I Write p14, Penguin Great Ideas). The ignorant & simple will more fit into a mode of thought founded on 'common sense' & prejudice then into ideas that reqiure reading & comprehension of abstract ideas. Marxists, & Liberals whatever their merits do not fall into these catagories, they are both movements led by intellectuals.
Hayek should live to see the great collapse of self interest driven economy, the admittance of wrong in front of the Congress by his student, Alan Greenspan, and the dominance of corporations over US politics without the balance of trade union. Bravo!!!
Hayek was talking of price coordinated economy whereas the history shows a elective tyranny. What are you talking about ? See dr. Thomas Sowell's "Housing Boom and Bust". At least the interview
The philosophers mentioned from 22:00 are Henry James Sumner Maine (1822-1888), Frederic William Maitland (1850-1906), Sir Frederick Pollock (1845-1947) and A. V. Dicey (1835-1922)
