When I was 14 years old I read this relic by Hayek (the path of servitude) I challenged my father😂 and took the book from him. After 2 days of reading, the author objectively addresses the importance of less state, he addresses this monopoly very objectively and in detail. My parents and I love talking about him. I have all the books with great pride
I have found this so interesting and would love to hear more about him Could you please do a series explaining your understanding of him Perhaps a you tube channel? It would seem as though understanding his thoughts coupled with your insight could provide a useful way forward for a new modern order Thank you
Be reasonable. It is 21 minutes long. We are learning a little about a very big long project and one of its principals' approach to it. I suspect there is surprisingly much in those 19 volumes.
I am surprised to see this perspective on inet, but perhaps I shouldn’t be. I thought this school was trying to progress economic thinking, but I’m beginning to see more of its attempts to preserve neoliberalism. Neoliberalism didn’t resolve the problems of liberalism, it doubled down on the narrative that the world is made of rational individuals who make economic choices based on a free-market of information. The problem with liberalism was diagnosed by countless philosophers since its birth in the enlightenment. Of course Rule by Reason is better than Rule by Dictator or God, but every time there is a major crisis that breaks our political-economic rules, the facade falls away to reveal some kind of dictator or god has been behind the curtain all along. People’s natural response to such an illusion is to demand centralized top down control to stabilize the crises and resolve corruption, which has either taken the form of state-corporate control (fascism), or state-citizen control (socialism). Now the real new economic thinking is the realization that the citizens need to take control of both corporations and the state, at the local institutional scale. Enough with the bailouts for the rich, free-market discipline for the poor. Enough with war as the only solution to failing capitalism and dying democracy in the west. Hayek was nothing new or exemplary. Mont Pellerin Society was just a group of elites who were pissed about FDR’s 90% tax hike (which saved capitalism for another few decades). They used the next crisis to advance their boring old Liberalist philosophy, which everyone had forgotten about in the more socialist post ww2 boom. We can all read the history now, anyone can see what went down when Reagan and Thatcher took the reins. They only bought another half century for capitalism, and soon we will have to choose whether to submit to the American empire provoking ww3, or allow China to take the reins to see if they can avoid global catastrophe. At least China admits to its people that we are seeing the end of growth as we have known it. Americans still believe we will be driving F150s or Teslas and eating Happy Meals or Bloody Mary’s at Brunch forever.
Great post. And I agree with basically everything you wrote. But I still think its worth knowing or trying to understand different schools of economic thought.
@@gigante87 You're right, I just cringe when I hear people exalting neoliberal proponents. If more people understood the neoliberal project, then conservatives, libertarians, moderates and liberals would all finally understand that they're political-economic philosophies all stem from the same root that is Liberalism. It's a great idea! Use reason to have objective dialogue about how we should make decisions, and what decisions we should make to build and guide society. But that concept of a society built on reason, incrementally progressing towards objective Betterness and Truth, leads the population to check out from political action. We allow ourselves to believe the process of political development automatically leads to a Good Society, with or without our attention, and with or without our vote. Meanwhile, the political state has been utterly overtaken by the security state, and ultimately dictated by capital. The veil has been lifted so many times in the last 20 years, but we are not able to step outside of the rat race and into the streets to stop it. Maybe that isn't what it takes to stop it anymore. I certainly don't have answers.
@@hippopanotto Great comments. I think this is here, and that Caldwell has such a high post at Duke's, because sadly this kind of scholarship gets an insane amount of funding in comparison with more critical approach. While I've been able to secure funding for a project critical of these system, it was just enough to fund my studies, however when stakes go higher and institutions want to fund larger groups, editorial, etc., these critical approaches are basically worthless, it is very difficult to gather resources from government and impossible from donations. Academia, as the rest of our systems, is subordinated to the corporate status quo, hence departments in the social science are at best inclined to have a moderated approach to critique, or completely pander to elites.
[quote] Mont Pellerin Society was just a group of elites who were pissed about FDR’s 90% tax hike (which saved capitalism for another few decades). [/quote] Exactly. IMHO, because in capitalism, money always flows up into the hands of the rich; it is necessary for the Gov to tax most of it away from them. Becasue, if they get to keep it, in the limit, all the money will be held by the rich. This means that we have a choice, either tax the money away from the rich every year or see a crisis some day that results in which the people take their money away from the rich. Again, those are the 2 choices in a capitalist system. Show me another, if you can.
@@Hyperventilacion Appreciate your perspective and efforts from the inside. This was one of the key strategies for the neoliberal project. In the 50s, most people remembered what happened at the apex of laissez-faire liberal capitalism-- two world wars and a great depression. So the public was somewhat wise, and economists like Keynes were suspicious of Hayek and co. They had back and forth discussions where Keynes demolished his positions in writing, but Hayek did what neoliberals are so good at, which is to carry on espousing their "economic natural selection" dogma despite the counter narratives. There was an explosion of think tanks and foundations that published their discredited ideas as reputable research from the 50s to the 70s. Once the crisis hit in the 70s, these ideas that people used to be able to recognize as Liberal Capitalist propaganda were more widespread and painted as economic science and research. Faced with a reckoning that western capitalism was showing cracks, even with New Deal fascist/socialist programs propping it up, people preferred to believe the ideas of Hayek, von Mises and Friedman instead of recognizing that society was reaching it's energetic limits. Luckily, globalized debt and OPEC saved the day and kicked the can 50 years down the road. Now we are facing the same energetic and resource limits again. What ideas will the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank Complex serve up this time? Oh, WW3...
I think most people who have been following this channel would agree that Hayek is a name that shares a similar attribute with Nordhaus: the entire world would be better off had we not spent decades following their misguided ideologies cosplaying as theory. But I understand the channel giving a chance for these people to try and make an argument, however, it seems they only waste everyone's time with the lack of substance in the entirety of their monologues.
I believe the "wasting of everyone's time" was always a feature and not a bug for people like Hayek. His followers could spend all their time immersing themselves in his social and economic philosophies instead of simply pushing their books aside to look outside their window at what was happening to the world. They would have seen a large part of society been driven towards serfdom without legal protection, proper healthcare or a union to protect them. Minions who's only purpose is to facilitate the rich and the conservative playbook. To me, Hayek's work is nothing more than an eloquent rehash of the same old Dog Eats Dog ideas the conservatives, or libertarians for that matter, have always boasted about. Now people who became the victim are getting angry but because of the smoke screens created they don't know who is to blame.
100% agree with this statement. I came to this video looking to learn about Hayek's perspective and gain insights into the ideas he pushed. Instead, this video is pretty much just a run down of Bruce Caldwell telling you his C.V. I think I counted one brief sentence about what Hayek thought. This was a wasted opportunity for proponents of Hayek to promulgate their views. Wut??
Hayek was a fascist apologist who openly admitted that he considered private property more important than democracy. He also admired Chile's fascist dictator Pinochet and Portugal's fascist dictator Salazar.
You don't get to call someone who wrote a book about how fascism came about after witnessing it first hand (The Road to Serfdom) a fascist. Which of his books or papers have you even read??
Huge loss of respect for Duke's University, I read Hayek and Friedman as part of my Master's thesis and was flabbergasted by their poor scholarship, so much so that I almost had a panic attack just by thinking how our economics systems are based on the ideas of these boys. Both The Road to Serfdom and Capitalism and Freedom are filled by generalizations, unbacked claims, and a glaring lack of primary sources. I think these characters of the Mont Pelerin Society, are a testament of how the most important elements to succeed in academia, are privilege, and connections, because I don't see their work being backed up by its quality. I don't think this topic is a worthwhile endeavour for a historian, especially if it's not a critical perspective. Despite this, I completely agree with Caldwell last statements, that economist should learn from other sciences and take responsibility on their work, however, I don't think any members of this society did so and we're living the consequences now, especially those of us at the peripheries of the global south.
I find your writing emotive but lacking substantiation Could you please share with us your understanding about these ideas and your critique to understand your strongly held views
@@AnitaCorbett It's been a few years since I read their materials and have really engaged with their works again so I don't think I can give a detailed answer now, even less in a youtube comment. I just remember my strong disappointment and how shocked I was, I honestly was not expecting such poor scholarship. Moreover, back then I was not a leftist, it was this realization that pushed me towards the left as I've always been very skeptical of political ideologies. For what I remember, there were big generalizations regarding developing economies without sources or acknowledgement for local academics, which of course are more well situated to explain their own situation. There was also no interaction with the materials of the systems they criticized, they used the terms Marxism, communism, and socialism interchangeably which is a mistake a highschooler would make, not a social scientist. Rothbard was the only one that did somewhat thinker with those sources. However, one cannot express a meaningful understanding of places you don't know the language of, nor the sources you don't read, let alone a critique. They took many, many, concepts for granted, despite that their definition could greatly impact their analysis, although to be fair modern statistics still suffer from this. However, I think Hayek's text were a bit more substantiated than Friedman, the worst was The Brick, Chile's economic policy written by the Chicago Boys, but all of them were mediocre at best.
@@Hyperventilacion You don't have anything but hate, there is nothing competent or valid or substantive in your expression of your emotional hatreds confirming your very poorly educated biases.
I wonder why "Two Pages of Fiction" is included in Volume 18 of collected works. The Market and Other Orders (Volmue 15) is more appropriate, because it covered many of socialist calculation debate.
The commets are vey sad. Instead of learn from every source, and keep the good, just because there are Bad things, they reject everything; like the cancel culture among universities. Hayek theory of episthemology of prices is very good in theory, and in the 21st century, there is the technology to provide total information of prices.
It was interesting to hear Mr. Caldwell point out some contributions from Hayek he finds relevant. I agree we shouldn't reject the work of any person or school of thought en bloc, but judge the different ideas for their respective merits. Otherwise we breed ignorance and partisanship.
In my studies we explicitly read Hayek and no other „classic“ author. It is not so much that people commenting here are ignorant (at least from what I can tell and know from my experience). I am fed up with this kind of strangely uncritical argument about a very successful intellectual movement, that changed economics for the worse. After all this is why it needs iNET and other initiatives. I still appreciate the interview. I am all for pluralism in economics.
I very much agree. Arrogant beyond belief, I might add, almost as though they feel some sense of entitlement. I also accord with your remark about 'cancel culture.' Someone should tell these people, that they are in fact woke.
@@hinteregions What's the problem with being "woke"? As for the "cancel culture", I'm still not sure whether it means public shaming, which can be legitimate or harmful depending on each case, or to boycotting speakers at conferences, which I'd say should be generally frowned upon.
@@miguel5785 If you are sincere with that first sentence it's unfair, I cannot possibly be expected to write some gigantic treatise summarily in short form. Yes, our species has a long and glorious of discrediting. Suffice it to say the boycotted speakers are to me only one of many symptoms of a new collective pathology one of whose most alarming features is its power to stop people speaking at conferences.
We are sorry to hear that. For what it is worth, neither we nor Prof Caldwell are singing the virtues of neoliberalism. His argument (which is his, we are just providing it to you all for consideration) is that there is erroneous and outsized blame placed on Hayek and the meetings, such that important lessons to be taken away and repurposed now, are being thrown away with the bathwater. As mentioned before, we are not proclaiming any one idea or video published is "the way", we are offering a neutral presentation of as many perspectives as possible (within reason) so that we all can learn from the past and present mistakes within/adjacent to the discipline. The onus to put those pieces together, and to work together to fix what is broken, is on you and all those willing to take the time to watch and learn.
It is indeed unfortunate that you were prevented so early in the piece from learning what you determined to denounce, and purely by this channel's unforgivable lack of partisanship to say nothing of its monstrous even-handedness. I am quite unsure you will be greatly missed 😃
Even if Hayek's philosophy has hurt humanity, it's important to understand it if the left hopes to best fight against it. Socialists can also apply his idea about the local knowledge problem to justify democracy and democratic economics (including market socialism and participatory economics) if you use it right. We can use Hayek's ideas against capitalism in that way.
Billions of people have moved out of extreme poverty because of Hayek's ideas. There is no society in human history that embraced socialism that didn't lead to a horrible outcome. Not even one example. Think about that. I can come up dozens where capitalism lead to great outcomes (US, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, etc). I have no trouble coming up with examples of socialism being a disaster (Yugoslavia, Angola, Cuba, India, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Chile, Venezuela, etc).
@@Markdfadf Lol you have no idea what you're talking about and some of your examples are flat out hilarious. Chile under Pinochet is literally a textbook example of the shortcomings of neoliberal policies.
@@GarlicOasis Chile is the most economically free country in South America and has the highest per capita GDP in South America. Real wages dropped 80% under Allende. Venezuela was once the richest country in the region now it is basically the poorest because of socialism. Argentina has triple digit inflation because their government won't embrace basic economics on my monetary and fiscal policy. It is remarkable that the 100% success rate of capitalism still needs to be defended against the 100% fail rate of countries that don't respect property rights.
@@Markdfadf Who said anything about socialism ? What's with this simplistic binary thinking that takes you to the opposite extreme when discussing the failures of market fundamentalism? do you actually think neoliberalism is the only form of capitalism we have? Neoliberal policies have a 100% success rate in increasing economic inequality, causing economic crashes, and destroying the middle class among a long list of failures.
@@GarlicOasis Socialism is implicit in your babbling about Chile. I spend not one second thinking about economic inequality, which is an inherent feature of a free and prosperous society. I don't know what middle class is destroyed by free enterprise. The middle class saw the greatest gains in US history after the Civil War when policies were the most laissez faire. To the extent that inequality is an issue, it is purely from government interventions by granting special privileges through patents, licensing or subsidies which are not related to capitalism.
Just to be sure, We're talking about the same Friedrich Hayek that applauded General Pinochet's policies, which justified a rapid erosion of Chile's democracy and the freedom and human rights of it's people (aided by the practice of torture, hostage taking and murder) to improve the "economic freedom" of a minority of wealthy Chileans. Friedrich F**king Hayek a great mind indeed.
@@afshinsalehi2136Pinochet’s economic policy was pretty much directly formed by the Chicago Boys. About all social policies were dismantled, half of the taxation was gone, and all (except one) nationalized industries were privatized. Where is the central planning?
@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 His entire economic policy was designed by the Chicago School. As to whether he applauded his mass killings (on top of the economic disaster), I am curious as well.
His largest value is how use individuals use information in markets signals..He proved socialist planning could not work. Socialist economists thought central planning could work, they thought planners could take the given economic data and allocate resources accordingly. Hayek pointed out that the data are not “given.” The data doesn't exist, and cannot exist, each individual has knowledge about particular resources and potential opportunities for using these resources that a central planner can never have. Markets, allow actors to use information that only they have. In short, the market process generates the data. Without markets, data are almost nonexistent.
When I was 14 years old I read this relic by Hayek (the path of servitude) I challenged my father😂 and took the book from him. After 2 days of reading, the author objectively addresses the importance of less state, he addresses this monopoly very objectively and in detail. My parents and I love talking about him. I have all the books with great pride
I have found this so interesting and would love to hear more about him
Could you please do a series explaining your understanding of him
Perhaps a you tube channel?
It would seem as though understanding his thoughts coupled with your insight could provide a useful way forward for a new modern order
Thank you
There was surprisingly little about Hayek, to be honest.
Be reasonable. It is 21 minutes long. We are learning a little about a very big long project and one of its principals' approach to it. I suspect there is surprisingly much in those 19 volumes.
I must agree. While it was nice to hear it all, sadly only 8 minutes were really relevant.
That is the point. Just lots of noise.
@@hinteregions That is reasonable. All of the other videos on this channel can summarize important ideas in 20 min or less.
@@jeffsmith9420 I doubt that's true but then I don't myself don't need presentations summarised to sitcom length.
I am surprised to see this perspective on inet, but perhaps I shouldn’t be. I thought this school was trying to progress economic thinking, but I’m beginning to see more of its attempts to preserve neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism didn’t resolve the problems of liberalism, it doubled down on the narrative that the world is made of rational individuals who make economic choices based on a free-market of information.
The problem with liberalism was diagnosed by countless philosophers since its birth in the enlightenment. Of course Rule by Reason is better than Rule by Dictator or God, but every time there is a major crisis that breaks our political-economic rules, the facade falls away to reveal some kind of dictator or god has been behind the curtain all along.
People’s natural response to such an illusion is to demand centralized top down control to stabilize the crises and resolve corruption, which has either taken the form of state-corporate control (fascism), or state-citizen control (socialism).
Now the real new economic thinking is the realization that the citizens need to take control of both corporations and the state, at the local institutional scale.
Enough with the bailouts for the rich, free-market discipline for the poor. Enough with war as the only solution to failing capitalism and dying democracy in the west.
Hayek was nothing new or exemplary. Mont Pellerin Society was just a group of elites who were pissed about FDR’s 90% tax hike (which saved capitalism for another few decades). They used the next crisis to advance their boring old Liberalist philosophy, which everyone had forgotten about in the more socialist post ww2 boom.
We can all read the history now, anyone can see what went down when Reagan and Thatcher took the reins. They only bought another half century for capitalism, and soon we will have to choose whether to submit to the American empire provoking ww3, or allow China to take the reins to see if they can avoid global catastrophe.
At least China admits to its people that we are seeing the end of growth as we have known it. Americans still believe we will be driving F150s or Teslas and eating Happy Meals or Bloody Mary’s at Brunch forever.
Great post. And I agree with basically everything you wrote. But I still think its worth knowing or trying to understand different schools of economic thought.
@@gigante87 You're right, I just cringe when I hear people exalting neoliberal proponents. If more people understood the neoliberal project, then conservatives, libertarians, moderates and liberals would all finally understand that they're political-economic philosophies all stem from the same root that is Liberalism.
It's a great idea! Use reason to have objective dialogue about how we should make decisions, and what decisions we should make to build and guide society. But that concept of a society built on reason, incrementally progressing towards objective Betterness and Truth, leads the population to check out from political action. We allow ourselves to believe the process of political development automatically leads to a Good Society, with or without our attention, and with or without our vote.
Meanwhile, the political state has been utterly overtaken by the security state, and ultimately dictated by capital. The veil has been lifted so many times in the last 20 years, but we are not able to step outside of the rat race and into the streets to stop it. Maybe that isn't what it takes to stop it anymore. I certainly don't have answers.
@@hippopanotto Great comments. I think this is here, and that Caldwell has such a high post at Duke's, because sadly this kind of scholarship gets an insane amount of funding in comparison with more critical approach. While I've been able to secure funding for a project critical of these system, it was just enough to fund my studies, however when stakes go higher and institutions want to fund larger groups, editorial, etc., these critical approaches are basically worthless, it is very difficult to gather resources from government and impossible from donations. Academia, as the rest of our systems, is subordinated to the corporate status quo, hence departments in the social science are at best inclined to have a moderated approach to critique, or completely pander to elites.
[quote] Mont Pellerin Society was just a group of elites who were pissed about FDR’s 90% tax hike (which saved capitalism for another few decades). [/quote]
Exactly. IMHO, because in capitalism, money always flows up into the hands of the rich; it is necessary for the Gov to tax most of it away from them. Becasue, if they get to keep it, in the limit, all the money will be held by the rich. This means that we have a choice, either tax the money away from the rich every year or see a crisis some day that results in which the people take their money away from the rich. Again, those are the 2 choices in a capitalist system. Show me another, if you can.
@@Hyperventilacion Appreciate your perspective and efforts from the inside.
This was one of the key strategies for the neoliberal project. In the 50s, most people remembered what happened at the apex of laissez-faire liberal capitalism-- two world wars and a great depression. So the public was somewhat wise, and economists like Keynes were suspicious of Hayek and co. They had back and forth discussions where Keynes demolished his positions in writing, but Hayek did what neoliberals are so good at, which is to carry on espousing their "economic natural selection" dogma despite the counter narratives. There was an explosion of think tanks and foundations that published their discredited ideas as reputable research from the 50s to the 70s.
Once the crisis hit in the 70s, these ideas that people used to be able to recognize as Liberal Capitalist propaganda were more widespread and painted as economic science and research. Faced with a reckoning that western capitalism was showing cracks, even with New Deal fascist/socialist programs propping it up, people preferred to believe the ideas of Hayek, von Mises and Friedman instead of recognizing that society was reaching it's energetic limits. Luckily, globalized debt and OPEC saved the day and kicked the can 50 years down the road.
Now we are facing the same energetic and resource limits again. What ideas will the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank Complex serve up this time? Oh, WW3...
I think most people who have been following this channel would agree that Hayek is a name that shares a similar attribute with Nordhaus: the entire world would be better off had we not spent decades following their misguided ideologies cosplaying as theory.
But I understand the channel giving a chance for these people to try and make an argument, however, it seems they only waste everyone's time with the lack of substance in the entirety of their monologues.
Couldn't agree more.
Ook in😊
I believe the "wasting of everyone's time" was always a feature and not a bug for people like Hayek. His followers could spend all their time immersing themselves in his social and economic philosophies instead of simply pushing their books aside to look outside their window at what was happening to the world. They would have seen a large part of society been driven towards serfdom without legal protection, proper healthcare or a union to protect them. Minions who's only purpose is to facilitate the rich and the conservative playbook.
To me, Hayek's work is nothing more than an eloquent rehash of the same old Dog Eats Dog ideas the conservatives, or libertarians for that matter, have always boasted about. Now people who became the victim are getting angry but because of the smoke screens created they don't know who is to blame.
100% agree with this statement. I came to this video looking to learn about Hayek's perspective and gain insights into the ideas he pushed. Instead, this video is pretty much just a run down of Bruce Caldwell telling you his C.V.
I think I counted one brief sentence about what Hayek thought. This was a wasted opportunity for proponents of Hayek to promulgate their views.
Wut??
Exactly my sentiment - you expressed far better than I could.
Thank you! I'm planning to write my thesis on Hayek's epistemology. I hope it will give me insights I needed 😄
Sounds fun
To generate benefits for all people is Tao. Wherever the Tao goes, everyone will follow.
--------Friedrich Hayek(Taoist)
Hayek was a fascist apologist who openly admitted that he considered private property more important than democracy. He also admired Chile's fascist dictator Pinochet and Portugal's fascist dictator Salazar.
Private property is more important than democracy
That's not true he wasn't a fascist
Typical illiterate normie who didn't bother to read hayek
You don't get to call someone who wrote a book about how fascism came about after witnessing it first hand (The Road to Serfdom) a fascist. Which of his books or papers have you even read??
Everyone I don't like is literally Hitler............
A lot of death chileans will not say that 1947 meeting was lovely, for sure. Mises do not help either, after working for Dollfuss.
Huge loss of respect for Duke's University, I read Hayek and Friedman as part of my Master's thesis and was flabbergasted by their poor scholarship, so much so that I almost had a panic attack just by thinking how our economics systems are based on the ideas of these boys. Both The Road to Serfdom and Capitalism and Freedom are filled by generalizations, unbacked claims, and a glaring lack of primary sources. I think these characters of the Mont Pelerin Society, are a testament of how the most important elements to succeed in academia, are privilege, and connections, because I don't see their work being backed up by its quality. I don't think this topic is a worthwhile endeavour for a historian, especially if it's not a critical perspective. Despite this, I completely agree with Caldwell last statements, that economist should learn from other sciences and take responsibility on their work, however, I don't think any members of this society did so and we're living the consequences now, especially those of us at the peripheries of the global south.
I find your writing emotive but lacking substantiation
Could you please share with us your understanding about these ideas and your critique to understand your strongly held views
@@AnitaCorbett It's been a few years since I read their materials and have really engaged with their works again so I don't think I can give a detailed answer now, even less in a youtube comment. I just remember my strong disappointment and how shocked I was, I honestly was not expecting such poor scholarship. Moreover, back then I was not a leftist, it was this realization that pushed me towards the left as I've always been very skeptical of political ideologies.
For what I remember, there were big generalizations regarding developing economies without sources or acknowledgement for local academics, which of course are more well situated to explain their own situation. There was also no interaction with the materials of the systems they criticized, they used the terms Marxism, communism, and socialism interchangeably which is a mistake a highschooler would make, not a social scientist. Rothbard was the only one that did somewhat thinker with those sources. However, one cannot express a meaningful understanding of places you don't know the language of, nor the sources you don't read, let alone a critique. They took many, many, concepts for granted, despite that their definition could greatly impact their analysis, although to be fair modern statistics still suffer from this. However, I think Hayek's text were a bit more substantiated than Friedman, the worst was The Brick, Chile's economic policy written by the Chicago Boys, but all of them were mediocre at best.
You are poorly educated Andy, and your ugly and ignorant attacks on Hayek and Bruce Caldwell are a scientific and moral disgrace.
@@Hyperventilacion You don't have anything but hate, there is nothing competent or valid or substantive in your expression of your emotional hatreds confirming your very poorly educated biases.
@@MrGregRansom Well, there is even less substance on your ad hominem against me boy.
professor caldwell is not only excellent historian of economic thought and hayek scholar, but also seems to be genuinely nice person
I wonder why "Two Pages of Fiction" is included in Volume 18 of collected works. The Market and Other Orders (Volmue 15) is more appropriate, because it covered many of socialist calculation debate.
The commets are vey sad. Instead of learn from every source, and keep the good, just because there are Bad things, they reject everything; like the cancel culture among universities. Hayek theory of episthemology of prices is very good in theory, and in the 21st century, there is the technology to provide total information of prices.
It was interesting to hear Mr. Caldwell point out some contributions from Hayek he finds relevant. I agree we shouldn't reject the work of any person or school of thought en bloc, but judge the different ideas for their respective merits. Otherwise we breed ignorance and partisanship.
In my studies we explicitly read Hayek and no other „classic“ author. It is not so much that people commenting here are ignorant (at least from what I can tell and know from my experience). I am fed up with this kind of strangely uncritical argument about a very successful intellectual movement, that changed economics for the worse. After all this is why it needs iNET and other initiatives. I still appreciate the interview. I am all for pluralism in economics.
I very much agree. Arrogant beyond belief, I might add, almost as though they feel some sense of entitlement. I also accord with your remark about 'cancel culture.' Someone should tell these people, that they are in fact woke.
@@hinteregions What's the problem with being "woke"? As for the "cancel culture", I'm still not sure whether it means public shaming, which can be legitimate or harmful depending on each case, or to boycotting speakers at conferences, which I'd say should be generally frowned upon.
@@miguel5785 If you are sincere with that first sentence it's unfair, I cannot possibly be expected to write some gigantic treatise summarily in short form. Yes, our species has a long and glorious of discrediting. Suffice it to say the boycotted speakers are to me only one of many symptoms of a new collective pathology one of whose most alarming features is its power to stop people speaking at conferences.
Hayek is a deeply confused ideologue. Sincerely PJ Proudhon.
Says the lib left regime apologist.
Hayek did not consider himself an anarchist.
Most of Hayek's work was in the Austrian theory of business cycles, capital theory, and monetary theory. 5:49
Hayek was not directly a businessman.
Mutualism is the future.
I could not get past "it was a lovely meeting". I have unsubscribed not interested in hearing about the virtues of Neoliberalism.
We are sorry to hear that. For what it is worth, neither we nor Prof Caldwell are singing the virtues of neoliberalism. His argument (which is his, we are just providing it to you all for consideration) is that there is erroneous and outsized blame placed on Hayek and the meetings, such that important lessons to be taken away and repurposed now, are being thrown away with the bathwater. As mentioned before, we are not proclaiming any one idea or video published is "the way", we are offering a neutral presentation of as many perspectives as possible (within reason) so that we all can learn from the past and present mistakes within/adjacent to the discipline. The onus to put those pieces together, and to work together to fix what is broken, is on you and all those willing to take the time to watch and learn.
It is indeed unfortunate that you were prevented so early in the piece from learning what you determined to denounce, and purely by this channel's unforgivable lack of partisanship to say nothing of its monstrous even-handedness. I am quite unsure you will be greatly missed 😃
I think they did this interview just to show where bad ideas come from.
Even if Hayek's philosophy has hurt humanity, it's important to understand it if the left hopes to best fight against it.
Socialists can also apply his idea about the local knowledge problem to justify democracy and democratic economics (including market socialism and participatory economics) if you use it right. We can use Hayek's ideas against capitalism in that way.
Billions of people have moved out of extreme poverty because of Hayek's ideas. There is no society in human history that embraced socialism that didn't lead to a horrible outcome. Not even one example. Think about that. I can come up dozens where capitalism lead to great outcomes (US, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, etc). I have no trouble coming up with examples of socialism being a disaster (Yugoslavia, Angola, Cuba, India, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Chile, Venezuela, etc).
@@Markdfadf Lol you have no idea what you're talking about and some of your examples are flat out hilarious. Chile under Pinochet is literally a textbook example of the shortcomings of neoliberal policies.
@@GarlicOasis Chile is the most economically free country in South America and has the highest per capita GDP in South America. Real wages dropped 80% under Allende. Venezuela was once the richest country in the region now it is basically the poorest because of socialism. Argentina has triple digit inflation because their government won't embrace basic economics on my monetary and fiscal policy. It is remarkable that the 100% success rate of capitalism still needs to be defended against the 100% fail rate of countries that don't respect property rights.
@@Markdfadf Who said anything about socialism ? What's with this simplistic binary thinking that takes you to the opposite extreme when discussing the failures of market fundamentalism? do you actually think neoliberalism is the only form of capitalism we have? Neoliberal policies have a 100% success rate in increasing economic inequality, causing economic crashes, and destroying the middle class among a long list of failures.
@@GarlicOasis Socialism is implicit in your babbling about Chile. I spend not one second thinking about economic inequality, which is an inherent feature of a free and prosperous society. I don't know what middle class is destroyed by free enterprise. The middle class saw the greatest gains in US history after the Civil War when policies were the most laissez faire. To the extent that inequality is an issue, it is purely from government interventions by granting special privileges through patents, licensing or subsidies which are not related to capitalism.
Just to be sure, We're talking about the same Friedrich Hayek that applauded General Pinochet's policies, which justified a rapid erosion of Chile's democracy and the freedom and human rights of it's people (aided by the practice of torture, hostage taking and murder) to improve the "economic freedom" of a minority of wealthy Chileans. Friedrich F**king Hayek a great mind indeed.
Pincochet's central planning and authoritative government had nothing to do with Hayek.
@@afshinsalehi2136Pinochet’s economic policy was pretty much directly formed by the Chicago Boys. About all social policies were dismantled, half of the taxation was gone, and all (except one) nationalized industries were privatized. Where is the central planning?
Can you provide some sources to substantiate your claim that Hayek applauded Pinochet?
@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 His entire economic policy was designed by the Chicago School. As to whether he applauded his mass killings (on top of the economic disaster), I am curious as well.
Sooo, just a funboy studing some he admires. No depth here, just "wonderful" people everywhere
His largest value is how use individuals use information in markets signals..He proved socialist planning could not work. Socialist economists thought central planning could work, they thought planners could take the given economic data and allocate resources accordingly. Hayek pointed out that the data are not “given.” The data doesn't exist, and cannot exist, each individual has knowledge about particular resources and potential opportunities for using these resources that a central planner can never have. Markets, allow actors to use information that only they have. In short, the market process generates the data. Without markets, data are almost nonexistent.