I appreciated particularly the final part, highlighting the (right) critics to Hayek's vision. It is also worth to point out that his think tank, the "Mont Pelerin Society", included various figures connected to the Argentinian, Brazilian, Chilean, Guatemalan and Uruguayan military dictatorships
We keep beating around the bush. For now, let's make the country "our experiment". The far right is based on the export of organizations of creepy English teachers who try to be as hard to prosecute as possible, but are ruining communities as we speak. (That's not to say that many of them aren't creepy, but still) They don't have cells of agents-who-aren't-really-agents and stuff. They operate quite differently. They also created all that anti-court nonsense, and anarchy. The weird thing about the USA is that these guys were apparently the ones who were connecting the colonies together. You think it's sooo funny right? You think the revolution was more than just a rebellion, huh? you think there's NOTHING to tell to THE NEXT PEOPLE who are CERTAINLY GOING TO COLONIZE THE CONTINENT, before they get started? Statutory ra** is literally a crime. They went around the continent, trying to tell all the kids that they should rebel against adults basically, because the teachers were trying to "start a new nation with them". And the funniest part of all this is what we all think about Khruschev. Are the Israelis really going to kidnap him? Can a Bostonian make me laugh? Etc These things are about people rather than about "political opinions/views", but people are also subjects of a court, and they are internationally recognized as being a subject of some court (ordinarily/for the most part). Why do you think all of our ancestors adopted the idea of spoken language or drum language, and NONE of them refused to Actively, and with Full awareness, teach their kids and community how to speak? It's because they wanted us to be able to hold trials in the future, give nonviolent punishments, centralize power in an appellate court, and have job specializations.
Thank you for your outstanding video summary/precis of Hayak and Free Markets, Professor Anne-Kathrin! Kurzgesagt (In a Nutshell), you always cover the essential points. As I was viewing the video, I wondered, will Professor Anne-Kathrin mention Milton Friedman (Chicago School)? Yes, Thomas Pickety, ( French Economist)? Yes, and Hayak's critics too? - yes, indeed!👏👏Bravo!
Great summary and I like that you are trying to discuss ideas from opposing groups. If you have a chance, I recommend reading Hayek's essay "Why I'm not a Conservative". It gave me a new insight into a tension that exists within Conservative's support for free markets.
Hi! I really appreciate your channel and what you're trying to do with it ❤ it's very important in a time like this where anti intellectualism is on the rise. Would you consider doing a video about books that you consider must reads?
8:35 I lost my horse and my neighbor said that was bad, but I didn't think we could know such things. My horse returned with many wild stallions, and my neighbors thought me quite fortunate, but I didn't think we could know such things.
I wonder how Project Cybersyn interacts with his work. As a cybernetician (robotics engineer) I think about this a lot. I don’t think the issue is ‘centralisation’ for that matter, but a badly designed system without sufficient feedback between subsystems, and badly defined relations between them. For example, Walmart is highly centralised, but they plan the economy quite splendidly!
Distributed is better than Centralized imo and many things moves towards distribution. Examples: Free market - Planned economy, the Internet, blockchain , Index funds - shares in a single company, AI with broad information, democracy - autocracy, Collective intelligence, Crowd forecasting vs specialist forecasters, etc etc. Since distribution is more robust and more intelligent since it has more sources and can survive more points of failure. I don't know how Walmart works but many companies try to incorporate distributed responsibility, like Amazon has many sellers, Uber has many drivers, X/facbook/wikipedia has many writers, youtube has many creators.
Thanks for another great video! One of your best so far, I think. I especially appreciate your commitment to cover wildly different points of view on such extremely controversial subjects. As you have also asked what we think: in my (very humble) opinion the subjective theory of value is compelling and useful, as it is the rebuttal of abstract equilibria. On the other hand, Hayek's demonization of the state seems exaggerated and paranoid and the critics expressed at the end of the video (as well as those mentioned by other commenters, especially with regard to monopolies) seem very much justified.
How did you know that I was learning about that exact topic today for my exam??? What a coincidence. There is definitely a lot to think about, especially since I‘m reading „Why Nations fail“ and the authors point out that historically speaking the political systems are extremely important and are the key difference why Nations fail. They also seem to highlight that sometimes Politicians know what economically is the best step forward but concisely decided against it because for the politician the political ramifications are from upmost importance and in my own personal opinion it highlights how overspecialisation and especially having a strong divide between different scientific fields, leads people to over look key flaws in their mindset. Mainly because they are specialists in their own respective fields and forget, concisely or unconsciously, their own limits of their knowledge. By the way ich hab das Gefühl die Videos werden exht immer besser, weiter so. Mag deinen kanal voll.
Hi Anne-Kathrin! I really appreciate the sentiment you expressed at the beginning of the video about how important it is to consider viewpoints outside of our own "cosmos" (as you put it). I totally agree, and think it's so valuable to find the overlap that we have with opposing viewpoints so that it brings our contrasting assumptions into sharp focus. I find that Hayek and Marx are not as different as it may first appear. It's only the tendency to categorize all of their works as right versus left that prevents us from seeing this. Of course they disagree on the concept of "private property rights", but I think that they might actually agree that it's better to distribute decision-making power rather than centralize it. When Marx talked about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" he was simply describing workers having decision-making power. All of the workers, not just some small vanguard. That said, he did suggest using government institutions as a tool for exerting this power. Engels described the Paris Commune as being an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it certainly had no centralized authority. If you look up "substitutionism", you'll see that Trotsky specifically warned Lenin that he was treating the revolutionary vanguard party (the Bolsheviks) as the same as the working class. And so, because of the USSR and the other states that it influenced, centralized command economies became synonymous with the words "socialism" and "communism". The vanguard party in these states had a vested interest in maintaining those definitions, since it meant that they had crossed the finish line and didn't have to divest their power to the actual workers, and capitalists in other countries had a vested interest in maintaining these definitions because they could tell their workers: "See! It could be worse! Decision-making power could be even more concentrated than it is with me!" For the actual workers, all that happened was that their individual capitalist owner was replaced with a government owner. One sent by the vanguard party. The workers themselves didn't gain any meaningful decision-making power because the owner/worker division remained. If a capitalist is someone who owns the means of production instead of the workers, what's really changed there? But Hayek's focus on government centralization makes him miss the fact that individual capitalists centralize decision-making power anyway. As long as private property rights are enforced, capitalists will be able to concentrate their wealth. After all, are they not allowed decision-making power over the means of production that they "rightfully" own? This is self-perpetuating. The wealth buys market share, leading to monopoly, but the wealth also buys political influence to prevent them being prosecuted for monopolization. Eventually we have a handful of massive monopolies controlling vestigial governments who's only purpose is to legitimize and subsidize those same monopolies while enforcing the capital owners' "private property rights". That certainly seems like the trend of neoliberalism so far. I think an alternative lies in the anarchist tradition. Bakunin famously argued with Marx about the efficacy of trying to use a state apparatus to get rid of the state, and he advocated for a more decentralized approach (kind of like Hayek, in my opinion). I've always been frustrated when people cite Stalin or Mao to indicate that "communism/socialism" never works. First of all, if you're talking about the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc., they all took largely illiterate, hungry, pre-industrial populations that were either extensively colonized or just straight up fuedal, and in a couple of decades rocketed them forward to the point were they were literate, much better fed, and enjoyed nearly the same levels of industrialization and technology as in the USA and Europe. The USSR in particular was a country of rural agrarian serfs under a czar in 1919, and by 1957 they had launched the world's first satellite, Sputnik! And they did all of this while being locked out of international trade due to capitalists getting their countries to establish and enforce embargos. Of course all of this rapid progress came at the horrible expense of the rights, autonomy, and lives of the workers in these countries, which is the natural conclusion of centralized decision-making power. And because this decision-making power was in the hands of the vanguard party and not those of the workers, I think it makes sense to describe this as state capitalism, because the vanguard party who runs the state owns the means of production, rather than the workers themselves. Of course it's not good enough to just say "That's not REAL communism/socialism!" I should point to something that I think gets closer to the real deal. I like to point to things like the Paris Commune or CNT-FAI in revolutionary Spain. These represent large-scale, albeit temporary, approximations of anarchist/communist societies that worked until they were crushed by larger states. The USSR, ironically, played a significant role in suppressing the CNT-FAI, revealing how misaligned the Bolshevik party was with the goal of supporting true worker autonomy. More recent examples include Rojava and the Zapatistas, which still operate today. They use markets to balance their economies (a concept Hayek might appreciate), but avoid privatizing property. Most workers own their means of production directly as opposed to selling their labor to the capitalist who does. This allows them to participate in democratic or consensus-based decision-making about what to do with their own tools and materials. Those decisions aren't made by a small group of economic elites. There are other terms for these political systems like democratic confederalism, libertarian socialism, market socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc., but I think they all have strong roots in Marx's critique of capitalism. While they're not entirely stateless or classless, I think they're the closest approximations that exist today. But because they don't have "private property", I can't figure out if Hayek would like them. Additionally, I think that an example of socialist institutions can exist in countries that call themselves capitalist, although these will always struggle to survive in a political and economic landscape built by and for capitalists. One example is the Mondragon Corporation, which is owned by all of the workers. Importantly each worker has equal voting rights. This is distinct from a company with employee stock options where voting power is proportional to the number of stocks they have. Worker co-ops like this can work within decentralized market economies (like Hayek prefers), but without the class separation between workers and owners that exists in capitalist companies, and without directly involving a state apparatus. I find much of what you say about Hayek compelling, but can't figure out what he saw differently from me. Why did he think that a distinct economic elite (capitalists) owning the tools and materials (means of production) that everyone else needed to make a livelihood was a necessary element of a "free-market economy"? Why didn't he think that privatizing the means of production would inherently lead to centralization of decision-making power? Why didn't he think that you could move the market forces all the way down to the individual worker? Did he maybe have a different definition of "private property"? Anyway, thank you for this thought provoking video!
hayek was also skeptical of democracy in his later years (probably due to schumpeter influence) and was leaning heavily into his law background and writing piece on law and constitution. Now the reason he think private property should exist is because he think its guarantee freedom. The owning of capital privately for him was because he think it will facilitate these freedom (also Austrian school don't tend to use the distinction of capital goods and consumer goods as the other schools think of it as laptop it can be classify either way). He rarely talk about monopoly as he believe market will favor competition and monopoly are either temporary or market efficient so he doesn't bother with it although he did advocate for breakup of monopoly if they are price hiking and all that (I think the argument was made in some footnote in constitution of liberty). The hayekean argument against market forces all the way to the labor is probably that labor use different capital and they have different knowledge so it would be inefficient for someone else beside the one who know how to use the capital to own it, if the other person doesn't know how they would probably default and sell it off. Regarding the rent-seeking argument hayek usually address only in the context of government granting rights to certain special interest groups and he advocate for limiting the politician power. This was probably due to the other context where market behave in a rent-seeking behavior was view as addresses by him with the public school and virginia school of economics (buchanan and tullock) and later another school like bloomington where the ostroms also adress this (they also cited hayek alot). Side Note: He was almost a goergist but he see that land price calculation doesn't works but if he have live I think he can be persuaded
I love this channel. You are a beautiful girl, you are very intelligent, you present the material very well and talk about it confidently. You have a great sense of style. The content is interesting and engaging and, even though I am much older than you, you speak about it with enough depth and intellect for it to provide something for me to learn from and think about.
I find it pertinent that Keynes made his counter-arguments from observation, what could be experienced at the time. Things got even worse (WW2), at a point where the US (yes, New Deal) had already reformed several key policies. A war-torn Western Europe followed, going further towards what became social-democratic equitable liberties. Equitable, because of the balance between government, corporate entities and individual citizens - libertarian, in the form of the early republicans was never about «individuals» in isolation. The notion of «equitable» is what disappears in the new liberalism of Hayek, of course put into practice first in the US (1971-2), and across OECD after ca 1980. To circle back to what Keynes «observed» ca a century ago - rhetorically; what can easily be observed across OECD now? I don’t need to answer. What I can say, is that e.g. «Marxism» or socialism can’t be blamed, other than for their absence. None have been leveraged in or close to power in influential OECD countries since about 1990. Even «the state» itself is rather weak (legislation), people are poorer - so rhetorically again, who calls the shots around OECD last 15 years…? Would even Hayek look at this and go «Yess, what a perfectly ordered free market, full of happy entrepreneurial people…»…?
Wow, there's so much progress since your early videos! I love how you speak more and more confidently ❤ Also, thank you for the subtitles, as a non-native English speaker, I need them from time to time. (Saying this as a socialist democrat 😄)
neither central state planning nor “free” (very unregulated) markets will lead to prosperity and freedom. the only hope i have lies in democratising state control & function as well as democratising economic activity & decision making. (because whenever there is power imbalance those on top take advantage of it at the cost of the others. expanding democracy is the only antidote in my opinion)
These criticisms seem to strawman what Hayek himself said. He never opposed the idea that the government should provide some kind of social safety net, neither did he deny that there are certain market inefficiencies, like the example of negative externalities like pollition. What should be considered is the historical context. He lived through the early 1900s, he experienced the rise of nationalism in europe that led to WW1, he witnessed the spread of fascism and lived at the same time as the formation of the soviet union. It was a time where many of the things that we take for granted were put into question. The idea of parliamentary democracy was often seen as a relic of the past, it was thought that the idea of a kind of a "singe unified party", like those realized under communism and fascism would be the future. The idea of globalism and multiculturalism was considered a weakpoint that would harm national unity (or working class unity for that matter too). And it wasnt just economic activity that was nationalized. These were political systems where simple, everyday things like a sports club would be run by the government and also legally obligated to be run in the political interest of the government, whatever that might mean. So a lot of what Hayek did was simply defend certain values that we often take for granted in our modern societies.
-"Your source, Mr. Hayek?" -"My source is that I made it the F*** up" That's my general experience with economists, especially the ones of the Austrian school. I perceive them as extremely unserious in their scrutiny, behaving more like the theologians of the past rather than actual scientists. They share with philosophers their aversion to basing their conjectures on material evidence, but at the same time differ from them in that they aren't really willing to question their own understanding of the world. Marx had it right by calling them philistines. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read "The Road to Serfdom". I expected some serious intellectual challenges, only to find the conceited ramblings of a willfully ignorant man. Keynes wasn't much better, but at least he wasn't totally allergic to facts.
Saying that "individual liberties have been eroded (by the State)" when the economy was already highly monopolized or oligopolized by a few big firms... It's just bullshit!
@@mattiafabbri8944Why do you complain about monopolies if you're a supporter of state intervention? The state is literally the monopoly on the legal use of force; the worst monopoly of them all.
@ As a good socialist I'm for State planning, regulation, intervention. I'm not against monopoly or the market, I'm against monopoly capitalism, as something highly inefficient and antisocial, compared to USSR or contemporary China's market socialism.
Great Depression was created by central bank (state) intervention: artificially low interest rates in 1920s (monetary expansion) and artifilcially high interest rates in 1930-33 (monetary contraction). Roosevelt interventionism was continuation of Hoover interventionism and didn’t stop crisis until 1945 when Truman decided to abandon direct intervention. Only successes of Roosevelt were free market decisions: abolishing of tarriffes and stoping of money contracting (it was most important). State intervention created speculative economy. Now we have artificially low interest rates globally since 1995 with huge market bubble (and inequality) created by central banks, with 2 interrupting crises (2001, 2008). Of course socialists and interventionists blame free market for these state intervention result. Global neoliberalism (instead of not neoliberal monetary policy) gave world record low extreme poverty ratio. Only few percent of global population is in extreme poverty in the world, until 1970 it was over 50 %. Covid-19: yes vaccination campaigns relied on government and were success but government-ordered lock-downs didn’t lower number of dead and were very expensive (source: Łukasz Lamża science channel).
she is clearly German based on both her accent and her name. for some Germans, English is hard to pronounce, especially if they did not get the chance to spend time among native speakers
Chinese? Seriously?🤣🤣 Might I suggest the purchase of a pair of glasses? She looks somewhat Slavic, rather than Germanic, but certainly not Asian😵 And yes, zis is ze typical German dialect in English, but that´s 1) super common with German people and 2) doesn´t matter an inch, as the content is excellent, from an intellectual POV.
this channel is tragically underrated. i hope you'll have the million subs you deserve someday. the explanations are excellent
I appreciated particularly the final part, highlighting the (right) critics to Hayek's vision. It is also worth to point out that his think tank, the "Mont Pelerin Society", included various figures connected to the Argentinian, Brazilian, Chilean, Guatemalan and Uruguayan military dictatorships
excellent point - big influence (along with the "Chicago Boys") on Pinochet's regime in Chile and the others your referenced
This is visually very attractive, the topic does interest me so I subscribed, commented and liked. I hope your channel really grows!
We keep beating around the bush. For now, let's make the country "our experiment". The far right is based on the export of organizations of creepy English teachers who try to be as hard to prosecute as possible, but are ruining communities as we speak. (That's not to say that many of them aren't creepy, but still)
They don't have cells of agents-who-aren't-really-agents and stuff. They operate quite differently. They also created all that anti-court nonsense, and anarchy.
The weird thing about the USA is that these guys were apparently the ones who were connecting the colonies together. You think it's sooo funny right? You think the revolution was more than just a rebellion, huh? you think there's NOTHING to tell to THE NEXT PEOPLE who are CERTAINLY GOING TO COLONIZE THE CONTINENT, before they get started? Statutory ra** is literally a crime. They went around the continent, trying to tell all the kids that they should rebel against adults basically, because the teachers were trying to "start a new nation with them".
And the funniest part of all this is what we all think about Khruschev. Are the Israelis really going to kidnap him? Can a Bostonian make me laugh? Etc
These things are about people rather than about "political opinions/views", but people are also subjects of a court, and they are internationally recognized as being a subject of some court (ordinarily/for the most part). Why do you think all of our ancestors adopted the idea of spoken language or drum language, and NONE of them refused to Actively, and with Full awareness, teach their kids and community how to speak? It's because they wanted us to be able to hold trials in the future, give nonviolent punishments, centralize power in an appellate court, and have job specializations.
Thank you for your outstanding video summary/precis of Hayak and Free Markets, Professor Anne-Kathrin!
Kurzgesagt (In a Nutshell), you always cover the essential points. As I was viewing the video, I wondered, will Professor Anne-Kathrin mention Milton Friedman (Chicago School)? Yes, Thomas Pickety, ( French Economist)? Yes, and Hayak's critics too? - yes, indeed!👏👏Bravo!
Great summary and I like that you are trying to discuss ideas from opposing groups. If you have a chance, I recommend reading Hayek's essay "Why I'm not a Conservative". It gave me a new insight into a tension that exists within Conservative's support for free markets.
Thanks !
Hi! I really appreciate your channel and what you're trying to do with it ❤ it's very important in a time like this where anti intellectualism is on the rise. Would you consider doing a video about books that you consider must reads?
8:35 I lost my horse and my neighbor said that was bad, but I didn't think we could know such things.
My horse returned with many wild stallions, and my neighbors thought me quite fortunate, but I didn't think we could know such things.
watching this while having breakfast is a guilty pleasure.
I wonder how Project Cybersyn interacts with his work. As a cybernetician (robotics engineer) I think about this a lot.
I don’t think the issue is ‘centralisation’ for that matter, but a badly designed system without sufficient feedback between subsystems, and badly defined relations between them.
For example, Walmart is highly centralised, but they plan the economy quite splendidly!
Distributed is better than Centralized imo and many things moves towards distribution. Examples:
Free market - Planned economy, the Internet, blockchain , Index funds - shares in a single company, AI with broad information, democracy - autocracy, Collective intelligence, Crowd forecasting vs specialist forecasters, etc etc. Since distribution is more robust and more intelligent since it has more sources and can survive more points of failure.
I don't know how Walmart works but many companies try to incorporate distributed responsibility, like Amazon has many sellers, Uber has many drivers, X/facbook/wikipedia has many writers, youtube has many creators.
You remind me of Victor Davis Hanson, strangely.
You really are a gifted person.
0:05 YES, Let's talk about everything!!
Oh, long time no see; I see the subtitles as a very good idea.
Thanks for another great video! One of your best so far, I think. I especially appreciate your commitment to cover wildly different points of view on such extremely controversial subjects.
As you have also asked what we think: in my (very humble) opinion the subjective theory of value is compelling and useful, as it is the rebuttal of abstract equilibria. On the other hand, Hayek's demonization of the state seems exaggerated and paranoid and the critics expressed at the end of the video (as well as those mentioned by other commenters, especially with regard to monopolies) seem very much justified.
How did you know that I was learning about that exact topic today for my exam??? What a coincidence.
There is definitely a lot to think about, especially since I‘m reading „Why Nations fail“ and the authors point out that historically speaking the political systems are extremely important and are the key difference why Nations fail. They also seem to highlight that sometimes Politicians know what economically is the best step forward but concisely decided against it because for the politician the political ramifications are from upmost importance and in my own personal opinion it highlights how overspecialisation and especially having a strong divide between different scientific fields, leads people to over look key flaws in their mindset. Mainly because they are specialists in their own respective fields and forget, concisely or unconsciously, their own limits of their knowledge.
By the way ich hab das Gefühl die Videos werden exht immer besser, weiter so. Mag deinen kanal voll.
You're pronunciation is good, so is your presentation. 发音还好完成了解了你方法的代表. 内容有趣!
Hi Anne-Kathrin!
I really appreciate the sentiment you expressed at the beginning of the video about how important it is to consider viewpoints outside of our own "cosmos" (as you put it). I totally agree, and think it's so valuable to find the overlap that we have with opposing viewpoints so that it brings our contrasting assumptions into sharp focus.
I find that Hayek and Marx are not as different as it may first appear. It's only the tendency to categorize all of their works as right versus left that prevents us from seeing this. Of course they disagree on the concept of "private property rights", but I think that they might actually agree that it's better to distribute decision-making power rather than centralize it.
When Marx talked about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" he was simply describing workers having decision-making power. All of the workers, not just some small vanguard. That said, he did suggest using government institutions as a tool for exerting this power.
Engels described the Paris Commune as being an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it certainly had no centralized authority. If you look up "substitutionism", you'll see that Trotsky specifically warned Lenin that he was treating the revolutionary vanguard party (the Bolsheviks) as the same as the working class. And so, because of the USSR and the other states that it influenced, centralized command economies became synonymous with the words "socialism" and "communism".
The vanguard party in these states had a vested interest in maintaining those definitions, since it meant that they had crossed the finish line and didn't have to divest their power to the actual workers, and capitalists in other countries had a vested interest in maintaining these definitions because they could tell their workers: "See! It could be worse! Decision-making power could be even more concentrated than it is with me!" For the actual workers, all that happened was that their individual capitalist owner was replaced with a government owner. One sent by the vanguard party. The workers themselves didn't gain any meaningful decision-making power because the owner/worker division remained. If a capitalist is someone who owns the means of production instead of the workers, what's really changed there?
But Hayek's focus on government centralization makes him miss the fact that individual capitalists centralize decision-making power anyway. As long as private property rights are enforced, capitalists will be able to concentrate their wealth. After all, are they not allowed decision-making power over the means of production that they "rightfully" own? This is self-perpetuating. The wealth buys market share, leading to monopoly, but the wealth also buys political influence to prevent them being prosecuted for monopolization. Eventually we have a handful of massive monopolies controlling vestigial governments who's only purpose is to legitimize and subsidize those same monopolies while enforcing the capital owners' "private property rights". That certainly seems like the trend of neoliberalism so far.
I think an alternative lies in the anarchist tradition. Bakunin famously argued with Marx about the efficacy of trying to use a state apparatus to get rid of the state, and he advocated for a more decentralized approach (kind of like Hayek, in my opinion).
I've always been frustrated when people cite Stalin or Mao to indicate that "communism/socialism" never works. First of all, if you're talking about the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc., they all took largely illiterate, hungry, pre-industrial populations that were either extensively colonized or just straight up fuedal, and in a couple of decades rocketed them forward to the point were they were literate, much better fed, and enjoyed nearly the same levels of industrialization and technology as in the USA and Europe. The USSR in particular was a country of rural agrarian serfs under a czar in 1919, and by 1957 they had launched the world's first satellite, Sputnik! And they did all of this while being locked out of international trade due to capitalists getting their countries to establish and enforce embargos. Of course all of this rapid progress came at the horrible expense of the rights, autonomy, and lives of the workers in these countries, which is the natural conclusion of centralized decision-making power. And because this decision-making power was in the hands of the vanguard party and not those of the workers, I think it makes sense to describe this as state capitalism, because the vanguard party who runs the state owns the means of production, rather than the workers themselves.
Of course it's not good enough to just say "That's not REAL communism/socialism!" I should point to something that I think gets closer to the real deal. I like to point to things like the Paris Commune or CNT-FAI in revolutionary Spain. These represent large-scale, albeit temporary, approximations of anarchist/communist societies that worked until they were crushed by larger states. The USSR, ironically, played a significant role in suppressing the CNT-FAI, revealing how misaligned the Bolshevik party was with the goal of supporting true worker autonomy. More recent examples include Rojava and the Zapatistas, which still operate today. They use markets to balance their economies (a concept Hayek might appreciate), but avoid privatizing property. Most workers own their means of production directly as opposed to selling their labor to the capitalist who does. This allows them to participate in democratic or consensus-based decision-making about what to do with their own tools and materials. Those decisions aren't made by a small group of economic elites. There are other terms for these political systems like democratic confederalism, libertarian socialism, market socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc., but I think they all have strong roots in Marx's critique of capitalism. While they're not entirely stateless or classless, I think they're the closest approximations that exist today. But because they don't have "private property", I can't figure out if Hayek would like them.
Additionally, I think that an example of socialist institutions can exist in countries that call themselves capitalist, although these will always struggle to survive in a political and economic landscape built by and for capitalists. One example is the Mondragon Corporation, which is owned by all of the workers. Importantly each worker has equal voting rights. This is distinct from a company with employee stock options where voting power is proportional to the number of stocks they have. Worker co-ops like this can work within decentralized market economies (like Hayek prefers), but without the class separation between workers and owners that exists in capitalist companies, and without directly involving a state apparatus.
I find much of what you say about Hayek compelling, but can't figure out what he saw differently from me. Why did he think that a distinct economic elite (capitalists) owning the tools and materials (means of production) that everyone else needed to make a livelihood was a necessary element of a "free-market economy"? Why didn't he think that privatizing the means of production would inherently lead to centralization of decision-making power? Why didn't he think that you could move the market forces all the way down to the individual worker? Did he maybe have a different definition of "private property"?
Anyway, thank you for this thought provoking video!
You are an excellent writer and make clear points.
Thanks for helping put those thoughts into my head.
hayek was also skeptical of democracy in his later years (probably due to schumpeter influence) and was leaning heavily into his law background and writing piece on law and constitution. Now the reason he think private property should exist is because he think its guarantee freedom. The owning of capital privately for him was because he think it will facilitate these freedom (also Austrian school don't tend to use the distinction of capital goods and consumer goods as the other schools think of it as laptop it can be classify either way). He rarely talk about monopoly as he believe market will favor competition and monopoly are either temporary or market efficient so he doesn't bother with it although he did advocate for breakup of monopoly if they are price hiking and all that (I think the argument was made in some footnote in constitution of liberty).
The hayekean argument against market forces all the way to the labor is probably that labor use different capital and they have different knowledge so it would be inefficient for someone else beside the one who know how to use the capital to own it, if the other person doesn't know how they would probably default and sell it off.
Regarding the rent-seeking argument hayek usually address only in the context of government granting rights to certain special interest groups and he advocate for limiting the politician power. This was probably due to the other context where market behave in a rent-seeking behavior was view as addresses by him with the public school and virginia school of economics (buchanan and tullock) and later another school like bloomington where the ostroms also adress this (they also cited hayek alot).
Side Note: He was almost a goergist but he see that land price calculation doesn't works but if he have live I think he can be persuaded
I love this channel. You are a beautiful girl, you are very intelligent, you present the material very well and talk about it confidently. You have a great sense of style. The content is interesting and engaging and, even though I am much older than you, you speak about it with enough depth and intellect for it to provide something for me to learn from and think about.
I find it pertinent that Keynes made his counter-arguments from observation, what could be experienced at the time. Things got even worse (WW2), at a point where the US (yes, New Deal) had already reformed several key policies. A war-torn Western Europe followed, going further towards what became social-democratic equitable liberties.
Equitable, because of the balance between government, corporate entities and individual citizens - libertarian, in the form of the early republicans was never about «individuals» in isolation.
The notion of «equitable» is what disappears in the new liberalism of Hayek, of course put into practice first in the US (1971-2), and across OECD after ca 1980.
To circle back to what Keynes «observed» ca a century ago - rhetorically; what can easily be observed across OECD now?
I don’t need to answer. What I can say, is that e.g. «Marxism» or socialism can’t be blamed, other than for their absence. None have been leveraged in or close to power in influential OECD countries since about 1990.
Even «the state» itself is rather weak (legislation), people are poorer - so rhetorically again, who calls the shots around OECD last 15 years…?
Would even Hayek look at this and go «Yess, what a perfectly ordered free market, full of happy entrepreneurial people…»…?
10:18 I believe the word intended was "sapping" - "hardship, but also risk sapping individual initiative" But, correct me if I am wrong.
Wow, there's so much progress since your early videos! I love how you speak more and more confidently ❤
Also, thank you for the subtitles, as a non-native English speaker, I need them from time to time.
(Saying this as a socialist democrat 😄)
neither central state planning nor “free” (very unregulated) markets will lead to prosperity and freedom.
the only hope i have lies in democratising state control & function as well as democratising economic activity & decision making.
(because whenever there is power imbalance those on top take advantage of it at the cost of the others. expanding democracy is the only antidote in my opinion)
What was Hayek's view on monopolies?
I also have the same question. Especially when it comes to the ownership of irreplaceable resources.
Beautifull lady ❤
Mmhmm. I like the part where you show his picture.
algo
These criticisms seem to strawman what Hayek himself said.
He never opposed the idea that the government should provide some kind of social safety net, neither did he deny that there are certain market inefficiencies, like the example of negative externalities like pollition.
What should be considered is the historical context.
He lived through the early 1900s, he experienced the rise of nationalism in europe that led to WW1, he witnessed the spread of fascism and lived at the same time as the formation of the soviet union.
It was a time where many of the things that we take for granted were put into question.
The idea of parliamentary democracy was often seen as a relic of the past, it was thought that the idea of a kind of a "singe unified party", like those realized under communism and fascism would be the future.
The idea of globalism and multiculturalism was considered a weakpoint that would harm national unity (or working class unity for that matter too).
And it wasnt just economic activity that was nationalized. These were political systems where simple, everyday things like a sports club would be run by the government and also legally obligated to be run in the political interest of the government, whatever that might mean.
So a lot of what Hayek did was simply defend certain values that we often take for granted in our modern societies.
-"Your source, Mr. Hayek?"
-"My source is that I made it the F*** up"
That's my general experience with economists, especially the ones of the Austrian school. I perceive them as extremely unserious in their scrutiny, behaving more like the theologians of the past rather than actual scientists. They share with philosophers their aversion to basing their conjectures on material evidence, but at the same time differ from them in that they aren't really willing to question their own understanding of the world.
Marx had it right by calling them philistines. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read "The Road to Serfdom". I expected some serious intellectual challenges, only to find the conceited ramblings of a willfully ignorant man.
Keynes wasn't much better, but at least he wasn't totally allergic to facts.
Saying that "individual liberties have been eroded (by the State)" when the economy was already highly monopolized or oligopolized by a few big firms... It's just bullshit!
You think Marx's ramblings are better off by the standards of "material evidence" than free marketers? Lmfao
@@mattiafabbri8944Why do you complain about monopolies if you're a supporter of state intervention? The state is literally the monopoly on the legal use of force; the worst monopoly of them all.
@ As a good socialist I'm for State planning, regulation, intervention. I'm not against monopoly or the market, I'm against monopoly capitalism, as something highly inefficient and antisocial, compared to USSR or contemporary China's market socialism.
Zuerst glaubte ich Chinesisch. Wie gesagt, gut ausgesprochen, alles klar!
The problem with Hayek and his pals is: They´ve won :(
Great Depression was created by central bank (state) intervention: artificially low interest rates in 1920s (monetary expansion) and artifilcially high interest rates in 1930-33 (monetary contraction). Roosevelt interventionism was continuation of Hoover interventionism and didn’t stop crisis until 1945 when Truman decided to abandon direct intervention. Only successes of Roosevelt were free market decisions: abolishing of tarriffes and stoping of money contracting (it was most important). State intervention created speculative economy. Now we have artificially low interest rates globally since 1995 with huge market bubble (and inequality) created by central banks, with 2 interrupting crises (2001, 2008). Of course socialists and interventionists blame free market for these state intervention result. Global neoliberalism (instead of not neoliberal monetary policy) gave world record low extreme poverty ratio. Only few percent of global population is in extreme poverty in the world, until 1970 it was over 50 %. Covid-19: yes vaccination campaigns relied on government and were success but government-ordered lock-downs didn’t lower number of dead and were very expensive (source: Łukasz Lamża science channel).
I am curious. You mispronounce a lot of your English words. It sounds like your native language is of Chinese dialect. Is this a correct assumption?
she is clearly German based on both her accent and her name. for some Germans, English is hard to pronounce, especially if they did not get the chance to spend time among native speakers
@@hyperopt_ Well, thank you very much. Obviously I was far from correct in my assumption. Much appreciated.
Chinese? Seriously?🤣🤣 Might I suggest the purchase of a pair of glasses? She looks somewhat Slavic, rather than Germanic, but certainly not Asian😵
And yes, zis is ze typical German dialect in English, but that´s 1) super common with German people and 2) doesn´t matter an inch, as the content is excellent, from an intellectual POV.
@@LaWashj But I did not suggest that she was Chinese. I only suggested that her native language may have been Chinese.
Don’t worry. I get this question often 😄