One must remember that think-tanks like IEA and the IPA in the UK and Australia work for the interests of the elite through such institutions as Hayek's "Mont Pelerin Society" and the elites’ global “Atlas Network”. This is a coordinate effort to infiltrate politics around most of the planet and implement Austrian-economic policies that benefit the elite. They will give you a simple example of a local baker who may benefit briefly from their policies, but the real intent is to create monopolies through privatization and deregulation, and strip wealth from the majority. In a monopoly you have no market and that is their intent; after all, remember the words of Rockefeller, "Competition is a Sin". Notice how monopoly legislation is now either irrelevant or has been removed; this was their intent all along. This was all part of the pre-Reagan era's "Powell Memorandum”; a how-to guide on how to screw the American people. This has been in the planning by the elites for decades; it can be traced back to their response to Roosevelt's New Deal (1933) and the elites' response by such early think-tanks as National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Liberty League (the precursor to the contemporary Libertarian movement). But the treachery against the American people really got going after Nixon nominated Powell for the US Supreme Court (1971) and then Reagan implemented Reaganomics (Friedman's von Mises policies). Now we live in a growing monopolistic world by design (thanks to deregulation, privatization, and lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy) where the only winners are the elites. Friedman's old "Trickle Down" and "Laffer Curve" scams have impoverished most Americans and because the majority now has trouble consuming to the level necessary to maintain this Ponzi scheme, the approaching faltering economy is of concern to the elite who implemented this scam. Without wealth redistribution (which isn't going to happen), the elites see no alternative than to knock over the chessboard and take us to war. Just in case you haven't worked it out by now, the Libertarian movement works for the elites; they only talk the "non-intervention" talk as an enticer to get some well-meaning gullibles to join their cause. They have spent decades working alongside the Wall Street marketers to sell you on this Austrian-economic scam. When a Libertarian espousing Austrian economics talks about "freedom, prosperity, and liberty", they mean financial "prosperity" for the elites; the "liberty" to do as the elites wish to do, and the legislative "freedom" to screw you six ways from Sunday. I do enjoy the irony of Hayek's book "Road to Serfdom". That’s techno serfdom (e.g. rising costs, corporate owned government, surveillance, no freedom of speech, militarized police) for you!
By now it's clear that the best economic policy is a fair mix of free market activity and state regulation (especially monopoly regulation). Extremes are destructive.
That is an eternal question for the population of the day. There is no single answer.
5 дней назад
@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha What is "fair"?. There is single answer. The answer it that the "fairness" is a deluded subjective fantasy. The pursuit of social 'fairness' has killed hundreds of million of people; mass murder, perpetuated by people professing to have the best intentions. They should be a social pariahs, not in Government.
The data is quite clear that monopoly services like healthcare, water and electricity are better handled by the state. The private sector screws these up every time.
5 дней назад
@@randalltilander6684 Yes..as well as food production, aircraft production, servicing and holiday flights, drug development, weapons design and production, cars, trucks, computers, software and affordable furniture ect, etc; and all the other essentials of life...thank God for government organisation; how would people ever survive without an army of fat, massively over paid, self serving, bent left wing Govt. officials deciding what they can buy, where they can live or do all day - the data is clear.
So the reason why healthcare is generally worse under private enterprise is that private enterprise requires a market price. A market price requires a free interplay between economic agents. That free place between market agents does not exist in a hospital. When you are doubled up with appendicitis, you are not in a position to negotiate. There is no market price. Similarly, with water and electricity, there is no competition therefore no competitive pricing. If I don’t like the price of the hydro, I can’t go anywhere else. There is only run power line in front of my house. There is only one pipe coming in from the water main. I can’t take my business to another supplier. So there is no market price for monopoly services. There are places for private business. And there are places where private business is not appropriate.
except the government can be so utterly incompetent that everyone goes broke. May as well have own borders so anyone can choose the system they prefer.
Interesting topic: I had a brush with business economics during my college days and it surprised me how economic models were trying to use graphs and probabilities to determine various economic factors and even predict economic future.
경제적 자유중에 경쟁의 자유가 보장 되어야만 혁신과 창조적 파괴가 일어나고 새로운 발견이 이룩될 것입니다.경쟁의 자유는 당사자들에게는 고통과 괴로움의 원천이지만 라는 하이에크 교수의 주장처럼 경쟁의 자유가 활발할수록 기술과 혁신이 계속적으로 발견되어서 우리 인류를 풍요롭고도 새로운 문명으로 이끌수 있을것입니다. 기업가정신은 경쟁의 자유가 보장된 제도속에서 일어나지 보호와 지원으로 된 제도적 보호 속에서는 결코 일어나지 않을것입니다. 김도헌 올림.
@Nada-Mal That is often the case, my - unchanged - point is that artificial constructs often lead to greater efficiencies than leaving it to the individual drivers and their individual impulses which often break the system completely.
@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha traffic lights create chaos. Roundabouts create flowing majesty. Unless you are America, as I hear people in the USA can't use roundabouts.
What is a free market? A market free of government interference? That's the definition we've accepted since roughly 1880. Before this time, the accepted definition of a free market was 180 degrees reversed from the current definition. A free market was universally understood as a market heavily regulated by government in order to prevent the wealthiest citizens from using their wealth to game the system and funnel all the wealth to themselves. In fact, this earlier definition was exactly the definition put forth in The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. So, how did the definition get stood on its head? How did it become its opposite? Simple. The wealthiest citizens, the Robber Barrons of the Gilded Age, later examples of those Smith called The Masters of Mankind, gamed the system and funneled all the wealth into their own pockets and proceeded to buy up all the media of the day, newspapers and magazines, and also proceeded to contribute to schools and education, all in order to control the conversation. They were then able to create a definition of a free market which served their interests. This definition continues to serve the interests of the current Masters of Mankind in this, our current Gilded Age. Perhaps it's time to re-examine Adam Smith and that original notion of what a free market should look like.
Anyone else wonder whether a “Central Bank Digital Currency” would be a “back door” to policies that have some of the characteristics of a “planned economy” ? I speak of a “digital currency” the ability to use which would be tied to satisfying certain conditions. Not something I would in any way want but if we’re in the last days of fiat currencies then it seems logical - from the point of view of “power hungry Govts.” - to go down that road 😱.
You’re talking about a country that actually uses slaves to support. It’s a economy.
8 дней назад+3
Absolutely. Economies can ONLY evolve, they cannot be designed. Old lessons the all career politicians refuse to learn; easier to pedal money for nothing daydreams than apply hard truth principals.Thatcher breathed a little Austrian air, but they didn't understand and have never bothered to learn what Austrian Economics actually is; assuming instead that the know all there is to know already anyway.
It is very important to highlight that "Socialist" in this context means a managed economy along the lines of the Soviet Union strictly managed by Gosplan, not a Western style welfare state where market generated price signals remain intact for the majority of economic activity.
Our largest «plan» is the asymmetry between legal economic subjects - the (individual) *person* vs the *incorporated body.* Ref. Stiglitz et al, Nobel laureates of 2001. In the end, this is a political-economic outcome of legislation, as described by i.e. K. Pistor. I seriously don’t think one needs to «be a socialist» to criticize the outcome of our actual legislation, and changes implemented across OECD through the last five decades. The critique is already rampant across the board, and at the moment «socialists» can’t be regarded as successfully converting it into political power. The «socialist worker’s» narrative is deprecated, replaced by individualism as the societal norm. The general global north situation seems akin to Italy, Germany or Japan a century ago - but this time not «isolated» to national or local economies, due to the transnational corporate and macroeconomic legislative shifts emerging _half_ a century ago. In turn, the right converts the public’s outrage into power - but not against the corporate realm, by which the right is supported from tradition. Rather, the outrage is channeled outwards, to real or imagined externalities and forces - away from our own (!) legislative power to change internal economic or ecological relations. We know - intellectually as well as intuitively - the dangers of this rather nationalistic path. Still, any idealism to counter it cannot be realised from an individualistic viewpoint. There we are, I guess - a _collective of individuals…?_ Hegel must have a field day, but he’s alone too…😅
Free markets sound good, but what are the risks of being a free market economy in a globalised system when other trading nations are not abiding by the same rules. I'm thinking of China being brought into the WTO.
@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ff If you have a plan for an economy while includes nobody working I am sure it would be very popular. You should share it! I would love to not work and still reap all the benefits the socialists talk about.
Ah yeah those damn Chinese invading nations to force them to trade in their currency. Ah yeah, those damn Chinese constructing a global system of trade enforcement that they refuse to be subject to. Those damn Chinese embargoing Cuba so that they can't participate in world trade.
@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ffthat is the most ignorant and stupid thing I read in a while. thinking smart people that invent stiff do it exclusively for money ia really dumb
This old propaganda didn't age well - state owned and operated services have been able to do quite well, from post offices to healthcare. Privatization has poisoned the rivers of the UK, left thousands of Americans dying every year from ungiven healthcare, and has continued the near-global housing crisis. It's easy to see how plans for economies can do better in a number of areas. Thatcher was a butcher, and there's a reason she was a fan of these ideas. To hamstring collective efforts for needs-meeting while enriching private entities for their mutual corrupt benefit.
Well said. On top, all these "mainstream" economists that love "free markets" just gloss over any fact that is contrary to their views: 1. China - the most successful, long-term planned economy in the world. It beat the US growth rate decades in a row. 2. Norway, Monaco, the Arab world, etc. are strongly managed 3. Mainstream economic thought is unable to model even the possibility of a recession, not to mention being able to read the signs. The economy always tends towards equilibrium, in their view. Any imbalance is externally caused. 4. Just look at the US, it is slowly turning into Ferenginar (Star Trek reference)
Ur propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.
This new propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.
By the way, even with covid and the social disaster that followed, we live in a time when the least people are dying and everyone b is still terrified of death. My question is, so you want everyone to live forever?
The theory commented on what would happen, and was apparently correct. It wasn't an application as much as an observation. The application apparently has actual results that might make the theory into law in enough years. That may be soon.
One must remember that think-tanks like IEA and the IPA in the UK and Australia work for the interests of the elite through such institutions as Hayek's "Mont Pelerin Society" and the elites’ global “Atlas Network”. This is a coordinate effort to infiltrate politics around most of the planet and implement Austrian-economic policies that benefit the elite. They will give you a simple example of a local baker who may benefit briefly from their policies, but the real intent is to create monopolies through privatization and deregulation, and strip wealth from the majority. In a monopoly you have no market and that is their intent; after all, remember the words of Rockefeller, "Competition is a Sin". Notice how monopoly legislation is now either irrelevant or has been removed; this was their intent all along. This was all part of the pre-Reagan era's "Powell Memorandum”; a how-to guide on how to screw the American people. This has been in the planning by the elites for decades; it can be traced back to their response to Roosevelt's New Deal (1933) and the elites' response by such early think-tanks as National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Liberty League (the precursor to the contemporary Libertarian movement). But the treachery against the American people really got going after Nixon nominated Powell for the US Supreme Court (1971) and then Reagan implemented Reaganomics (Friedman's von Mises policies). Now we live in a growing monopolistic world by design (thanks to deregulation, privatization, and lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy) where the only winners are the elites. Friedman's old "Trickle Down" and "Laffer Curve" scams have impoverished most Americans and because the majority now has trouble consuming to the level necessary to maintain this Ponzi scheme, the approaching faltering economy is of concern to the elite who implemented this scam. Without wealth redistribution (which isn't going to happen), the elites see no alternative than to knock over the chessboard and take us to war. Just in case you haven't worked it out by now, the Libertarian movement works for the elites; they only talk the "non-intervention" talk as an enticer to get some well-meaning gullibles to join their cause. They have spent decades working alongside the Wall Street marketers to sell you on this Austrian-economic scam. When a Libertarian espousing Austrian economics talks about "freedom, prosperity, and liberty", they mean financial "prosperity" for the elites; the "liberty" to do as the elites wish to do, and the legislative "freedom" to screw you six ways from Sunday. I do enjoy the irony of Hayek's book "Road to Serfdom". That’s techno serfdom (e.g. rising costs, corporate owned government, surveillance, no freedom of speech, militarized police) for you!
If you are going on a date the worst thing you can do is plan your whole conversation in advance
we go down an avenue of thought, where there are expected outcomes. But it is the unexpected things that change the world
By now it's clear that the best economic policy is a fair mix of free market activity and state regulation (especially monopoly regulation). Extremes are destructive.
What is "fair"?
That is an eternal question for the population of the day. There is no single answer.
@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha What is "fair"?. There is single answer. The answer it that the "fairness" is a deluded subjective fantasy. The pursuit of social 'fairness' has killed hundreds of million of people; mass murder, perpetuated by people professing to have the best intentions. They should be a social pariahs, not in Government.
The data is quite clear that monopoly services like healthcare, water and electricity are better handled by the state. The private sector screws these up every time.
@@randalltilander6684 Yes..as well as food production, aircraft production, servicing and holiday flights, drug development, weapons design and production, cars, trucks, computers, software and affordable furniture ect, etc; and all the other essentials of life...thank God for government organisation; how would people ever survive without an army of fat, massively over paid, self serving, bent left wing Govt. officials deciding what they can buy, where they can live or do all day - the data is clear.
So the reason why healthcare is generally worse under private enterprise is that private enterprise requires a market price. A market price requires a free interplay between economic agents. That free place between market agents does not exist in a hospital. When you are doubled up with appendicitis, you are not in a position to negotiate. There is no market price.
Similarly, with water and electricity, there is no competition therefore no competitive pricing. If I don’t like the price of the hydro, I can’t go anywhere else. There is only run power line in front of my house. There is only one pipe coming in from the water main. I can’t take my business to another supplier. So there is no market price for monopoly services.
There are places for private business. And there are places where private business is not appropriate.
except the government can be so utterly incompetent that everyone goes broke. May as well have own borders so anyone can choose the system they prefer.
Are you talking about actual healthcare or healthcare insurance?
What an awesome channel.
Interesting topic:
I had a brush with business economics during my college days and it surprised me how economic models were trying to use graphs and probabilities to determine various economic factors and even predict economic future.
경제적 자유중에 경쟁의 자유가 보장 되어야만 혁신과 창조적 파괴가 일어나고 새로운 발견이 이룩될 것입니다.경쟁의 자유는 당사자들에게는 고통과 괴로움의 원천이지만 라는 하이에크 교수의 주장처럼 경쟁의 자유가 활발할수록 기술과 혁신이 계속적으로 발견되어서 우리 인류를 풍요롭고도 새로운 문명으로 이끌수 있을것입니다.
기업가정신은 경쟁의 자유가 보장된 제도속에서 일어나지 보호와 지원으로 된 제도적 보호 속에서는 결코 일어나지 않을것입니다.
김도헌 올림.
It is quite clear that in the marketplace of traffic, traffic lights maintain a more efficient system.
Roundabouts do a much better job than traffic lights.
@Nada-Mal That is often the case, my - unchanged - point is that artificial constructs often lead to greater efficiencies than leaving it to the individual drivers and their individual impulses which often break the system completely.
@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha traffic lights create chaos. Roundabouts create flowing majesty. Unless you are America, as I hear people in the USA can't use roundabouts.
@@Nada-Mal OK, you were clearly abused by a traffic light as a child.
Good video.
I just wish Ed Miliband would watch it.
What is a free market? A market free of government interference? That's the definition we've accepted since roughly 1880. Before this time, the accepted definition of a free market was 180 degrees reversed from the current definition. A free market was universally understood as a market heavily regulated by government in order to prevent the wealthiest citizens from using their wealth to game the system and funnel all the wealth to themselves. In fact, this earlier definition was exactly the definition put forth in The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. So, how did the definition get stood on its head? How did it become its opposite? Simple. The wealthiest citizens, the Robber Barrons of the Gilded Age, later examples of those Smith called The Masters of Mankind, gamed the system and funneled all the wealth into their own pockets and proceeded to buy up all the media of the day, newspapers and magazines, and also proceeded to contribute to schools and education, all in order to control the conversation. They were then able to create a definition of a free market which served their interests. This definition continues to serve the interests of the current Masters of Mankind in this, our current Gilded Age. Perhaps it's time to re-examine Adam Smith and that original notion of what a free market should look like.
Anyone else wonder whether a “Central Bank Digital Currency” would be a “back door” to policies that have some of the characteristics of a “planned economy” ? I speak of a “digital currency” the ability to use which would be tied to satisfying certain conditions. Not something I would in any way want but if we’re in the last days of fiat currencies then it seems logical - from the point of view of “power hungry Govts.” - to go down that road 😱.
The success of China's planned economy over the past 50 years presents economic facts that counter the fantasy economics expressed here.
You’re talking about a country that actually uses slaves to support. It’s a economy.
Absolutely. Economies can ONLY evolve, they cannot be designed. Old lessons the all career politicians refuse to learn; easier to pedal money for nothing daydreams than apply hard truth principals.Thatcher breathed a little Austrian air, but they didn't understand and have never bothered to learn what Austrian Economics actually is; assuming instead that the know all there is to know already anyway.
It is very important to highlight that "Socialist" in this context means a managed economy along the lines of the Soviet Union strictly managed by Gosplan, not a Western style welfare state where market generated price signals remain intact for the majority of economic activity.
He just described central banking.
Private centerally planned economy is just as bad as public centerally planned economy.
Our largest «plan» is the asymmetry between legal economic subjects - the (individual) *person* vs the *incorporated body.*
Ref. Stiglitz et al, Nobel laureates of 2001. In the end, this is a political-economic outcome of legislation, as described by i.e. K. Pistor.
I seriously don’t think one needs to «be a socialist» to criticize the outcome of our actual legislation, and changes implemented across OECD through the last five decades.
The critique is already rampant across the board, and at the moment «socialists» can’t be regarded as successfully converting it into political power. The «socialist worker’s» narrative is deprecated, replaced by individualism as the societal norm.
The general global north situation seems akin to Italy, Germany or Japan a century ago - but this time not «isolated» to national or local economies, due to the transnational corporate and macroeconomic legislative shifts emerging _half_ a century ago.
In turn, the right converts the public’s outrage into power - but not against the corporate realm, by which the right is supported from tradition.
Rather, the outrage is channeled outwards, to real or imagined externalities and forces - away from our own (!) legislative power to change internal economic or ecological relations.
We know - intellectually as well as intuitively - the dangers of this rather nationalistic path. Still, any idealism to counter it cannot be realised from an individualistic viewpoint.
There we are, I guess - a _collective of individuals…?_ Hegel must have a field day, but he’s alone too…😅
Hayek rocks!
Point 5 - should be no apostrophe after politician. A serious talk like this should have correct grammar or it reduces your credibility.
Free markets sound good, but what are the risks of being a free market economy in a globalised system when other trading nations are not abiding by the same rules. I'm thinking of China being brought into the WTO.
Tariffs for China.
China never had a voice in what the west calls "the international order", a system designed to protect the hegemony of the economically superior.
@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ff If you have a plan for an economy while includes nobody working I am sure it would be very popular. You should share it! I would love to not work and still reap all the benefits the socialists talk about.
Ah yeah those damn Chinese invading nations to force them to trade in their currency.
Ah yeah, those damn Chinese constructing a global system of trade enforcement that they refuse to be subject to.
Those damn Chinese embargoing Cuba so that they can't participate in world trade.
@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ffthat is the most ignorant and stupid thing I read in a while. thinking smart people that invent stiff do it exclusively for money ia really dumb
He was a prophet.
This old propaganda didn't age well - state owned and operated services have been able to do quite well, from post offices to healthcare. Privatization has poisoned the rivers of the UK, left thousands of Americans dying every year from ungiven healthcare, and has continued the near-global housing crisis. It's easy to see how plans for economies can do better in a number of areas.
Thatcher was a butcher, and there's a reason she was a fan of these ideas. To hamstring collective efforts for needs-meeting while enriching private entities for their mutual corrupt benefit.
Well said. On top, all these "mainstream" economists that love "free markets" just gloss over any fact that is contrary to their views:
1. China - the most successful, long-term planned economy in the world. It beat the US growth rate decades in a row.
2. Norway, Monaco, the Arab world, etc. are strongly managed
3. Mainstream economic thought is unable to model even the possibility of a recession, not to mention being able to read the signs. The economy always tends towards equilibrium, in their view. Any imbalance is externally caused.
4. Just look at the US, it is slowly turning into Ferenginar (Star Trek reference)
Ur propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.
This new propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.
China has a fake economy. It's data is unreliable.
By the way, even with covid and the social disaster that followed, we live in a time when the least people are dying and everyone b is still terrified of death. My question is, so you want everyone to live forever?
His theory failed us miserably. Let's ignore the Biased Nobel Prize & the Western Illogical NON- Philosophy
The theory commented on what would happen, and was apparently correct. It wasn't an application as much as an observation. The application apparently has actual results that might make the theory into law in enough years. That may be soon.
We have free speech, and you’re allowed to say it is theory failed. That doesn’t mean that I or anyone else has to agree with you.
The same old garbage