3:10 idiot, he mean't the temporary economic shock that did take place when they lifted control over prices. Just shows how much you know about what you're talking
Hayek and Keynes were colleagues. Keynes was a big fan of "The Road to Serfdom". They had some criticisms of each other but generally respected each other and praised each other's works. People forget that Keynes was a free market economists, as economists generally are. There are degrees of that. Some are very liberal (laissez-faire) like Hayek, others are not quite so like Keynes. But it says a lot that today the extremes are Keynes and Hayek not Smith and Marx. All economics is capitalism.
@BobGeorgeAU Keynes is Marx. have you actually read Keynes' "General theory..."? I did and I say Keynesianism is not captalism. Capitalism is - simply put - freedom to choose what to do with your wealth (not only money). Keynes was great advocate of high taxation and high inflation (which is also a HUGE tax) in exchange for gov't spending to reduce unemployment. And I - like Keynes - mean gov't when using this word. So don't fool yourself: Keynes is socialism in nice clothes.
So, Hayek made a mistake with what he didn't know about Pinochet -as high profile people involved in philophy often do. Looking at Hayek's overall ideas about totalitarianism and the anti-capital policies of facism, you have to ignore a lot of it to come to the strange conclusion that Hayek was a facist (pretty much everything besides Pinocet). But of course, Keynesianism "intellectualism" and "scientific methodology" is about ignoring things that don't fit your worldview.
"The theory of aggregate production that is the goal of the following book can be much more easily applied to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of the production and distribution of a given output turned out under the conditions of free competition and of a considerable degree of laissez-faire" - those are the words of Keynes himself in german edition of his "general theory".
FYI: fascism is where gov't tells people what to do and punish them if thy don't.
The ideas of ideologues like Milton Friedman and Von Hayek are poisonous ones that continue to exist only because they are propped up by rich businessmen and parasites like the Koch brothers. If you want the "free market" you're essentially begging for the race to the bottom: free trade, union busting, shock therapy, privatization, etc.
Paul Krugman routinely praises an authoritarian elitist, murder!
Who approved bombarding of children for three day's with what's meant to be the non-lethal CS gas! To flush out enemies. Who starved 1.5 million people with a blockade... diplomats quit citing it was mass murder! 500,000 of those who starved where children his foreign secretary said "I thinks, Its worth It"
Who am I talking about? Bill Clinton! He killed more Iraqi's than the despotic bush & by starvation... PS Screw Pinochet
While in the US, Hayek drew off of the US Social Security and Medicaid system (both are programs that he wanted to see abolished).
He was encouraged to go on the dole by none other than Charles Koch, notorious Social Security hater and billionaire bankroller of various anti-Soc. Sec. groups.
Just like Ayn Rand (who also drew off Social Security in her declining years), he's another hypocrite who took advantage of social programs that they wanted to keep other people from getting.
OK, let's look at this objectively. let's look PAST the atrocities committed by pinochet during the coup, and purely at the economic ideas of chile since friedman and hayek's involvement. Chile went from a chaotic mess of union strikes and poverty with no foreign investment to one of the most developed nations in SA, and they've kept the economic policies and government that pinochet set up. chile has pinochet to blame for the atrocities. it has hayek and friedman to thank of it's prosperity.
@samm1809 Unless you count the fact that Chile's poverty rate doubled from 19 to 41% during that time! Unless you count the 600% inflation! Austrian school tool!
@Activeassholeonpills down from 1000% under the previous government. inflation results from fiat currencies and central banks. chile has both and pinochet would have had to expand the money supply to fund his government. austrian economics opposes fiat curencies. also, it's easy to say that you have low unemployment when the government is INVENTING useless, unproductive jobs for the sake of the fact that someone is unemployed. lower taxes and more money can be invested to create REAL jobs.
@Activeassholeonpills man i just looked at your channel. you literally are the most typical moron i've ever seen. '''rrrrrr i'm angry us liberals have it bad because of the conservative media machine. poor me. hunting club conservatives are evil and arrogant and exaggerate blah blah blah'' yeah, conservatives suck. liberals suck just as much. you know why? because they label themselves and follow the herd rather than thinking about things before they open their rhetoric hole.
@Activeassholeonpills I'm not going across the pacific to do what your fiat currency, moronic know-it-all keynesian leaders like almost every president since FDR, paul krugman and ben bernanke, giganic debt and pussy, lazy, hypocritical national attitude of obsessive entitlements for the rich AND poor is going to do for me in a few years- destroy you. you guys better hope you elect Ron Paul or you're going to be as much a part of history as the Weimar Republic.
@samm1809 It never ceases to amaze me how cowardly the typical Austrian Schooler is. There is always an underlying excuse for their dodging the butt of their own hubris. In almost every scenario in which I've dealt with your kind offline, they seemed to do one of two things: 1) stir up shit and get as far away as possible or make remarks while already being at a safe distance or 2) hiding behind a gun, usually one you happen to be carrying. I knew a big Austrianist bully who was guilty of this.
@Activeassholeonpills wow. stereotyping. 'your kind'? what an amazing liberal you are. obviously you have only dealt with grouchy, daft "rednecks'' like yourself who also stick a label on themselves and tout rhetorical lines then. maybe if you actually seeked to have a discussion and not make a poorly grounded attack on character like radiohogan often does, you would have a broad spectrum of people who have different opinions to associate with. but clearly, it's 'us and them' for you.
I found the difference between Keynes and Hayek are not so great as their similarities. Last G20 meeting... World Bank calls for gold standard for international currency. WB is a bastion of liberty? lol Central bankers arguing over how to own everything.
Fascism nationalizes banks, imposes tarrifs, trade barriers, creates public companies that bailout businesses, persuades consumers to buy state only products. (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale).
When i read what the austrians have to say they don't support any of these policies.
@Emil246 have you ever seen a bunch of more stubborn people then the austrians? i tell them that free trade costed millions of jobs for americans, what is the response i get, you do not care for sick kids in india, not knowing that the companies who use free trade, just so they can hire cheap labor, treat their workers like dirt, and there is no sick days for the workers, and they do not have good healthinsurance, it is the same response over and over again oye
@Emil246 well, of course, but just look at what goes on, in countries that have a lot of socialist policies, they have lower unemployment, and better healthcare, in countries with more libertarian ploicies it is the oposite, but yes all sides have their share of jackasses....
Well Hayek was right ! "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government." F. Von Hayek . Just watch venezuala going into a dictatorship due to Chavez's socialism and Chile who went from dictatorship to democracy guess why ?? The Chicago boys of course !
@MrReco12 What? Hayek left austria in the 30s and wouldnt return because of the annexation. He extremely disliekd hitler and facism, because he thought it came from central planning not capitolism. He didnt write his book till a bit later
@hamzyboy Chavez was voted by the people, in Chile those who could vote differently than what the CIA wanted to have been eliminated in one way or another, Chavez has not done this.
@hamzyboy Chavez was voted by the people, in Chile those who could vote differently than what the CIA wanted to have been eliminated in one way or another, Chavez has not done this. Hayek isnt a true economics scientist, is a fanatic of is own ideology
" Chile who went from dictatorship to democracy guess why ?? The Chicago boys of course !"
Correlation does not imply causation. Please explain the causality between this. The restoration of democracy was the result of citizens standing up for their rights, not the work of an elitist group who supported a dictator! Makes sense doesn't it? What you're doing is a spit and slap in the face of those activists.
Thanks for the Vid. His book "Road to Serfdom" was an absolute sham and a crock of B.S. He references fascists and socialists as the same thing. Time alone has debunked his nonsense. I knew Friedman supported Pinochet, but I had no idea that Hayek was a fan of Pinochet either.
I thought I might clarify something. The Austrian School of economics are against the military industrial complex.
You are being a wee bit harsh on someone that was face to face with a brutal dictator. If you are willing to die just to say, "hey, I think you're evil" good for you. It serves a greater purpose to try to influence a leader by talking in a diplomatic manner than becoming a martyr. Going with what works isn't necessarily agreement.
'All economic plans of the Committee of 300 meet at thecrossroads of Malthus and Frederick Von Hayek, another doomand gloom economist who is sponsored by the Club of Rome. TheAustrian born Von Hayek has long been under the control of DavidRockefeller, and Von Hayek theories are fairly widely accepted inthe United States..'
This guy is the most biased, unfair and stupid commentator I have ever had the misfortune of listening to.
It takes 10 minutes to read one chapter of any of Hayek's works and you will see that he or the Austrian school are not supportive of dictatorships whatsoever, it contravenes his basic philosophy!
@franks2732 Simple - you've never read Hayek. I, on the other hand, have and he preaches small, democratic, benevolent government. The whole purpose of the Hayekian philosophy is that ALL people must be free at all times in order for society to develope properly. His beef is with the size of government, not with elections!
@caversmill well actually I have and he certainly advocated his ideals, I think those ideals were sick, racist, bigoted, sexist and complete and utter garbage. He supported "wealth without control" and by any other definition libertarianism would be regarded as fascist. And it was Hayek like Rothbard who advocated Totalitarian rule to get rid of those who disagreed with their ideology. Which is on the public record, in his own words and unmistakably SICK twisted and evil.
@franks2732 you are an absolute, transparent liar! You clearly don't understand libertarianism, Austrian economics or the works of Hayek! And Rothbard?!?! Haha, you are officially a moron. Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist, which means he is fundamentally against ANY central authority whatsoever! Dear oh dear, aren't you a prat!!
@caversmill Actually I have not lied once, could you point to where I have made a factual fault and I will gladly retract my statement. But It was Hayek who really loved talking about how he would enforce his "freedumb' on the world and his Ghost writing for the "Paul Report" etc makes for some great reading. You should here what Rothbard said on how it is best to keep all us plebes in line. I can quote chapter and verse as to their views. The lunatics were very happy to share
Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial,they invited,as their keynote speaker,my father John K Galbraith.The leading economists of the Austrian school-- including Hayek and Haberler returned for the occasion.My father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs Austria since the war,which,he said,"would not have been possible without the contribution of these men"They nodded-briefly-until it dawned on them what he meant.They all left the country in the 1930s
@zsylvana it seems to me, that the liberturds, they would rather have a dictatorship then to have regulations all because they believe that deregulating, would lead to the gold starndard free market, ok, so if we elected ron paul, he would just disban government so he would be out of a job, and let the corperations take over, and do what they wanted? sounds like facism to me
@zsylvana you americans are so immature. you never present ideas or question them. only glorify or attack them, or more often the indivduals presenting them. at least keynes and hayek respected eachother's ideas and motives. james galbraith for one is among the most rude and arrogant economists i've ever seen speak. he would be nothing without his daddy, who himself did little but suckle at whatever was lactating on the political tit.
neither hayek nor friedman were ever supportive of dictatorships, they wrote many books on liberal political philosophy.friedman associated himself with Pinochet only as an economic advisor and never was sympathetic to any of his other policies.as a matter of fact, he was happy when 15 years later Chile turned back into a democracy. to call either Hayek or Frieddman fascist not only contradicts their books, it's an insult to two men who fought fascism their entire lives
@MrReco12 name a book or interview where hayek supports fascism torture and nazism. just so that you know, he left austria because of the rise of fascism
Yeah, the man who was the most vocal advocate of freedom supported oppression and torture. Its just what they say about Milton Friedman. Pinochet influenced by him, after the coup adopted Chicago school principles.
His regime lasted for a decade more and the economic policies spawned unprecedented growth (the Chile miracle), and the people were far better of afterwards. Just because he acknowledged this fact means he supported the regime, with is just demagoguery.
@MrReco12 Pinochet was a dictactor, but not a fascist. There are certain aspects that makes someone fascist, and pinochet didn´t any of those aspects.
@goPistons06 I could name about 2-3 interviews off hand and perhaps another 10 or so quotes from the man himself. And please NOTE Fascism is a Political Ideology not country or Race centric. Race and nationalism are just two of the means that Fascists maintain power.
@goPistons06 I could name about 2-3 interviews off hand and perhaps another 10 or so quotes from the man himself. And please NOTE Fascism is a Political Ideology not country or Race centric. Race and nationalism are just two of the means that Fascists maintain power.
Hayek wasn't just important to the austrians, he has been important to many important economists. he was one of the first to consider information important within economics, and is important for his contibutions on the business cycle and monetary theory. Herbert Simon, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, and Friedman were all influenced by him.
@goPistons06 Hayek last work was almost an admission that Austrian economics was crap, he also changed his tune about "central banks and welfare toward the end of his life. It is part of the reason why the Mises In and the Cato In have little time for him now . He also was a self confessed "Subjectivist" which went totally against the grain of most Austrians. As mad and deranged as the idiot was, but unlike his student of sorts Friedman, Hayek could not admit he was wrong
@franks2732 ''Hayek last work was almost an admission that Austrian economics was crap''The Fatal Conceit? Which part of that book is anti Austrian economics??
''he also changed his tune about "central banks and welfare toward the end of his life'' Hayek became more radically anti central bank towards the end of his career with the book de-nationalisation of money.Nor did he change his ideas on Welfare which were only set out fully in 1960,which did not contradict earlier book Road to Serfdom.
@Malthus0 LMFAO, Have you not read your own ideologies blog spots, some of you guys hate each other more than anyone else. I am only telling you Exactly what members of your own ideology are saying
@franks2732 You can't tell me what you are saying because you are clueless. If you get all your knowledge from blogspots then no wonder. As I said in my other comment you seem to be again mistaking Austrian economics for ethics & politics.
Ether that or you are reading Objectivists(they really hate the evolutinary morality outlined in it)
@Malthus0 Yawn, You guys are all one in the same arguing over a corner of a coin. the only difference between you and a rand follower is your small differences in the idea about how to reach "fucktard utopia" LMFAO. OH if you read my Channel it say Socialist, you know that political ideology that has existed since about 1850 and 1/4 of the worlds population claim to be. Not two young boys playing wow in a chartroom buddy
@franks2732 ''He also was a self confessed "Subjectivist" which went totally against the grain of most Austrians'' I am sorry but that is really very confused indeed. All Austrians have been subjective value theorists since Menger founded the school. Later members of the school expanding on the idea of economics as the science that studies subjective phenomena. As Mises said "economics is not about things and tangible material objects; it is about men, their meanings and actions''
@Malthus0 many Austrians are not, and many find the idea of "Subjectivist" thinking an insult to their core values, personally I think it is a bunch of young boys arguing over penis size myself. But who gives a shit your school of though died with the dodo. No one gives a toss, It's like the GFC, fuck me if according to Austrians they were the only ones to predict it (which is funny as for years they always have-every year) Where as over 25 other World Economists predicted the crash
@franks2732 ''many Austrians are not, and many find the idea of "Subjectivist" thinking an insult to their core values'' Do you know how fucking insane that statement is. Austrian economics IS subjectivist economics.
So what you must have done is get confused between subjective economics & subjective ethics. The label 'Austrian' only refers to the economics. They disagree politically as Libertarians or Liberals. Ether that or you mistook Ayn Rand followers(Objectivists) for Austrians.
@Malthus0 OH Please I have been debating you fools for too long, it depends on what you morons say. I have provided ample evidence to support my claims on many other channel comments. And Sorry to tell you most of your so called "Rand" buddies do say they are libertarian, you may be of a different denomination but you are all the same to me. You wish to label everyone else sa la v buddy
@franks2732 Are you retarded or just a troll? It is idiots like you & your mate Hogan who give your more intellegent ideological bretheren a bad name. From your responses to me you come across as the socialist equiviant of a redneck. Unable & unwiling to make even the most unsubtle distinctions. Dumb & proud.
I will leave you to get back to your blogspots. Don't want to get in the way of your latest hilariously misguided perception.
@Malthus0 it is not my beliefs that are considered by everyone as part of the lunatic fringe, before you are so willing to judge others take a hard look at your own beliefs. The last bastion of defense you have is the net and you guys are losing that channel as well. LMFAO, Bring back the "salt" standard, shit don't you mean gold. What an imbecile
Take a hint, this franks2732 does not know ANYTHING about Austrian economics.. and let it go. Arguing with idiots is fun.. but this is just torture and declarations falsehoods and ..ah the moronity!
Chavez led a coup... are coup leaders bad? Defended his 45 minute relationship???? Hyperbolize much? So Hayek liked Liberalism? and you don't....? You biggest faults with hayek, was friedman? You video titles seem misleading...
Just curious, when did Hugo Chavez lead a coup? Never! He has been elected several times with 65% of the vote each time in elections monitored by neutral international observers. A fascist CIA led coup was attempted and the people came out to free Chavez.
In 1973 Salvador Allende was democratically elected and then murdered in a fascist coup.
He must got it all wrong.Chávez survived a 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt which briefly removed him from power. A few months after the coup, in December 2002, the Chávez presidency faced a two-month strike organized by management at the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) .
@radiohogan you know, Hitler was democratically elected, and so was Peron. to be democratically elected doen't always imply legitimacy. to me, the other side of legitimacy in a government is the extent to which it protects freedoms and and exercise the other functions of the state, and at that Pinochet failed, Hitler failed, Peron failed, and Chavez failed, and Allende failed.
@goPistons06 Hitler was NOT democratically elected. he gained at the time he took office was about 35% of the national vote. Hitler gained power via political means not the ballot. A very often forgotten bit of history. I think the most Hitler and his party ever polled was 40%. Far from the support of the German People. Your other comments are just crap
@radiohogan Mike you could write a list of about I think it is 10-15 democratically elected officials, presidents etc in South America killed by either the radicals trained at the "School of Americas" with direct or indirect funding support by the CIA or the CIA directly and the US State dept, even a few priests I do believe. What was it 700 times the CIA tried to kill Fidel
what a moron, dictatorship don't have to bo fascist. during pinochet era were killed something like 2500 people, which is less that in cuba (and chile has bigger population). think what would happen if allende would rule longer. maaaan, you're old but stupid.
You know Hogan's a toad eater when he says " I would read my Newsweek column of Friedman uh.. you know to find out what reality" (insert toad, chew and swallow then..uhemm. clear throat of any bones) " is really like". Toad eaters didn't normally perform this feat before having an arrangement with a given master. Hogan eats them as if they were oysters in a whorehouse. But this is what Larry says not me I'm clean.
The situation in Chile isn't that simple. Basically there was a dictator replaced by an other. Some people prefered of course the first, others the second (depending on who was privileded).
Friedman and Hayek 'prefered' of course the liberal ECONOMY under Pinochet and thats what Hayek says in the interview. One should better listen! He PREFERS the (ECONOMY of the) new regime to the old. To make a link that he was a fascist is just pathetic.
By the way, Hayek was right on the transitional period.
The "shock treatment" in Chile led to a massive depression in 1975, but inflation fell and GDP growth proceeded at 7.5% per annum for the next half-decade (Friedman and Friedman 1998:405). In 1982, Chilean inflation had fallen from a 700 percent annual rate during the middle of 1974 to an annual rate of under ten percent (Friedman and Friedman 1998:407) I still fail to see the validity of your argument that Hayek and Friedman supported Pinochet over freedom. They were for liberalism - freedom.
Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood. The citizen of the UK after WWII was not permitted to spend vacation in the US because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the US, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of political views. The one is ostensibly an economic limitation, the other political, yet there is no difference in outcome - reduced freedom. - Milton
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." M. Friedman.
Please put down Klein and do some research into what liberalism really is; a belief in freedom. Government intervenes in crisis, not free markets. It just preposterous to suggest otherwise.
"Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable." ~ Milton Friedman, 'Shock Treatment', as prescribed for Chile and post-Soviet USSR.
More on that in Naomi Klein's book (and documentary "The Shock Doctrine".
@samsonlovesyou Taken out of context, it seems as though Friedman proposes to provoke crisis. Do you believe that's what he meant? He was speaking to keeping ideas alive in free discussion in order to have alternatives when things fail. Medicare is a great example. When that falls under its own weight, we need to have viable alternatives lying around. The crisis he spoke of did not come from provocation but from a failure of economic policy.
@sam Pinochet "was sympathetically attracted to the idea of a shock treatment but was clearly distressed at the possible temporary unemployment that might be caused" (Friedman and Friedman 1998:399) Milton did not align himself, he helped Pinochet get rid of inflation. That's what the previous sentence talks about, Hogan. He also helped the Chinese and other people. He did so because helping Pinochet, helped the people. He was also sewing seeds of freedom; as I pointed out to LeftPolitiko.
@samsonlovesyou Does this statement mean that you, in Friedman's shoes of being asked for advice, would not have helped get rid of the inflation that created so much unemployment? I think you're being disingenuous instead of having a well meaning discussion.
If Milton Friedman, advisor to Thatcher (who subsequently massacred the British working class after being influenced by him), Reagan and Pinnochet and author of "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" says that his association with a fascist dictator was intended to help the Chilean people and "sew seeds of Freedom" out of the goodness of his warm heart - who am I to doubt his sincerity?
Still, would have been nice if he'd allowed them self determination rather than forcing his help on them.
@ussseaw0lf Try sewing the seeds of Great Depression-level unemployment, massive income inequality, wage-cuts, and brutal political repression.
Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" (whom Pinochet publicly fired!) were helping an authoritarian regime solve the problems that it came into existence to solve. But feel free to keep repeating this infantile, whitewashed account of the Pinochet regime.
"the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse."
Nonsense, to put it bluntly. Not surprisingly, the man who orchestrated the economic policy lied in order to justify it. The Austrialian journalist, John Pilger documents the situation Chile faced in his book "Freedom Next Time" and also in his documentary "The War On Democracy."
To attack Hayek as an attack on the Austrian school is problematic. First, I don;t know of any modern Austrians who are Hayekian. Most modern Austrians are of the Rothbardian or Misian tradition. Austrians typically hate Hayek and his theories on the state and the role of government. Austrians typically praise Hayek for his work on business cycles and spontaneous order. nothing else. Hayek is only Austrian insofar as he adheres to the Austrian theory of business cycles.
Hayek attacked all Socialists as fascists in his book "Road to Serfdom." This is what made him famous. Fascists & G-men use Hayek's work to characterize Socialists.
Therefore, it behooves Socialists and others to examine who Hayek is - in the history of ideas.
I've read Road to Serfdom a number of times and an not disputing any points you've made about it. But, just saying, it seems that you connect Hayek and the Austrians a great deal. Im just letting everyone know that Hayek is only Austrian insofar as his business cycle theory goes. He is actually criticized a great deal by modern Austrians and his "Road To Serfdom" has even been critiqued by Hayekians and Austrians alike.
@CommSense What was Murray Rothbard's view on MLK? on David Duke? on the racist book 'the Bell Curve'?
And what's the deal with the people at the von Mises institute and are so obsessed with neoconfederate themes?(Lew Rockwell calls himself a confederate. Remind me, what was the 'cornerstone' of confederacy?)And how come they view women's voting rights as 'statist imposition'?(But then again,they do openly despise democracy,so maybe they would like to see them revoked altogether-not expanded)
MLK supported policies Austrians would consider totalitarian during the last 5 years of his life, Duke wanted to limit the state and there were no racist elements in his campaign when Rothbard supported him. I never heard Rckwell consider himself a confed, although him and most Austrians agree that the Articles of Confed were superior to the Constitution, insofar as the AOC gave less power to the state. Yes, anarcho-caps dont support democracy. Off-topic questions answered.
@CommSense a)MLK, totalitarian?Illuminate us with some examples.
b)'Duke [...] no racist elements in his campaign' .This is ludicrous.What did you expect? To yell aloud "race war!"
c)yes, Rockwell is neoconfederate. And supporter of neofascists (e.g. the late jorg haider)
d)"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed " CSA constitution. What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to own people?
I think what you're doing is silly. Just because you're a supporter of a school of thought doesnt mean you're in support with every view that comes from that camp. I could easily throw out the same type erroneous questions supporters of Woodrow Wilson, Abe Linc, and JM Keynes. Such tactics are a waste of time and negate the important issues.
@CommSense Ehm, correct me if i am wrong, but that's the central tactic of the austrian people. And specificaly Hayek 'wasted' a great deal of time dismissing the left as 'hitlerites' and 'stalinists'.
Anyhow the people i mentioned are not political leaders that were forced to make erroneous 'tactical' decisions. They are the current MAIN ideologues of the movement. These ideas are not a momentary lapse of political judgement; it's what the movement's vision of 'freedom' is about.
@CommSense 1)you failed to give specific instance 2)you reiterate the same ridiculous apology for the Duke endorsement.3)Just words? Rockwell was enthusiastic for the victories of the far right in EU.MLK is pro-tyranny while Jorg Haider is pro-freedom?Bother to explain that,please. 4)"No one supports that"So,where is the freedom in the CSA constitution the austrians are so enthusiastic about?
THEIR semantic game lies there:when they say 'freedom',they mean property rights (incl to own slaves)
Austrians apparently,being obsessed with property right as they are, think that they've trademarked and own the WORD freedom.
But, please, explain me how the efforts of MLK made 'way to slavery' and how institutions like the confederacy and people like David Duke and Jorg Haider & the rest of the european far right that recieved enthusisastic support from the people of the von Mises Institute are promoting the agenda of 'freedom'?
1) ok, specific instance, mlk said that the US must embrace socialism to achieve equality. most austrians would view such forced equality as tyrannical. 2) sorry but its the best you're going to get, i dont really care who endorses who for what office, but if you can find a racial element in that campaign then let me know. i think thats fair. 3) idk what this means. 4) idk what a CSA constitution is.
The only austrian who supports voluntary slave contacts is walter block.
idk why you're still flipping out about this. if you wanna talk about the ideas and their merits i'm more than willing. but if you just wanna yell "racist" at the top of your lungs and avoid any topic of real substance, then be my guest.
@CommSense Again,if you want to find the people whose ONLY tactic is namecalling & fingerpointing,look at the austrian Sch. I understand that, since they discard the use of data (i.e. facts) & maths (i.e. reason) to approach truth, they aren't left with a lot of tools to argue their positions. In fact, namecalling is the principal modus operandi of austrians against their (right&left)ideological opponents.
Vacuous invocations of 'libery' as if it is a meditation chant, don't constitute ideas.
@11thsockpuppet Your side does the name calling and the untruths. Aus Schl is not pro-slavery (the lie in question) No discussion of praxeology, Mutually beneficial exchange, subjective value theory, money or credit, Production or distribution. (meaning no actual issues) Personally I don't care about your TV celebrities or controversies about them (they rate as non-entities) . Your name calling, red herrings, and associative fallacies reveal your sides' lack of merit.
Ok. They don't condone slavery. But please explain me what's all this entusiasm with the confederacy?
Do bother and read my past comments, because i've got tired repeating that, i am not bashing anyone for any wierd web of assosiations. That is what austrians do. This is what hayek and his kin do with their ideological opponents (i.e. call them stalinist hitlerites). I am pointing out REAL positions of past and current FRONTRUNNERS of the movement in the US.
@11thsockpuppet I'm not aware of any significant enthusiasm for the southern confederacy, in Austrian school economics. It seemed that there was some desire to return to the articles of confederation during antebellum. You and Austrian schoolers alike may confuse (what should be) the enthusiasm for the articles of confederation, as enthusiasm for the southern confederacy.
I tend toward limited constitutionalism myself though, as do a great many Austrians it seems.
@tuberesponder If you want to discuss neoclassical economics in general, i understand that you want to do this to change subject. The sad truth is that even if their neoconfederate positions & the far right sympathies were brough in the public arena not by me, but by them themselves. It's they that instead of putting effort to work on any MATHEMATICAL model to explain real world DATA to address, as you request, real economic issues, wasted their time ranting for the CSA & the far right.
@11thsockpuppet adding "neo" to something isn't scholarly. I like austrian school, because it provides some of the most effective tools to understand economic situations. There are faults with it, but it's one of the few schools to recognize that about itself. plus, i a fair portion is used to justify usury, which austrian schoolers should
@tuberesponder "adding "neo" to something isn't scholarly".If you've never heard of the term neoclassical economics & you think that this is a stupid neologism of mine,it's quite telling of how informed you are on these issues.
Regarding the super effective austrian 'tools' to approach economic issues, if they ditch MATHS and DATA,what tools do they use for their scholarship? Because this 'knowledge via introspection' thing kinda sounds too new age to me.Sounds as super effective as homeopathy.
@11thsockpuppet i think that austrians who support not looking to math and data at all are too radical and don't recognize the benefits of research. also, as an economist myself, I will say that the economics profession is really one that might as well just be statistical; econometrics plays too big of a role. i think if you find a balance, which i think informed austrians would support, thats the best way. a theory shouldn't just come out of data, as it's ever changing.
@tuberesponder A lot of von mises austrians (with lew rockwell inlcuded) are well into the whole neoconfederate movement & not just admiration of the documents. They defend the confederacy in a variety of issues irrelevant with the economy(even in their capacity as von mises staff), they are members of the League of South and some faculty (di lorenzo), in an effort to glorify the confederacy, are involved in a large scale effort of historical revisionism regarding the secession and its causes.
@CommSense And I should add the frontrunners of the austrian 'economics' in us today support the neofascist/far-right politican contenders and the neoconfederate themes, BECAUSE of their ideas. When you are scrutinizing these endorsements, you are indeed scrutinizing their ideas. The reason you DECLINE to explain these endorsements, it is because YOU cannot discuss ideas.
What do they mean when they say liberty?e.g. Do they mean freedom to shoot blacks that are on your property as trespassers?
@11thsockpuppet Seriously, if you are to repeat the same assertions for a 3rd time or invoke ignorance of what the phrase 'contitution of the confederate states of america' or on who Jorg Haider is or what does 'european neofascist parties' mean to avoid addressing the points, don't bother to answer at all.
And it's quite interesting the claim that A POLICY think-tank's political endorsements DO NOT matter. That's novel...
name one "neofascist/far-right politician" a modern Austrian supports. You're playing the same games that glen beck plays, the association game. Its not fun, and again, negates real issues. We actually almost got something of substance going. shame.
And if you have ever read the Austrians you could answer your questions yourself. I've never come across an austrian who supports the "freedom to shoot blacks that are on your property." if you can find that endorsement let me know.
@CommSense Are you serious? I've already named two (duke and Jorg Haider) AD NAUSEUM, and you challenge me to name one? You mean one more? Jean-Marie Le Pen(endorsement by Rothbard himself). You want more? They were quite enthusiastic with the rise of the far right in europe in general and mocked the mainstream press and thinkers that were shocked by their success.
You'd better not bring up Glenn Beck, for he learned his shtick from Hayek himself ('OMG! the leftists = stalinist hitlerites!') .
@11thsockpuppet And we are not talking about a conspiratorial web of wild associations here. We are talking about people who up to now austrians OPT to cheerfully endorse as a POLICY think tank. I am not calling rothbard or rockwell 'hitleresque', i am just stating the fact that they DO wholeheartedly supported Le Pen & Haider. That's FACTS.
Why do you decline to answer how Jorg Haider is pro freedom when MLK is pro tyranny. The answer is about their IDEAS,you care so much about?
I said modern austrian, Rothbard has been dead for 15 years, and he is by no means a "modern" austrian. I've never heard of JH, or any AE supporting him. Idk who "they" is but its obvious that if an Austrian did support anyone who you consider "far right" its because of their stance against the state. Again, this means nothing, if you wanna talk about ideas im all for it, if you wanna play Rachel Maddow i don't have the time. I'm interested in ideas. Not the political scoreboard
@CommSense Le Pen is supported by alive 'austrians' too(e.g Lew Rockwell).
Now, if your argument is, ' you cannot use people i've never heard of, like jorg haider'(haider praised NAZI employment policy-is that antistatist?),what can it tell... It reflects on the proud anti-intellectual tradition of the austrian school.
For as long you are refusing to answer why Jorg Haider is pro-freedom while MLK is pro tyranny, YOU are avoiding to discuss IDEAS. I am sorry,but that's the truth.
You're arguing semantics and engaging in daytime radio political speak. MLK supported a strong state, Aus obviously would categorize that as tyrannical. I never said JH was pro-freedom. I said that if he is being supported by an Aus it means that to some degree me must favor a very decentralized or small state. These are not ideas per se we are discussing. We're talking political labeling and association games. You continue to waste everyones time.
@CommSense 5 days now you keep speculating that if austrians picked Haider he might mave been a good pro limited government choice. Why don't you go and see for yourself his platform? Do you have an independent judgement or do you blindly trust the choices of your von mises overlords?
And when you say that i play the semantics game you either use it vacuously,because you cannot retort,or mean that duke was not racist and LePen &Haider are not far-right and that they are ok choices. What is it?
@CommSense You still moan about supposed 'labeling'? Von Mises inst. is a political think tank. The only thing they do expressing their views (inc. neoconfederate,civil war revisionism, murray's 'Bell Curve' embrace) & supporting the political candidates that they think reflect these views (duke, haider, lepen etc). If you cannot judge them based on these stuff, you cannot judge them AT ALL. And i repeat. HAYEK WAS 95% NAMECALLING.So cut the BS. That's the facts. Stop whining and get over it.
roth never embraced the bell curve. obviously you don't know too much about the IDEAS of the people you're criticizing. You know the political speak, and thats all and well, if youre into playing political games, which i'm not. The Mises inst have never endorsed a candidate. Rothbard, Rockwell, and others from the camp have heavily criticizedHayek , and hoppe called him a social democrat. I'm not wining, i'm just pointing out that what you want to talk about is purely rhetoric.
@CommSense You talk about mere Rhetoric. You began saying Hayek doesn't matter because 'they are rothbardians or misians. Then you went on to say that dead people don't count either.So who counts? Rockwell & DiLorenzo? HA
And if the opinions on ideas, movements and people expressed in WRITTING in their capacity as von mises inst. staff don't count,what does?
You are playing HEAVILY the semantic game.In your opinion 'ideas' worth discussing are only the ones that are not potentially embarassing
ok. just tell me when you're gunna stop crying about what means what, who said what, and such. its nonsense and its a waste of internet. again, wanna pm me and talk ideas rather than "gotcha politics" let me know, dog
'gotcha' means that it was just an isolated instance of one maybe two articles exploring these neoconfederate/far right ideas. Unfortunately they are systematicaly, unrepentantly and up to now pursuing them. But maybe you use 'gotcha' in the sense "ok you are correct, thus we declare this argument 'gotcha' and you'd better forget it."
Too afraid to discuss their toxic obsessive ideas of neoconfederate apologetics in public and want to switch to pm? Understandable...
i thought it'd be easier to switch to pm so we could type more, being that taqlking about ideas, things of substance, unlike politics and rhetoric, require a decent amount of space, unlike political speak and catchphrases. cant type a lot on a video comment. so again if you wanna do that, be my guest. its fine by me
Dear conservative whackos: Polls show Salvador Allende is the most admired person in Chilean history, second only to Chile's founder.
Since conservative morons around the world admire Milton Friedman & even defend Augusto Pinochet on the grounds that Allende was some form of horrible communist dictator, they should realize Pinochet is the most REVILED person in Chilean history.
In the conservative moron world, supporting fascism is fine just because it's "anti-commie."
The funniest part is when Hayek said that he viewed the Pinochet regime as a "transition" to free market capitalism. In other words, an authoritarian state as a transitional phase between a flawed social system (the welfare state) and a utopia (free markets.) Doesn't this sound eerily like the standard neoliberal critique of socialism/communism?
@LeftPolitiko I think you fail to understand the niceties of that statement. Hayek was saying that by giving people a free market, Pinochet was writing his own resignation letter. Hayek believed that a free market was the slippery slope to political freedom. Also, no classical liberal would say the free market is utopia, but it's the best we can have. Contrary to your statement, socialism is seen as a utopia by it's proponents; who see institutions as perfectible.
@ussseaw0lf "Writing his own resignation letter"!? Then why was the transition back to democracy such a long and arduous process in Chile? Why did Pinochet, even after restoring some civilian control, retain his position as commander in chief for years? According to neoliberals like you and Hayek, decades of a repressive military junta justifies "free markets" which, incidentally, don't exist. The coup in Chile was a restoration of capitalist class power--pure and simple.
You don't even understand what they mean by non liberalized democracy. Nice way to equivocate. Grandin's work isn't that impressive, seeing that Hayek and Friedman both stated their support of political and social freedom.
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system" - Milton Friedman in Free To Choose.
3:10 idiot, he mean't the temporary economic shock that did take place when they lifted control over prices. Just shows how much you know about what you're talking
nrekk 1 month ago
Hayek and Keynes were colleagues. Keynes was a big fan of "The Road to Serfdom". They had some criticisms of each other but generally respected each other and praised each other's works. People forget that Keynes was a free market economists, as economists generally are. There are degrees of that. Some are very liberal (laissez-faire) like Hayek, others are not quite so like Keynes. But it says a lot that today the extremes are Keynes and Hayek not Smith and Marx. All economics is capitalism.
BobGeorgeAU 1 month ago
@BobGeorgeAU Keynes is Marx. have you actually read Keynes' "General theory..."? I did and I say Keynesianism is not captalism. Capitalism is - simply put - freedom to choose what to do with your wealth (not only money). Keynes was great advocate of high taxation and high inflation (which is also a HUGE tax) in exchange for gov't spending to reduce unemployment. And I - like Keynes - mean gov't when using this word. So don't fool yourself: Keynes is socialism in nice clothes.
acepl78 1 month ago
So, Hayek made a mistake with what he didn't know about Pinochet -as high profile people involved in philophy often do. Looking at Hayek's overall ideas about totalitarianism and the anti-capital policies of facism, you have to ignore a lot of it to come to the strange conclusion that Hayek was a facist (pretty much everything besides Pinocet). But of course, Keynesianism "intellectualism" and "scientific methodology" is about ignoring things that don't fit your worldview.
johnsonfromwisconsin 1 month ago
"The theory of aggregate production that is the goal of the following book can be much more easily applied to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of the production and distribution of a given output turned out under the conditions of free competition and of a considerable degree of laissez-faire" - those are the words of Keynes himself in german edition of his "general theory".
FYI: fascism is where gov't tells people what to do and punish them if thy don't.
acepl78 1 month ago
The ideas of ideologues like Milton Friedman and Von Hayek are poisonous ones that continue to exist only because they are propped up by rich businessmen and parasites like the Koch brothers. If you want the "free market" you're essentially begging for the race to the bottom: free trade, union busting, shock therapy, privatization, etc.
IcedEarth426 2 months ago
@IcedEarth426 not sure why free trade's a bad thing there buddy...i'd guess you'd like cheaper stuff?
rsingh1492 4 days ago
Paul Krugman routinely praises an authoritarian elitist, murder!
Who approved bombarding of children for three day's with what's meant to be the non-lethal CS gas! To flush out enemies. Who starved 1.5 million people with a blockade... diplomats quit citing it was mass murder! 500,000 of those who starved where children his foreign secretary said "I thinks, Its worth It"
Who am I talking about? Bill Clinton! He killed more Iraqi's than the despotic bush & by starvation... PS Screw Pinochet
CitizenBeta2 4 months ago
While in the US, Hayek drew off of the US Social Security and Medicaid system (both are programs that he wanted to see abolished).
He was encouraged to go on the dole by none other than Charles Koch, notorious Social Security hater and billionaire bankroller of various anti-Soc. Sec. groups.
Just like Ayn Rand (who also drew off Social Security in her declining years), he's another hypocrite who took advantage of social programs that they wanted to keep other people from getting.
MiHiVidz 4 months ago
@MiHiVidz That's pretty much the motto of any Libertarian in America: 'Gub'mint is bad....unless I benefit from it.'
Homer177 4 months ago
@Homer177
spot on!
MrReco12 3 months ago
The utter intellectual corruption of the left.
maganz 5 months ago
So his theory is faulty because Pinochet ... because Marxists never did the torture ... well if you ignore Stalin, Pol Pot ... Great argument.
Zhiloreznik 7 months ago
OK, let's look at this objectively. let's look PAST the atrocities committed by pinochet during the coup, and purely at the economic ideas of chile since friedman and hayek's involvement. Chile went from a chaotic mess of union strikes and poverty with no foreign investment to one of the most developed nations in SA, and they've kept the economic policies and government that pinochet set up. chile has pinochet to blame for the atrocities. it has hayek and friedman to thank of it's prosperity.
samm1809 9 months ago
@samm1809 Unless you count the fact that Chile's poverty rate doubled from 19 to 41% during that time! Unless you count the 600% inflation! Austrian school tool!
Activeassholeonpills 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Activeassholeonpills down from 1000% under the previous government. inflation results from fiat currencies and central banks. chile has both and pinochet would have had to expand the money supply to fund his government. austrian economics opposes fiat curencies. also, it's easy to say that you have low unemployment when the government is INVENTING useless, unproductive jobs for the sake of the fact that someone is unemployed. lower taxes and more money can be invested to create REAL jobs.
samm1809 4 months ago
@samm1809 Wow! You are a true believer! Where do they dig up people like you?
Activeassholeonpills 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Activeassholeonpills man i just looked at your channel. you literally are the most typical moron i've ever seen. '''rrrrrr i'm angry us liberals have it bad because of the conservative media machine. poor me. hunting club conservatives are evil and arrogant and exaggerate blah blah blah'' yeah, conservatives suck. liberals suck just as much. you know why? because they label themselves and follow the herd rather than thinking about things before they open their rhetoric hole.
samm1809 4 months ago
@samm1809 So sue me, I'm not very good at making videos. As for being a typical moron, here is my street address so you can come say that to my face:
2207B 40th Street Valley, AL 36854
I might be a liberal but I am also a redneck and those are fighting words.
Activeassholeonpills 4 months ago 2
@Activeassholeonpills I'm not going across the pacific to do what your fiat currency, moronic know-it-all keynesian leaders like almost every president since FDR, paul krugman and ben bernanke, giganic debt and pussy, lazy, hypocritical national attitude of obsessive entitlements for the rich AND poor is going to do for me in a few years- destroy you. you guys better hope you elect Ron Paul or you're going to be as much a part of history as the Weimar Republic.
samm1809 4 months ago
@samm1809 It never ceases to amaze me how cowardly the typical Austrian Schooler is. There is always an underlying excuse for their dodging the butt of their own hubris. In almost every scenario in which I've dealt with your kind offline, they seemed to do one of two things: 1) stir up shit and get as far away as possible or make remarks while already being at a safe distance or 2) hiding behind a gun, usually one you happen to be carrying. I knew a big Austrianist bully who was guilty of this.
Activeassholeonpills 4 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Activeassholeonpills wow. stereotyping. 'your kind'? what an amazing liberal you are. obviously you have only dealt with grouchy, daft "rednecks'' like yourself who also stick a label on themselves and tout rhetorical lines then. maybe if you actually seeked to have a discussion and not make a poorly grounded attack on character like radiohogan often does, you would have a broad spectrum of people who have different opinions to associate with. but clearly, it's 'us and them' for you.
samm1809 4 months ago
I found the difference between Keynes and Hayek are not so great as their similarities. Last G20 meeting... World Bank calls for gold standard for international currency. WB is a bastion of liberty? lol Central bankers arguing over how to own everything.
etzel33 10 months ago
Fascism nationalizes banks, imposes tarrifs, trade barriers, creates public companies that bailout businesses, persuades consumers to buy state only products. (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale).
When i read what the austrians have to say they don't support any of these policies.
Emil246 10 months ago
@Emil246 have you ever seen a bunch of more stubborn people then the austrians? i tell them that free trade costed millions of jobs for americans, what is the response i get, you do not care for sick kids in india, not knowing that the companies who use free trade, just so they can hire cheap labor, treat their workers like dirt, and there is no sick days for the workers, and they do not have good healthinsurance, it is the same response over and over again oye
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
@whedonfreak976 I don't know what side is right. most of the sides have there scapegoat :)
Emil246 10 months ago
@Emil246 well, of course, but just look at what goes on, in countries that have a lot of socialist policies, they have lower unemployment, and better healthcare, in countries with more libertarian ploicies it is the oposite, but yes all sides have their share of jackasses....
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
@whedonfreak976 Send me some links.
Emil246 10 months ago
@Emil246 sure i will...
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
Well Hayek was right ! "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government." F. Von Hayek . Just watch venezuala going into a dictatorship due to Chavez's socialism and Chile who went from dictatorship to democracy guess why ?? The Chicago boys of course !
hamzyboy 11 months ago
@hamzyboy
Venezuela is not a dictatorship at all you idiot.
The only chance of it becoming a dictatorship is that if the Right seize power in a similar Brutal manner.
Hayek was a facist, its worth noting that he only denounced Hitler after he started losing.(around 1944)
MrReco12 10 months ago
@MrReco12 What? Hayek left austria in the 30s and wouldnt return because of the annexation. He extremely disliekd hitler and facism, because he thought it came from central planning not capitolism. He didnt write his book till a bit later
astreocclu 8 months ago
@hamzyboy Chavez was voted by the people, in Chile those who could vote differently than what the CIA wanted to have been eliminated in one way or another, Chavez has not done this.
sergiorgio2000 10 months ago
@hamzyboy Chavez was voted by the people, in Chile those who could vote differently than what the CIA wanted to have been eliminated in one way or another, Chavez has not done this. Hayek isnt a true economics scientist, is a fanatic of is own ideology
sergiorgio2000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hamzyboy
" Chile who went from dictatorship to democracy guess why ?? The Chicago boys of course !"
Correlation does not imply causation. Please explain the causality between this. The restoration of democracy was the result of citizens standing up for their rights, not the work of an elitist group who supported a dictator! Makes sense doesn't it? What you're doing is a spit and slap in the face of those activists.
GodOfTheInternets 2 months ago
Comment removed
hamzyboy 11 months ago
Thanks for the Vid. His book "Road to Serfdom" was an absolute sham and a crock of B.S. He references fascists and socialists as the same thing. Time alone has debunked his nonsense. I knew Friedman supported Pinochet, but I had no idea that Hayek was a fan of Pinochet either.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
I thought I might clarify something. The Austrian School of economics are against the military industrial complex.
You are being a wee bit harsh on someone that was face to face with a brutal dictator. If you are willing to die just to say, "hey, I think you're evil" good for you. It serves a greater purpose to try to influence a leader by talking in a diplomatic manner than becoming a martyr. Going with what works isn't necessarily agreement.
riverlioness 1 year ago
@riverlioness I suppose you support the Vichy government too.
spartan2600 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2nd time Ive run across this guys vids. WHAT A HACK.
WDemMusic 1 year ago
Club of Rome Quotations
'All economic plans of the Committee of 300 meet at thecrossroads of Malthus and Frederick Von Hayek, another doomand gloom economist who is sponsored by the Club of Rome. TheAustrian born Von Hayek has long been under the control of DavidRockefeller, and Von Hayek theories are fairly widely accepted inthe United States..'
m8kzardoz 1 year ago 2
This guy is the most biased, unfair and stupid commentator I have ever had the misfortune of listening to.
It takes 10 minutes to read one chapter of any of Hayek's works and you will see that he or the Austrian school are not supportive of dictatorships whatsoever, it contravenes his basic philosophy!
caversmill 1 year ago
@caversmill really well how do you explain his writing that says otherwise
franks2732 1 year ago 3
@franks2732 Simple - you've never read Hayek. I, on the other hand, have and he preaches small, democratic, benevolent government. The whole purpose of the Hayekian philosophy is that ALL people must be free at all times in order for society to develope properly. His beef is with the size of government, not with elections!
caversmill 1 year ago
@caversmill well actually I have and he certainly advocated his ideals, I think those ideals were sick, racist, bigoted, sexist and complete and utter garbage. He supported "wealth without control" and by any other definition libertarianism would be regarded as fascist. And it was Hayek like Rothbard who advocated Totalitarian rule to get rid of those who disagreed with their ideology. Which is on the public record, in his own words and unmistakably SICK twisted and evil.
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 you are an absolute, transparent liar! You clearly don't understand libertarianism, Austrian economics or the works of Hayek! And Rothbard?!?! Haha, you are officially a moron. Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist, which means he is fundamentally against ANY central authority whatsoever! Dear oh dear, aren't you a prat!!
caversmill 1 year ago
@caversmill Actually I have not lied once, could you point to where I have made a factual fault and I will gladly retract my statement. But It was Hayek who really loved talking about how he would enforce his "freedumb' on the world and his Ghost writing for the "Paul Report" etc makes for some great reading. You should here what Rothbard said on how it is best to keep all us plebes in line. I can quote chapter and verse as to their views. The lunatics were very happy to share
franks2732 1 year ago
Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial,they invited,as their keynote speaker,my father John K Galbraith.The leading economists of the Austrian school-- including Hayek and Haberler returned for the occasion.My father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs Austria since the war,which,he said,"would not have been possible without the contribution of these men"They nodded-briefly-until it dawned on them what he meant.They all left the country in the 1930s
James Galbraith
zsylvana 1 year ago 25
@zsylvana it seems to me, that the liberturds, they would rather have a dictatorship then to have regulations all because they believe that deregulating, would lead to the gold starndard free market, ok, so if we elected ron paul, he would just disban government so he would be out of a job, and let the corperations take over, and do what they wanted? sounds like facism to me
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
@zsylvana you americans are so immature. you never present ideas or question them. only glorify or attack them, or more often the indivduals presenting them. at least keynes and hayek respected eachother's ideas and motives. james galbraith for one is among the most rude and arrogant economists i've ever seen speak. he would be nothing without his daddy, who himself did little but suckle at whatever was lactating on the political tit.
samm1809 9 months ago
neither hayek nor friedman were ever supportive of dictatorships, they wrote many books on liberal political philosophy.friedman associated himself with Pinochet only as an economic advisor and never was sympathetic to any of his other policies.as a matter of fact, he was happy when 15 years later Chile turned back into a democracy. to call either Hayek or Frieddman fascist not only contradicts their books, it's an insult to two men who fought fascism their entire lives
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06
BAHAHAHAHAHHA!
They were apologists for fascist,torture and Nazism.
MrReco12 1 year ago 4
@MrReco12 name a book or interview where hayek supports fascism torture and nazism. just so that you know, he left austria because of the rise of fascism
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06
He supported Augusto Pinochet who was a totalitarian fascist who brutally tortured his political opponents.
MrReco12 1 year ago 19
@MrReco12
Yeah, the man who was the most vocal advocate of freedom supported oppression and torture. Its just what they say about Milton Friedman. Pinochet influenced by him, after the coup adopted Chicago school principles.
His regime lasted for a decade more and the economic policies spawned unprecedented growth (the Chile miracle), and the people were far better of afterwards. Just because he acknowledged this fact means he supported the regime, with is just demagoguery.
serialkiller1990 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrReco12 Pinochet was a dictactor, but not a fascist. There are certain aspects that makes someone fascist, and pinochet didn´t any of those aspects.
crocve 3 months ago
@goPistons06 I could name about 2-3 interviews off hand and perhaps another 10 or so quotes from the man himself. And please NOTE Fascism is a Political Ideology not country or Race centric. Race and nationalism are just two of the means that Fascists maintain power.
franks2732 1 year ago
@goPistons06 I could name about 2-3 interviews off hand and perhaps another 10 or so quotes from the man himself. And please NOTE Fascism is a Political Ideology not country or Race centric. Race and nationalism are just two of the means that Fascists maintain power.
franks2732 1 year ago 2
Hayek wasn't just important to the austrians, he has been important to many important economists. he was one of the first to consider information important within economics, and is important for his contibutions on the business cycle and monetary theory. Herbert Simon, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, and Friedman were all influenced by him.
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06 Hayek last work was almost an admission that Austrian economics was crap, he also changed his tune about "central banks and welfare toward the end of his life. It is part of the reason why the Mises In and the Cato In have little time for him now . He also was a self confessed "Subjectivist" which went totally against the grain of most Austrians. As mad and deranged as the idiot was, but unlike his student of sorts Friedman, Hayek could not admit he was wrong
franks2732 1 year ago 5
@franks2732 ''Hayek last work was almost an admission that Austrian economics was crap''The Fatal Conceit? Which part of that book is anti Austrian economics??
''he also changed his tune about "central banks and welfare toward the end of his life'' Hayek became more radically anti central bank towards the end of his career with the book de-nationalisation of money.Nor did he change his ideas on Welfare which were only set out fully in 1960,which did not contradict earlier book Road to Serfdom.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 LMFAO, Have you not read your own ideologies blog spots, some of you guys hate each other more than anyone else. I am only telling you Exactly what members of your own ideology are saying
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 You can't tell me what you are saying because you are clueless. If you get all your knowledge from blogspots then no wonder. As I said in my other comment you seem to be again mistaking Austrian economics for ethics & politics.
Ether that or you are reading Objectivists(they really hate the evolutinary morality outlined in it)
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 Yawn, You guys are all one in the same arguing over a corner of a coin. the only difference between you and a rand follower is your small differences in the idea about how to reach "fucktard utopia" LMFAO. OH if you read my Channel it say Socialist, you know that political ideology that has existed since about 1850 and 1/4 of the worlds population claim to be. Not two young boys playing wow in a chartroom buddy
franks2732 1 year ago
Comment removed
Malthus0 1 year ago
@franks2732 ''He also was a self confessed "Subjectivist" which went totally against the grain of most Austrians'' I am sorry but that is really very confused indeed. All Austrians have been subjective value theorists since Menger founded the school. Later members of the school expanding on the idea of economics as the science that studies subjective phenomena. As Mises said "economics is not about things and tangible material objects; it is about men, their meanings and actions''
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 many Austrians are not, and many find the idea of "Subjectivist" thinking an insult to their core values, personally I think it is a bunch of young boys arguing over penis size myself. But who gives a shit your school of though died with the dodo. No one gives a toss, It's like the GFC, fuck me if according to Austrians they were the only ones to predict it (which is funny as for years they always have-every year) Where as over 25 other World Economists predicted the crash
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 ''many Austrians are not, and many find the idea of "Subjectivist" thinking an insult to their core values'' Do you know how fucking insane that statement is. Austrian economics IS subjectivist economics.
So what you must have done is get confused between subjective economics & subjective ethics. The label 'Austrian' only refers to the economics. They disagree politically as Libertarians or Liberals. Ether that or you mistook Ayn Rand followers(Objectivists) for Austrians.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 OH Please I have been debating you fools for too long, it depends on what you morons say. I have provided ample evidence to support my claims on many other channel comments. And Sorry to tell you most of your so called "Rand" buddies do say they are libertarian, you may be of a different denomination but you are all the same to me. You wish to label everyone else sa la v buddy
franks2732 1 year ago
@franks2732 Are you retarded or just a troll? It is idiots like you & your mate Hogan who give your more intellegent ideological bretheren a bad name. From your responses to me you come across as the socialist equiviant of a redneck. Unable & unwiling to make even the most unsubtle distinctions. Dumb & proud.
I will leave you to get back to your blogspots. Don't want to get in the way of your latest hilariously misguided perception.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 it is not my beliefs that are considered by everyone as part of the lunatic fringe, before you are so willing to judge others take a hard look at your own beliefs. The last bastion of defense you have is the net and you guys are losing that channel as well. LMFAO, Bring back the "salt" standard, shit don't you mean gold. What an imbecile
franks2732 1 year ago
@Malthus0
Take a hint, this franks2732 does not know ANYTHING about Austrian economics.. and let it go. Arguing with idiots is fun.. but this is just torture and declarations falsehoods and ..ah the moronity!
utubehayter 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chavez led a coup... are coup leaders bad? Defended his 45 minute relationship???? Hyperbolize much? So Hayek liked Liberalism? and you don't....? You biggest faults with hayek, was friedman? You video titles seem misleading...
repeating an untruth makes you clean?
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder
Dear TR:
Just curious, when did Hugo Chavez lead a coup? Never! He has been elected several times with 65% of the vote each time in elections monitored by neutral international observers. A fascist CIA led coup was attempted and the people came out to free Chavez.
In 1973 Salvador Allende was democratically elected and then murdered in a fascist coup.
All the Best / Mike H
radiohogan 1 year ago 3
@radiohogan 1992 was the year. He went to jail for it.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@radiohogan
He must got it all wrong.Chávez survived a 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt which briefly removed him from power. A few months after the coup, in December 2002, the Chávez presidency faced a two-month strike organized by management at the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) .
zsylvana 1 year ago 5
@radiohogan you know, Hitler was democratically elected, and so was Peron. to be democratically elected doen't always imply legitimacy. to me, the other side of legitimacy in a government is the extent to which it protects freedoms and and exercise the other functions of the state, and at that Pinochet failed, Hitler failed, Peron failed, and Chavez failed, and Allende failed.
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06 Hitler was NOT democratically elected. he gained at the time he took office was about 35% of the national vote. Hitler gained power via political means not the ballot. A very often forgotten bit of history. I think the most Hitler and his party ever polled was 40%. Far from the support of the German People. Your other comments are just crap
franks2732 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@radiohogan Chavez did try a military coup. It was in 1992.
Myndir 1 year ago
@radiohogan Mike you could write a list of about I think it is 10-15 democratically elected officials, presidents etc in South America killed by either the radicals trained at the "School of Americas" with direct or indirect funding support by the CIA or the CIA directly and the US State dept, even a few priests I do believe. What was it 700 times the CIA tried to kill Fidel
franks2732 1 year ago
what a moron, dictatorship don't have to bo fascist. during pinochet era were killed something like 2500 people, which is less that in cuba (and chile has bigger population). think what would happen if allende would rule longer. maaaan, you're old but stupid.
igorolech 1 year ago
You know Hogan's a toad eater when he says " I would read my Newsweek column of Friedman uh.. you know to find out what reality" (insert toad, chew and swallow then..uhemm. clear throat of any bones) " is really like". Toad eaters didn't normally perform this feat before having an arrangement with a given master. Hogan eats them as if they were oysters in a whorehouse. But this is what Larry says not me I'm clean.
0spiker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The situation in Chile isn't that simple. Basically there was a dictator replaced by an other. Some people prefered of course the first, others the second (depending on who was privileded).
Friedman and Hayek 'prefered' of course the liberal ECONOMY under Pinochet and thats what Hayek says in the interview. One should better listen! He PREFERS the (ECONOMY of the) new regime to the old. To make a link that he was a fascist is just pathetic.
By the way, Hayek was right on the transitional period.
dave77v 1 year ago
Comment removed
dave77v 1 year ago
The "shock treatment" in Chile led to a massive depression in 1975, but inflation fell and GDP growth proceeded at 7.5% per annum for the next half-decade (Friedman and Friedman 1998:405). In 1982, Chilean inflation had fallen from a 700 percent annual rate during the middle of 1974 to an annual rate of under ten percent (Friedman and Friedman 1998:407) I still fail to see the validity of your argument that Hayek and Friedman supported Pinochet over freedom. They were for liberalism - freedom.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood. The citizen of the UK after WWII was not permitted to spend vacation in the US because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the US, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of political views. The one is ostensibly an economic limitation, the other political, yet there is no difference in outcome - reduced freedom. - Milton
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." M. Friedman.
Please put down Klein and do some research into what liberalism really is; a belief in freedom. Government intervenes in crisis, not free markets. It just preposterous to suggest otherwise.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
"Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable." ~ Milton Friedman, 'Shock Treatment', as prescribed for Chile and post-Soviet USSR.
More on that in Naomi Klein's book (and documentary "The Shock Doctrine".
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago
@samsonlovesyou Taken out of context, it seems as though Friedman proposes to provoke crisis. Do you believe that's what he meant? He was speaking to keeping ideas alive in free discussion in order to have alternatives when things fail. Medicare is a great example. When that falls under its own weight, we need to have viable alternatives lying around. The crisis he spoke of did not come from provocation but from a failure of economic policy.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
No, I don't believe that and didn't say it. The quote regards preparation for crises.
That said, he allied himself with Augusto Pinnochet. Make of that what you will.
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago
@sam Pinochet "was sympathetically attracted to the idea of a shock treatment but was clearly distressed at the possible temporary unemployment that might be caused" (Friedman and Friedman 1998:399) Milton did not align himself, he helped Pinochet get rid of inflation. That's what the previous sentence talks about, Hogan. He also helped the Chinese and other people. He did so because helping Pinochet, helped the people. He was also sewing seeds of freedom; as I pointed out to LeftPolitiko.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf
Then let's thank the almighty he was so benevolent.
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago
@samsonlovesyou Does this statement mean that you, in Friedman's shoes of being asked for advice, would not have helped get rid of the inflation that created so much unemployment? I think you're being disingenuous instead of having a well meaning discussion.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
If Milton Friedman, advisor to Thatcher (who subsequently massacred the British working class after being influenced by him), Reagan and Pinnochet and author of "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" says that his association with a fascist dictator was intended to help the Chilean people and "sew seeds of Freedom" out of the goodness of his warm heart - who am I to doubt his sincerity?
Still, would have been nice if he'd allowed them self determination rather than forcing his help on them.
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago 3
@ussseaw0lf Try sewing the seeds of Great Depression-level unemployment, massive income inequality, wage-cuts, and brutal political repression.
Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" (whom Pinochet publicly fired!) were helping an authoritarian regime solve the problems that it came into existence to solve. But feel free to keep repeating this infantile, whitewashed account of the Pinochet regime.
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ussseaw0lf
Also, the quote from Friedman which you posted:
"the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse."
Nonsense, to put it bluntly. Not surprisingly, the man who orchestrated the economic policy lied in order to justify it. The Austrialian journalist, John Pilger documents the situation Chile faced in his book "Freedom Next Time" and also in his documentary "The War On Democracy."
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago 2
To attack Hayek as an attack on the Austrian school is problematic. First, I don;t know of any modern Austrians who are Hayekian. Most modern Austrians are of the Rothbardian or Misian tradition. Austrians typically hate Hayek and his theories on the state and the role of government. Austrians typically praise Hayek for his work on business cycles and spontaneous order. nothing else. Hayek is only Austrian insofar as he adheres to the Austrian theory of business cycles.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense
Hayek attacked all Socialists as fascists in his book "Road to Serfdom." This is what made him famous. Fascists & G-men use Hayek's work to characterize Socialists.
Therefore, it behooves Socialists and others to examine who Hayek is - in the history of ideas.
radiohogan 1 year ago 15
@radiohogan
I've read Road to Serfdom a number of times and an not disputing any points you've made about it. But, just saying, it seems that you connect Hayek and the Austrians a great deal. Im just letting everyone know that Hayek is only Austrian insofar as his business cycle theory goes. He is actually criticized a great deal by modern Austrians and his "Road To Serfdom" has even been critiqued by Hayekians and Austrians alike.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense What was Murray Rothbard's view on MLK? on David Duke? on the racist book 'the Bell Curve'?
And what's the deal with the people at the von Mises institute and are so obsessed with neoconfederate themes?(Lew Rockwell calls himself a confederate. Remind me, what was the 'cornerstone' of confederacy?)And how come they view women's voting rights as 'statist imposition'?(But then again,they do openly despise democracy,so maybe they would like to see them revoked altogether-not expanded)
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
MLK supported policies Austrians would consider totalitarian during the last 5 years of his life, Duke wanted to limit the state and there were no racist elements in his campaign when Rothbard supported him. I never heard Rckwell consider himself a confed, although him and most Austrians agree that the Articles of Confed were superior to the Constitution, insofar as the AOC gave less power to the state. Yes, anarcho-caps dont support democracy. Off-topic questions answered.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense a)MLK, totalitarian?Illuminate us with some examples.
b)'Duke [...] no racist elements in his campaign' .This is ludicrous.What did you expect? To yell aloud "race war!"
c)yes, Rockwell is neoconfederate. And supporter of neofascists (e.g. the late jorg haider)
d)"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed " CSA constitution. What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to own people?
VERY ON-topic
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
I think what you're doing is silly. Just because you're a supporter of a school of thought doesnt mean you're in support with every view that comes from that camp. I could easily throw out the same type erroneous questions supporters of Woodrow Wilson, Abe Linc, and JM Keynes. Such tactics are a waste of time and negate the important issues.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Ehm, correct me if i am wrong, but that's the central tactic of the austrian people. And specificaly Hayek 'wasted' a great deal of time dismissing the left as 'hitlerites' and 'stalinists'.
Anyhow the people i mentioned are not political leaders that were forced to make erroneous 'tactical' decisions. They are the current MAIN ideologues of the movement. These ideas are not a momentary lapse of political judgement; it's what the movement's vision of 'freedom' is about.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
1-MLK can be considered totalitarian for expanding state coercion and denying freedom of association.
2-Duke had no racial elements in his campaign when Rothbard supported him, except being asked by reporters if he was a racist.
3-You're just throwing words around there
4-Obviously no one supports that.
I think what I'm trying to say is that whats important is the battle of ideas, not semantics and finger-pointing.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense 1)you failed to give specific instance 2)you reiterate the same ridiculous apology for the Duke endorsement.3)Just words? Rockwell was enthusiastic for the victories of the far right in EU.MLK is pro-tyranny while Jorg Haider is pro-freedom?Bother to explain that,please. 4)"No one supports that"So,where is the freedom in the CSA constitution the austrians are so enthusiastic about?
THEIR semantic game lies there:when they say 'freedom',they mean property rights (incl to own slaves)
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet slavery is your way, and pinning that on Austrians your lie.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder Point out the lie, or YOU are the liar.
Austrians apparently,being obsessed with property right as they are, think that they've trademarked and own the WORD freedom.
But, please, explain me how the efforts of MLK made 'way to slavery' and how institutions like the confederacy and people like David Duke and Jorg Haider & the rest of the european far right that recieved enthusisastic support from the people of the von Mises Institute are promoting the agenda of 'freedom'?
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
1) ok, specific instance, mlk said that the US must embrace socialism to achieve equality. most austrians would view such forced equality as tyrannical. 2) sorry but its the best you're going to get, i dont really care who endorses who for what office, but if you can find a racial element in that campaign then let me know. i think thats fair. 3) idk what this means. 4) idk what a CSA constitution is.
The only austrian who supports voluntary slave contacts is walter block.
CommSense 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
idk why you're still flipping out about this. if you wanna talk about the ideas and their merits i'm more than willing. but if you just wanna yell "racist" at the top of your lungs and avoid any topic of real substance, then be my guest.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Again,if you want to find the people whose ONLY tactic is namecalling & fingerpointing,look at the austrian Sch. I understand that, since they discard the use of data (i.e. facts) & maths (i.e. reason) to approach truth, they aren't left with a lot of tools to argue their positions. In fact, namecalling is the principal modus operandi of austrians against their (right&left)ideological opponents.
Vacuous invocations of 'libery' as if it is a meditation chant, don't constitute ideas.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet Your side does the name calling and the untruths. Aus Schl is not pro-slavery (the lie in question) No discussion of praxeology, Mutually beneficial exchange, subjective value theory, money or credit, Production or distribution. (meaning no actual issues) Personally I don't care about your TV celebrities or controversies about them (they rate as non-entities) . Your name calling, red herrings, and associative fallacies reveal your sides' lack of merit.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder
Ok. They don't condone slavery. But please explain me what's all this entusiasm with the confederacy?
Do bother and read my past comments, because i've got tired repeating that, i am not bashing anyone for any wierd web of assosiations. That is what austrians do. This is what hayek and his kin do with their ideological opponents (i.e. call them stalinist hitlerites). I am pointing out REAL positions of past and current FRONTRUNNERS of the movement in the US.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet I'm not aware of any significant enthusiasm for the southern confederacy, in Austrian school economics. It seemed that there was some desire to return to the articles of confederation during antebellum. You and Austrian schoolers alike may confuse (what should be) the enthusiasm for the articles of confederation, as enthusiasm for the southern confederacy.
I tend toward limited constitutionalism myself though, as do a great many Austrians it seems.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder If you want to discuss neoclassical economics in general, i understand that you want to do this to change subject. The sad truth is that even if their neoconfederate positions & the far right sympathies were brough in the public arena not by me, but by them themselves. It's they that instead of putting effort to work on any MATHEMATICAL model to explain real world DATA to address, as you request, real economic issues, wasted their time ranting for the CSA & the far right.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago 2
@11thsockpuppet adding "neo" to something isn't scholarly. I like austrian school, because it provides some of the most effective tools to understand economic situations. There are faults with it, but it's one of the few schools to recognize that about itself. plus, i a fair portion is used to justify usury, which austrian schoolers should
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder "adding "neo" to something isn't scholarly".If you've never heard of the term neoclassical economics & you think that this is a stupid neologism of mine,it's quite telling of how informed you are on these issues.
Regarding the super effective austrian 'tools' to approach economic issues, if they ditch MATHS and DATA,what tools do they use for their scholarship? Because this 'knowledge via introspection' thing kinda sounds too new age to me.Sounds as super effective as homeopathy.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet i think that austrians who support not looking to math and data at all are too radical and don't recognize the benefits of research. also, as an economist myself, I will say that the economics profession is really one that might as well just be statistical; econometrics plays too big of a role. i think if you find a balance, which i think informed austrians would support, thats the best way. a theory shouldn't just come out of data, as it's ever changing.
rsingh1492 4 days ago
@tuberesponder A lot of von mises austrians (with lew rockwell inlcuded) are well into the whole neoconfederate movement & not just admiration of the documents. They defend the confederacy in a variety of issues irrelevant with the economy(even in their capacity as von mises staff), they are members of the League of South and some faculty (di lorenzo), in an effort to glorify the confederacy, are involved in a large scale effort of historical revisionism regarding the secession and its causes.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@CommSense And I should add the frontrunners of the austrian 'economics' in us today support the neofascist/far-right politican contenders and the neoconfederate themes, BECAUSE of their ideas. When you are scrutinizing these endorsements, you are indeed scrutinizing their ideas. The reason you DECLINE to explain these endorsements, it is because YOU cannot discuss ideas.
What do they mean when they say liberty?e.g. Do they mean freedom to shoot blacks that are on your property as trespassers?
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet Seriously, if you are to repeat the same assertions for a 3rd time or invoke ignorance of what the phrase 'contitution of the confederate states of america' or on who Jorg Haider is or what does 'european neofascist parties' mean to avoid addressing the points, don't bother to answer at all.
And it's quite interesting the claim that A POLICY think-tank's political endorsements DO NOT matter. That's novel...
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
name one "neofascist/far-right politician" a modern Austrian supports. You're playing the same games that glen beck plays, the association game. Its not fun, and again, negates real issues. We actually almost got something of substance going. shame.
And if you have ever read the Austrians you could answer your questions yourself. I've never come across an austrian who supports the "freedom to shoot blacks that are on your property." if you can find that endorsement let me know.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Are you serious? I've already named two (duke and Jorg Haider) AD NAUSEUM, and you challenge me to name one? You mean one more? Jean-Marie Le Pen(endorsement by Rothbard himself). You want more? They were quite enthusiastic with the rise of the far right in europe in general and mocked the mainstream press and thinkers that were shocked by their success.
You'd better not bring up Glenn Beck, for he learned his shtick from Hayek himself ('OMG! the leftists = stalinist hitlerites!') .
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet And we are not talking about a conspiratorial web of wild associations here. We are talking about people who up to now austrians OPT to cheerfully endorse as a POLICY think tank. I am not calling rothbard or rockwell 'hitleresque', i am just stating the fact that they DO wholeheartedly supported Le Pen & Haider. That's FACTS.
Why do you decline to answer how Jorg Haider is pro freedom when MLK is pro tyranny. The answer is about their IDEAS,you care so much about?
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
I said modern austrian, Rothbard has been dead for 15 years, and he is by no means a "modern" austrian. I've never heard of JH, or any AE supporting him. Idk who "they" is but its obvious that if an Austrian did support anyone who you consider "far right" its because of their stance against the state. Again, this means nothing, if you wanna talk about ideas im all for it, if you wanna play Rachel Maddow i don't have the time. I'm interested in ideas. Not the political scoreboard
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense Le Pen is supported by alive 'austrians' too(e.g Lew Rockwell).
Now, if your argument is, ' you cannot use people i've never heard of, like jorg haider'(haider praised NAZI employment policy-is that antistatist?),what can it tell... It reflects on the proud anti-intellectual tradition of the austrian school.
For as long you are refusing to answer why Jorg Haider is pro-freedom while MLK is pro tyranny, YOU are avoiding to discuss IDEAS. I am sorry,but that's the truth.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
You're arguing semantics and engaging in daytime radio political speak. MLK supported a strong state, Aus obviously would categorize that as tyrannical. I never said JH was pro-freedom. I said that if he is being supported by an Aus it means that to some degree me must favor a very decentralized or small state. These are not ideas per se we are discussing. We're talking political labeling and association games. You continue to waste everyones time.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense 5 days now you keep speculating that if austrians picked Haider he might mave been a good pro limited government choice. Why don't you go and see for yourself his platform? Do you have an independent judgement or do you blindly trust the choices of your von mises overlords?
And when you say that i play the semantics game you either use it vacuously,because you cannot retort,or mean that duke was not racist and LePen &Haider are not far-right and that they are ok choices. What is it?
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
@CommSense You still moan about supposed 'labeling'? Von Mises inst. is a political think tank. The only thing they do expressing their views (inc. neoconfederate,civil war revisionism, murray's 'Bell Curve' embrace) & supporting the political candidates that they think reflect these views (duke, haider, lepen etc). If you cannot judge them based on these stuff, you cannot judge them AT ALL. And i repeat. HAYEK WAS 95% NAMECALLING.So cut the BS. That's the facts. Stop whining and get over it.
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago 3
@11thsockpuppet
roth never embraced the bell curve. obviously you don't know too much about the IDEAS of the people you're criticizing. You know the political speak, and thats all and well, if youre into playing political games, which i'm not. The Mises inst have never endorsed a candidate. Rothbard, Rockwell, and others from the camp have heavily criticizedHayek , and hoppe called him a social democrat. I'm not wining, i'm just pointing out that what you want to talk about is purely rhetoric.
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense You talk about mere Rhetoric. You began saying Hayek doesn't matter because 'they are rothbardians or misians. Then you went on to say that dead people don't count either.So who counts? Rockwell & DiLorenzo? HA
And if the opinions on ideas, movements and people expressed in WRITTING in their capacity as von mises inst. staff don't count,what does?
You are playing HEAVILY the semantic game.In your opinion 'ideas' worth discussing are only the ones that are not potentially embarassing
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago 4
@11thsockpuppet
ok. just tell me when you're gunna stop crying about what means what, who said what, and such. its nonsense and its a waste of internet. again, wanna pm me and talk ideas rather than "gotcha politics" let me know, dog
CommSense 1 year ago
@CommSense
'gotcha' means that it was just an isolated instance of one maybe two articles exploring these neoconfederate/far right ideas. Unfortunately they are systematicaly, unrepentantly and up to now pursuing them. But maybe you use 'gotcha' in the sense "ok you are correct, thus we declare this argument 'gotcha' and you'd better forget it."
Too afraid to discuss their toxic obsessive ideas of neoconfederate apologetics in public and want to switch to pm? Understandable...
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago 3
@11thsockpuppet
i dont think any neconfederates are anarchocapitalists, bra
CommSense 1 year ago
@11thsockpuppet
and ps
i thought it'd be easier to switch to pm so we could type more, being that taqlking about ideas, things of substance, unlike politics and rhetoric, require a decent amount of space, unlike political speak and catchphrases. cant type a lot on a video comment. so again if you wanna do that, be my guest. its fine by me
CommSense 1 year ago
Dear conservative whackos: Polls show Salvador Allende is the most admired person in Chilean history, second only to Chile's founder.
Since conservative morons around the world admire Milton Friedman & even defend Augusto Pinochet on the grounds that Allende was some form of horrible communist dictator, they should realize Pinochet is the most REVILED person in Chilean history.
In the conservative moron world, supporting fascism is fine just because it's "anti-commie."
bapyou 1 year ago 5
Left out of the general history books, was the economic sanctions that caused the so-called "economic crisis" requiring the dictator.
Amiduffer 1 year ago
The Absurdity of the Chilean connections aside, do you really think this completely debunks Hayek's economic ideas? It doesn't really address them.
brainpolice2 1 year ago
new camera?
FriendOregon 1 year ago
The funniest part is when Hayek said that he viewed the Pinochet regime as a "transition" to free market capitalism. In other words, an authoritarian state as a transitional phase between a flawed social system (the welfare state) and a utopia (free markets.) Doesn't this sound eerily like the standard neoliberal critique of socialism/communism?
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago 42
@LeftPolitiko I think you fail to understand the niceties of that statement. Hayek was saying that by giving people a free market, Pinochet was writing his own resignation letter. Hayek believed that a free market was the slippery slope to political freedom. Also, no classical liberal would say the free market is utopia, but it's the best we can have. Contrary to your statement, socialism is seen as a utopia by it's proponents; who see institutions as perfectible.
ussseaw0lf 1 year ago
@ussseaw0lf "Writing his own resignation letter"!? Then why was the transition back to democracy such a long and arduous process in Chile? Why did Pinochet, even after restoring some civilian control, retain his position as commander in chief for years? According to neoliberals like you and Hayek, decades of a repressive military junta justifies "free markets" which, incidentally, don't exist. The coup in Chile was a restoration of capitalist class power--pure and simple.
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago 4
You don't even understand what they mean by non liberalized democracy. Nice way to equivocate. Grandin's work isn't that impressive, seeing that Hayek and Friedman both stated their support of political and social freedom.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
"Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system" - Milton Friedman in Free To Choose.
Sounds so fascist, doesn't it?
rockandrock44 1 year ago