Hayek was such a badass, it's sad his ideas weren't given the respect they deserved until near the end of his life. Austrian economic theory can save the American economy, provided we're willing to allow it to exist.
I don't know if it's because he was old or what, but he sounds weird. Kind of makes me irritated and pissed off. I kind of want to punch him in the face.
His bad math is what bothers you? What about his ignorance of the role of the entrepreneur? The theory of perfect competition entirely eliminates any role for entrepreneurs. By ignoring entrepreneurship he can simply reduce economic phenomena to mathematics and graphs. Since the traits of alertness, energy, and enthusiasm do not lend themselves readily to mathematics and graphing they are neglected by Keyens and others. Here we have a "method" displacing real-world events, is this desirable?
@DaveC86 Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with Keynes (or the totality of his writings) to say one way or another what my opinion is of his writings. What did jump off the page at me is that his mathematics (which I do understand) is bad. As the old computer science anagram says: GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. If his mathematical assumptions are bad, then everything else he puts out will be bad. It also doesn't surprise me that he rejects the role of the entrepreneur. Please bear with me.
@DaveC86 The real problem with Keynes is what I refer to as "The myth of central planning." The idea that you can quantify an entire economy in some class room or government office, and that from that you can come up with qualitative controls for an economy. It literally can not happen, the failure of groups such as LTCM demonstrates that much. But Keynes, like so many jackasses before and since, believed that people could control, and also understand, a whole economy.
yes well the real problem is trying to reduce all of human action into a graph, or a few charts and models.. it's impossible, maths has almost zero relevance in economics, besides basic arithmetic.. economics is a social science, the study of human action!
You mean Hayek? I know you aren't asking me but I would like to get out there that, although the exchange is being used to "debunk" Hayek, it ironically proves his consistency. Hayek did not have a problem with safety nets. See "Road to Serfdom."
For years I believed Hayek's description of Keynesian economics was accurate. Then I read the General Theory and it seemed to have no relation to the strawman description propagated by its critics. There is a long exchange of letters between Keynes and Hayek which ends with Keynes basically saying they will have to agree to disagree because neither can understand the other.
I read his book, very cool. Can somone subtitle this - the conepts he is trying to get accross are not easy, and the poor sound quality, combined with his accent make it hard to hear what he is saying.
@ninjashade411 I think he means that he was worried that some other economist more reckless with monetary and fiscal policy would have taken over had Keynes left.
Keynes barely mentions government intervention in the General Theory. Policy has a relatively small role to play in the significance of his work. The role of demand, profit expectations and animal spirits play the most critical role in understanding the work.
Mexican factories that take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States,NAFTA..BILL clinton and Obama sell outs!! Obama just signed a bill to let the Mexican truckers run American /mexican labor products back into America wake up you inept child !! RON PAUL 2012!!
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
It´s worth noting to his credit in my view,that at the end of his life, Hayek basically change his earlier view on the role of deflation in 1929–1933:
“There is no doubt, and in this I agree with Milton Friedman, that once the Crash had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation! So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression” (Pizano 2009: 13)
@zsylvana I should point out that Hayek did not change his mind on the theory involved. He went against his better judgement at the time in a misjudged political move.
@Malthus0 I don´t agree with you Malthus,but i respect your point of view.Have you seen Bruce Caldwell - 1930 and the Challenge of the Depression for Economic Thinking: Hayek vs Keynes.
youtube.com/watch?v=MEn6mMutuUA .If not i think you find it interesting.All the best to you
@zsylvana I just realised that my comment on Hayek & theory on deflation was a little ambiguous, it could have been taken to mean that Hayek agreed with Friedman later in a political move, when what I meant was that in the 1930s he was concerned to fix wage rigidity with deflation. (I was at the time a little confused as to how you could say you disagreed with me & then quote Hayek in a way that did agree with me, but I did not make the connection)
@Malthus0 I understand what you mean Malthus.In all cases it is an interesting video you put!Have you read Bruce Caldwells Hayek biograhy?I thought it was a real good book!Hope you have a real good summer and all the best to you!
@zsylvana ''Have you read Bruce Caldwells Hayek biograhy?I'' Yes, quite some time ago, and I agree with your assessment. I intend now to re-read it at some point now its one of those books that gives the more you read.
@Malthus0 1)A statement by Hayek on public works can be found in Hayek’s “The Gold Problem” (published in 1937 as “Das Goldproblem,” English 1999:169–185)
“Even though there are many concerns about organizing public works ad hoc during a depression, everything speaks in favour of having public agencies perform during a depression whatever investment activities need to be carried out in any case and can possibly be postposed until then.It is the timing of these expenses that presents a problem
@Malthus0 2)"since funds are often extremely hard to raise in the midst of a severe depression and the accumulation of reserves in good times generally faces the objections mentioned above. There is little question that in times of general unemployment the state must intervene to mitigate genuine hardship either by disbursing unemployment compensation or, as in earlier times, by legislation to help the poor." (Hayek 1999 [1937]: 184).
@Malthus0 and In The Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek seems to accept the possibility of public works spending even if “in experimenting in this direction we shall have carefully to watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure” (Hayek 2001 [1944]: 126)
@Malthus0 And he also wrote "A ‘secondary depression’ caused by an induced deflation should of course be prevented by appropriate monetary counter-measures. Though I am sometimes accused of having represented the deflationary cause of the business cycles as part of the curative process, I do not think that was ever what I argued." I actually think that Hayek and Keynes maybee have little more in common then most recognize.
@Malthus0 It really doesn’t matter much to me whether Hayek advocated quasi-Keynesian policies in a depression in 1930ts or not. But the sight of Hayek advocating public works spending is certainty of historical interest. It certainly puts Hayek in a different category from then the Rothbardian Austrians urging liquidationism as the right solution in cases of recession or depression in all circumstances.
2)"- and which has no steering function to perform. I must confess that forty years ago I argued differently. I have since altered my opinion – not about the theoretical explanation of the events, but about the practical possibility of removing the obstacles to the functioning of the system in a particular way” (Hayek 1978: 206).
1)Hayek’s view,on a secondary deflation negative effects on the US economy after 1929 and is worth quoting
“Although I do not regard deflation as the original cause of a decline in business activity,such a reaction has unquestionably the tendency to induce a process of deflation – to cause what more than 40 years ago I called a ‘secondary deflation’ – the effect of which may be worse, and in the 1930s certainly was worsethan what the original cause of the reaction made necessary”Hayek 1978:206
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
keynes was right about technological unemploynent - though for decades moving from agriculture and industry to services was an option - as technological unemployment is now eliminating jobs in services we need to move to a rbe - which embraces technolgy to otimize and maximise production of goods and service within the caring capacity of the earth creating higher lifestyles for 99% of the people in the world and preserving resources and ecology
@RunLiberty Your point is valid mathematically but dead wrong socially. A strictly logical economic system would be pretty much what Germany has in the 1930s. If all you want is a strong economy, well, Hitler certainly produced that. Free people have to be free to be illogical, to keep their own money and spend it how they choose, to trade freely, even if government loses revenue. And Keynes is not logic but emotion disguised as logic.
"Keynes' theories have been successful because they're based on empirical evidence, not fantasy like classical economics"
Keynesians are correct for a few years...or decades even....but then in the long run they lead us to disaster. This is the fundamental issue with Keynes...they look short term.
What we are going through now is the beginning of the end of a process that started two generations ago. Economists who look at credit balances saw this coming..while Keynesians did not.
@shooter7a You are right, except that the seeds of this disaster actually goes back to the lat 19th century, as socialists who never produced anything or value, never had jobs, and never ran a business imagined themselves to be intellectuals. Marx was a prime example. The BS was spread until colleges with professors who never produced anything or ran a business started peddling it as real. We eventually ended up with socialist pinhead idiots like Presidents TDR, Wilson, and FDR.
Keynes was smart, and his advancements in macroeconomic theory are duly noted but his policies on government expenditures and direct off set by government intervention are not policies that will move your nation forward in terms of economic growth. he simply stated you could fill the gap of unemployment by using government. This is true, but that also means people have less freedom and less prosperity as a result. especially those in which it is designed to benefit.
before we really examine what economist was "conservative" or "liberal", we have to track what those terms meant and when. Mussolini and Hitler used to rail against free-market "Liberals" in the1930's, but examination of those type of liberals reveals people who belived in relatively little government intervention and more freedom of the markets. They resembled modern Libertarians more than anything else.
What successes has Keynesian theory had? What empirical evidence supports Keynes? I can give you a bunch that refutes him, such as his belief that the U.S. would sink into recession after cutting govt. spending after WWII. The opposite happened, actually. Or that gold prices would go lower after it was decoupled from the dollar. He thought the dollar was holding up the value of the gold, not the other way around. Of course, the opposite happened there too. And stagflation also.
Hayek is right about Keynes.What ever we think of Keynes,is missleading to consider him as leftist or socialist,as many do.Keynes was Liberal Party member and in many ways conservative,and close to Hayek in polical questions.And Keynes appreciated Hayeks, Road to serfdom.Hayek also right about Keynes views on Inflation.Keynes even wrote "How to pay for the war" there he point in the direction,Hayek tell,Strict monetary and fiscal policy after war,but he died before he finished this theories
@tifforo1 There is the Interactive transcript of the video captions bellow the views & video statistics. It can be a bit tricky to copy. You have open the trascript, place your mouse cursor in the white space in beween the thumbs up button and the low bar & highlight downwards using the mouse ball.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Damn dog, that nigga funny lookin as hell!. LOL, little old white man is cartoonish as fuck, he'd be great to cast as a mad scientist in a Disney movie or some shit.
No you shouldn't point that out. There is no relation between demand for commodities and employment. If you cannot grasp this, consider the dimension of time. Humans can't possible exhaust the list of products attainable by human production because the products are altered by their temporal state in terms of subjective valuation and the consideration of things as some 'product.' This means that even if everyone says; don't work, we'll never demand a thing, future oriented production can persist.
Keynesian economics is best suited to politics, for political reasons. Hence why it has been so widely adopted. Perfect example is inflation! Krugman is just a political shill.
@tnekkc Keynesian BS only buys a short term illusion of recovery, and it down right evil when the money is borrowed. Sure, if the US had no debt already and we borrowed trillions and left the next generation to pay it back, we could live really well. But the last generation did that already. Now we've run out of credit and own the bills for the last generation. This is the predictable conclusion of the Keynesian BS.
@wrjamescom umm... the last generation had a debt to GDP ratio of 150 percent... that would be like us having a 21 trillion dollar national debt today....
they were also able to get this ratio down to under 40% until we started giving tax cuts to everyone in 1980...
@MrMvt333 well the last generations implemented welfare systems that now amount to 1 million per taxpayer - the problem is not just the debt but the unfunded liabilities - look at the national debt clock and look at unfunded liabilties and also look at people working vs people on social security and food stamps - and also not shown is the many other forms of welfare recieved - esp housing assistance - were are broke every taxpayer owes a lifetime of income - then consider the logic of the rbe
@MrMvt333 Surely, you aren't serious! How old are you, 14? The last generation had financed a world war and the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, AND, all the while fighting the cold war. And while they were doing that, they had little competition because most of the rest was in ruins. There were few Mexican criminals, lower costs of living, and business was booming and hiring. Energy was dirt cheap and education was valued. Overall taxes were a pittance compared to now.
@MrMvt333 Government was smaller and far less intrusive. People had more freedom to do business. Stop parroting the leftist propaganda. Taxes were lowered in the 80,s but not nearly enough. And it doubled revenue! Unfortunately, spending quadrupled. Government already has FAR FAR FAR too much revenue, taxes are many times what they should be. The problem is spending, wasting, redistribution from people who earn to people who don't. We have too many bums and we let them vote.
@wrjamescom we had much more government before 1980, except for annual national defense... reagan took away many of the FDR reforms that regulated business, provided services for unemployed workers, and regulated the flow of money... now almost every decade we have seen a doubling in revenue... though the 1973-1980 saw a 140% increase... reagans years however only saw an 88% increase... and the clinton years saw a far greater increase in revenue than the reagan years... you know diddly poo
@MrMvt333 Reagan barely made in dent in disinfecting the US of FDR's failed socialist scams. But we were coming out of the Carter mess, of course there was less increases in spending that during the false bubbles the Clinton cronies lines their pockets with. Read some history kid, and stop making a fool of yourself parroting socialist lines.
@wuezili Yes! And no, I'm not suggesting he caused it all himself. He was elected partly because of a pretty bad recession (for the day). But his solution to a sinking ship was to torpedo it to let the water out, a policy copied by the current idiot socialist in chief. Actually, the economy was recovering, although far too slowly when he took office, and the growth of the economy continue during the first year or so of his administration, that is until his policies started to take effect.
@wuezili Let me guess.... You blame it on George Bush, right? :)
Seriously, the main cause was Carter's gross incompetence at foreign policy leading to the doubling of fuel costs. There was virtually nothing during his four years that indicated he has the slighted clue what he was doing with anything.
@wrjamescom Those super inflated prices of the seventies were equaled in 2006 WITHOUT an oil crisis and during a trillion dollar war that was supposed to lower costs. Of course, right-wing politicians lowering costs on oil is as likely as you reading a book on economics.
The 70's recession began with the OPEC embargo of '73, combined with the bull market that arose soon after.
@wuezili Your personal attack was plenty enough to display your ignorance without going any further in demonstrating it. And rather predictable. But you parroted your lines like a good bird. Now try reading before you spout BS and you might make less a fool of yourself in the future. I voted against Bush twice, but for crying out loud! Can't you kooks learn some new lines? The 70s recession started well before the partial oil embargo of 73. I was there. You just read parrot lines.
Actually Hayek means that employment does not arise from consumption of final goods and services and to confuse aggregate production as a function of aggregate consumption is to misunderstand how human labour works. It doesn't require wage labour and unemployment arises because people do not work towards/do not wish to work towards Third World style subsistence labour but would rather speculatively remain unemployed for wage labour for which savings and capital are necessary. Say's Law=truism.
Keynes was an intellectual Judas...a man who could not carry a cogent argument...Hayek wouldhave ripped him to shreds in a debate. And now you have all these Keynesians out and about, with there patheic minds trapped in the fallacy created by Keynes. PATHETIC
I think the incredible success of the General Theory by Keynes can be explained by its "primitive" (3:23) nature. Due to its "simplicity" more people are able to understand it because it is not that complex as any other economic theory. This common comprehension leads to the belief that Keynes was right as his theory seems "logical". The General Theory can be caracterized as a very "populist" economic theory - which does not mean that Keynes was not a respectable economist, far from it.
Around 3:20 Hayek discusses that in the 19th century economists refuted the notion that their is a relationship between Aggregate Demand and employment. I'm trying to wrap my head around that, I find it difficult to believe that there is no relationship between AD and employment. Does anyone care to elaborate? Maybe I'll have to track down the Leslie Stephen book he's talking about.
How did human labour even begin if it requires consumption? All consumption comes from the act of production i.e. attaining that which is to be consumed by some human action. Wage labour markets can clear, unemployment is voluntary, destruction of savings makes minimum wages more unemploying of wage labour but it is nevertheless true that people can work without wage labour. Hayek did not study pure economics but talked about the real world where people speculatively remain unemployed.
@Nintendomanwill Marx, would argue the opposite in that labor is the beginning of everything. Man creates for his own consumption, sells what is excess. Capitalism, is what alienates man from his labor or at least the product of his labor....as I understand his argument.
@publicanimal The point is that demand is by default unlimited; people always want more because that's just how nature and life itself works. Human beings have for all intents and purposes "unlimited needs" which in a universal reality of material scarcity automaticly lead to unlimited demand. That's (among a myriad of other things) why supply side economics work to explain economic systems and demand side economics do not.
Precisely, the means to unlimited ends are the scarce things, not the ends, which by definition, as wants and emergencies, we wish to limit if we can and do not wish to create things with scarce resources that are unwanted. This is why all anti-Say's Law economics that claims that we must force dissaving and we must force exchange if we are to have any employment and production, leads quite immediately to corporatism i.e. coerced patronage of so-called production if 'demand is deficient.'
@metal87power lmao! I'm sorry but i seriously laughed when i read your comment. Don't feel disrespected at all because we all make silly mistakes too :). Of course he is alive how else would he be speaking?
@goodatbasebal, really!? I didn't know and I really have no any idea why I've thought that he was gone. Maybe its because of death of Friedman senior (witch is by some reason similar to Hayek).
@metal87power NO!!!! You said that it was the first time you saw him talking "alive" all i said was that of course he "was" alive at the time when he was talking.
Many thanks for adding the captions. I wouldn't have been able to follow Mr. Hayek otherwise. I mean, his English is beautiful but his thick accent would've impeded comprehension somewhat.
Keynes of coarse yes did not want to return to the gold standard because that would mean no monetary systems, but the political feeling at the time was it is going to happen. Accepting this he sought to keep the Torys (conservatives) from valuing it any higher. He believed, radical for his time, that the low unemployment and surge of exports had been brought about by the fall of the sterling, and to increase its value would only make British goods unattractive and increase unemployment.
thanks for sharing ...but .. you should post the entire interview ... not split it up ... into ... "hayek on kaynes" , "hayek on socialism" etc ... the continuity breaks man ...also thanks for the transcript ... helped a lot
Most people do not want to watch the whole thing or have to search through the 78 mins for a bit. In short cutting makes it more accessible. Better for youtubes short attention span(and vid length limitations). I still want people to watch the whole thing however & I have always put a link to the full interview in the sidebar on all Hayek interviews. Also I have favourited libertyinourtimes uploads of uncut Hayek material onto his old style unlimited account.
@Malthus0 but unfortunately the video at does not have captions ... and without that ... its rather difficult for me to understand what mr.hayek is saying , i can understand what john o sullivan is saying but not hayek ... can anything be done about that?
What? This video(Hayek on Keynes) does have captions, if you mean the full John O sullivan video then I can not since i do not host it on vimeo or youtube. Even if I did the process of trancribing a video that long would take forever to complete.
@Malthus0 Thank you for this upload Malthus!This is a Hayek not so known.The sencibel one.He have tear in his eyes when he talks about Keynes. Let us all remind that Hayek and Keynes were close friends.We could see on this video that Friedrich von Hayek miss him.They corresponded with each other and showed each other respect allthough they desgree on many subjects .I think we have much to learn from this video.To show respect to each other allthought dissagrement.Thanks Malthus!
It's a neglected fact...despite being intellectual rivals, they had a good friendship. Despite their initial friction, I think their friendship should be held as a great example not just to economists, but to everyone, of a great friendship between two thinkers who disagreed greatly. I believe that even Hayek once said that of all the people he would invite for an evening meal, despite his closer position to Popper, Friedman, and von Mises, he would still pick Keynes, then Schumpeter.
If you OWNED 93% of America - WHY would you need the gov for power? In fact - you would want to REMOVE your ONLY SUPERVISOR. SO they fill your head with shit theory and get you to vote in the best interest of the Elite. THAT is the reality in America today.
Riddle me this, mongoose -
WHO will control that 20% who owns 93% once you remove the government and all rules (regulation)?
So let's see, you blame a government mandated, government established company because of derivatives. Derivatives made possible by artificial and unlimited money and credit, all of which was created by our nationalized fractional reserve banking system...alll of which was designed to meet an executive and congrrssional mandate to entitle houses to every american...
and somehow that is the fault of an unregulated free market??? LMFAO!
@mongoose704 All of which was biult, owned and run by the 20% - the ELite. If you own 93% of a system, you don't need much help. YouOWN 93% of the power.
Once you remove Government - HOW will YOU have power over that 20% that OWNS 93% of the US?
You have CRE in your lame, sad ass attempt to make truth into Conservative propaganda. I'll send you another HArvard study showing the true #'s of CRE loans from 2004-2007. ANother lie you hold as fact.
I don't blame Fannie and Freddie for derivatives??? WHat?
You seem to claim unregulated free markets are the answer -
but you state unregulated sub-primes were the culprit. ????
OP-EDS. None of which proved any sort of deregulation occurrances or provided any real proof of the deregulation myth. However they do seem to support my opinion that government was at fault (inaction) although little proof is provided.
90% of all new mortgages were being issued or managed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by 2007. Nationalized indeed.
@mongoose704 Just a harvard study stating VCR was not involved in the mass sale os Subprimes. A W. P artilce includin the eaxact # of subprimes that F&F owned. Guess Harvard is OP ED to you. Business week, Washington Post, too. They simply quoted the statistics of how involved F&F were. Doesn't mesh w/ your claim.
@HopeForPeaceNow The ones you conjure up like Harvey the Rabbit truly are blahblahblah, like the cooked numbers you provided that I so masterfully and eloquently exposed.
And thanks for telling us what publications your OP-EDS came from...
and of course what BLOG.
Why do you keep stalking me? Get it through your thick head. Your idea that rules will prevent the crisis hinges on our government's laughable record at enforcing the rules and prevention. The examples are endless.
I thought your point was to convince everyone that an OP-ED equates to a scientific study and to fudge numbers to salvage an argument you got curbstomped in.
By 2007 Government corporations were issuing and managing 90% of all new mortgages. That is nationalization which disqualifies you claim that the free market caused the problem. it is not the fault of the free market if government failed to regulate itself.
@HopeForPeaceNow Of course! After all nobody from Harvard could ever have an opinion or put an OP-ED in a publication because they are Harvard. I come to expect such idiocy from communists like you.
yeah I do have an irrational need to argue with you. You are an annoying steamy smelly sack of dung for brains. That's why. But really this is starting to bore the shit out of me. You have ceased to amuse me.
What part of NATIONALIZED MORTGAGE AND FINANCIAL INDUSTRY IS EVEN REMOTELY UNREGULATED CAPITALIST EVEN IN YOUR DELUDED DEFINITION?
I mean that is who is at fault for those so called credit swaps (which would not have been possible without the fed creating an unlimited supply of money and credit.) You DO know that in the United States of America, the financial and mortgage industries are NATIONALIZED.
@HopeForPeaceNow Uhh yes the mortgage industry was nationalized in the US. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by congressional law and its leaders selected by government
in 2008 the Federal Government assumed basically a complete takeover of every aspect of those companies.
Furthermore on your point of regulation you can hardly blame the free market if the government refuses to regulate its own companies.
Fannie/Freddie OWNED 40% of subprimes. 40% is NOT NATIONALIZED!
REGULATING the 60% OUTSIDE F&F would have STOPPED the crisis. AS wouls regulating swaps. AS it was F&F were the ONLY regulated clearing house. THAT is a fact. Bush wanted to UP the amount F&F buy of subprimes from 50 to 56%. ALso fact.
@HopeForPeaceNow And regarding regulation please provide some statistics that prove this theory of market deregulation has ever occurred. Year by year please so we can compare.
YOU show how we have NOT deregulated over the past 80 years.
"The long term effect to the co-efficient mass actual from --- the deregulation America has experienced over the past 74 years --- can be considered the basis on which all further examination must be based" Havard Law
That's a little one. It's such a well established fact, you should prove it wrong.
@HopeForPeaceNow Back to Earth where the one who makes a claim, you, has the burden of proof. And no, quoting someone wh makes the same claim you have is not PROOF.
Once again let's see the numbers. Otherwise my skepticism overrides my blind faith in claims that may well just be pulled out of your arse.
Let's see PROOF of your deregulation myth. NUMBERS
Hayek was such a badass, it's sad his ideas weren't given the respect they deserved until near the end of his life. Austrian economic theory can save the American economy, provided we're willing to allow it to exist.
ImhoffInstruments 1 week ago
I don't know if it's because he was old or what, but he sounds weird. Kind of makes me irritated and pissed off. I kind of want to punch him in the face.
His book's good though.
Zimnyification 1 month ago
@Zimnyification It's because he's Austrian and went to school with Moses. Subtitles help a lot. Click "CC" (Closed Captioning)
loveisamistake 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
★ ☆ ★ ☆ RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT 2012 ☆ ★ ☆ ★
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
ronpaulfan1 1 month ago
The problem I have with Keynesian theory is that his math is bad. I also dislike his love affair with eugenics but that should go without saying.
pittland44 2 months ago
His bad math is what bothers you? What about his ignorance of the role of the entrepreneur? The theory of perfect competition entirely eliminates any role for entrepreneurs. By ignoring entrepreneurship he can simply reduce economic phenomena to mathematics and graphs. Since the traits of alertness, energy, and enthusiasm do not lend themselves readily to mathematics and graphing they are neglected by Keyens and others. Here we have a "method" displacing real-world events, is this desirable?
DaveC86 1 month ago
@DaveC86 Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with Keynes (or the totality of his writings) to say one way or another what my opinion is of his writings. What did jump off the page at me is that his mathematics (which I do understand) is bad. As the old computer science anagram says: GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. If his mathematical assumptions are bad, then everything else he puts out will be bad. It also doesn't surprise me that he rejects the role of the entrepreneur. Please bear with me.
pittland44 1 month ago
@DaveC86 The real problem with Keynes is what I refer to as "The myth of central planning." The idea that you can quantify an entire economy in some class room or government office, and that from that you can come up with qualitative controls for an economy. It literally can not happen, the failure of groups such as LTCM demonstrates that much. But Keynes, like so many jackasses before and since, believed that people could control, and also understand, a whole economy.
pittland44 3 weeks ago
@pittland44
yes well the real problem is trying to reduce all of human action into a graph, or a few charts and models.. it's impossible, maths has almost zero relevance in economics, besides basic arithmetic.. economics is a social science, the study of human action!
DaveC86 3 weeks ago
@Malthus0
what is your opinion on that letter The Nation uncovered between Charles Koch and Keynes?
Salvysahagun 3 months ago
@Salvysahagun
You mean Hayek? I know you aren't asking me but I would like to get out there that, although the exchange is being used to "debunk" Hayek, it ironically proves his consistency. Hayek did not have a problem with safety nets. See "Road to Serfdom."
fountainherz 3 months ago
@fountainherz
Ya Hayek
Salvysahagun 3 months ago
He kind of looks like... uncle Junior from sopranos.
FrozenPetrolPie 3 months ago
@FrozenPetrolPie lol you could say that about milton friedman as well
gshooting 3 months ago
For years I believed Hayek's description of Keynesian economics was accurate. Then I read the General Theory and it seemed to have no relation to the strawman description propagated by its critics. There is a long exchange of letters between Keynes and Hayek which ends with Keynes basically saying they will have to agree to disagree because neither can understand the other.
macroman52 3 months ago
@macroman52
Although I disagree with Keynes/Keynesianism, I agree with you that the strawmen going around against him are appalling.
fountainherz 3 months ago
@macroman52 So now that you've read both, what's your take?
Zimnyification 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Congressman Ron Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
monctonvintageads 4 months ago
@lowelljohn68
you lack intelligence and common sense.
Ibringthetruth1 4 months ago
@Malthus0
where?
Ibringthetruth1 4 months ago
was that supposed to convince me that keynes was wrong? fail
Odysseus087 4 months ago
@lowelljohn68 yea right there with ya, Keynes was smart but just lacks the clear economic forethought a good economist needs.
implicico 4 months ago
I read his book, very cool. Can somone subtitle this - the conepts he is trying to get accross are not easy, and the poor sound quality, combined with his accent make it hard to hear what he is saying.
BarringtonDailey 5 months ago 8
@BarringtonDailey There are subtitles, you have to press the 'CC' button.
Malthus0 5 months ago 27
@BarringtonDailey I think he speaks very good english... :)
yoyuepz 4 months ago
@ninjashade411 Something like that, although seeing as Britain was already fighting a World War I don't k now what other genius ideas he has :P.
DukeofWellington91 5 months ago
@ninjashade411 I think he means that he was worried that some other economist more reckless with monetary and fiscal policy would have taken over had Keynes left.
DukeofWellington91 5 months ago
Keynes should have clarified his ideology before he died.
flyinbry 5 months ago
@SeedsofJoy Click "CC".
Fuzzy192006 5 months ago
Keynes barely mentions government intervention in the General Theory. Policy has a relatively small role to play in the significance of his work. The role of demand, profit expectations and animal spirits play the most critical role in understanding the work.
mojo476 5 months ago
Keynes barely mentions government intervention in the General Theory. Policy has a relatively small role to play in the significance of his work.
mojo476 5 months ago
@SeedsofJoy it's because of the poor sound quality, not his accent
FWYGINOND 5 months ago
@Malthus0 Yeah woops, didn't see that.
SeedsofJoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mexican factories that take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States,NAFTA..BILL clinton and Obama sell outs!! Obama just signed a bill to let the Mexican truckers run American /mexican labor products back into America wake up you inept child !! RON PAUL 2012!!
2020starman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
JULY 19, 2011 - Ames Straw Poll Moneybomb!
theleemeister 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people that are against government intervention are absurd. if we didn't have government intervention on anything why would we have a government?
gawaine05 6 months ago
you know people,my name is keynesh
keynesh458 7 months ago
It´s worth noting to his credit in my view,that at the end of his life, Hayek basically change his earlier view on the role of deflation in 1929–1933:
“There is no doubt, and in this I agree with Milton Friedman, that once the Crash had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation! So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression” (Pizano 2009: 13)
zsylvana 7 months ago
@zsylvana I should point out that Hayek did not change his mind on the theory involved. He went against his better judgement at the time in a misjudged political move.
Malthus0 7 months ago
@Malthus0 I don´t agree with you Malthus,but i respect your point of view.Have you seen Bruce Caldwell - 1930 and the Challenge of the Depression for Economic Thinking: Hayek vs Keynes.
youtube.com/watch?v=MEn6mMutuUA .If not i think you find it interesting.All the best to you
zsylvana 7 months ago
@zsylvana I just realised that my comment on Hayek & theory on deflation was a little ambiguous, it could have been taken to mean that Hayek agreed with Friedman later in a political move, when what I meant was that in the 1930s he was concerned to fix wage rigidity with deflation. (I was at the time a little confused as to how you could say you disagreed with me & then quote Hayek in a way that did agree with me, but I did not make the connection)
Malthus0 6 months ago
@Malthus0 I understand what you mean Malthus.In all cases it is an interesting video you put!Have you read Bruce Caldwells Hayek biograhy?I thought it was a real good book!Hope you have a real good summer and all the best to you!
zsylvana 6 months ago
@zsylvana ''Have you read Bruce Caldwells Hayek biograhy?I'' Yes, quite some time ago, and I agree with your assessment. I intend now to re-read it at some point now its one of those books that gives the more you read.
Malthus0 6 months ago
@Malthus0 1)A statement by Hayek on public works can be found in Hayek’s “The Gold Problem” (published in 1937 as “Das Goldproblem,” English 1999:169–185)
“Even though there are many concerns about organizing public works ad hoc during a depression, everything speaks in favour of having public agencies perform during a depression whatever investment activities need to be carried out in any case and can possibly be postposed until then.It is the timing of these expenses that presents a problem
zsylvana 3 months ago
@Malthus0 2)"since funds are often extremely hard to raise in the midst of a severe depression and the accumulation of reserves in good times generally faces the objections mentioned above. There is little question that in times of general unemployment the state must intervene to mitigate genuine hardship either by disbursing unemployment compensation or, as in earlier times, by legislation to help the poor." (Hayek 1999 [1937]: 184).
zsylvana 3 months ago
@Malthus0 and In The Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek seems to accept the possibility of public works spending even if “in experimenting in this direction we shall have carefully to watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure” (Hayek 2001 [1944]: 126)
zsylvana 3 months ago
@Malthus0 And he also wrote "A ‘secondary depression’ caused by an induced deflation should of course be prevented by appropriate monetary counter-measures. Though I am sometimes accused of having represented the deflationary cause of the business cycles as part of the curative process, I do not think that was ever what I argued." I actually think that Hayek and Keynes maybee have little more in common then most recognize.
zsylvana 3 months ago
@Malthus0 It really doesn’t matter much to me whether Hayek advocated quasi-Keynesian policies in a depression in 1930ts or not. But the sight of Hayek advocating public works spending is certainty of historical interest. It certainly puts Hayek in a different category from then the Rothbardian Austrians urging liquidationism as the right solution in cases of recession or depression in all circumstances.
zsylvana 3 months ago
2)"- and which has no steering function to perform. I must confess that forty years ago I argued differently. I have since altered my opinion – not about the theoretical explanation of the events, but about the practical possibility of removing the obstacles to the functioning of the system in a particular way” (Hayek 1978: 206).
zsylvana 7 months ago
1)Hayek’s view,on a secondary deflation negative effects on the US economy after 1929 and is worth quoting
“Although I do not regard deflation as the original cause of a decline in business activity,such a reaction has unquestionably the tendency to induce a process of deflation – to cause what more than 40 years ago I called a ‘secondary deflation’ – the effect of which may be worse, and in the 1930s certainly was worsethan what the original cause of the reaction made necessary”Hayek 1978:206
zsylvana 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
keynes was right about technological unemploynent - though for decades moving from agriculture and industry to services was an option - as technological unemployment is now eliminating jobs in services we need to move to a rbe - which embraces technolgy to otimize and maximise production of goods and service within the caring capacity of the earth creating higher lifestyles for 99% of the people in the world and preserving resources and ecology
MrIzzyDizzy 7 months ago
Hayek was definitely one of the greatest minds. In today's words, I would say awesome! Hayek is awesome and this video proves it!
RulerZigZagZigAllah 7 months ago
@loeghat Economic views should be a matter of logic
RunLiberty 7 months ago
@RunLiberty Your point is valid mathematically but dead wrong socially. A strictly logical economic system would be pretty much what Germany has in the 1930s. If all you want is a strong economy, well, Hitler certainly produced that. Free people have to be free to be illogical, to keep their own money and spend it how they choose, to trade freely, even if government loses revenue. And Keynes is not logic but emotion disguised as logic.
wrjamescom 6 months ago
Awesome video
pureaggression 9 months ago
What is he holding in his hand?
pureaggression 9 months ago
4:34 anyone know the two pupils' names?
greenback001 9 months ago
"Keynes' theories have been successful because they're based on empirical evidence, not fantasy like classical economics"
Keynesians are correct for a few years...or decades even....but then in the long run they lead us to disaster. This is the fundamental issue with Keynes...they look short term.
What we are going through now is the beginning of the end of a process that started two generations ago. Economists who look at credit balances saw this coming..while Keynesians did not.
shooter7a 9 months ago 4
@shooter7a You are right, except that the seeds of this disaster actually goes back to the lat 19th century, as socialists who never produced anything or value, never had jobs, and never ran a business imagined themselves to be intellectuals. Marx was a prime example. The BS was spread until colleges with professors who never produced anything or ran a business started peddling it as real. We eventually ended up with socialist pinhead idiots like Presidents TDR, Wilson, and FDR.
wrjamescom 6 months ago
Keynes was smart, and his advancements in macroeconomic theory are duly noted but his policies on government expenditures and direct off set by government intervention are not policies that will move your nation forward in terms of economic growth. he simply stated you could fill the gap of unemployment by using government. This is true, but that also means people have less freedom and less prosperity as a result. especially those in which it is designed to benefit.
adulby 9 months ago 2
before we really examine what economist was "conservative" or "liberal", we have to track what those terms meant and when. Mussolini and Hitler used to rail against free-market "Liberals" in the1930's, but examination of those type of liberals reveals people who belived in relatively little government intervention and more freedom of the markets. They resembled modern Libertarians more than anything else.
johnsonfromwisconsin 9 months ago
How to send a country into a tailspin: Keynesian economics.
BobLeKatt 9 months ago 5
The reason for Keynes success if obvious. It promotes statism and big government. No lack of public money available for promoting those views.
LadyAbsente 10 months ago 3
@LadyAbsente nah, Keynes' theories have been successful because they're based on empirical evidence, not fantasy like classical economics
DRL337PhD 9 months ago
@DRL337PhD I'm sure you are not suggesting that Hayek is a "classical" economist because that would be ignorant.
martynspeck 9 months ago
@DRL337PhD
What successes has Keynesian theory had? What empirical evidence supports Keynes? I can give you a bunch that refutes him, such as his belief that the U.S. would sink into recession after cutting govt. spending after WWII. The opposite happened, actually. Or that gold prices would go lower after it was decoupled from the dollar. He thought the dollar was holding up the value of the gold, not the other way around. Of course, the opposite happened there too. And stagflation also.
razerfish 9 months ago
Comment removed
spamdude1 10 months ago
Hayek is right about Keynes.What ever we think of Keynes,is missleading to consider him as leftist or socialist,as many do.Keynes was Liberal Party member and in many ways conservative,and close to Hayek in polical questions.And Keynes appreciated Hayeks, Road to serfdom.Hayek also right about Keynes views on Inflation.Keynes even wrote "How to pay for the war" there he point in the direction,Hayek tell,Strict monetary and fiscal policy after war,but he died before he finished this theories
zsylvana 10 months ago
ron paul 2012, vote him in the US!
Partei der Vernunft in Germany!
ZeekoWay 10 months ago
Wow shit there is something worse than Keynes? blows your mind....... Keynes is pretty far down there...
LibertyJedi 1 year ago
Hayek was genius... genius I tell you.
Xylogeist 1 year ago 3
I saw a comment that mentioned a transcript, but I don't see one. Is there a transcript somewhere?
tifforo1 1 year ago 2
@tifforo1 There is the Interactive transcript of the video captions bellow the views & video statistics. It can be a bit tricky to copy. You have open the trascript, place your mouse cursor in the white space in beween the thumbs up button and the low bar & highlight downwards using the mouse ball.
Malthus0 1 year ago 5
@Malthus0 ctrl+a works fine as well ;)
adsfasdkjfh 7 months ago
Salma Hayek sure has aged and her accent has gotten even thicker. Subtitles are needed!
zerobeat18 1 year ago 3
@zerobeat18 Interactive transcript button next to info
VividlyContemporary 1 year ago
@zerobeat18
...and she's talking Austrian economics. Apparently, her brain has started functioning.
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago
Great man
123cinoche 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn dog, that nigga funny lookin as hell!. LOL, little old white man is cartoonish as fuck, he'd be great to cast as a mad scientist in a Disney movie or some shit.
DHaterKilla 1 year ago
No you shouldn't point that out. There is no relation between demand for commodities and employment. If you cannot grasp this, consider the dimension of time. Humans can't possible exhaust the list of products attainable by human production because the products are altered by their temporal state in terms of subjective valuation and the consideration of things as some 'product.' This means that even if everyone says; don't work, we'll never demand a thing, future oriented production can persist.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill Ok, I have been pondering the dubiousness of that comment for a while, but not got round to removing it. Now I will.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill You just talkin' pure buuuull-shit, dog. Nigga please. I ain't even tryin to hear that shit.
Jew.
DHaterKilla 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please go over to my Austrian Economics blog. Subscribe and comment.
aworldundone (dot) blogspot (dot) com/
Thank you in advance
8sharkey8 1 year ago
Keynesian economics is best suited to politics, for political reasons. Hence why it has been so widely adopted. Perfect example is inflation! Krugman is just a political shill.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
Keynes did not get people to believe in something that they did not already want to believe in.
He just gave them an excuse for government intervention.
tnekkc 1 year ago 112
@tnekkc Exactly. Statists love Keynesian economics precisely because it gives the government more power. How convenient...
WreakingHavoc1 9 months ago
@tnekkc
This is why socialists like Keynes and why Keynes in my opinion, is a socialist himself.
TheTVLicence 9 months ago
@tnekkc Keynesian BS only buys a short term illusion of recovery, and it down right evil when the money is borrowed. Sure, if the US had no debt already and we borrowed trillions and left the next generation to pay it back, we could live really well. But the last generation did that already. Now we've run out of credit and own the bills for the last generation. This is the predictable conclusion of the Keynesian BS.
wrjamescom 8 months ago
@wrjamescom umm... the last generation had a debt to GDP ratio of 150 percent... that would be like us having a 21 trillion dollar national debt today....
they were also able to get this ratio down to under 40% until we started giving tax cuts to everyone in 1980...
MrMvt333 7 months ago
@MrMvt333 well the last generations implemented welfare systems that now amount to 1 million per taxpayer - the problem is not just the debt but the unfunded liabilities - look at the national debt clock and look at unfunded liabilties and also look at people working vs people on social security and food stamps - and also not shown is the many other forms of welfare recieved - esp housing assistance - were are broke every taxpayer owes a lifetime of income - then consider the logic of the rbe
MrIzzyDizzy 7 months ago
@MrMvt333 Surely, you aren't serious! How old are you, 14? The last generation had financed a world war and the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, AND, all the while fighting the cold war. And while they were doing that, they had little competition because most of the rest was in ruins. There were few Mexican criminals, lower costs of living, and business was booming and hiring. Energy was dirt cheap and education was valued. Overall taxes were a pittance compared to now.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@MrMvt333 Government was smaller and far less intrusive. People had more freedom to do business. Stop parroting the leftist propaganda. Taxes were lowered in the 80,s but not nearly enough. And it doubled revenue! Unfortunately, spending quadrupled. Government already has FAR FAR FAR too much revenue, taxes are many times what they should be. The problem is spending, wasting, redistribution from people who earn to people who don't. We have too many bums and we let them vote.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom we had much more government before 1980, except for annual national defense... reagan took away many of the FDR reforms that regulated business, provided services for unemployed workers, and regulated the flow of money... now almost every decade we have seen a doubling in revenue... though the 1973-1980 saw a 140% increase... reagans years however only saw an 88% increase... and the clinton years saw a far greater increase in revenue than the reagan years... you know diddly poo
MrMvt333 7 months ago
@MrMvt333 Reagan barely made in dent in disinfecting the US of FDR's failed socialist scams. But we were coming out of the Carter mess, of course there was less increases in spending that during the false bubbles the Clinton cronies lines their pockets with. Read some history kid, and stop making a fool of yourself parroting socialist lines.
wrjamescom 7 months ago
@wrjamescom Carter mess? Are you blaming the stagflation of the 1970's on Carter? Seriously?
wuezili 6 months ago
@wuezili Yes! And no, I'm not suggesting he caused it all himself. He was elected partly because of a pretty bad recession (for the day). But his solution to a sinking ship was to torpedo it to let the water out, a policy copied by the current idiot socialist in chief. Actually, the economy was recovering, although far too slowly when he took office, and the growth of the economy continue during the first year or so of his administration, that is until his policies started to take effect.
wrjamescom 6 months ago
@wuezili Let me guess.... You blame it on George Bush, right? :)
Seriously, the main cause was Carter's gross incompetence at foreign policy leading to the doubling of fuel costs. There was virtually nothing during his four years that indicated he has the slighted clue what he was doing with anything.
wrjamescom 6 months ago
@wrjamescom Those super inflated prices of the seventies were equaled in 2006 WITHOUT an oil crisis and during a trillion dollar war that was supposed to lower costs. Of course, right-wing politicians lowering costs on oil is as likely as you reading a book on economics.
The 70's recession began with the OPEC embargo of '73, combined with the bull market that arose soon after.
wuezili 6 months ago
@wuezili Your personal attack was plenty enough to display your ignorance without going any further in demonstrating it. And rather predictable. But you parroted your lines like a good bird. Now try reading before you spout BS and you might make less a fool of yourself in the future. I voted against Bush twice, but for crying out loud! Can't you kooks learn some new lines? The 70s recession started well before the partial oil embargo of 73. I was there. You just read parrot lines.
wrjamescom 6 months ago
Keynes succeeded with his government stimulus ideas because collectivists want to believe it.
Just as today, there are those that believe in global warming, because they already want to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel.
Humans are ready and eager to believe in things that justify something they already want.
tnekkc 1 year ago 2
Actually Hayek means that employment does not arise from consumption of final goods and services and to confuse aggregate production as a function of aggregate consumption is to misunderstand how human labour works. It doesn't require wage labour and unemployment arises because people do not work towards/do not wish to work towards Third World style subsistence labour but would rather speculatively remain unemployed for wage labour for which savings and capital are necessary. Say's Law=truism.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Keynes was an intellectual Judas...a man who could not carry a cogent argument...Hayek wouldhave ripped him to shreds in a debate. And now you have all these Keynesians out and about, with there patheic minds trapped in the fallacy created by Keynes. PATHETIC
xerakis 1 year ago
I think the incredible success of the General Theory by Keynes can be explained by its "primitive" (3:23) nature. Due to its "simplicity" more people are able to understand it because it is not that complex as any other economic theory. This common comprehension leads to the belief that Keynes was right as his theory seems "logical". The General Theory can be caracterized as a very "populist" economic theory - which does not mean that Keynes was not a respectable economist, far from it.
DerPortugiese15 1 year ago
Awesome video, I hope I'm as sharp as him at his age! Thanks for making the transcript!
movieapple 1 year ago
Around 3:20 Hayek discusses that in the 19th century economists refuted the notion that their is a relationship between Aggregate Demand and employment. I'm trying to wrap my head around that, I find it difficult to believe that there is no relationship between AD and employment. Does anyone care to elaborate? Maybe I'll have to track down the Leslie Stephen book he's talking about.
publicanimal 1 year ago
How did human labour even begin if it requires consumption? All consumption comes from the act of production i.e. attaining that which is to be consumed by some human action. Wage labour markets can clear, unemployment is voluntary, destruction of savings makes minimum wages more unemploying of wage labour but it is nevertheless true that people can work without wage labour. Hayek did not study pure economics but talked about the real world where people speculatively remain unemployed.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill Marx, would argue the opposite in that labor is the beginning of everything. Man creates for his own consumption, sells what is excess. Capitalism, is what alienates man from his labor or at least the product of his labor....as I understand his argument.
DAngelo136 1 year ago
Comment removed
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
@publicanimal The point is that demand is by default unlimited; people always want more because that's just how nature and life itself works. Human beings have for all intents and purposes "unlimited needs" which in a universal reality of material scarcity automaticly lead to unlimited demand. That's (among a myriad of other things) why supply side economics work to explain economic systems and demand side economics do not.
NietzscheanMan 1 year ago
Precisely, the means to unlimited ends are the scarce things, not the ends, which by definition, as wants and emergencies, we wish to limit if we can and do not wish to create things with scarce resources that are unwanted. This is why all anti-Say's Law economics that claims that we must force dissaving and we must force exchange if we are to have any employment and production, leads quite immediately to corporatism i.e. coerced patronage of so-called production if 'demand is deficient.'
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Is it just me, or is Hayek considerably less of an asshole than the people who quote him?
NickHannula 1 year ago
This is the first time I have saw him talking alive. Thanks for upload.
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power lmao! I'm sorry but i seriously laughed when i read your comment. Don't feel disrespected at all because we all make silly mistakes too :). Of course he is alive how else would he be speaking?
goodatbasebal 1 year ago
@goodatbasebal, really!? I didn't know and I really have no any idea why I've thought that he was gone. Maybe its because of death of Friedman senior (witch is by some reason similar to Hayek).
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power NO!!!! You said that it was the first time you saw him talking "alive" all i said was that of course he "was" alive at the time when he was talking.
goodatbasebal 1 year ago
Many thanks for adding the captions. I wouldn't have been able to follow Mr. Hayek otherwise. I mean, his English is beautiful but his thick accent would've impeded comprehension somewhat.
tairanotomomori 1 year ago
Keynes of coarse yes did not want to return to the gold standard because that would mean no monetary systems, but the political feeling at the time was it is going to happen. Accepting this he sought to keep the Torys (conservatives) from valuing it any higher. He believed, radical for his time, that the low unemployment and surge of exports had been brought about by the fall of the sterling, and to increase its value would only make British goods unattractive and increase unemployment.
vcedre1 1 year ago
General Theory was already being taught in Harvard a year before its publication...
grgtompen 1 year ago
Thanks for the subtitles!
nefigaha 1 year ago
thanks for sharing ...but .. you should post the entire interview ... not split it up ... into ... "hayek on kaynes" , "hayek on socialism" etc ... the continuity breaks man ...also thanks for the transcript ... helped a lot
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool
Most people do not want to watch the whole thing or have to search through the 78 mins for a bit. In short cutting makes it more accessible. Better for youtubes short attention span(and vid length limitations). I still want people to watch the whole thing however & I have always put a link to the full interview in the sidebar on all Hayek interviews. Also I have favourited libertyinourtimes uploads of uncut Hayek material onto his old style unlimited account.
Malthus0 1 year ago 21
@Malthus0 but unfortunately the video at does not have captions ... and without that ... its rather difficult for me to understand what mr.hayek is saying , i can understand what john o sullivan is saying but not hayek ... can anything be done about that?
mintoo2cool 1 year ago 3
@mintoo2cool
What? This video(Hayek on Keynes) does have captions, if you mean the full John O sullivan video then I can not since i do not host it on vimeo or youtube. Even if I did the process of trancribing a video that long would take forever to complete.
Malthus0 1 year ago 5
@Malthus0 Thank you for this upload Malthus!This is a Hayek not so known.The sencibel one.He have tear in his eyes when he talks about Keynes. Let us all remind that Hayek and Keynes were close friends.We could see on this video that Friedrich von Hayek miss him.They corresponded with each other and showed each other respect allthough they desgree on many subjects .I think we have much to learn from this video.To show respect to each other allthought dissagrement.Thanks Malthus!
zsylvana 1 year ago 19
@zsylvana
It's a neglected fact...despite being intellectual rivals, they had a good friendship. Despite their initial friction, I think their friendship should be held as a great example not just to economists, but to everyone, of a great friendship between two thinkers who disagreed greatly. I believe that even Hayek once said that of all the people he would invite for an evening meal, despite his closer position to Popper, Friedman, and von Mises, he would still pick Keynes, then Schumpeter.
Blackcomanche 10 months ago
@Blackcomanche So true,Thanks for your comment!
zsylvana 10 months ago
@mintoo2cool Stop crying... Jebuss....
XBoomLondresX 1 year ago
@Malthus0 Perhaps put in parentheses which part it is for those desiring to watch it continuously (e.g., "(1 of 13)" ).
Bluedybluedyblue 1 year ago
If you OWNED 93% of America - WHY would you need the gov for power? In fact - you would want to REMOVE your ONLY SUPERVISOR. SO they fill your head with shit theory and get you to vote in the best interest of the Elite. THAT is the reality in America today.
Riddle me this, mongoose -
WHO will control that 20% who owns 93% once you remove the government and all rules (regulation)?
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
So let's see, you blame a government mandated, government established company because of derivatives. Derivatives made possible by artificial and unlimited money and credit, all of which was created by our nationalized fractional reserve banking system...alll of which was designed to meet an executive and congrrssional mandate to entitle houses to every american...
and somehow that is the fault of an unregulated free market??? LMFAO!
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 All of which was biult, owned and run by the 20% - the ELite. If you own 93% of a system, you don't need much help. YouOWN 93% of the power.
Once you remove Government - HOW will YOU have power over that 20% that OWNS 93% of the US?
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Back to rhetoric for you.
NUMBERS PLEASE? And real numbers not cooked books oh Enron Executive!
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
You have CRE in your lame, sad ass attempt to make truth into Conservative propaganda. I'll send you another HArvard study showing the true #'s of CRE loans from 2004-2007. ANother lie you hold as fact.
I don't blame Fannie and Freddie for derivatives??? WHat?
You seem to claim unregulated free markets are the answer -
but you state unregulated sub-primes were the culprit. ????
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
Pure Straw Man. Let's talk when you join us in our universe and then you can converse with the earthlings. Same mongoose time, same mongoose channel.
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mongoose: "Please just ignore the true facts, ignore the fact that I cooked the books, just take me at face value!" Like your ignorance is a joke.
You are a moron. A typical Conservative/Libertarian voter.
The destruction of the middle class will be you best contribution.
I gave you every correct number. You don't even know what derivatives are. How sad for you.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Anything you can't answer is strawman.
You are a moron. A typical Conservative/Libertarian voter.
The destruction of the middle class will be you best contribution.
I gave you every correct number. You don't even know what derivatives are. How sad for you.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
"@mongoose704 "Fannie and Freddie finance about 40 percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. "
Washington Post, 6/2008
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
And all I get from you is about a dozen links of
OP-EDS. None of which proved any sort of deregulation occurrances or provided any real proof of the deregulation myth. However they do seem to support my opinion that government was at fault (inaction) although little proof is provided.
90% of all new mortgages were being issued or managed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by 2007. Nationalized indeed.
game-set-match. Now you can quit stalking me.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Just a harvard study stating VCR was not involved in the mass sale os Subprimes. A W. P artilce includin the eaxact # of subprimes that F&F owned. Guess Harvard is OP ED to you. Business week, Washington Post, too. They simply quoted the statistics of how involved F&F were. Doesn't mesh w/ your claim.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@mongoose704
Truth, fact and numbers look like blah blah blah blah to you, we know.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow The ones you conjure up like Harvey the Rabbit truly are blahblahblah, like the cooked numbers you provided that I so masterfully and eloquently exposed.
And thanks for telling us what publications your OP-EDS came from...
and of course what BLOG.
Why do you keep stalking me? Get it through your thick head. Your idea that rules will prevent the crisis hinges on our government's laughable record at enforcing the rules and prevention. The examples are endless.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 You prove my point over an over. You're just too thick to see it.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
Tell again the one where rules made derivatives.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
Tell me again why you hate and murder Jews.
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mongoose:
"Tell again the one where rules made derivatives."Me
Of course, NO RULES, what you advocate, MADE derivatives. Solid point you can't answer.
So, you say this :
"Tell me again why you hate and murder Jews. " You
Pure stupidity.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mongoose:
"Tell again the one where rules made derivatives."Me
Of course, NO RULES, what you advocate, MADE derivatives. Solid point you can't answer.
So, you say this :
"Tell me again why you hate and murder Jews. " You
??? You have no point, so you just lie. I get it.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mongoose:
"Tell again the one where rules made derivatives."Me
Of course, NO RULES, what you advocate, MADE derivatives. Solid point you can't answer.
So, you say this :
"Tell me again why you hate and murder Jews. " You
??? You have no point, so you just lie. I get it.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
Take your free market fundamentalism and gtfo, HopeForPeaceNow
axe863 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe863
"Take your free-market-let-the-Elite-alone-with-all-our-money-give-them-no-rules-no-supervision and gtfo, axe863." HopeForPeaceNow
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe863
@axe863
"Take your free-market-let-the-Elite-alone-with-all-our-money-give-them-no-rules-no-supervision and gtfo, axe863." HopeForPeaceNow
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe863 @axe863
"Take your free-market-let-the-Elite-alone-with-all-our-money-give-them-no-rules-no-supervision and gtfo, axe863." HopeForPeaceNow
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Your point?
I thought your point was to convince everyone that an OP-ED equates to a scientific study and to fudge numbers to salvage an argument you got curbstomped in.
By 2007 Government corporations were issuing and managing 90% of all new mortgages. That is nationalization which disqualifies you claim that the free market caused the problem. it is not the fault of the free market if government failed to regulate itself.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 You must have some irrational need to argue. I don't.
If Harvard is OP ED to you, that'll do'er.
Peace out
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Of course! After all nobody from Harvard could ever have an opinion or put an OP-ED in a publication because they are Harvard. I come to expect such idiocy from communists like you.
yeah I do have an irrational need to argue with you. You are an annoying steamy smelly sack of dung for brains. That's why. But really this is starting to bore the shit out of me. You have ceased to amuse me.
mongoose704 1 year ago
YOU NEVER EVEN OPENED ONE LINK I SENT!
THAT WAs A HARVARD REVIEW - NOT an OP-ED in some publication.
A HARVARD MASTERS THESIS... you called an OP_ED by Harvey the Rabbit.
I can't joust with unarmed people. YOU are WHY we MUST have a test before people VOTE! You are vastly stupid and dangerous.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow They used to have a test before you voted, it was deemed unconstitutional and racist.
freedomunrestricted 1 year ago
mongoose: YOU:
Harvard = Harvey The Rabbit
Peer Registered UC Reports = Cooked Numbers
Upper 8 = Blogs and OP-Eds
Your idea that removing all rules will prevent the Elite from owning the last 7% is lunacy.
The examples are endless.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
Oh I'm sure to get a response from you of blahblahblahblah neocon blahblahblah derivatives blah blah blah blah evil Bush blah blah blah blah
mongoose704 1 year ago
What part of NATIONALIZED MORTGAGE AND FINANCIAL INDUSTRY IS EVEN REMOTELY UNREGULATED CAPITALIST EVEN IN YOUR DELUDED DEFINITION?
I mean that is who is at fault for those so called credit swaps (which would not have been possible without the fed creating an unlimited supply of money and credit.) You DO know that in the United States of America, the financial and mortgage industries are NATIONALIZED.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 Ummm... the mortgage industry was not nationalized when that $60 tril in Swaps was written. Do you have any actual knowledge?
In fact - DEREGUALTION + No black box + no swaps = no meltdown. Get real.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Uhh yes the mortgage industry was nationalized in the US. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by congressional law and its leaders selected by government
in 2008 the Federal Government assumed basically a complete takeover of every aspect of those companies.
Furthermore on your point of regulation you can hardly blame the free market if the government refuses to regulate its own companies.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
Fannie/Freddie OWNED 40% of subprimes. 40% is NOT NATIONALIZED!
REGULATING the 60% OUTSIDE F&F would have STOPPED the crisis. AS wouls regulating swaps. AS it was F&F were the ONLY regulated clearing house. THAT is a fact. Bush wanted to UP the amount F&F buy of subprimes from 50 to 56%. ALso fact.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Uhh..
At the end of 2007 Fannie and Freddie Mac were providing 90% of all NEW mortgages in the US and owned or managed over 60%
Nice fudging of the facts.
And most of the newer assets were toxic.
mongoose704 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mongoose704
"At the end of 2007 Fannie and Freddie Mac were providing 90% of all NEW mortgages in the US and owned or managed over 60%"
Show mw your cite - I'll show you mine.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow And regarding regulation please provide some statistics that prove this theory of market deregulation has ever occurred. Year by year please so we can compare.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704
YOU show how we have NOT deregulated over the past 80 years.
"The long term effect to the co-efficient mass actual from --- the deregulation America has experienced over the past 74 years --- can be considered the basis on which all further examination must be based" Havard Law
That's a little one. It's such a well established fact, you should prove it wrong.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Back to Earth where the one who makes a claim, you, has the burden of proof. And no, quoting someone wh makes the same claim you have is not PROOF.
Once again let's see the numbers. Otherwise my skepticism overrides my blind faith in claims that may well just be pulled out of your arse.
Let's see PROOF of your deregulation myth. NUMBERS
mongoose704 1 year ago
I always love when Conservatives blame the meltdown on poor people and lack of regulation.
Then tell us later we don't need regulation.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 year ago