I'll tell you what socialism leads to: If you're a socialist nation, the CIA invades and overthrows the government installing a fascist dictatorship instead. It's happened many times. Many many times.
Hayek is an absolute fool. Fascism came out of a reaction to communism. And it was traditional conservatives (on the right) that coalesced with these men and brought them into power.
The Austrian's beliefs on the gold standard set up the argument that government is the cause of the business cycle.Should government do anything to ease the pain?Austrians say no.Firms must be allowed to go bankrupt,jobs must be eliminated,wages must fall.Only then can the economy start anew on a healthier course.Miseans do not consider Hayek a Austrian,and even refer to him privately as a "social democrat"!!Because he did not subscribe to all hard-core Austrianism
6) Markets can coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living,
No Markets do not "worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living" which is why you're careful not to give real historical examples. Anywhere markets have been allowed to function, they've led to increasingly higher standards of living. Even in Lenin's NEP Russia. Within 5 years
the "direct re-introduction of Capitalism", as Lenin referred to the NEP, brought the Russian economy from the brink of collapse to pre 1914 levels of production.
Dear Ospiker: While Irishmen and Arabs are great exaggerators, your following exageration is World Class: "Anywhere markets have been allowed to function, they've led to increasingly higher standards of living." At a minimum, the following book will cause you to qualify your statement: "Bad Samaritans" by Professor Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge U. (the school Keynes' taught at). I did a series of videos about the book. All the Best / Mike
5)Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long periods.
4) You can have planning based on routine, custom, tradition, magic, religion, ignorance – planning rules by rain-makers,shamans, fakirs and illiterates of all kinds. Worst of all, you can have planning directed by generals; for every army is based on an a priori allocation of resources. You can have planning organized in a semi-rational way by technocrats or, at the highest level of scientific intelligence, by workers and disinterested specialists.
3)Both basic kinds of labour allocation have existed on the widest possible scale throughout history. Both are therefore quite ‘feasible’. Both have also been applied in the most variegated fashions, and with most diverse results. You can have ‘despotic’ planning and ‘democratic’ planning .You can have ‘rational’ planning and ‘irrational’ planning.
2)These are the two basic ways of allocating resources, and they are fundamentally different from each other – even if they can on occasion be combined in precarious and hybrid transitional forms, which will not be automatically self-reproducing. Essentially they have a different internal logic.They generate distinct laws of motion. They diffuse divergent motivations among producers and organizers of production, and find expression in discrepant social values.
1)About the term ‘planning’.that Hayek missuses. The concept itself needs to be more precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
Typical utopian socialist drivel. Socialism has only one costume, that of the commander. But underneath is the true character: a totalitarian. This poor sap of an eletist KNOWS what is best for you and for me. Even without asking. Go back to flipping burgers.
I feel your straw man points, are not straw men at all. Hayek was opposing the rule not the exception. While it's nice to hear about a small group of "real" socialists hiding out in the Caucasus mountains. The Soviet Union and the National Socialists where the premiere examples of socialism in Hayek's time.
Anyhow, it's hard to have a real debate on youtube.
Hayek had no knowledge of the history of socialism. I have watched him on YT.
As to the Nazi's being socialists, you are repeating pure unadulterated, heavy duty, industrial strength, no nonsense propaganda. You are either a G-man or an anti intellectual.
It was an Anarchist army in the Caucasus led by Nestor Makhno. There were Socialist Parties throughout Russia. All were mass murdered by Lenin's men, as were other communists (Mensheviks), Liberal Democrats, etc.
Hi! When I stumbled upon your videos, I thought you were a nice educated guys, although I am opposed to Keynesianism. However, while your videos are polite and nice to watch, your replies to comments are very strange. Capitalism has never been truly defined, but a general consensus is that private property is respected. That's it. Keynes argued against a gold standard, and therefore the Fed can debase the currency at will and buy gov't bonds, which the gov't can use to fund wars.
In a letter to the London Times Hayek, defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet's regime weren't talking
Anyway: Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period," only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference," he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism."
Greg Grandin in Counterpunch sings of Friedman, Hayek, Pinochet,:
Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian émigré and University of Chicago professor whose 1944 Road to Serfdom dared to suggest that state planning would produce not "freedom and prosperity" but "bondage and misery," visited Pinochet's Chile a number of times. He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution
RadioFreeWisconsin Most of the propositions you gave are nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only point out that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions from you arise from your failure to understand the logic of economic language.
...I'm sure the housing in Europe was very good, but are you aware that other people had to pay for it under threat of imprisonment? What is the moral argument for making someone else pay for your houes? Who's to say what a "decent" pension is? Who makes this judgement?
4. He never says it does so necessarily, he just says it's a threat.
Have you even read the book? You mention all the good programs, who pays for them?
In your question about theft and imprisonment, you assert Socialists make others pay for their comfort. According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, the rich form governments to steal from the poor. Therefore, the thefts of the last 500 or a 1000 years have been by the rich against to poor, working class and middle class. This is called Capitalism. This is the answer to your question about morality. Socialism seeks to use the tax system to redistribute income and wealth in pursuit of justice.
...To say that Slavery or Colonialism is Capitalist because the people who did it identified with Capitialism is like saying that Stalinist purges are "Socialist" because the men who did it claimed to be Socialist. So that "moral argument" dousn't hold up. In fact, it's kind of a "straw man". You think taking things from people at the barrell of a gun is "justice"? How so? How would you like it if someone taxed the hell out of you in the name of "justice"?
If you view my video: :A History of Capitalism," you will understand my view that slavery was the essential building block of capitalism. Colonialism continues to be an essential tool of capitalism.
Today's wealthy are the thieves. They stole with fraud and deceit.
Your crowd routinely uses guns to steal.
I am being taxed unjustly to fund Imperial Wars for Oil, so the rich can gain. 54% of the Federal Budget is for "Defense" (i.e. war).
I am 100% oppossed to Colonialism and Slavery. The reason: it is contrary to Capitalism, it's forceful coercive taking, rather than voluntary trade. When you say, Voluntary Trade dousn't exist, you are right. Voluntary Trade is a goal being strived for, not something that has been acheived. Just as it is wrong to confuse all Socialism with the USSR, it is also wrong to confuse all Capitalists with un-Capitalist acts committed by self-described "Capitalists".
Also, when you raise someone's taxes because of Slavery or Colonialism, or Feudalism, what is the justification for that unless this person was personally involved in any of these crimes? Click on my channel page, click on the link under web site, click on "Social Criticism" and then, "Is Inequality a Problem" to see what I think about this, "taking things from people through physical coercion is justice" nonesense.
You, apparently, are not concerned with social inequality. You are not in solidarity with the poor, working class and lower middle class. You are practicing to be a stooge for the rich. This is how it is in most countries. Education prepares folks to be stooges.
Democracy decides on housing, pensions, etc. Democracy is the essence of Socialism.
4. What are you referring to when you write: "He never says it does so necessarily, he just says it's a threat?"
The programs are easily paid for by reallocation a large portion of the Defense Budget to serving the people. I also recommend a Progressive Income tax.
Basically, what I'm saying is go read the book, not what others say about it. State control of MOP is the dictionary definition of Socialism, so that's what I'm going off of. Also, Capitalism is about voluntary trade. Capitilist governments have stoled much especially during the colonial era, but that's not Capitalism. Forceful coercive taking isn't Capitalist. Just because a Capitalist country does something, dousn't mean that the activity is Capitilist.
Try to broaden your education beyond reading two sentence definitions in the dictionary.
Capitalism is about inefficient monopolies and vast thefts. In fact, there are no free markets and never have been. They a figment of the imaginations of neo liberal fools. All capitalist countries use force to intimidate their own citizens and commit mass murder abrod to create mass markets and steal natural resources.
That's a very polemical definition of Capitalism. As for the crimes of the West, you can not punish people for the crimes of their ancestors, a person can only be punished for crimes which they themselves have committed. Again, to "redistribute income" to ensure Equality of material condition requires phyiscal coercion. I do not agree with this because I believe physical coercion should be reduced to the minimum. To deny that the collection of taxes requires threats of violence is absurd.
The neo fascists eliminated the Progressive Income tax in the 1980's transferring vast wealth to the super rich. This continued under Bush I and Clinton. Then Bush II dramatically reduced taxes on the rich. So, we are talking about a vast transfer of wealth (theft) by the wealthy.
I am talking about reinstating the Progressive Income Tax of 30 years ago in pursuit of fairness and equality.
1. No he dousn't, he just claims they have things in common. The Nazis and Communists were indeed Socialists, this dousn't mean that all Socialists are Nazis or Communists.
2. It depends how you define the "center"? The local, Worker's Committee could be defined as the "center."
3. He never said this, he just says the threat is there. Socialism is state control of MOP, the MOP was indeed state controlled in USSR, therefore it is Socialist...
1. The Nazi movement in America also use the word Socialist in their 3 word name. It's a matter of propaganda. Neo fascists and Libertarians enjoy claiming Socialists are Nazis & Communists. Such folks don't understand the history of Socialism. Certainly, Hayek had no knowledge of the history of socialism. Just view videos of Hayek on YouTube. He was an intellectual fraud.
2. what does yor list refer to? I can't answer your point two, because I don't know what you are referring to.
3. What are you referring to in your third point? Socialism can exist without ownership of the MOP. Again, you are unaware of socialist history, much like your mentor. I suggest you view my video: "Varieties of Socialism." You could also read "To the Finland Station" by Edmund Wilson and "The Marxists" by C. Wright Mills.
I don´t think i accused F.W Hayek for anything in this serie of comments.I just pointed out some thinker that not thought Hayek´s work was sound.Among them Karl Popper,Milton Friedman,Robert Nozick,Paul Samuelson,Marc Blaug, Brian Caplan,Gordon Tullock,Frank H.Knight
Gerard Radnitzky,David M. Kreps,Nicolas Kaldor,Richard Kahn,Gary King,Robert O Keohane and some more.All highly well-respected thinkers.I also gave some exampels and sources there people could get their opinion on the subject
so zslyvana continues to attack the author of the argument and not the argument, even while it was made evident before that this is fallacious reasoning.
I don't know what is more amazing: The level of irrationality on youtube, or that I am amazed at the level of irrationality on youtube.
No, only those who argue why not to "take Hayek seriously" as an argument against his claims in the Road to Serfdom. It follow this line of thinking:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim (claim X) is false.
Now if someone insistently uses this thinking even while given a chance to propose a more logical argument, I can only conclude that this person is irrational.
The poster of this vid didn't "attack" Hayek. In fact, he makes valid points re: Hayek's misrepresentation of socialism. And Hayek's propaganda was quite effective, and even to this day . . . the unscholarly or unaware see socialism as analogous with Hitler or totalitarianism. . . confuse it with communism, and don't even understand what communism means, thinking of statist regimes i.e. our avowed "enemies." It's hilarious, because we definitely have state capitalism here in the u.s.
CATO-Libertarian Brian Caplan continue -"This is ridiculous. Stepping back to my title, why shouldnt you be an Austrian economist? The fundamental reason is that their main original claims are incorrect. In consequence, even when Austrians hit on a good topic, it is hard for them to follow through because they are struggling NOT to be neoclassical.
-Brian Caplan. "Why i am not a Austrian economist and why you shouldn´t be either",2004.
Right winger and Libertarian at CATO institute Brian Caplan write in his
" Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist ... And Why You Shouldnt Be Either"
"Hayek get credit for ideas that he did not anticipate; he gets credit for ideas that preceded his birth! Hayek made some contributions here - though frankly he was very repetitious. But he did little to advance modern rational expectations theorizing, and even less to anticipate its empirical weaknesses."
Most introductory economics texts don't even mention Hayek or none of the Austrian school, and its economists are absent from many encyclopedias or indexes of the century's great economists. Several of its founding figures struggled to make ends meet, rejected by universities which did not view their work as sound.
Even today, the movement's faculty boasts no more than 75 scholars Worldwide!!By comparison, there are over 20,000 economists in the American Economics Association alone.
Mainstream economists dismiss Hayek as a crank. Nobel economist Paul Samuelson wrote that "I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." Noted economist Mark Blaug has called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone."
It´s little sad that Fare out Right like Milton Friedman,simply thought that -Austrian scholars where useful idiots that "In their fanatism did a good job" for open up the way for "Real Freemarket Economists" with their think-thanks even if he personaly thought "there was to much of them".But he did indeed all he could to se that they not get any credit,or influence,and did all he could to stop Hayek-Rothbard epigones in economic society.Maybee Austrians Scolars are comfortable with that role?
1) quoting an esteemed economist's viewpoint on another economist with the intent to undermine an argument made by the latter economist in no way undermines the actual argument. And for simplicity, let's not even consider that the latter economist's argument is directly tied to his argument about "information economics", which the former economist actually praises.
2) land may be private property, but private property may not be land, something you refuse to realize.
1. Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, these claims are meaningless when countering Hayek's argument because they do not challenge the argument in anyway.
2. Were horses and land stolen before capitalists existed?
1. Again, this has nothing to do with the argument presented in the Road to Serfdom. It is relevant to an argument about the credibility of Hayek, which I hope you can discern.
2. I already said that not all private property is land and you even agreed with your response about income and wealth. Now you are re-introducing this concept again, which doesn't refute my point: Was wealth stolen prior to the existence of capitalists?
1. It has everything to do with the Road to Serfdom. It portrays the author as a crank. Cranks are not credible. Therefore, Road to Serfdom is nonsense.
2. Capitalism began with the concept of private property. This concept was used to steal communal land, horses, cattle, etc. Prior to private property such theft was committed by bandits rather then the state.
There should be a logical fallacy that points out when people like you just fish for and point out logical fallacies in the other person's arguement in an attempt to undermine that person's arguement.
You have not made one refuting arguement throughout this entire comment section. All you do is cry, "AD HOMINEN, STRAWMAN, and RED HERRING!!!" How about you make an arguement, instead of bitching about logical fallacies the entire time?
There is a general tendency for people to want to categorize bad arguments as fallacies, but an argument is only a straw man if it misrepresents the arguments of others.
While Hayek came to incorrect conclusions, not every bad argument needs to be categorized as a formal fallacy.
zsylvana is making a clear logical fallacy in all of his/her posts. The Road to Serfdom is not about Hayek's proposal of business cycles nor his theory of capital & money. It is about information and how a planned economy cannot possibly be informed of the proper allocation of resources, thus justifying individual freedom to act. In fact in the same article quoted by zsylvana, Paul Samuelson commends Hayek on his "information economics". It astounds me how purposely he is taken out of context!
4)Milton Friedman: ".The Method also tends to make people intolerant. If you and I we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We go out and observe the facts. That's how science progresses. ... the fact is that fifty, sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory ... so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn't been any progress " F.A Hayek .a Biography p 174.
3)Milton Friedman -"The Austrian methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. If you're always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another's shoulders?" in "Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Paperback)
2)In 1969,Milton Friedman,after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions.
(M.Friedman "The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261284. " and
M.Friedman "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisit"
1)That Hayeks Buisness Cycle allready in 1930s was harshly criticised by such as John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa and Nicholas Kaldor and a lot other is wellknown.But also fare out rightwing economist as Milton Friedman and Gordon Tullock from the University of Chicago and right wing libertarian Bryan Caplan, an Scholar of the Cato Institute also totally discretited Hayek is not so known.
4)Paul Samuelson writes "There were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity. In 1931, Hayeks Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success. In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 19271931 (and the 19312007) historical scene."
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp
3)Paul Samuelson continue " So you might say Hayek as an economist fell into what physicists call a black hole. Wisely, libertarian Hayek turned away to weighty constitutional and philosophical interests." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp. 14:
2)Paul Samuelson writes further "Hayeks (1941) The Pure Theory of Capital was not stillborn. But it was a pebble thrown into the pool of economic science that seemingly left nary a ripple.
Hayeks grave defeats in the early 1930s predisposed him in the World War II years to write what he entitled, The Road to Serfdom (1944). I will postpone my take on that bestseller."
1)US post war most credited economist Paul Samueleson writes " Hayek himself, naively, diagnosed the fall of his 1931 opus as due to the fact that his period-of-production mutterings there did not do full justice to the not-yet-completed Austrian theory of capital (Menger, Böhm et al.). Therefore, heroically but hopelessly, he wasted years on a task that he was grossly under-equipped to handle."
The fact is that Hayek was not taken serouis among Economists since early 1930-tees.His "Nobel-Prize" 1974 was considered as a "scandal" among a large majority of economist,from Right to Left in political view.Higly credited economist Richard Kahns allready 1932 statet:
"If Hayek believes that the spending of newly printed currency on employment and consumption will worsen our current terrible depression, then Hayek is a nut."
Hayek tried to connect the atrocities committed by the Nazi's and Stalinists to my summary; that is he didn't implicate socialism, but rather, the implementation of socialism, which the only thing of pragmatic value.
Why didn't the "socialist" Scandanavian countries become like China, Russia, or Nazi Germany? They're all ranked in the top 35 of the index of economic freedom - they are not in fact implementing socialism, or at least implementing socialism correctly.
Again, a Hayek follower insists Nazis and Stalinists were socialists. I see no relationship between Socialism & Fascism - none! In the end, Hayek can be seen as a third rate propagandist / apologist for the far right.
As to Scandanavia, the Scandanavians think they are socialists. That is all that matters.
Please direct me to sources (writers) who associate socialism and repression. This is pure propaganda. Is Finland repressive? Socialist Finland is the best educated country on the planet. If Socialism is repressive, why are all the countries of Latin America (with the exception of the American puppet regime in Columbia) turned to Socialism.
All the people of Western Europe have a far higher standard of living then in America. This is due to reforms sought by Socialists for a century or more.
Socialism being repressive is exactly the insight Hayek was trying to convey. Again, using a Scandanavian country as your model of socialism is inadequate - try Vietnam, Cuba, China, USSR, Venezuela. We both agree that these countries do not practice the theoretical socialism and more like a "state capitalism", however, their implementation does not differ from the theory - an individual's economic freedom is stripped by being a subject to a planning authority, regardless of his representation.
Are you saying the countries of Western Europe & Latin America are repressive? Are you saying Viet Nam, Cuba, China or the USSR are (were) more repressive then the most capitalist country in the world - America. If so, we disagree. I have done many videos about America's genocides in Viet Nam, Indonesia, South America, the America Indian, Palestine, Iraq. The numbers are equal to anything the USSR racked up and certainly far latger then Cuba, China or Viet Nam.
1) (a) again, you refuse to accept reality, that being the states that have attempted to implement socialism the most have been disastrous for freedom. You can't seem to accept that private enterprise (economic freedom) is a NECESSARY CONDITION (emphasized to denote its use in its full logical proposition context) for political & civil freedom.
2) (b) American "genocide" is estimated to be 30 million lives. That is approximate to what the USSR inflicted on its own population, as well as China's "Great Leap Forward". Obviously there is a distinction, that being America's was done via imperialism, which could only be funded by a government controlled money supply. So alas, your accusation of private enterprise being responsible is erroneous; in all cases it is government deviation from the preservation of private enterprise.
So, you include America as an extreme genocidal power. Therefore, I am unclear why you did not include the USA on your list alongside Viet Nam, Cuba, Russia & China. Is it because it does not fit Hayek's paradigm?
As far as reality is concerned, psychiatrists claim 90% of all communication is projection. You appear to be projecting your own inability to deal with reality onto anyone who disagrees with you. This is not a valid debating style.
1) (b) Latin America houses 3 countries in the top 40 countries of the index of economic freedom; Europe has 19. Is it coincidental that the disparity between the two includes both prosperity & political corruption?
2) (a) You've now come full circle in your antipathy toward private enterprise by misapplying "capitalism" to the state responsible for the atrocities you speak of. It is no coincidence they are correlated with the growth of the welfare state.
Freedom is a larger concept then your limited category of "economic freedom." Socialism is just starting again to repair the genocidal damage brought by the USA's brand of capitalism in all the countries of Latin America. Socialism has brought the freedom to live - See my video Operation Condor - A Holocaust.
Again, in your perspective of reality, murdering was non-existent before the invention of property rights. And again, according to your logic, there is no correlation between the human progression over the last several thousand years and the development of a complex market economy.
You are being inadvertently or intentionally disingenuous. I made the valid point that the concept of Private Property was used to justify land theft and mass murder.
As to your second sentence, I think progress is highly overrated. While folks in ancient societies worked 4 hours a day, Post Modern man works a 70 hour week if he can find work at all.
I am not disagreeing with you that property has been used to justify atrocities. I am disagreeing with your implication that this makes the utility of property in society atrocious.
If you think progress is overrated, why do you subscribe to society? You are free to to live among the bushmen or other indigenous peoples. You can't buy your cake at the supermarket a block away and eat it too.
Your reading comprehension is approaching zero. The concept of private property was invented to steal communal land (land owned by a community) from those who were colonized [American Indians & the Irish]. It is the way Englishmen steal land.
As an independent person, I do not subscribe to society - view my videos to understand.
As to which society is the most repressive internally, please read "One Dimensional Man" by Herbert Marcuse. In America, desublimation is mistaken for freedom.
You're philosophy, and the philosophy of those who despise the concept of private, individual, ownership in a nutshell: primitive society is far superior to modern society.
As is classically defined, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production. If 100 people own a factory and vote on what to produce, 51 say airplanes, 10 say cars, 20 computers, 5 iPods, 7 tires, 1 condoms, and 6 peanuts, airplanes will be produced. Those 49 cannot produce what they want to produce. The tyranny of the majority has silenced the liberty of those 49.
People naturally do not want to relinquish their liberty, necessitating socialism be implemented by force. Got it?
Einstein: "the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion." The planning will always have the chance to run in conflict with an individual's choice and override it. That was my point and it is inescapable.
Before private property, all ancient societies owned land in common. There was no private property. This was true of the Celts (Gaels) in Ireland, before the English introduced private property as a means of stealing Irish land. Without land the Irish staved in the millions. Property theft (private property) lay at the root of the genocide.
Were the Celtic people better off under communal property or private property?
UCIBME does not consider the reality of solidarity in a communal society.
True, private property was and is non-existent in primitive societies. As my underlying argument has been with you, private property is a necessary condition for civil society. Arguing that this condition causes warfare and theft does not account for warfare being existent in primitive, communal society. RE: the starvation
Actually, Celtic society was peaceful, lawful (Breahon Law) and highly cultured. Regardless of the state of Celtic society, Irish land was stolen by an Imperial invader who used the Penal Laws and the institution of private property to steal all Ireland.
You may wish to view my YT video entitled "Ireland's Holocaust." The starvation of millions of Irish people was planned in the English Treasury.
Paul A Samuelson"Hindsight confirms how inaccurate its about the future turned out to be.Sweden and other Scandivanian places have somewhat lowered the fraction of GDP they use to devote through government. But still they are the most socialistic by Hayeks crude definition.Where are their horror camps? Have the vilest elements risen there to absolute power?When reports are compiled on measurable unhappiness do places like Sweden,Denmark,Finland,Norway best epitomize serfdoms?No.Of course not!"
The book was compsed in the 1940s, and arguably inspired by international events in the interwar years. I believe Road to Serfdom was relevant during the 'age of extreme' - a term coined by Hobsbawn, a famous British historian.
However, especially in the 21st century, the book is terribly outdated; the sheer scale of political activism and awareness shown in continental Europe and Scandanavia is a testamony to this. These countries large-scale governmental influence and interference.
If a defender of Hayek wishes to then retreat to the vague position that "markets" are better overall, then we can accept that as tacit acknowledgement of Hayek's fifth-rate intellectual credentials.
Defining "socialism" so narrowly is fine if a person wishes to define the word in that way, but then if that person wishes to make pronouncements about the entire variety of human societies and economic organisations, then far more than two defined words are necessary to be furnished in order for an intelligent conversation to proceed, since there are both observable benefits and problems with markets, as there are both benefits and problems with command & control economies.
It would seem that supporters of Hayek wish to describe two categories of economic organisation - "market" vs "command & control", and ascribe all the bad things that a person might want to avoid as a result of "command & control" and all the good things that a person might want to gain to the effect of "markets." It all sounds fine and sensible in theory, but these categories fail to define describe the observable variety of societies, so are not much help in understanding practical realities.
That's simply a misinterpretation. Supporters of Hayek, and I am among them, wouldn't describe economic organization in terms of categories, but as a spectrum of "freedom of action". The greater freedom an individual has to make decisions, the better. Hence, democratically or planned decision making, where the individual's "freedom of action" is diluted, is a bad thing.
You need to be more open minded. You can disagree with people, but your ideas will be made stronger if you consider their ideas thoughtfully rather rejecting them outright.
Your smug and complacent attitude ensures that you are unlikely ever to know more than you know today, which is very little.
Why does every commenter who does not wholly agree with you have -4 ?
Some psychiatrists claim 90% of all communication is projection. You may be projecting your closed mind and smug complacency onto me.
You seem to suffer from what psychiatrist Karen Horney (Horn - eye) calls the tyranny of shoulds. You concern yourself with how others behave. This is a neurosis.
Sir, you mention the wonderful services you received in socialist countries. Do you believe those countries could afford such services (via taxation) if the companies ceased trade with semi-capitalist U.S.A.?
My question is in response to the consensus that socialistic countries could not support their services without significant ties to capitalism. If so, this indicates the possibility socialism would collapse if all nations were socialists.
I just finished reading The Road to Serfdom. I seriously doubt if this gentleman even read the book. The "strawmen" he described don't match the series of conclusions I saw postulated by Hayek.
The socialists you idolized all used statist means to exert violent force, for the purpose of controlling other people. You describe the violent acts of democracy as moral. This leads me and any other rationalist to question your ethical judgment.
First off, your rhetoric seems to suggest that you prefer peaceful exchanges of value as a means of settling disputes. Is this true, or would you for instance have me attacked for disagreeing with you on how to solve social problems?
What drew much incredulity was Hayek's strange choice of Nazi Germany as the type of serfdom produced by economic planning.He had little else to say against it except that it practiced planning,and the spread of planning ideas in Britain to the influence of Germans such as Sombart,Plenge,Lensch,and Mueller van Bruck.Most of his readers had never heard of them.The British Left and U.S liberals were,reasonably enough,offended by the suggestion that they got their policies from these sorry bunch!
Zsylvanna, up to it again huh? If you actually read the road to serdfom you would see that Hayek systematically explains the various phases of social regression which ultimately leads to the final stage, namely fascism. He logically broke down the situation as he saw it, and provided numerous examples supporting his claim, one of them, was the failure of central planning. But he also explained how democracies inevitably lead to totalitarian states. Yugoslavia supports his theory, completely.
Winston Churchill read Road to Serfdoom during the 1945 election
told electors electors, that Labour would "bring in a Gestapo", which helped lose him the election. He later told Hayek, "You are absolutely right, but that will never happen in Britain."
Hayek began by saying, "This is a political book." That is what economists say when they want to disarm criticism, and to be judged by looser standards. Hayek then proceeded to merely write propaganda and not economics or political economy at all. His suppositions do not stand up and his dire predictions about the advance of "serfdom" in socialist states was immediately recognized then and now as just foolish unsupported rhetoric.
Hi fellows!There was infact a seriuos protest among Economists that had been awarded with Nobel Lauretatets,when Hayek got the award in 1974.Among many other´s Paul Samuelson and Gunnar Myrdal said that Prize had been Political over all sences.(Myrdal even wanted to abandon the "Nobel Prize").
The main reason was that Hayek´s contribution to economical theory was so limited and his credability so low out of fare out Right circles.But Internet had seem to made him a Uprising star again!
Yes time and also simple logic have completely debunked Hayek. He was such an ideologue and blind pundit that he tried to lump the Nazi's as socialists; how ridicules and anti-historical. It is also antithetical to his proposal that the modern socialist states are really freer than most of the non-socialist ones.
Yes, time and also simple logic have completely debunked Hayek. He was such an ideologue and blind pundit that he tried to lump the Nazi's as socialists; how ridicules and anti-historical. It is also antithetical to his proposal that the modern socialist states are really freer than most of the non-socialist ones.
where is my response when I dennoced Bush and our interventionist policy? there are a few other, haha, a socialist is calling me a whiner, i guess i will go back to reading.
"Such composite rankings must always be treated with caution.But the recurrent success of the Nordic welfare-states - with Finland ranked sixth and oil-Norway sixteenth out of 131 countries on a list of the most successful capitalist economies - indicates that generous relatively egalitarian welfare-states are neither utopias nor protected enclaves, but highly competitive participants in the world market."Michael Porter & Klaus Schwab,The Global Competitiveness Report World Economic Forum,2008.
it would be nice if America had the luck of being one of the well educated countries that does have a pop culture that drains peoples minds and a latino flock to our welfare state, we have problems the Eruopeans don't share with us, we can't turn a switch a be as sophisticated as Europe. After Bush, and what Obama will do, will only move us deeper into debt and make it harder for socail programs to be funded because we will be paying $500B in interest every year at least.
haha, "goodby", you mean....."i can't use Keynes to debunk Hayek and I have never read any von Mises, please leave because you are runing my life's work with your insight"........haha, alright, I'll leave you alone from here on out. I know you hate me, but please do read some Rothbard or Mises or even some of Jefferson's writings! Take care enemy of individual liberties! You should join the fight to return to the Constitution even tho you will retire in Eruope
haha, do we have two Austrians on here? This guy stands no chance other than to say, take from peoples freedoms to help those who do not do anything to better the world!
You reject the Enlightenment. It was Jean Jacques Rousseau who said: "The rich start governments to steal from the poor." It is the rich who have taken from the poor for 500 years.
B)Pro-marketeers may ask,is equality and generosity sustainable in the context of the world market?The irrefutable answer is Yes.For many years, the Scandinavian countries have also been at the very top of the Global Competitiveness Reports by World Economic Forum at Davos. Denmark,was ranked third in global competitiveness in 2008,and Sweden fourth in 2007-08.Britain (under New Labour)had slipped from second in 2007 to ninth in 2008 The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-08 World Economic Forum
competitive for what? you can't get capital that is not created by the government. if you want to start a busniess, you have to go to a government bank for a government loan, Jefferson did not want this for America and niether od I.
Socialism has many meanings - see my video "Varities of Socialism." You may also wish to read: (1) "To the Finland Station) by Edmund Wilson and (2) "The Marxists" by C. Wright Mills.
A)"The evidence that unequal societies inflict great damage on the lives and health of their citizens is clear.Why does it matter and what can be done?"Asks Göran Therborn professor of sociology at Cambridge University.Editor, Inequal.ities of the World:New Theoretical Frameworks,Multiple Empirical Approaches Verso,2006).
"There are at least three quite different kinds of inequality,and they are all destructive of human lives and of human societies.The first is inequality of health and death
I understand what you are saying, but getting rid of the MIC, which I support 100%, will not fund these ideas you speak of, maybe help pay for social security but have too much liability to think that just that would clear our debt and allow you to build this wonderful socailist nation you dream of.
You agree with Socrates: citizens of a democracy are to ignorant to manage it successfully. While I agree Americans are to stupid to maintain a democracy (it is lost) and create a decent Socialist society, the Europeans have done so. I lived in Europe and experienced a far superior Social Democratic life.
$800 billion from MIC each and every year to infinity. In ten years there would be $8 trillion. In 20 years it would amount to $16 trillion and far more if adjusted for inflation.
I don't think that we are too stupid to have a free society, we have just been lead too far away from the constitution to have any self respect and expect other to obsolve us from our problems, we the govt runs out of money, i stay here and love this country b/c I hope that this is the day we go back to the constitution and individual liberty. if you have already consided defeat and you think that we can't match Eruope in regards to socailism, why do you stay? I stay to support liberty.
I stay because I love my wife and she needs to be near her aging parents. If I was not married, I would return to Holland.
As to America's future, when America recognizes it is bankrupt there will be increasing "anomie," (see Emile Durkheim's definition). Anomie will destroy American bravado and fantasies. There will be a long period of loss of confidence in America;s customs, values and mores. It will be hard to adjust to reality - bankruptcy, loss of Empire and hyper inflation. Stay tuned.
I agree, the Empire will end and hyper inflation will set in, but to say that we will not return to original values means I will be defeated, and I want to fight for liberty!
Why do you view a new society with new values a defeat? Why do you view American torture, false imprisonment and mass murder as liberty? I don't get it. You have been thoroughly propagandized.
haha, I oppose our interventionist policy, I oppose everything Bush did! Talk about putting word in my mouth! I want commerce with all alliances with none as Jefferson wrote!
Even if you take down all of MIC, we still don't have enough for social security alone, there are studies that discuss the MIC and how it could be used to fund other things, but if you think we pull out the MIC and we are all the sudden a creditor nation, I say you go back to the number sir, if you want to talk facts.
The 2009 budget built be President Bush is over $3 trillion. Of this well over $1 trillion is military welfare queen waste. If the MIC budget were reduced by 90%, it would give budget planners well over $800 billion to work with. Your argument is that this is not meaningful. We disagree.
Don't let the bastards get you down. It's easy to get tea-baggers on the internet to spread lies. We're moving into an age of internet terrorism.
HoGraz 10 months ago 5
I'll tell you what socialism leads to: If you're a socialist nation, the CIA invades and overthrows the government installing a fascist dictatorship instead. It's happened many times. Many many times.
bapyou 11 months ago 4
God, you're good.
HoGraz 11 months ago
Hayek is an absolute fool. Fascism came out of a reaction to communism. And it was traditional conservatives (on the right) that coalesced with these men and brought them into power.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
The Austrian's beliefs on the gold standard set up the argument that government is the cause of the business cycle.Should government do anything to ease the pain?Austrians say no.Firms must be allowed to go bankrupt,jobs must be eliminated,wages must fall.Only then can the economy start anew on a healthier course.Miseans do not consider Hayek a Austrian,and even refer to him privately as a "social democrat"!!Because he did not subscribe to all hard-core Austrianism
zsylvana 1 year ago
Nice video. I did an analysis of Hayek's book for an essay in college and I came to many of the same conclusions you did.
epsilon8998 1 year ago
You got owned in the video response!
CandyFlipper1 1 year ago 41
@CandyFlipper1
Good to hear.
radiohogan 1 year ago
6) Markets can coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living,
zsylvana 1 year ago 3
@zsylvana
No Markets do not "worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living" which is why you're careful not to give real historical examples. Anywhere markets have been allowed to function, they've led to increasingly higher standards of living. Even in Lenin's NEP Russia. Within 5 years
the "direct re-introduction of Capitalism", as Lenin referred to the NEP, brought the Russian economy from the brink of collapse to pre 1914 levels of production.
0spiker 1 year ago
@0spiker
Dear Ospiker: While Irishmen and Arabs are great exaggerators, your following exageration is World Class: "Anywhere markets have been allowed to function, they've led to increasingly higher standards of living." At a minimum, the following book will cause you to qualify your statement: "Bad Samaritans" by Professor Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge U. (the school Keynes' taught at). I did a series of videos about the book. All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 1 year ago
5)Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long periods.
zsylvana 1 year ago 3
4) You can have planning based on routine, custom, tradition, magic, religion, ignorance – planning rules by rain-makers,shamans, fakirs and illiterates of all kinds. Worst of all, you can have planning directed by generals; for every army is based on an a priori allocation of resources. You can have planning organized in a semi-rational way by technocrats or, at the highest level of scientific intelligence, by workers and disinterested specialists.
zsylvana 1 year ago
3)Both basic kinds of labour allocation have existed on the widest possible scale throughout history. Both are therefore quite ‘feasible’. Both have also been applied in the most variegated fashions, and with most diverse results. You can have ‘despotic’ planning and ‘democratic’ planning .You can have ‘rational’ planning and ‘irrational’ planning.
zsylvana 1 year ago
2)These are the two basic ways of allocating resources, and they are fundamentally different from each other – even if they can on occasion be combined in precarious and hybrid transitional forms, which will not be automatically self-reproducing. Essentially they have a different internal logic.They generate distinct laws of motion. They diffuse divergent motivations among producers and organizers of production, and find expression in discrepant social values.
zsylvana 1 year ago
1)About the term ‘planning’.that Hayek missuses. The concept itself needs to be more precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
zsylvana 1 year ago
thk for posting,all the best,
hlimkb 1 year ago
Typical utopian socialist drivel. Socialism has only one costume, that of the commander. But underneath is the true character: a totalitarian. This poor sap of an eletist KNOWS what is best for you and for me. Even without asking. Go back to flipping burgers.
fractalecho 1 year ago
6:11-6:40. All, if not most of that was instituted in Russia by Lenin and Stalin.
policestory 1 year ago
I feel your straw man points, are not straw men at all. Hayek was opposing the rule not the exception. While it's nice to hear about a small group of "real" socialists hiding out in the Caucasus mountains. The Soviet Union and the National Socialists where the premiere examples of socialism in Hayek's time.
Anyhow, it's hard to have a real debate on youtube.
norseman7088 1 year ago
@norseman7088
Hayek had no knowledge of the history of socialism. I have watched him on YT.
As to the Nazi's being socialists, you are repeating pure unadulterated, heavy duty, industrial strength, no nonsense propaganda. You are either a G-man or an anti intellectual.
It was an Anarchist army in the Caucasus led by Nestor Makhno. There were Socialist Parties throughout Russia. All were mass murdered by Lenin's men, as were other communists (Mensheviks), Liberal Democrats, etc.
radiohogan 1 year ago
Hi! When I stumbled upon your videos, I thought you were a nice educated guys, although I am opposed to Keynesianism. However, while your videos are polite and nice to watch, your replies to comments are very strange. Capitalism has never been truly defined, but a general consensus is that private property is respected. That's it. Keynes argued against a gold standard, and therefore the Fed can debase the currency at will and buy gov't bonds, which the gov't can use to fund wars.
Shahn718 2 years ago
Aside from announcing you are a Libertarian who dislikes Lord John Maynard Keynes, What is it you find strange about my comments?
radiohogan 2 years ago
In a letter to the London Times Hayek, defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet's regime weren't talking
zsylvana 2 years ago 25
Anyway: Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period," only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference," he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism."
zsylvana 2 years ago 10
Greg Grandin in Counterpunch sings of Friedman, Hayek, Pinochet,:
Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian émigré and University of Chicago professor whose 1944 Road to Serfdom dared to suggest that state planning would produce not "freedom and prosperity" but "bondage and misery," visited Pinochet's Chile a number of times. He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution
zsylvana 2 years ago 10
RadioFreeWisconsin Most of the propositions you gave are nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only point out that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions from you arise from your failure to understand the logic of economic language.
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
...I'm sure the housing in Europe was very good, but are you aware that other people had to pay for it under threat of imprisonment? What is the moral argument for making someone else pay for your houes? Who's to say what a "decent" pension is? Who makes this judgement?
4. He never says it does so necessarily, he just says it's a threat.
Have you even read the book? You mention all the good programs, who pays for them?
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Part III
In your question about theft and imprisonment, you assert Socialists make others pay for their comfort. According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, the rich form governments to steal from the poor. Therefore, the thefts of the last 500 or a 1000 years have been by the rich against to poor, working class and middle class. This is called Capitalism. This is the answer to your question about morality. Socialism seeks to use the tax system to redistribute income and wealth in pursuit of justice.
radiohogan 2 years ago
...To say that Slavery or Colonialism is Capitalist because the people who did it identified with Capitialism is like saying that Stalinist purges are "Socialist" because the men who did it claimed to be Socialist. So that "moral argument" dousn't hold up. In fact, it's kind of a "straw man". You think taking things from people at the barrell of a gun is "justice"? How so? How would you like it if someone taxed the hell out of you in the name of "justice"?
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
If you view my video: :A History of Capitalism," you will understand my view that slavery was the essential building block of capitalism. Colonialism continues to be an essential tool of capitalism.
Today's wealthy are the thieves. They stole with fraud and deceit.
Your crowd routinely uses guns to steal.
I am being taxed unjustly to fund Imperial Wars for Oil, so the rich can gain. 54% of the Federal Budget is for "Defense" (i.e. war).
radiohogan 2 years ago
I am 100% oppossed to Colonialism and Slavery. The reason: it is contrary to Capitalism, it's forceful coercive taking, rather than voluntary trade. When you say, Voluntary Trade dousn't exist, you are right. Voluntary Trade is a goal being strived for, not something that has been acheived. Just as it is wrong to confuse all Socialism with the USSR, it is also wrong to confuse all Capitalists with un-Capitalist acts committed by self-described "Capitalists".
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Capitalism is slavery and colonialism.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Also, when you raise someone's taxes because of Slavery or Colonialism, or Feudalism, what is the justification for that unless this person was personally involved in any of these crimes? Click on my channel page, click on the link under web site, click on "Social Criticism" and then, "Is Inequality a Problem" to see what I think about this, "taking things from people through physical coercion is justice" nonesense.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Part W:
You, apparently, are not concerned with social inequality. You are not in solidarity with the poor, working class and lower middle class. You are practicing to be a stooge for the rich. This is how it is in most countries. Education prepares folks to be stooges.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part IV
Democracy decides on housing, pensions, etc. Democracy is the essence of Socialism.
4. What are you referring to when you write: "He never says it does so necessarily, he just says it's a threat?"
The programs are easily paid for by reallocation a large portion of the Defense Budget to serving the people. I also recommend a Progressive Income tax.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Basically, what I'm saying is go read the book, not what others say about it. State control of MOP is the dictionary definition of Socialism, so that's what I'm going off of. Also, Capitalism is about voluntary trade. Capitilist governments have stoled much especially during the colonial era, but that's not Capitalism. Forceful coercive taking isn't Capitalist. Just because a Capitalist country does something, dousn't mean that the activity is Capitilist.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Try to broaden your education beyond reading two sentence definitions in the dictionary.
Capitalism is about inefficient monopolies and vast thefts. In fact, there are no free markets and never have been. They a figment of the imaginations of neo liberal fools. All capitalist countries use force to intimidate their own citizens and commit mass murder abrod to create mass markets and steal natural resources.
radiohogan 2 years ago
That's a very polemical definition of Capitalism. As for the crimes of the West, you can not punish people for the crimes of their ancestors, a person can only be punished for crimes which they themselves have committed. Again, to "redistribute income" to ensure Equality of material condition requires phyiscal coercion. I do not agree with this because I believe physical coercion should be reduced to the minimum. To deny that the collection of taxes requires threats of violence is absurd.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
The neo fascists eliminated the Progressive Income tax in the 1980's transferring vast wealth to the super rich. This continued under Bush I and Clinton. Then Bush II dramatically reduced taxes on the rich. So, we are talking about a vast transfer of wealth (theft) by the wealthy.
I am talking about reinstating the Progressive Income Tax of 30 years ago in pursuit of fairness and equality.
You are a Drama Queen.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Hayek's strawmen?
1. No he dousn't, he just claims they have things in common. The Nazis and Communists were indeed Socialists, this dousn't mean that all Socialists are Nazis or Communists.
2. It depends how you define the "center"? The local, Worker's Committee could be defined as the "center."
3. He never said this, he just says the threat is there. Socialism is state control of MOP, the MOP was indeed state controlled in USSR, therefore it is Socialist...
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
1. The Nazi movement in America also use the word Socialist in their 3 word name. It's a matter of propaganda. Neo fascists and Libertarians enjoy claiming Socialists are Nazis & Communists. Such folks don't understand the history of Socialism. Certainly, Hayek had no knowledge of the history of socialism. Just view videos of Hayek on YouTube. He was an intellectual fraud.
2. what does yor list refer to? I can't answer your point two, because I don't know what you are referring to.
See Pt II
radiohogan 2 years ago
Part II
3. What are you referring to in your third point? Socialism can exist without ownership of the MOP. Again, you are unaware of socialist history, much like your mentor. I suggest you view my video: "Varieties of Socialism." You could also read "To the Finland Station" by Edmund Wilson and "The Marxists" by C. Wright Mills.
See Pt III
radiohogan 2 years ago
Nice vid!
SweetDissident 2 years ago
I don´t think i accused F.W Hayek for anything in this serie of comments.I just pointed out some thinker that not thought Hayek´s work was sound.Among them Karl Popper,Milton Friedman,Robert Nozick,Paul Samuelson,Marc Blaug, Brian Caplan,Gordon Tullock,Frank H.Knight
Gerard Radnitzky,David M. Kreps,Nicolas Kaldor,Richard Kahn,Gary King,Robert O Keohane and some more.All highly well-respected thinkers.I also gave some exampels and sources there people could get their opinion on the subject
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
so zslyvana continues to attack the author of the argument and not the argument, even while it was made evident before that this is fallacious reasoning.
I don't know what is more amazing: The level of irrationality on youtube, or that I am amazed at the level of irrationality on youtube.
UCIBME 2 years ago
So, those who don't take your man Hayek seriously are irrational?
radiohogan 2 years ago
No, only those who argue why not to "take Hayek seriously" as an argument against his claims in the Road to Serfdom. It follow this line of thinking:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim (claim X) is false.
Now if someone insistently uses this thinking even while given a chance to propose a more logical argument, I can only conclude that this person is irrational.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Please remember, psychiatrists claim 90% of communication is projection. Are you projecting your irrationality onto myself? Shame on you.
radiohogan 2 years ago
The poster of this vid didn't "attack" Hayek. In fact, he makes valid points re: Hayek's misrepresentation of socialism. And Hayek's propaganda was quite effective, and even to this day . . . the unscholarly or unaware see socialism as analogous with Hitler or totalitarianism. . . confuse it with communism, and don't even understand what communism means, thinking of statist regimes i.e. our avowed "enemies." It's hilarious, because we definitely have state capitalism here in the u.s.
SweetDissident 2 years ago
And from Here some Critque of Austrian School Methodology in General.(Either of them could be called "Leftist")
-Frank H. Knight - Professor Mises and the Theory of Capital,Economica, 1941
-Robert Nozick - On Austrian MethodologySynthese 36, 1977: 353-392
-Gerard Radnitzky - Reply to Hoppe: On Apriorism in Austrian Economics -
-Radnitzky, Gerard and Bouillon,Hardy s.), Values and the Social Order (2 Volumes), Aldershot (England): Avebury 1995: 189-
zsylvana 2 years ago 6
Dear Zsylvana:
Thank you!
All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 2 years ago
Here is some critical reading about Austrian School of Economics:
-Karl Popper - The Logic of Scientific DiscoveryHutchinson, 1959
-Milton Friedman - Essays in Positive Economics: chapter 1,University of Chicago Press, 1966
-Jonathan Baron - Thinking and DecidingCambridge University Press, 1988
-David M. Kreps - Game Theory and Economic ModellingOxford University Press, 1991
-Gary King, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba - Designing Social InquiryPrinceton University Press,1994
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
CATO-Libertarian Brian Caplan continue -"This is ridiculous. Stepping back to my title, why shouldnt you be an Austrian economist? The fundamental reason is that their main original claims are incorrect. In consequence, even when Austrians hit on a good topic, it is hard for them to follow through because they are struggling NOT to be neoclassical.
-Brian Caplan. "Why i am not a Austrian economist and why you shouldn´t be either",2004.
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
Right winger and Libertarian at CATO institute Brian Caplan write in his
" Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist ... And Why You Shouldnt Be Either"
"Hayek get credit for ideas that he did not anticipate; he gets credit for ideas that preceded his birth! Hayek made some contributions here - though frankly he was very repetitious. But he did little to advance modern rational expectations theorizing, and even less to anticipate its empirical weaknesses."
zsylvana 2 years ago 6
Most introductory economics texts don't even mention Hayek or none of the Austrian school, and its economists are absent from many encyclopedias or indexes of the century's great economists. Several of its founding figures struggled to make ends meet, rejected by universities which did not view their work as sound.
Even today, the movement's faculty boasts no more than 75 scholars Worldwide!!By comparison, there are over 20,000 economists in the American Economics Association alone.
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
Mainstream economists dismiss Hayek as a crank. Nobel economist Paul Samuelson wrote that "I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." Noted economist Mark Blaug has called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone."
zsylvana 2 years ago 6
It´s little sad that Fare out Right like Milton Friedman,simply thought that -Austrian scholars where useful idiots that "In their fanatism did a good job" for open up the way for "Real Freemarket Economists" with their think-thanks even if he personaly thought "there was to much of them".But he did indeed all he could to se that they not get any credit,or influence,and did all he could to stop Hayek-Rothbard epigones in economic society.Maybee Austrians Scolars are comfortable with that role?
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
1) quoting an esteemed economist's viewpoint on another economist with the intent to undermine an argument made by the latter economist in no way undermines the actual argument. And for simplicity, let's not even consider that the latter economist's argument is directly tied to his argument about "information economics", which the former economist actually praises.
2) land may be private property, but private property may not be land, something you refuse to realize.
UCIBME 2 years ago
1. Samuelson destroys Hayek's professional academic qualifications. Whatever Hayek was, he wasn't an economist.
2. Economics teaches income and wealth are held as land, labor or capital. Horses & land were the first things stolen by capitalists.
radiohogan 2 years ago
1. Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, these claims are meaningless when countering Hayek's argument because they do not challenge the argument in anyway.
2. Were horses and land stolen before capitalists existed?
UCIBME 2 years ago
1. Samuelson challenges the essential credibility of von Hayek. Hayek is reduced to being a crank - a know nothing.
2. Capitalists invented the concept of private property as a method of land theft.
radiohogan 2 years ago
1. Again, this has nothing to do with the argument presented in the Road to Serfdom. It is relevant to an argument about the credibility of Hayek, which I hope you can discern.
2. I already said that not all private property is land and you even agreed with your response about income and wealth. Now you are re-introducing this concept again, which doesn't refute my point: Was wealth stolen prior to the existence of capitalists?
UCIBME 2 years ago
1. It has everything to do with the Road to Serfdom. It portrays the author as a crank. Cranks are not credible. Therefore, Road to Serfdom is nonsense.
2. Capitalism began with the concept of private property. This concept was used to steal communal land, horses, cattle, etc. Prior to private property such theft was committed by bandits rather then the state.
radiohogan 2 years ago
There should be a logical fallacy that points out when people like you just fish for and point out logical fallacies in the other person's arguement in an attempt to undermine that person's arguement.
You have not made one refuting arguement throughout this entire comment section. All you do is cry, "AD HOMINEN, STRAWMAN, and RED HERRING!!!" How about you make an arguement, instead of bitching about logical fallacies the entire time?
Mmmkay?
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago 8
Hayek did not understand the history of Socialism. He was merely a propagandist.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I think you called false claims "straw men".
There is a general tendency for people to want to categorize bad arguments as fallacies, but an argument is only a straw man if it misrepresents the arguments of others.
While Hayek came to incorrect conclusions, not every bad argument needs to be categorized as a formal fallacy.
I agree with your criticisms otherwise.
comradepinko 2 years ago 4
A link to the article zslyvana so blatantly, perniciously, quotes in agreement with a straw man argument.
tinyurl [dot] com/ycuu5uk
UCIBME 2 years ago
zsylvana is making a clear logical fallacy in all of his/her posts. The Road to Serfdom is not about Hayek's proposal of business cycles nor his theory of capital & money. It is about information and how a planned economy cannot possibly be informed of the proper allocation of resources, thus justifying individual freedom to act. In fact in the same article quoted by zsylvana, Paul Samuelson commends Hayek on his "information economics". It astounds me how purposely he is taken out of context!
UCIBME 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand Zsylvana's debating style. Z seeks to discredit your man Hayek and yourself. Don't you feel discredited?
radiohogan 2 years ago
Discrediting a man who puts forth an idea, does, in no way, discredit the idea. This is called an "ad hominen" argument, and it is a fallacy.
UCIBME 2 years ago
It is not an ad hominen attack to quote an esteemed economist on the work of another.
radiohogan 2 years ago
4)Milton Friedman: ".The Method also tends to make people intolerant. If you and I we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We go out and observe the facts. That's how science progresses. ... the fact is that fifty, sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory ... so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn't been any progress " F.A Hayek .a Biography p 174.
zsylvana 2 years ago 10
3)Milton Friedman -"The Austrian methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. If you're always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another's shoulders?" in "Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Paperback)
by Alan Ebenstein p.174"
zsylvana 2 years ago 10
2)In 1969,Milton Friedman,after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions.
(M.Friedman "The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261284. " and
M.Friedman "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisit"
zsylvana 2 years ago 9
Dear Zsylvana:
Thank you!
All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 2 years ago
1)That Hayeks Buisness Cycle allready in 1930s was harshly criticised by such as John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa and Nicholas Kaldor and a lot other is wellknown.But also fare out rightwing economist as Milton Friedman and Gordon Tullock from the University of Chicago and right wing libertarian Bryan Caplan, an Scholar of the Cato Institute also totally discretited Hayek is not so known.
zsylvana 2 years ago 8
4)Paul Samuelson writes "There were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity. In 1931, Hayeks Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success. In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 19271931 (and the 19312007) historical scene."
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp
zsylvana 2 years ago 5
3)Paul Samuelson continue " So you might say Hayek as an economist fell into what physicists call a black hole. Wisely, libertarian Hayek turned away to weighty constitutional and philosophical interests." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp. 14:
zsylvana 2 years ago 5
2)Paul Samuelson writes further "Hayeks (1941) The Pure Theory of Capital was not stillborn. But it was a pebble thrown into the pool of economic science that seemingly left nary a ripple.
Hayeks grave defeats in the early 1930s predisposed him in the World War II years to write what he entitled, The Road to Serfdom (1944). I will postpone my take on that bestseller."
zsylvana 2 years ago 4
1)US post war most credited economist Paul Samueleson writes " Hayek himself, naively, diagnosed the fall of his 1931 opus as due to the fact that his period-of-production mutterings there did not do full justice to the not-yet-completed Austrian theory of capital (Menger, Böhm et al.). Therefore, heroically but hopelessly, he wasted years on a task that he was grossly under-equipped to handle."
zsylvana 2 years ago 4
The fact is that Hayek was not taken serouis among Economists since early 1930-tees.His "Nobel-Prize" 1974 was considered as a "scandal" among a large majority of economist,from Right to Left in political view.Higly credited economist Richard Kahns allready 1932 statet:
"If Hayek believes that the spending of newly printed currency on employment and consumption will worsen our current terrible depression, then Hayek is a nut."
zsylvana 2 years ago 5
Hayek tried to connect the atrocities committed by the Nazi's and Stalinists to my summary; that is he didn't implicate socialism, but rather, the implementation of socialism, which the only thing of pragmatic value.
Why didn't the "socialist" Scandanavian countries become like China, Russia, or Nazi Germany? They're all ranked in the top 35 of the index of economic freedom - they are not in fact implementing socialism, or at least implementing socialism correctly.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Again, a Hayek follower insists Nazis and Stalinists were socialists. I see no relationship between Socialism & Fascism - none! In the end, Hayek can be seen as a third rate propagandist / apologist for the far right.
As to Scandanavia, the Scandanavians think they are socialists. That is all that matters.
radiohogan 2 years ago
No, I was insisting Nazism and Stalinism are by-products of the repression of the individual, which is a principle featured in socialism.
Using your logic with Scandanavia, the Stalinists thought they were communists. Is that all that matters?
UCIBME 2 years ago
Please direct me to sources (writers) who associate socialism and repression. This is pure propaganda. Is Finland repressive? Socialist Finland is the best educated country on the planet. If Socialism is repressive, why are all the countries of Latin America (with the exception of the American puppet regime in Columbia) turned to Socialism.
All the people of Western Europe have a far higher standard of living then in America. This is due to reforms sought by Socialists for a century or more.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Socialism being repressive is exactly the insight Hayek was trying to convey. Again, using a Scandanavian country as your model of socialism is inadequate - try Vietnam, Cuba, China, USSR, Venezuela. We both agree that these countries do not practice the theoretical socialism and more like a "state capitalism", however, their implementation does not differ from the theory - an individual's economic freedom is stripped by being a subject to a planning authority, regardless of his representation.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Dear UCIBME:
Are you saying the countries of Western Europe & Latin America are repressive? Are you saying Viet Nam, Cuba, China or the USSR are (were) more repressive then the most capitalist country in the world - America. If so, we disagree. I have done many videos about America's genocides in Viet Nam, Indonesia, South America, the America Indian, Palestine, Iraq. The numbers are equal to anything the USSR racked up and certainly far latger then Cuba, China or Viet Nam.
See Part II:
radiohogan 2 years ago
You're illogicality has climaxed.
1) (a) again, you refuse to accept reality, that being the states that have attempted to implement socialism the most have been disastrous for freedom. You can't seem to accept that private enterprise (economic freedom) is a NECESSARY CONDITION (emphasized to denote its use in its full logical proposition context) for political & civil freedom.
UCIBME 2 years ago
2) (b) American "genocide" is estimated to be 30 million lives. That is approximate to what the USSR inflicted on its own population, as well as China's "Great Leap Forward". Obviously there is a distinction, that being America's was done via imperialism, which could only be funded by a government controlled money supply. So alas, your accusation of private enterprise being responsible is erroneous; in all cases it is government deviation from the preservation of private enterprise.
UCIBME 2 years ago
So, you include America as an extreme genocidal power. Therefore, I am unclear why you did not include the USA on your list alongside Viet Nam, Cuba, Russia & China. Is it because it does not fit Hayek's paradigm?
radiohogan 2 years ago
Please read Zsylvana's comments below.
As far as reality is concerned, psychiatrists claim 90% of all communication is projection. You appear to be projecting your own inability to deal with reality onto anyone who disagrees with you. This is not a valid debating style.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Please read Zsylvana's comments below.
radiohogan 2 years ago
1) (b) Latin America houses 3 countries in the top 40 countries of the index of economic freedom; Europe has 19. Is it coincidental that the disparity between the two includes both prosperity & political corruption?
2) (a) You've now come full circle in your antipathy toward private enterprise by misapplying "capitalism" to the state responsible for the atrocities you speak of. It is no coincidence they are correlated with the growth of the welfare state.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Freedom is a larger concept then your limited category of "economic freedom." Socialism is just starting again to repair the genocidal damage brought by the USA's brand of capitalism in all the countries of Latin America. Socialism has brought the freedom to live - See my video Operation Condor - A Holocaust.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Anglo Americans were mass murdering Indians well before the Industrial Revolution.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Again, in your perspective of reality, murdering was non-existent before the invention of property rights. And again, according to your logic, there is no correlation between the human progression over the last several thousand years and the development of a complex market economy.
For your enjoyment: watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
UCIBME 2 years ago
You are being inadvertently or intentionally disingenuous. I made the valid point that the concept of Private Property was used to justify land theft and mass murder.
As to your second sentence, I think progress is highly overrated. While folks in ancient societies worked 4 hours a day, Post Modern man works a 70 hour week if he can find work at all.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I am not disagreeing with you that property has been used to justify atrocities. I am disagreeing with your implication that this makes the utility of property in society atrocious.
If you think progress is overrated, why do you subscribe to society? You are free to to live among the bushmen or other indigenous peoples. You can't buy your cake at the supermarket a block away and eat it too.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Your reading comprehension is approaching zero. The concept of private property was invented to steal communal land (land owned by a community) from those who were colonized [American Indians & the Irish]. It is the way Englishmen steal land.
As an independent person, I do not subscribe to society - view my videos to understand.
radiohogan 2 years ago
As to which society is the most repressive internally, please read "One Dimensional Man" by Herbert Marcuse. In America, desublimation is mistaken for freedom.
radiohogan 2 years ago
You're philosophy, and the philosophy of those who despise the concept of private, individual, ownership in a nutshell: primitive society is far superior to modern society.
To me, that statement is absurd.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Your philosophy says private property genocide is good.
radiohogan 2 years ago
As is classically defined, socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production. If 100 people own a factory and vote on what to produce, 51 say airplanes, 10 say cars, 20 computers, 5 iPods, 7 tires, 1 condoms, and 6 peanuts, airplanes will be produced. Those 49 cannot produce what they want to produce. The tyranny of the majority has silenced the liberty of those 49.
People naturally do not want to relinquish their liberty, necessitating socialism be implemented by force. Got it?
UCIBME 2 years ago
There is no classical definition of socialism, according to Edmund Wilson ("To the Finland Station") & C. Wright Mills ("The Marxists").
Please read Einstein's non classical definition of Socialism in the Monthly Review.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Einstein: "the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion." The planning will always have the chance to run in conflict with an individual's choice and override it. That was my point and it is inescapable.
UCIBME 2 years ago
Before private property, all ancient societies owned land in common. There was no private property. This was true of the Celts (Gaels) in Ireland, before the English introduced private property as a means of stealing Irish land. Without land the Irish staved in the millions. Property theft (private property) lay at the root of the genocide.
Were the Celtic people better off under communal property or private property?
UCIBME does not consider the reality of solidarity in a communal society.
radiohogan 2 years ago
True, private property was and is non-existent in primitive societies. As my underlying argument has been with you, private property is a necessary condition for civil society. Arguing that this condition causes warfare and theft does not account for warfare being existent in primitive, communal society. RE: the starvation
Title: What Caused the Irish Potato Famine?
mises [dot] org [slash] freemarket_detail [dot] aspx?control=88
UCIBME 2 years ago
Actually, Celtic society was peaceful, lawful (Breahon Law) and highly cultured. Regardless of the state of Celtic society, Irish land was stolen by an Imperial invader who used the Penal Laws and the institution of private property to steal all Ireland.
You may wish to view my YT video entitled "Ireland's Holocaust." The starvation of millions of Irish people was planned in the English Treasury.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Paul A Samuelson"Hindsight confirms how inaccurate its about the future turned out to be.Sweden and other Scandivanian places have somewhat lowered the fraction of GDP they use to devote through government. But still they are the most socialistic by Hayeks crude definition.Where are their horror camps? Have the vilest elements risen there to absolute power?When reports are compiled on measurable unhappiness do places like Sweden,Denmark,Finland,Norway best epitomize serfdoms?No.Of course not!"
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
Well said!
radiohogan 2 years ago
The book was compsed in the 1940s, and arguably inspired by international events in the interwar years. I believe Road to Serfdom was relevant during the 'age of extreme' - a term coined by Hobsbawn, a famous British historian.
However, especially in the 21st century, the book is terribly outdated; the sheer scale of political activism and awareness shown in continental Europe and Scandanavia is a testamony to this. These countries large-scale governmental influence and interference.
historyboy12 2 years ago
If a defender of Hayek wishes to then retreat to the vague position that "markets" are better overall, then we can accept that as tacit acknowledgement of Hayek's fifth-rate intellectual credentials.
utinomen 2 years ago 7
Hello Utinomen:
Your three comments are excellent. Do you make YT videos? If not, you may wish to think about doing so. I will help in any way I can.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Defining "socialism" so narrowly is fine if a person wishes to define the word in that way, but then if that person wishes to make pronouncements about the entire variety of human societies and economic organisations, then far more than two defined words are necessary to be furnished in order for an intelligent conversation to proceed, since there are both observable benefits and problems with markets, as there are both benefits and problems with command & control economies.
utinomen 2 years ago 6
It would seem that supporters of Hayek wish to describe two categories of economic organisation - "market" vs "command & control", and ascribe all the bad things that a person might want to avoid as a result of "command & control" and all the good things that a person might want to gain to the effect of "markets." It all sounds fine and sensible in theory, but these categories fail to define describe the observable variety of societies, so are not much help in understanding practical realities.
utinomen 2 years ago 7
That's simply a misinterpretation. Supporters of Hayek, and I am among them, wouldn't describe economic organization in terms of categories, but as a spectrum of "freedom of action". The greater freedom an individual has to make decisions, the better. Hence, democratically or planned decision making, where the individual's "freedom of action" is diluted, is a bad thing.
UCIBME 2 years ago
You need to be more open minded. You can disagree with people, but your ideas will be made stronger if you consider their ideas thoughtfully rather rejecting them outright.
Your smug and complacent attitude ensures that you are unlikely ever to know more than you know today, which is very little.
Why does every commenter who does not wholly agree with you have -4 ?
That's weird.
1000101er 2 years ago
Some psychiatrists claim 90% of all communication is projection. You may be projecting your closed mind and smug complacency onto me.
You seem to suffer from what psychiatrist Karen Horney (Horn - eye) calls the tyranny of shoulds. You concern yourself with how others behave. This is a neurosis.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Sir, you mention the wonderful services you received in socialist countries. Do you believe those countries could afford such services (via taxation) if the companies ceased trade with semi-capitalist U.S.A.?
My question is in response to the consensus that socialistic countries could not support their services without significant ties to capitalism. If so, this indicates the possibility socialism would collapse if all nations were socialists.
TheFiggRig 2 years ago
We disagree.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I just finished reading The Road to Serfdom. I seriously doubt if this gentleman even read the book. The "strawmen" he described don't match the series of conclusions I saw postulated by Hayek.
thill55 2 years ago
Please approve this: "u r dum".
punkrockefeller 2 years ago
boring.
punkrockefeller 2 years ago
@hogan:
The socialists you idolized all used statist means to exert violent force, for the purpose of controlling other people. You describe the violent acts of democracy as moral. This leads me and any other rationalist to question your ethical judgment.
First off, your rhetoric seems to suggest that you prefer peaceful exchanges of value as a means of settling disputes. Is this true, or would you for instance have me attacked for disagreeing with you on how to solve social problems?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
What drew much incredulity was Hayek's strange choice of Nazi Germany as the type of serfdom produced by economic planning.He had little else to say against it except that it practiced planning,and the spread of planning ideas in Britain to the influence of Germans such as Sombart,Plenge,Lensch,and Mueller van Bruck.Most of his readers had never heard of them.The British Left and U.S liberals were,reasonably enough,offended by the suggestion that they got their policies from these sorry bunch!
zsylvana 2 years ago 35
Zsylvanna, up to it again huh? If you actually read the road to serdfom you would see that Hayek systematically explains the various phases of social regression which ultimately leads to the final stage, namely fascism. He logically broke down the situation as he saw it, and provided numerous examples supporting his claim, one of them, was the failure of central planning. But he also explained how democracies inevitably lead to totalitarian states. Yugoslavia supports his theory, completely.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Dear Zsylvana:
Thank you for responding to these fascists. I haven't been feeling well and, therefore, was unable to take an interest in responding.
Your help, as always, is much appreciated.
All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 2 years ago
Winston Churchill read Road to Serfdoom during the 1945 election
told electors electors, that Labour would "bring in a Gestapo", which helped lose him the election. He later told Hayek, "You are absolutely right, but that will never happen in Britain."
zsylvana 2 years ago 34
Hayek began by saying, "This is a political book." That is what economists say when they want to disarm criticism, and to be judged by looser standards. Hayek then proceeded to merely write propaganda and not economics or political economy at all. His suppositions do not stand up and his dire predictions about the advance of "serfdom" in socialist states was immediately recognized then and now as just foolish unsupported rhetoric.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 12
Hi fellows!There was infact a seriuos protest among Economists that had been awarded with Nobel Lauretatets,when Hayek got the award in 1974.Among many other´s Paul Samuelson and Gunnar Myrdal said that Prize had been Political over all sences.(Myrdal even wanted to abandon the "Nobel Prize").
The main reason was that Hayek´s contribution to economical theory was so limited and his credability so low out of fare out Right circles.But Internet had seem to made him a Uprising star again!
zsylvana 2 years ago 26
Thank you Mike,
Yes time and also simple logic have completely debunked Hayek. He was such an ideologue and blind pundit that he tried to lump the Nazi's as socialists; how ridicules and anti-historical. It is also antithetical to his proposal that the modern socialist states are really freer than most of the non-socialist ones.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 4
Thank you Mike,
Yes, time and also simple logic have completely debunked Hayek. He was such an ideologue and blind pundit that he tried to lump the Nazi's as socialists; how ridicules and anti-historical. It is also antithetical to his proposal that the modern socialist states are really freer than most of the non-socialist ones.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
How can you call yourself honest if you don't post things that show you putting words in my mouth?
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
Please stop whining. I postede every single one of your comments.
radiohogan 2 years ago
where is my response when I dennoced Bush and our interventionist policy? there are a few other, haha, a socialist is calling me a whiner, i guess i will go back to reading.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
Your whining is boring. I posted every single comment you made.
radiohogan 2 years ago
"Such composite rankings must always be treated with caution.But the recurrent success of the Nordic welfare-states - with Finland ranked sixth and oil-Norway sixteenth out of 131 countries on a list of the most successful capitalist economies - indicates that generous relatively egalitarian welfare-states are neither utopias nor protected enclaves, but highly competitive participants in the world market."Michael Porter & Klaus Schwab,The Global Competitiveness Report World Economic Forum,2008.
zsylvana 2 years ago 3
it would be nice if America had the luck of being one of the well educated countries that does have a pop culture that drains peoples minds and a latino flock to our welfare state, we have problems the Eruopeans don't share with us, we can't turn a switch a be as sophisticated as Europe. After Bush, and what Obama will do, will only move us deeper into debt and make it harder for socail programs to be funded because we will be paying $500B in interest every year at least.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
Goodby!
radiohogan 2 years ago
haha, "goodby", you mean....."i can't use Keynes to debunk Hayek and I have never read any von Mises, please leave because you are runing my life's work with your insight"........haha, alright, I'll leave you alone from here on out. I know you hate me, but please do read some Rothbard or Mises or even some of Jefferson's writings! Take care enemy of individual liberties! You should join the fight to return to the Constitution even tho you will retire in Eruope
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
I don't hate folks. Again, you may be projecting your frustration.
Goodby!
radiohogan 2 years ago
haha, do we have two Austrians on here? This guy stands no chance other than to say, take from peoples freedoms to help those who do not do anything to better the world!
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
You reject the Enlightenment. It was Jean Jacques Rousseau who said: "The rich start governments to steal from the poor." It is the rich who have taken from the poor for 500 years.
radiohogan 2 years ago
B)Pro-marketeers may ask,is equality and generosity sustainable in the context of the world market?The irrefutable answer is Yes.For many years, the Scandinavian countries have also been at the very top of the Global Competitiveness Reports by World Economic Forum at Davos. Denmark,was ranked third in global competitiveness in 2008,and Sweden fourth in 2007-08.Britain (under New Labour)had slipped from second in 2007 to ninth in 2008 The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-08 World Economic Forum
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
competitive for what? you can't get capital that is not created by the government. if you want to start a busniess, you have to go to a government bank for a government loan, Jefferson did not want this for America and niether od I.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
All banks in Scandinavia are private as far as I know.
radiohogan 2 years ago
You obviously don't know, socialism means the government has control of all means of production.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
Socialism has many meanings - see my video "Varities of Socialism." You may also wish to read: (1) "To the Finland Station) by Edmund Wilson and (2) "The Marxists" by C. Wright Mills.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Wie Geths?Bist du aus von Linz?Gruss gott!Wunderbar!
zsylvana 2 years ago
A)"The evidence that unequal societies inflict great damage on the lives and health of their citizens is clear.Why does it matter and what can be done?"Asks Göran Therborn professor of sociology at Cambridge University.Editor, Inequal.ities of the World:New Theoretical Frameworks,Multiple Empirical Approaches Verso,2006).
"There are at least three quite different kinds of inequality,and they are all destructive of human lives and of human societies.The first is inequality of health and death
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
I understand what you are saying, but getting rid of the MIC, which I support 100%, will not fund these ideas you speak of, maybe help pay for social security but have too much liability to think that just that would clear our debt and allow you to build this wonderful socailist nation you dream of.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
You agree with Socrates: citizens of a democracy are to ignorant to manage it successfully. While I agree Americans are to stupid to maintain a democracy (it is lost) and create a decent Socialist society, the Europeans have done so. I lived in Europe and experienced a far superior Social Democratic life.
$800 billion from MIC each and every year to infinity. In ten years there would be $8 trillion. In 20 years it would amount to $16 trillion and far more if adjusted for inflation.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I don't think that we are too stupid to have a free society, we have just been lead too far away from the constitution to have any self respect and expect other to obsolve us from our problems, we the govt runs out of money, i stay here and love this country b/c I hope that this is the day we go back to the constitution and individual liberty. if you have already consided defeat and you think that we can't match Eruope in regards to socailism, why do you stay? I stay to support liberty.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
I stay because I love my wife and she needs to be near her aging parents. If I was not married, I would return to Holland.
As to America's future, when America recognizes it is bankrupt there will be increasing "anomie," (see Emile Durkheim's definition). Anomie will destroy American bravado and fantasies. There will be a long period of loss of confidence in America;s customs, values and mores. It will be hard to adjust to reality - bankruptcy, loss of Empire and hyper inflation. Stay tuned.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I agree, the Empire will end and hyper inflation will set in, but to say that we will not return to original values means I will be defeated, and I want to fight for liberty!
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
Why do you view a new society with new values a defeat? Why do you view American torture, false imprisonment and mass murder as liberty? I don't get it. You have been thoroughly propagandized.
radiohogan 2 years ago
haha, I oppose our interventionist policy, I oppose everything Bush did! Talk about putting word in my mouth! I want commerce with all alliances with none as Jefferson wrote!
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
American "free trade" is the New Colonialism." See my video New Colonialism.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Even if you take down all of MIC, we still don't have enough for social security alone, there are studies that discuss the MIC and how it could be used to fund other things, but if you think we pull out the MIC and we are all the sudden a creditor nation, I say you go back to the number sir, if you want to talk facts.
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
The 2009 budget built be President Bush is over $3 trillion. Of this well over $1 trillion is military welfare queen waste. If the MIC budget were reduced by 90%, it would give budget planners well over $800 billion to work with. Your argument is that this is not meaningful. We disagree.
radiohogan 2 years ago