you scare the hell out of me. Is it ok to destroy some one else if they dont agree with you? It is ok to steal from people if they have more than you? How are you going to sacrifice the wealthy on the "alter of neoliberalism"?? That sounds very dangerous. It is impossible to get rid of the rich. All you can do is make to political class rich, or have a free market where the people who produce the most goods become rich... take your pick.. the USSR was a great place..
@BenBurkley07 I think if the disparity is great enough then it is OK, no it is necessary to steal from those have too much by those who have nothing. Nobody can get disgustingly rich and still have impoverished people with an even playing field and the playing field does not tilt by itself. Also why compare the poor of the USSR with the poor of America? Should we let our poor get as badly off as the poor in the USSR. Is that the argument?
@reverenceforall who decides what is "great enough" no one can. It is impossible, classical liberalism calls for individual freedom. That is all, freedom from violence, from coercion etc. I don't care what you believe, but simply because I live near you or you decide to trade with me, or we are from the same town or what ever, those things do not give you the right to take from me or anyone else. (nor does it give the right for me to take from anyone.) Violence is violence, by the state
@BenBurkley07 Any reasonable person knows that if one person is homeless and starving and the other has earned for 10 generations then that IS great enough and this country is full of such wealth disparity. That is what causes riots eventually when people like you insist that nothing can be measured when actually a standard can be put in place that measures it. When you take any principle to the extreme regardless of circumstances it has the opposite effect than it was intended for.
@reverenceforall or the highway robber, it is still violence. If a person obtains their wealth by voluntary associations than that means that he or she has pleased and brought value to many other people, that is the only way a free society can function. (a robber, or thief does not have rights to their property because they used violence to obtain it.) I do not expect everyone to be wealthy, but I do expect charity to fill the void for the poor (bill gates and warren buffet are giving away..
@BenBurkley07 If the people were charitably minded in the first place there wouldn't be homeless and starving people all over this country like a third world nation.
@ajgolfer1 Actually I AM from a third world nation. Is that what Americans should aspire to now--becoming a third world nation?. Well that's just terrific, we are on the right path.
@WeekendAtBernankes There are many people living in their cars. and the police harass them for doing so. There are people living in tent cities 30 miles outside NY city. All the videos are on You Tube. What planet do you hail from if I may be so bold to ask?
@reverenceforall their wealth.) But the state can not decide who is a charitable case and who is not. That is not the only argument against wealth distribution (it causes drastically shifted time preference and reduced self reliance and pride) The problem of economic calculation and the profit method allow resources to be allocated in the most efficient manner, something socialism can not do (because their are no prices for goods) Anyways I hope that you continue to read and grow and that
@MrAlienlovechild I was only pointing out your ignorance, and how little you know. The Chicago School, I might add, which Friedman was the principal founder, is the dominant school in Economics today, not keynesianism, and there is no going back. Also, Friedman, and classical liberal policies have done more for the poor than other system. Those are the facts for you; but it would seem youre too much of an emotional dogmatic vacuous self-righteous deluded ideologue, I pity you and your stupidity.
@spader49 "Friedman, and classical liberal policies have done more for the poor than other system."
Friedman's neoliberal hell has spread misery and toil to the vast majority of the world's dispossessed. The depth of anger I feel for fucks like you is bottomless and undending. We are going to begin to murder you fucks in your motherfucking beds. Soon. Your time is at an end. No more. NO MORE.
@bapyou You're very lucky that you can say that from the safety of your home, I guarantee you that you would not be so 'brave' in person. You should stick to talking about landforms, rather than topics like economics. The reason why you get all angry is because the facts about the greatness of Friedman conflicts with your laughable fundamentalist marxist delusions that you are emotionally invested in.
The poor in capitalist countries are still richer than the average people under socialism.
@MrAlienlovechild It was Friedman, not Hayek, that advised Pinochet. Also, Chile today has the richest people in latin America, the lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant mortality rate, and the lowest amount of people living below the poverty line due to Friedman, who believed that people in a dictatorship did not deserve to suffer in their material lives as well as their politically lives; he called the regime 'despicable' 'terrible' so why dont you read more, you deluded ignoramus.
What goes around comes around all the intellectual bull thrown by all these brilliant PH.D's has not stopped greed by politicians, bankers, corporations, speculators and others. It has not made one bit of difference in the deceit and theft of wealth from the middle class. Free markets they do not exist for the most part in anything other than a mutated form compiling their poisons to have them passed on to the general population by the same politicians and bankers. Your all full of shit morons.
He's right, I'm progressive myself, and I definitely prefer the ideas of Keynes to those of the Chicago School.
The problem is that you guys seem to believe in a magic, or a market God, and this is.. fundamentally irrational. No matter how complicated it is, just leaving it to the gods of the market is not a solution. We have to identify all the factors, and control the market so that the outcome is the most favorable to everyone.
There's no malice, we just want the system to work well for all.
@HisokanoOkami Can you explain what exactly is irrational about the idea of a free market? Simply trying to belittle the idea by talking about a Market God to make it seem ridiculous won't cut it. "What exactly is your definition as favourable to all?" For example, If you take resources an allocate them from one place to another, haven't you dis-serviced someone? How is that then "favourable to all"
@stupidfleshmonkies What's irrational about the idea of the free market? The idea that it's this extraordinarily complicated machine that can be left alone and will always behave in a rational and fair way. The idea that the less you interfere with the market, the more reliable it will be. It's a fundamentally religious point of view born from ignorance.
@HisokanoOkami Well first you have to define your idea of "fair" but second, the entire universe acts alone with complex laws without intervention. No one makes the planets orbit the sun, but they do it naturally. In a similar way in economics when everyone acts according to their self-interest, with consumers trying to save money and producers trying to make it, competition between the groups with usually set things where they belong. Why is that such a difficult/impossible thing?
@stupidfleshmonkies Sorry, I meant to aim that at you, but I clicked the wrong reply button.
Fairness is an easily understood concept. It means preventing monopolies so that new ideas can grow and flourish, it means preventing abject squalor and hardship when it's within our means without severely harming the livelihood of another. It basically aims to keep us competitive by making sure that nothing gets too powerful or too pitiable.
@HisokanoOkami I agree, the universe is like the economy. It's not a great big complicated machine that works for our best interest if left alone. Eventually the universe is going to make this planet uninhabitable, the sun will go supernova, or space debris, right? Would you suggest we just die? Or should we come together as a people and try to survive it? That's all the state is, is a collection of people trying to find an equitable and reasonable way to live together.
@HisokanoOkami Do you also believe that evolution is faith-based because the complexity of life could not have occurred by chance? Do we need an intelligent designer?
The market isn't magic, it's a distributed adaptive system. Treating the state like a deus ex machina that can intervene from on high and improve upon the choices of people using threats of force sounds far more religious and irrational to me than believing that free people can better pursue their own goals.
@CernelJoson Evolution doesn't require faith, it just requires a whole lot of requisite knowledge. It might seem like it takes faith when you don't understand it.
Abiogenesis might require a bit of faith, though, but that's not the argument you're trying to make.
Sometimes mandatory industries, or small business need support only a State can provide. A completely free market, absent any government oversight would necessarily evolve into us obeying megacorporations rather than governments.
@HisokanoOkami I wasn't saying evolution requires faith; that was an analogy based on the argument you used. Saying that advocates of free markets rely on faith is as dishonest as claiming that evolution relies on faith.
The point of a state function is that people do not willingly support the use of resources for that purpose, so there is no way to gauge the value of its services.
The consolidation of corporate power is caused by government, not limited by it.
@CernelJoson I think you're basing that all on anecdotal evidence. Yeah, America is sort of corporatist, but that's because we're too free market, not because we're too big government. When Government and Business work together to that degree, certainly bad things can happen, which is why I'm a huge advocate of severely limiting the impact of money on elections. Using America as a bad example of big government is like using Norway as a bad example of free market policies.
@HisokanoOkami America is not a good example of a free market at all. The government adds tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, a list of rules and regulations, every year. The financial sector is one of the most highly regulated in the world. Regulations tend to favor large corporations at the expense of their competitors, which is why large corporations are often in favor of regulation. Corporatism stems from government privilege which is antithetical to free market principles.
@CernelJoson Whether or not it closely matches your ideal of a free market notwithstanding, you must admit it is one of the--if not the--most vehemently free market developed nation on Earth. Moreover, the idea that regulations favor the large corporations necessarily is absurd. That might often be the case in America, but most nations favor small businesses, and actively work against the formation of monopolies. The free market by itself has no mechanism to defend against those.
@HisokanoOkami I don't know how you purport to measure how free a market is but rhetoric is not the same as actual policy. By that standard the USA also has the best civil liberties despite things like the Patriot Act.
Just because nations purport to favor small businesses does not say anything for the actual effects of regulations.
Monopolies cannot last on a free market. Profit attracts competition unless the government, itself a monopoly, blocks competitors from entering the market.
@CernelJoson Well then, rather than relying on rhetoric, why not point me to an example of a nation in deed, rather than rhetoric, more free market oriented than the United States. It's hard to take somebody seriously who believes that monopolies cannot exist without government help. Look at De Beers, for instance. Resources are finite, and as resources become more scarce it becomes increasingly possible and likely for companies to monopolize that resource. There's also I.P. to consider.
@HisokanoOkami Various rankings of economic freedom place several countries higher than the US, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada.
Considering that the South African government has been regulating the diamond trade since the 19th century and makes it illegal to own rough diamonds without a license (a law drafted by DeBeers founder, Cecil Rhodes), I'd say that example is a case in point.
@CernelJoson As Socialist as most of these nations are, it's surprising that you feel that they're better examples of Free Markets than the United States.
De Beers is a multinational corporation. South Africa is only a tiny part of the equation. Of course you most likely know that, you're just trying to rely on rhetoric rather than substance to make points.
@RavingDissension - I don't see that that fits with the facts. Warren Harding was a "Reagan republican". He broke unions, lowered taxes and put more money in the hands of the rich. In the short term Asset Growth was able to hide shrinkage of real GDP. In 1930, we faced our 2010 situation and Harding did nothing to address the shrinkage of the middle class. We have a similar portion of the nation's wealth locked away, useless as then, the same result will occur unless we come to our senses.
Increasing wages across the board, significant reducing Wilson's debt, reducing unemployment from 20% in 1921 to 3.3% in 1930, sharpest decline in the misery index in U.S. history, soaring profits and productivity, lower income taxes eliminated, middle income taxes cut significantly, and the list goes on.
Your assertions are patently false. The U.S. would not see such economic prosperity until the 1980's.
@MrAlienlovechild omg, o.o he called hayek, who's dead and clearly wasn't a fascist, a fucking dickhead! omg he's so fucking edgy! go drink cyanide you fucking pussy
As it turns out, the growth rate was about 50% higher in the earlier period, which means that no matter how common sense austerity seems to be, it doesn't predict GDP growth.
Hayek does make an interesting point, and if you replace the word "intellectual" with "libretarian", the description is spot on.
The formula is simple. If the reality doesn't match the theory, then you have to throw out the theory. If the growth rate was higher between 1980 an d 2010, when we had 35% top tax bracket, you have to vote for supply side economics. If the growth rate was higher between 1945 and 1980 when you had 50% - 90% top tax bracket, you have to vote for keynesianism.
"1945 and 1980 when you had 50% - 90% top tax bracket, you have to vote for keynesianism."
Because in that period, a marginal tax rate of 90% did not mean you paid 90% on the top bracket. Before Reagan, there were so many deductibles and gimmicks favoring the upper class that in reality they paid 20-25%. By lowering the tax rate and broadening the base, he actually took in more revenue.
"What is not comprehensible must be nonsense?" Sorry, but which 'intellectual' has said that? Hayek? WHAT a huge STRAWMEN. Please provide links to who said that.
Bork is completely disingenuous (or, LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH) when he says that there's no proof of oligopoly behaving like a monopoly. At least he thinks a monopoly is bad? Oh wait, he must use that to argue against certain govt monopolies (but not on Defense) which is nonsense since THEY benefit ALL Americans, not just the monopolist
@scoves9484 Bork is THE "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy". In other words, he's a feudalist: the mighty rule and are therefor always right.
The anti-intellectual stance is derived from the dumb mans fear that his his prejudices are wrong, like racism. uneducated racist whites "know" that "whites are superior", so when it's proven to him that there's no such thing, he dislikes intellectuals
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
@babybirdhome: and when you buy these goods from someone else, you actively hurt the business that was doing what you percieved as bad. In other words, you have power over that business. On the other hand, when you vote for someone, your power over that politician ends right then and there. You can't hurt them anymore. And then they're shipped off a few hundred miles away to mingle with the lobbyists.
@babybirdhome: A presence of regulation has been bad in many more cases. Also, I find it hard to believe the lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad, because you don't know how the regulation would have worked out if it had been there. What happened without regulation may have been bad, but what would have happened with it may have been even worse.
Also, yes, you can't not buy essential goods, but you can buy them from someone else.
what neither speaker has addressed here is why the intellectuals have such a strong, ingrained predisposition towards regulation, towards government, and towards "liberal" causes. is there a good explanation for this uniformity of thinking?
@akosh33 Because a lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad in many cases. Where the "intellectuals" go wrong is ignoring the corruption of principles of the people who were responsible, and assuming that that same corruption of principles wouldn't take place within government because the government has that extra measure of public accountability which a free-enterprise doesn't. We're able to not vote for someone with little cost, but we're not able to not buy essential goods or services.
@akosh33 Yes, it is called Eliteism, intellectuals sit around all day thinking, using their brains but not actually engaging with the common man/woman. they have no comprehension of what real physical labor to produce corporeal goods is like, nor do they understand the desires and or needs of the masses. They, in their lofty selfrighteousness, think they have thought of all the problems of the world and how to fix them. Fixing them of course even if it doesn't need fixing buy central planning.
@tothatextent Hayek was not dancing around a point. He was responding to claims of malice on the part of intellectuals. Why would one assume that simply because a person believes a different way is correct that you would assume malice as a first choice?
@koontunes101 Interestingly the proponents of statism often see malice where proponents of liberty do not. Call it the Malthusian curse; they ascribe to almost all men a sort of super-bestial nature that ignores man's social nature. This borders on a self loathing, projected onto all other men and it is what really feeds the statist beast; the libido dominandi. The fear of other men is the origin of the state.
@tothatextent You should know that Hayek did not like doing two things. He did not like attributing bad intentions to people(at least in public), and he did not like being off the cuff & spontanous in interviews(probably because he was not very good at it). Your ''dancing around'' is just Hayek trying to relate the question back to somthing he really knows about rather then speculaton. He does this in all his interviews.
@CurtHowland that and he dared to openly challenged them during his confirmation hearing. he knew he was smarter and he would let them know it, even at the expense of not getting on the Supreme Court.
Ted Kennedy was his biggest target during the hearings.
His argument is about intention vs. result. The stupid intellectuals of universities always prefer intent. They would rather legislate something into existence.
@MrShittyFag Without intention, result is an inherent variable and thus subject to any change, be it positive or negative. What is stupid about attempting to ensure that the greatest good is always done? Even intellectuals are wrong, their logic is pretty sound.
@koontunes101 Ok, you're right, it is possible to ensure an outcome with the "greatest good" for a GROUP of people with something in common. That's just a matter of enforcement. The real issue is it not whether or not it helps one group of people, but whether it does it at anyone's expense. Minimum wadges, for example, do benefit the citizens who have them, but MW also do a number on everyone else. The people who's labour isn't as valuable, whose businesses are understaffed, the unemployed, etc.
Few deep thinkers of the last century have been as brilliant and impactful as von Hayek. In my humble view, he surpasses even Friedman. This video demonstrates just why.
I think Hayek makes an excellent point. Intellectuals are used to understanding how things work and take pride in their rationality, so when they see something happening and do not understand the mechanics of it their inclination is to dismiss it as nonsense. A proper empiricist or a 1st rate intellectual would judge from the measurable results, but the 2nd rate intellectual (most intellectuals - especially outside their specialty) is too arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance.
I think Hayek makes an excellent point. Intellectuals are used to understanding how things work and take pride in their rationality, so when they see something happening and do not understand the mechanics of it their inclination is to dismiss it as nonsense. A proper empiricist or a 1st rate intellectual would judge from the measurable results, but the 2nd rate intellectual (which is most of them - especially outside their specialty) is too arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance.
@AlanRLight its precisely this arrogant pride in their ignorance is what liberals intensely dislike most about the present day rightwing. Actually, Hayek makes the point that 'intellectuals' dislike what they don't know. This is NOT TRUE, and in actual fact it IS what liberals have against the so called right wingers! Once again, the rightwing takes the criticism against them and turns it on its head. Might be 'clever' but its an illegitimate argument. On the unknown, Intellectuals are neutral
Hayek makes an interesting point on intellectuals. However, as much of a fan as I am with Hayek I have to respectfully disagree with him. The result of Adam Smith hands invisible hand as compared to the Keynsian or socialist model of economics are crystal clear in the end result. So this really has nothing to do with the LACK of understanding by intelectuals (liberals) because the results ARE visable and concrete. The intellectuals have an agenda. That agenda is CONTROL TO THEM! It is sinister!
@SuperGuitarman69 I think he is saying they don't understand the mechanism by which those results are brought forth. The why and the how not the what. As in, you can't say when A happens B will be a result. You can only say that the invisible hand of the market is overall a positive thing. How the hell are these second rate intellectuals going to show off with that? They need to be able to speak in a condescending manner in detail about bullshit and sound like an authority even when wrong.
@randomgai1234 Yeah unfortunately they are advising presidents. Hell even Nixon had Milton Friedman advising him and still allowed the Keynesian economists to rule the roost for political expediency
What's so amusing about this is that Bork and Hayek refer to "Intellectuals" as "They"...as if they are some other class as themselves, when by all definitions, Bork and Hayek are most definitely Intellectuals.
@jarden69 It's true that they are intellectuals, but they are talking about the intellectuals who want a planned economy with their plans in place, which Hayek and Bork do not.
I think that Bork's point is spot on, and the root cause of this is our so-called "educational systems", which also explains Hayek's point: educational systems indoctrinate young people to hold certain questionable views as fact, and they also stunt the critical thinking processes of young people, so that they unthinkingly respect authorities who "have all the answers" (anything else being unintelligable). Students should have skepticism studies as a core subject to help wisen them up to the BS.
@1thruZ yeah i wouldn't take that into account either because THE DEMISE of THE FEDERAL RESERVE and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION are more important than that.
Exposing fascists wherever they hide ... and whatever words or concepts they hide behind. There are plenty of free market whackos in academia. Keep defending them, & the murder, torture & impoverishment they engender. And keep using that word "free," which makes it difficult for the uninformed to disagree with your agenda: "Free market? Sure! I'm all for freedom! Especially for big rapacious corporations & greedy scumbags like Milton Friedman and Freidrich von Hayek!"
It's so obvious you desperately want to be considered an intellectual. (Just like Bill Maher!) But you, and everyone who has read your comments, know you're not. There is some good news for the rest of us. Young students who would have been ripe for your Marxist indoctrination 20yrs ago, are rejecting it outright today. The reason apologists of true fascism and enslavement, such as yourself, are so vicious and vitriolic, is because you know you and your kind are a dying breed.
@TheTrueLiberal "Young students who would have been ripe for your Marxist indoctrination 20yrs ago, are rejecting it outright today."
That's right. Call it "indoctrination." Plant that seed in the malleable mind and it will flower into hatred. You're no different than Fox News and its moronic grade school-level "discourse."
"apologists of true fascism & enslavement, such as yourself, are so vicious & vitriolic, is because you know you & your kind are a dying breed."
Nice try, creampuff. Viciousness & vitriol are products of deep-seated anger at the true apologists for fascism & enslavement such as YOU. How 'bout that Pinochet? What a free marketeer!
Really. Best way to defelct attention away from your own latent fascism is to deflect it onto others. Vicious? You bet. I've got a nice hammer for your skull.
@TheTrueLiberal Not fun anymore? (As if our exchange here is the focus; as if whether or not I'm an "intellectual" is the point; as if whether or not you are having fun matters.) So how 'bout that Pinochet, creampuff? Milton Friedman and the fascist torturer, murderer, rapist. There's your democracy in action, creampuff. The functional term here is ... creampuff. Facism. It's what's for dinner!
What is the point / focus? For you it seems to be the use of the words 'creampuff' and 'Pinochet'. When you're a wannabe intellectual, you think the 'winner' of an argument is determined by who asks the most clever rhetorical question. It's not. That only works on Bill Maher / Jon Stewart.
@TheTrueLiberal Well yeah, dude. How 'bout that Pinochet? A great man wasn't he? True free market champion. Go free markets! Tolerance for fascism or bust!
(Comment brought to you by the Hertiage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973.)
@TheTrueLiberal " ... please explain the 'Pinochet' thing" You're the all-knowing omniscient conservative. You explain it for "the benefit of others." I mean, why grant me a forum to spread my "Marxist indoctrination"? There are several good books on Chile & I have other things to do. Fortunately for right-wing numbskulls such as yourself, in the name of privatization, conservatives have consistently underfunded schools engendering a student population with an antipathy towards learning.
"why grant me a forum to spread my 'Marxist indoctrination'?"
Because I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of speech.
'You're the all-knowing omniscient conservative...blah, blah...Pinochet...blah, blah...right-wing numbskulls...blah, blah, Pinochet..."
Typical of the radical left. Everyone who disagrees with them shall be labeled 'conservative'. You don't even know the meaning of the word. But I'm sure 'Pinochet' is somewhere in your definition.
@TheTrueLiberal Go back to posting comments on those Milton Freidman love fest videos you love to post on. Is Friedman close enough to your definition of "conservative"? Or do you have your own special idiosyncratic definition known only to a few academics in Bern?
_______________
Free markets and fascism! Ronald Reagan and Augusto Pinochet! They make the world go round. (Comment brought to you by the Hertiage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973!)
Free markets! No history! Milton Friedman! Hitler was a socialist! Franco was a communist! Call any historical figure anything you want to call them! It doesn't matter! Free markets are what matter! Selma von Hayek the cross-dressing philosopher was an economist!
(The preceding exclamatory remarks brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973. Donate today!)
Free markets and fascism! Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatchwhore and Augusto Pinochet! George Blair and Tony Bush! They make the world go round!
(Comment brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. Coming to a neoliberal movie theater near you soon. Donate today! Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973.)
@bapyou That is a very progressive approach. An approach that began at about the same time as the American civil war. Much has happened since then. Hitler was a piker compared to Stalin & Mao. No matter how many millions are murdered you refuse to give up your obviously disasterous manifesto. Go get a real education.
Oligopolies can only exist if the free market has been restricted thru licensing. The behavior of those companies in an oligopoly will indeed lead towards a monopolistic behavior not because they are satisfying a direct consumer need, but because they have been given the power to operate in a particular market over others who could offer competition to fulfill that need at a better price and or improved quality.
Isn't it interesting how the intellectuals of yesterday are looked at as misled and are almost always proven wrong? Think about it. I realized in science class that almost everything that was accepted as fact as as near as 600-700 years ago has been proven wrong, for example, the earth being flat, the heliocentric theory, etc. So why is it that without any tangible proof we are expected to believe in evolution, global warming, and the big bang theory? Just food for thought.
Well Hayek seems very sensible here. Although he did predict national healthcare and the welfare state would lead to totalitarianism in Britain and Europe. Heil Gordon Brown!
The main political parties are just as bigoted as the BNP. Why not abort babies if the population really is too high? Immigrants are mostly hard working and contribute more than they take, more so than babies. The reason why is because politicians care about votes and immigrants who aren't here cannot vote. They never mention deporting people who CAN vote. If you outlaw a person or product you bring guns and gangs to it. Blame the govt for their crime & Welfare allows ppl to take more than earnt
I need to develop the point more. Politicians don't care about harming those who cannot vote so for the demagogic anti-immigrant, Trade Unionist and/or semi-racist vote they have a sure fire winner. It's like the Nazis gaining votes by attacking minorities as scapegoats. It's the oldest/best trick in electioneering. We should not only have a 100% amnesty for all illegal immigrants but we should end free-at-the-point-of -service welfarism so then immigrants can ONLY make a net econmc contribution
So these learned intellectuals are claiming either a) intellectuals are wrong because they just don't understand, or b) the only thing that makes sense is what they say.
Sorry. This is just incoherence. Argue the merits of something specific. Or go home.
If only Rothbard didn't die so ridiculously young! I'd pay good money to hear him commentate on the last couple of years of surprise at the housing crash of the glut fuelled by inflation...it's like no-one knows business cycle theory except the Austrians so then the average irresponsible ignoramus invokes the importance of maintaining 'demand' and profligate fiduciary credit expansion by bailing out the bust banking system that should have gone down with its epic Greenspan glut.
"The intellectual has very strongly this feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense."
That's incomprehensible and therefore nonsense.
AKA What constitutes 'intelligible?' The framework/guidelines by which we organize intelligibility are entirely arbitrary and therefore unintelligible. Reductio ad absurdum.
@mj011n1r He may have been talking about dolphins. Or even you. What I was saying is the intellectual's position is nonsense. That isn't clear from my original comment.
@3684541 Gotcha...that's not what i gained...therefore I don't think he was talking about you. Dophins thing they can engineer the world, however, damn dolphins.
Lol, mj011n1r pwned you and you probably didn't even notice.
How does it feel knowing that you are infinitesimally inferior to the economist and great mind of real stature who is FA Hayek? Given that you've tried to disparage a salient and very prescient point he made in a lucid and now irrefutable manner (since Interventionism once again rules the world as in the 70s, and *real* economic theory is more or less dead as a popular scholarly tradition) you should feel like a prat.
You completely don't get what Hayek's saying. Don't put pearls before swine.
The point he's making is that a lot of irresponsible, arrogant and statolatrist pseudo-intellectuals contribute by far the loudest voice in academia and public economic policy and their leftism is based on ignorance and denial and a refusal to come to grips with economic theory and indeed a disparaging of the very concept of irrefutable laws governing man's societal relations in exchange. He's damn right and THEN SOME.
This is part of the huge problem. Conservatives and Libertarians are always misinterpreting Keynesians and Socialists as power hungry tyrnats who lie for their own gain. That certainly is not me.
Only some people misinterpret all socialists and Keynesians this way, there have undoubtedly been power hungry people who have used socialism as a method for controlling societies. I personally view most advocates of Keynesian economics and socialists as well intentioned, but wrong. Utopia is impossible, but the free market is the best possible system for the improvement of quality of life of the average person.
I think a more astute observation comes from another interview linked to the boxes on the right entitled "Hayek on Keynes" ... The biggest problem with Keynsianism was not Keynes himself but his followers... Keynes warned 6 weeks before his death to Hayek that he was displeased in his pupils desire to abuse inflationary policy... Its no different then how politicians abuse the constitution and take it out of context to justify their interests...
Socialism and Keynesianism are always destructive. There is no reason to support such theories other than for power-hungry tyrants to make dishonest gain.
Von Hayek's complaint about intellectuals is absolutely absurd. If I were to go to a private businessman today with a proposal that required him to take on some degree of risk, his first question would be what the tangible goal of this venture was. If I were to tell him that I cannot demonstrate by lowly logic that this proposal is conducive to a palpable good or benefit for him or for society at large, then he would reject the proposal. Sensible actions are the actions of the sane.
@Thucydides2004 Sensible actions are the actions of the sane. But rejecting what you do not understand makes you neither sensible or sane. Such a statement relies on the fallacious statement that all people who reject complexity are sensible and sane.
That's the favourite word of the snivelling 'intellectuals' rearing its ugly head again: 'absurd.' Or is it the phrase 'absolutely absurd?' Isn't Hayek absolutely absurd! in making a comment which obviously touches a nerve with you given that you're irrelevant counter argument.
EVERYONE-'absurd' in their language means-'I disagree with you but I cannot explain why because I am of a superstitious and closed mind.' Open your ears so that you can recognise the priests of violence!
If you YOU knew anything, you'd know that if that were the only case where the word monopoly was used, it would never be used. There's almost no Industry where there is actually just one company. ever heard of partial monopoly?
@johnnondrowsyd for example the anti-trust against Mirosoft was brought bit it's competitors, so in this case they were using politics to gain economic advantage.
Comment removed
dubified89 2 weeks ago
mass immigration is destroying the west.
knightschwartz 1 month ago
I agree that these two are definitely not intellectuals.
atlasman55 3 months ago
@reverenceforall You may not. hud(dot)gov for housing. I'll be so bold as to let you figure out how to Google for the rest.
WeekendAtBernankes 3 months ago
An interesting point.
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild
you scare the hell out of me. Is it ok to destroy some one else if they dont agree with you? It is ok to steal from people if they have more than you? How are you going to sacrifice the wealthy on the "alter of neoliberalism"?? That sounds very dangerous. It is impossible to get rid of the rich. All you can do is make to political class rich, or have a free market where the people who produce the most goods become rich... take your pick.. the USSR was a great place..
BenBurkley07 4 months ago
@BenBurkley07 I think if the disparity is great enough then it is OK, no it is necessary to steal from those have too much by those who have nothing. Nobody can get disgustingly rich and still have impoverished people with an even playing field and the playing field does not tilt by itself. Also why compare the poor of the USSR with the poor of America? Should we let our poor get as badly off as the poor in the USSR. Is that the argument?
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@reverenceforall who decides what is "great enough" no one can. It is impossible, classical liberalism calls for individual freedom. That is all, freedom from violence, from coercion etc. I don't care what you believe, but simply because I live near you or you decide to trade with me, or we are from the same town or what ever, those things do not give you the right to take from me or anyone else. (nor does it give the right for me to take from anyone.) Violence is violence, by the state
BenBurkley07 4 months ago
@BenBurkley07 Any reasonable person knows that if one person is homeless and starving and the other has earned for 10 generations then that IS great enough and this country is full of such wealth disparity. That is what causes riots eventually when people like you insist that nothing can be measured when actually a standard can be put in place that measures it. When you take any principle to the extreme regardless of circumstances it has the opposite effect than it was intended for.
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@reverenceforall or the highway robber, it is still violence. If a person obtains their wealth by voluntary associations than that means that he or she has pleased and brought value to many other people, that is the only way a free society can function. (a robber, or thief does not have rights to their property because they used violence to obtain it.) I do not expect everyone to be wealthy, but I do expect charity to fill the void for the poor (bill gates and warren buffet are giving away..
BenBurkley07 4 months ago
@BenBurkley07 If the people were charitably minded in the first place there wouldn't be homeless and starving people all over this country like a third world nation.
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@reverenceforall ever been to a third world nation? are you on crack?
ajgolfer1 4 months ago
@ajgolfer1 Actually I AM from a third world nation. Is that what Americans should aspire to now--becoming a third world nation?. Well that's just terrific, we are on the right path.
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@reverenceforall There is no one in this country who is homeless or starving for lack of a government program.
WeekendAtBernankes 3 months ago
@WeekendAtBernankes There are many people living in their cars. and the police harass them for doing so. There are people living in tent cities 30 miles outside NY city. All the videos are on You Tube. What planet do you hail from if I may be so bold to ask?
reverenceforall 3 months ago
@reverenceforall but there wouldnt be any more homeowners or people who can afford food than there are now either.
manicbranic 3 months ago
@reverenceforall their wealth.) But the state can not decide who is a charitable case and who is not. That is not the only argument against wealth distribution (it causes drastically shifted time preference and reduced self reliance and pride) The problem of economic calculation and the profit method allow resources to be allocated in the most efficient manner, something socialism can not do (because their are no prices for goods) Anyways I hope that you continue to read and grow and that
BenBurkley07 4 months ago
@reverenceforall someday you too will know that the path to equality is freedom and private property rights.
BenBurkley07 4 months ago
@BenBurkley07 And some day you will wake up, hopefully.
reverenceforall 4 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild I was only pointing out your ignorance, and how little you know. The Chicago School, I might add, which Friedman was the principal founder, is the dominant school in Economics today, not keynesianism, and there is no going back. Also, Friedman, and classical liberal policies have done more for the poor than other system. Those are the facts for you; but it would seem youre too much of an emotional dogmatic vacuous self-righteous deluded ideologue, I pity you and your stupidity.
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49 "Friedman, and classical liberal policies have done more for the poor than other system."
Friedman's neoliberal hell has spread misery and toil to the vast majority of the world's dispossessed. The depth of anger I feel for fucks like you is bottomless and undending. We are going to begin to murder you fucks in your motherfucking beds. Soon. Your time is at an end. No more. NO MORE.
bapyou 4 months ago
@bapyou You're very lucky that you can say that from the safety of your home, I guarantee you that you would not be so 'brave' in person. You should stick to talking about landforms, rather than topics like economics. The reason why you get all angry is because the facts about the greatness of Friedman conflicts with your laughable fundamentalist marxist delusions that you are emotionally invested in.
The poor in capitalist countries are still richer than the average people under socialism.
spader49 4 months ago 3
@MrAlienlovechild It was Friedman, not Hayek, that advised Pinochet. Also, Chile today has the richest people in latin America, the lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant mortality rate, and the lowest amount of people living below the poverty line due to Friedman, who believed that people in a dictatorship did not deserve to suffer in their material lives as well as their politically lives; he called the regime 'despicable' 'terrible' so why dont you read more, you deluded ignoramus.
spader49 4 months ago
where's bjork? there's no music on this :(
jcfbell3001 5 months ago
What goes around comes around all the intellectual bull thrown by all these brilliant PH.D's has not stopped greed by politicians, bankers, corporations, speculators and others. It has not made one bit of difference in the deceit and theft of wealth from the middle class. Free markets they do not exist for the most part in anything other than a mutated form compiling their poisons to have them passed on to the general population by the same politicians and bankers. Your all full of shit morons.
jobedied 5 months ago
He's right, I'm progressive myself, and I definitely prefer the ideas of Keynes to those of the Chicago School.
The problem is that you guys seem to believe in a magic, or a market God, and this is.. fundamentally irrational. No matter how complicated it is, just leaving it to the gods of the market is not a solution. We have to identify all the factors, and control the market so that the outcome is the most favorable to everyone.
There's no malice, we just want the system to work well for all.
HisokanoOkami 5 months ago
@HisokanoOkami 3:48
zentonil 5 months ago
@HisokanoOkami Can you explain what exactly is irrational about the idea of a free market? Simply trying to belittle the idea by talking about a Market God to make it seem ridiculous won't cut it. "What exactly is your definition as favourable to all?" For example, If you take resources an allocate them from one place to another, haven't you dis-serviced someone? How is that then "favourable to all"
stupidfleshmonkies 5 months ago
@stupidfleshmonkies What's irrational about the idea of the free market? The idea that it's this extraordinarily complicated machine that can be left alone and will always behave in a rational and fair way. The idea that the less you interfere with the market, the more reliable it will be. It's a fundamentally religious point of view born from ignorance.
HisokanoOkami 5 months ago
@HisokanoOkami Well first you have to define your idea of "fair" but second, the entire universe acts alone with complex laws without intervention. No one makes the planets orbit the sun, but they do it naturally. In a similar way in economics when everyone acts according to their self-interest, with consumers trying to save money and producers trying to make it, competition between the groups with usually set things where they belong. Why is that such a difficult/impossible thing?
stupidfleshmonkies 5 months ago
@stupidfleshmonkies Sorry, I meant to aim that at you, but I clicked the wrong reply button.
Fairness is an easily understood concept. It means preventing monopolies so that new ideas can grow and flourish, it means preventing abject squalor and hardship when it's within our means without severely harming the livelihood of another. It basically aims to keep us competitive by making sure that nothing gets too powerful or too pitiable.
HisokanoOkami 5 months ago
@HisokanoOkami I agree, the universe is like the economy. It's not a great big complicated machine that works for our best interest if left alone. Eventually the universe is going to make this planet uninhabitable, the sun will go supernova, or space debris, right? Would you suggest we just die? Or should we come together as a people and try to survive it? That's all the state is, is a collection of people trying to find an equitable and reasonable way to live together.
HisokanoOkami 5 months ago
@HisokanoOkami Do you also believe that evolution is faith-based because the complexity of life could not have occurred by chance? Do we need an intelligent designer?
The market isn't magic, it's a distributed adaptive system. Treating the state like a deus ex machina that can intervene from on high and improve upon the choices of people using threats of force sounds far more religious and irrational to me than believing that free people can better pursue their own goals.
CernelJoson 3 months ago
@CernelJoson Evolution doesn't require faith, it just requires a whole lot of requisite knowledge. It might seem like it takes faith when you don't understand it.
Abiogenesis might require a bit of faith, though, but that's not the argument you're trying to make.
Sometimes mandatory industries, or small business need support only a State can provide. A completely free market, absent any government oversight would necessarily evolve into us obeying megacorporations rather than governments.
HisokanoOkami 3 months ago
@HisokanoOkami I wasn't saying evolution requires faith; that was an analogy based on the argument you used. Saying that advocates of free markets rely on faith is as dishonest as claiming that evolution relies on faith.
The point of a state function is that people do not willingly support the use of resources for that purpose, so there is no way to gauge the value of its services.
The consolidation of corporate power is caused by government, not limited by it.
CernelJoson 3 months ago
@CernelJoson I think you're basing that all on anecdotal evidence. Yeah, America is sort of corporatist, but that's because we're too free market, not because we're too big government. When Government and Business work together to that degree, certainly bad things can happen, which is why I'm a huge advocate of severely limiting the impact of money on elections. Using America as a bad example of big government is like using Norway as a bad example of free market policies.
HisokanoOkami 3 months ago
@HisokanoOkami America is not a good example of a free market at all. The government adds tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, a list of rules and regulations, every year. The financial sector is one of the most highly regulated in the world. Regulations tend to favor large corporations at the expense of their competitors, which is why large corporations are often in favor of regulation. Corporatism stems from government privilege which is antithetical to free market principles.
CernelJoson 3 months ago
@CernelJoson Whether or not it closely matches your ideal of a free market notwithstanding, you must admit it is one of the--if not the--most vehemently free market developed nation on Earth. Moreover, the idea that regulations favor the large corporations necessarily is absurd. That might often be the case in America, but most nations favor small businesses, and actively work against the formation of monopolies. The free market by itself has no mechanism to defend against those.
HisokanoOkami 3 months ago
@HisokanoOkami I don't know how you purport to measure how free a market is but rhetoric is not the same as actual policy. By that standard the USA also has the best civil liberties despite things like the Patriot Act.
Just because nations purport to favor small businesses does not say anything for the actual effects of regulations.
Monopolies cannot last on a free market. Profit attracts competition unless the government, itself a monopoly, blocks competitors from entering the market.
CernelJoson 3 months ago
@CernelJoson Well then, rather than relying on rhetoric, why not point me to an example of a nation in deed, rather than rhetoric, more free market oriented than the United States. It's hard to take somebody seriously who believes that monopolies cannot exist without government help. Look at De Beers, for instance. Resources are finite, and as resources become more scarce it becomes increasingly possible and likely for companies to monopolize that resource. There's also I.P. to consider.
HisokanoOkami 3 months ago
@HisokanoOkami Various rankings of economic freedom place several countries higher than the US, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada.
Considering that the South African government has been regulating the diamond trade since the 19th century and makes it illegal to own rough diamonds without a license (a law drafted by DeBeers founder, Cecil Rhodes), I'd say that example is a case in point.
CernelJoson 3 months ago
@CernelJoson As Socialist as most of these nations are, it's surprising that you feel that they're better examples of Free Markets than the United States.
De Beers is a multinational corporation. South Africa is only a tiny part of the equation. Of course you most likely know that, you're just trying to rely on rhetoric rather than substance to make points.
HisokanoOkami 3 months ago
Hayek was a true intellectual.
riverlioness 5 months ago
@RavingDissension - I don't see that that fits with the facts. Warren Harding was a "Reagan republican". He broke unions, lowered taxes and put more money in the hands of the rich. In the short term Asset Growth was able to hide shrinkage of real GDP. In 1930, we faced our 2010 situation and Harding did nothing to address the shrinkage of the middle class. We have a similar portion of the nation's wealth locked away, useless as then, the same result will occur unless we come to our senses.
sfjeff1089 6 months ago
@sfjeff1089
Harding/Coolidge legacy of the 20's:
Increasing wages across the board, significant reducing Wilson's debt, reducing unemployment from 20% in 1921 to 3.3% in 1930, sharpest decline in the misery index in U.S. history, soaring profits and productivity, lower income taxes eliminated, middle income taxes cut significantly, and the list goes on.
Your assertions are patently false. The U.S. would not see such economic prosperity until the 1980's.
RavingDissension 5 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild omg, o.o he called hayek, who's dead and clearly wasn't a fascist, a fucking dickhead! omg he's so fucking edgy! go drink cyanide you fucking pussy
mana2432 6 months ago
As it turns out, the growth rate was about 50% higher in the earlier period, which means that no matter how common sense austerity seems to be, it doesn't predict GDP growth.
sfjeff1089 6 months ago
Hayek does make an interesting point, and if you replace the word "intellectual" with "libretarian", the description is spot on.
The formula is simple. If the reality doesn't match the theory, then you have to throw out the theory. If the growth rate was higher between 1980 an d 2010, when we had 35% top tax bracket, you have to vote for supply side economics. If the growth rate was higher between 1945 and 1980 when you had 50% - 90% top tax bracket, you have to vote for keynesianism.
sfjeff1089 6 months ago
@sfjeff1089
"1945 and 1980 when you had 50% - 90% top tax bracket, you have to vote for keynesianism."
Because in that period, a marginal tax rate of 90% did not mean you paid 90% on the top bracket. Before Reagan, there were so many deductibles and gimmicks favoring the upper class that in reality they paid 20-25%. By lowering the tax rate and broadening the base, he actually took in more revenue.
RavingDissension 6 months ago
"What is not comprehensible must be nonsense?" Sorry, but which 'intellectual' has said that? Hayek? WHAT a huge STRAWMEN. Please provide links to who said that.
Bork is completely disingenuous (or, LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH) when he says that there's no proof of oligopoly behaving like a monopoly. At least he thinks a monopoly is bad? Oh wait, he must use that to argue against certain govt monopolies (but not on Defense) which is nonsense since THEY benefit ALL Americans, not just the monopolist
TheSteelGeneraI 7 months ago
@scoves9484 Bork is THE "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy". In other words, he's a feudalist: the mighty rule and are therefor always right.
The anti-intellectual stance is derived from the dumb mans fear that his his prejudices are wrong, like racism. uneducated racist whites "know" that "whites are superior", so when it's proven to him that there's no such thing, he dislikes intellectuals
TheSteelGeneraI 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
It's the intectual's 'will to power'. They lack the courage, force of character,
and even intelligence, so they must control, like clerics,those who are
there betters.
How many new intellectuals are men of wisdom,like Marshall McLuhan,
Joseph Campbell etc
Today's intellectuals are 'posers', they don't have the 'goods'.
When they face their own inferiority as humans,they choose to force
their 'betters' down through 'false idealogy',so that they can rise.
Pity the children in their 'care'!
fntime 7 months ago
Where is the 21st century version of Hayek/Friedman? :(
erelpc 8 months ago
@babybirdhome: and when you buy these goods from someone else, you actively hurt the business that was doing what you percieved as bad. In other words, you have power over that business. On the other hand, when you vote for someone, your power over that politician ends right then and there. You can't hurt them anymore. And then they're shipped off a few hundred miles away to mingle with the lobbyists.
TheDestroyerCrom 9 months ago
@babybirdhome: A presence of regulation has been bad in many more cases. Also, I find it hard to believe the lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad, because you don't know how the regulation would have worked out if it had been there. What happened without regulation may have been bad, but what would have happened with it may have been even worse.
Also, yes, you can't not buy essential goods, but you can buy them from someone else.
TheDestroyerCrom 9 months ago
hayek is so smart. Too bad his accent is close to intelligible.
PetrusAvis 1 year ago
bork gave a really good interview with hayek
bobjimjones 1 year ago
2 Intellectuals failed to comprehend the discussion
arkadyka 1 year ago
what neither speaker has addressed here is why the intellectuals have such a strong, ingrained predisposition towards regulation, towards government, and towards "liberal" causes. is there a good explanation for this uniformity of thinking?
akosh33 1 year ago
@akosh33 Because a lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad in many cases. Where the "intellectuals" go wrong is ignoring the corruption of principles of the people who were responsible, and assuming that that same corruption of principles wouldn't take place within government because the government has that extra measure of public accountability which a free-enterprise doesn't. We're able to not vote for someone with little cost, but we're not able to not buy essential goods or services.
babybirdhome 10 months ago
@akosh33 Yes, it is called Eliteism, intellectuals sit around all day thinking, using their brains but not actually engaging with the common man/woman. they have no comprehension of what real physical labor to produce corporeal goods is like, nor do they understand the desires and or needs of the masses. They, in their lofty selfrighteousness, think they have thought of all the problems of the world and how to fix them. Fixing them of course even if it doesn't need fixing buy central planning.
smkwaterjack 9 months ago 10
Hayek is not answering the question. He is dancing around the point - just like the left wing intellectuals that Bork is talking about.
tothatextent 1 year ago
@tothatextent Hayek was not dancing around a point. He was responding to claims of malice on the part of intellectuals. Why would one assume that simply because a person believes a different way is correct that you would assume malice as a first choice?
koontunes101 1 year ago 2
@koontunes101 Interestingly the proponents of statism often see malice where proponents of liberty do not. Call it the Malthusian curse; they ascribe to almost all men a sort of super-bestial nature that ignores man's social nature. This borders on a self loathing, projected onto all other men and it is what really feeds the statist beast; the libido dominandi. The fear of other men is the origin of the state.
032125 10 months ago 2
@tothatextent You should know that Hayek did not like doing two things. He did not like attributing bad intentions to people(at least in public), and he did not like being off the cuff & spontanous in interviews(probably because he was not very good at it). Your ''dancing around'' is just Hayek trying to relate the question back to somthing he really knows about rather then speculaton. He does this in all his interviews.
Malthus0 1 year ago
Now I finally understand why the state intellectuals were so rabidly hostile to the thought of Bork on the Supreme Court.
He wasn't one of them.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 8
@CurtHowland that and he dared to openly challenged them during his confirmation hearing. he knew he was smarter and he would let them know it, even at the expense of not getting on the Supreme Court.
Ted Kennedy was his biggest target during the hearings.
DeepHauz13 2 months ago
His argument is about intention vs. result. The stupid intellectuals of universities always prefer intent. They would rather legislate something into existence.
MrShittyFag 1 year ago
@MrShittyFag Without intention, result is an inherent variable and thus subject to any change, be it positive or negative. What is stupid about attempting to ensure that the greatest good is always done? Even intellectuals are wrong, their logic is pretty sound.
koontunes101 1 year ago
@koontunes101 Ok, you're right, it is possible to ensure an outcome with the "greatest good" for a GROUP of people with something in common. That's just a matter of enforcement. The real issue is it not whether or not it helps one group of people, but whether it does it at anyone's expense. Minimum wadges, for example, do benefit the citizens who have them, but MW also do a number on everyone else. The people who's labour isn't as valuable, whose businesses are understaffed, the unemployed, etc.
MrShittyFag 1 year ago
Few deep thinkers of the last century have been as brilliant and impactful as von Hayek. In my humble view, he surpasses even Friedman. This video demonstrates just why.
allenlobo 1 year ago
Hayek is in the galactic history books.
hegemonymony 1 year ago
its like Gilbert Gottfried's impression of Groucho Marx.
rosihantu1 1 year ago
Damn I miss read the title. I thought it was bork salma hayek.
feck2112 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Hayek makes an excellent point. Intellectuals are used to understanding how things work and take pride in their rationality, so when they see something happening and do not understand the mechanics of it their inclination is to dismiss it as nonsense. A proper empiricist or a 1st rate intellectual would judge from the measurable results, but the 2nd rate intellectual (most intellectuals - especially outside their specialty) is too arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance.
AlanRLight 1 year ago
I think Hayek makes an excellent point. Intellectuals are used to understanding how things work and take pride in their rationality, so when they see something happening and do not understand the mechanics of it their inclination is to dismiss it as nonsense. A proper empiricist or a 1st rate intellectual would judge from the measurable results, but the 2nd rate intellectual (which is most of them - especially outside their specialty) is too arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance.
AlanRLight 1 year ago 46
@AlanRLight ... and that's why they conclude any opposition to Obama is 'racist'
tdibent1 9 months ago
@AlanRLight
Where does that put people like Hayek who think we shouldn't have any models for understanding the economy whatsoever?
AndroidPolitician 8 months ago
@AlanRLight its precisely this arrogant pride in their ignorance is what liberals intensely dislike most about the present day rightwing. Actually, Hayek makes the point that 'intellectuals' dislike what they don't know. This is NOT TRUE, and in actual fact it IS what liberals have against the so called right wingers! Once again, the rightwing takes the criticism against them and turns it on its head. Might be 'clever' but its an illegitimate argument. On the unknown, Intellectuals are neutral
TheSteelGeneraI 7 months ago
Hayek makes an interesting point on intellectuals. However, as much of a fan as I am with Hayek I have to respectfully disagree with him. The result of Adam Smith hands invisible hand as compared to the Keynsian or socialist model of economics are crystal clear in the end result. So this really has nothing to do with the LACK of understanding by intelectuals (liberals) because the results ARE visable and concrete. The intellectuals have an agenda. That agenda is CONTROL TO THEM! It is sinister!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I think he is saying they don't understand the mechanism by which those results are brought forth. The why and the how not the what. As in, you can't say when A happens B will be a result. You can only say that the invisible hand of the market is overall a positive thing. How the hell are these second rate intellectuals going to show off with that? They need to be able to speak in a condescending manner in detail about bullshit and sound like an authority even when wrong.
randomgai1234 1 year ago
@randomgai1234 Yeah unfortunately they are advising presidents. Hell even Nixon had Milton Friedman advising him and still allowed the Keynesian economists to rule the roost for political expediency
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
uhm i like this video but Hayek really needs an inhaler or something cause hes weezing the WHOLE time they were recording! OMG
the1tigglet 1 year ago
@the1tigglet He's old man, get real.
WanderingSeer 1 year ago
@the1tigglet He's an old man, get real.
WanderingSeer 1 year ago
What is Dr. Hayek saying here?
festyosemtex 1 year ago
@festyosemtex Read my post
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@festyosemtex not much since he was quite senile by this point in his life
pneumatictrousers 1 year ago
What's so amusing about this is that Bork and Hayek refer to "Intellectuals" as "They"...as if they are some other class as themselves, when by all definitions, Bork and Hayek are most definitely Intellectuals.
jarden69 1 year ago
@jarden69 It's true that they are intellectuals, but they are talking about the intellectuals who want a planned economy with their plans in place, which Hayek and Bork do not.
Lemnirot 1 year ago
I think that Bork's point is spot on, and the root cause of this is our so-called "educational systems", which also explains Hayek's point: educational systems indoctrinate young people to hold certain questionable views as fact, and they also stunt the critical thinking processes of young people, so that they unthinkingly respect authorities who "have all the answers" (anything else being unintelligable). Students should have skepticism studies as a core subject to help wisen them up to the BS.
kensei85 1 year ago 2
@kensei85 Excellent points my friend!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@kensei85 I met They the other day and he agrees with your reductionist absurdity
pneumatictrousers 1 year ago
An intellectual, imho, is someone who seeks to divide three children into two groups using a saw.
cherylwens 1 year ago
...
so what he's saying is,
intellectuals is mad 'cause Hayek's ideas don't have observably positive consequences when acted out in reality.
So we are elevating a heaven of platonic forms above an observation of reality. Whatttttt
MetaCraken 1 year ago
Comment removed
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012 for President
RunLiberty 1 year ago 59
@RunLiberty
really? I come to watch a video about a brilliant economist and I have to see a political ad at the top of the comments?
blueshade26 1 year ago
@RunLiberty Tom Knapp 2012 for President (LP), you cannot have market freedom without social freedom based on personal liberty.
weareu2 1 year ago
@RunLiberty Ron Paul, you mean that dude who doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, he's on top of reality.
technoviking 4 months ago
@technoviking How would his disbelief in evolution effect the way he acts in office?
1thruZ 4 months ago
@1thruZ yeah i wouldn't take that into account either because THE DEMISE of THE FEDERAL RESERVE and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION are more important than that.
concussedcarneous 4 months ago
love this.
ApologiaTV 1 year ago
Reminds me of book "Voltaire's bastards"
eskimo1956 1 year ago
Hayek was an admirer of fascists. So-called "free" market principles are those of fascists.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Oh, bapyou! At it again?
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Exposing fascists wherever they hide and whatever they hide behind.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
I guess you'll be exposing American academia next, right?
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
Exposing fascists wherever they hide ... and whatever words or concepts they hide behind. There are plenty of free market whackos in academia. Keep defending them, & the murder, torture & impoverishment they engender. And keep using that word "free," which makes it difficult for the uninformed to disagree with your agenda: "Free market? Sure! I'm all for freedom! Especially for big rapacious corporations & greedy scumbags like Milton Friedman and Freidrich von Hayek!"
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
It's so obvious you desperately want to be considered an intellectual. (Just like Bill Maher!) But you, and everyone who has read your comments, know you're not. There is some good news for the rest of us. Young students who would have been ripe for your Marxist indoctrination 20yrs ago, are rejecting it outright today. The reason apologists of true fascism and enslavement, such as yourself, are so vicious and vitriolic, is because you know you and your kind are a dying breed.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago 2
@TheTrueLiberal "Young students who would have been ripe for your Marxist indoctrination 20yrs ago, are rejecting it outright today."
That's right. Call it "indoctrination." Plant that seed in the malleable mind and it will flower into hatred. You're no different than Fox News and its moronic grade school-level "discourse."
bapyou 1 year ago
"apologists of true fascism & enslavement, such as yourself, are so vicious & vitriolic, is because you know you & your kind are a dying breed."
Nice try, creampuff. Viciousness & vitriol are products of deep-seated anger at the true apologists for fascism & enslavement such as YOU. How 'bout that Pinochet? What a free marketeer!
Really. Best way to defelct attention away from your own latent fascism is to deflect it onto others. Vicious? You bet. I've got a nice hammer for your skull.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Like a puppet on a string, the leftist intellectual wannabe is pathetically predictable.
It's not even fun anymore.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Not fun anymore? (As if our exchange here is the focus; as if whether or not I'm an "intellectual" is the point; as if whether or not you are having fun matters.) So how 'bout that Pinochet, creampuff? Milton Friedman and the fascist torturer, murderer, rapist. There's your democracy in action, creampuff. The functional term here is ... creampuff. Facism. It's what's for dinner!
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
What is the point / focus? For you it seems to be the use of the words 'creampuff' and 'Pinochet'. When you're a wannabe intellectual, you think the 'winner' of an argument is determined by who asks the most clever rhetorical question. It's not. That only works on Bill Maher / Jon Stewart.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Got smug?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Nice.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Well yeah, dude. How 'bout that Pinochet? A great man wasn't he? True free market champion. Go free markets! Tolerance for fascism or bust!
(Comment brought to you by the Hertiage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973.)
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
For the benefit of others, could you please explain the 'Pinochet' thing?
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal " ... please explain the 'Pinochet' thing" You're the all-knowing omniscient conservative. You explain it for "the benefit of others." I mean, why grant me a forum to spread my "Marxist indoctrination"? There are several good books on Chile & I have other things to do. Fortunately for right-wing numbskulls such as yourself, in the name of privatization, conservatives have consistently underfunded schools engendering a student population with an antipathy towards learning.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
"why grant me a forum to spread my 'Marxist indoctrination'?"
Because I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of speech.
'You're the all-knowing omniscient conservative...blah, blah...Pinochet...blah, blah...right-wing numbskulls...blah, blah, Pinochet..."
Typical of the radical left. Everyone who disagrees with them shall be labeled 'conservative'. You don't even know the meaning of the word. But I'm sure 'Pinochet' is somewhere in your definition.
It's starting to get fun again.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Go back to posting comments on those Milton Freidman love fest videos you love to post on. Is Friedman close enough to your definition of "conservative"? Or do you have your own special idiosyncratic definition known only to a few academics in Bern?
_______________
Free markets and fascism! Ronald Reagan and Augusto Pinochet! They make the world go round. (Comment brought to you by the Hertiage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973!)
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Brilliant!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal Blow it out your ass, Bambi.
__________________________
Free markets! No history! Milton Friedman! Hitler was a socialist! Franco was a communist! Call any historical figure anything you want to call them! It doesn't matter! Free markets are what matter! Selma von Hayek the cross-dressing philosopher was an economist!
(The preceding exclamatory remarks brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973. Donate today!)
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Dance for me, puppet!
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@TheTrueLiberal
Free markets and fascism! Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatchwhore and Augusto Pinochet! George Blair and Tony Bush! They make the world go round!
(Comment brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. Coming to a neoliberal movie theater near you soon. Donate today! Making sure labor stays in its place since 1973.)
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Now that you've had plenty of time to reflect, you must be thoroughly embarrassed.
TheTrueLiberal 1 year ago
@bapyou That is a very progressive approach. An approach that began at about the same time as the American civil war. Much has happened since then. Hitler was a piker compared to Stalin & Mao. No matter how many millions are murdered you refuse to give up your obviously disasterous manifesto. Go get a real education.
doughtymqan 1 year ago 2
@doughtymqan What the fuck are you talking about? The disasterous "manifesto" is capitalism itself.
bapyou 1 year ago
Oligopolies can only exist if the free market has been restricted thru licensing. The behavior of those companies in an oligopoly will indeed lead towards a monopolistic behavior not because they are satisfying a direct consumer need, but because they have been given the power to operate in a particular market over others who could offer competition to fulfill that need at a better price and or improved quality.
Peace
truefictions 1 year ago
completely agree with bork, and disagree with hayek on this one
LatinYoung20 1 year ago
Isn't it interesting how the intellectuals of yesterday are looked at as misled and are almost always proven wrong? Think about it. I realized in science class that almost everything that was accepted as fact as as near as 600-700 years ago has been proven wrong, for example, the earth being flat, the heliocentric theory, etc. So why is it that without any tangible proof we are expected to believe in evolution, global warming, and the big bang theory? Just food for thought.
petrafied77 1 year ago
i have no ideas what either of these guys are talking about lol. imma go watch spongebob now
jeffcoolstuff 1 year ago
big words confuse me.
jeffcoolstuff 1 year ago
Well Hayek seems very sensible here. Although he did predict national healthcare and the welfare state would lead to totalitarianism in Britain and Europe. Heil Gordon Brown!
CJWilly 1 year ago
@CJWilly Sadly mate the BNP are gathering steam.
totheman 1 year ago
The main political parties are just as bigoted as the BNP. Why not abort babies if the population really is too high? Immigrants are mostly hard working and contribute more than they take, more so than babies. The reason why is because politicians care about votes and immigrants who aren't here cannot vote. They never mention deporting people who CAN vote. If you outlaw a person or product you bring guns and gangs to it. Blame the govt for their crime & Welfare allows ppl to take more than earnt
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill Why not abort babies? I agree with you, but lets not go crazy with the analogies. :D
totheman 1 year ago
I need to develop the point more. Politicians don't care about harming those who cannot vote so for the demagogic anti-immigrant, Trade Unionist and/or semi-racist vote they have a sure fire winner. It's like the Nazis gaining votes by attacking minorities as scapegoats. It's the oldest/best trick in electioneering. We should not only have a 100% amnesty for all illegal immigrants but we should end free-at-the-point-of -service welfarism so then immigrants can ONLY make a net econmc contribution
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill I agree with you too
totheman 1 year ago
Umm ...
So these learned intellectuals are claiming either a) intellectuals are wrong because they just don't understand, or b) the only thing that makes sense is what they say.
Sorry. This is just incoherence. Argue the merits of something specific. Or go home.
paulgeoffreybrown1 1 year ago
@paulgeoffreybrown1
No, honestly Hayek is BANG ON. Trust me, I know from first hand experience.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Why couldn't he live to be like 124.... We miss him dearly!
soliloqy 1 year ago 2
@soliloqy
If only Rothbard didn't die so ridiculously young! I'd pay good money to hear him commentate on the last couple of years of surprise at the housing crash of the glut fuelled by inflation...it's like no-one knows business cycle theory except the Austrians so then the average irresponsible ignoramus invokes the importance of maintaining 'demand' and profligate fiduciary credit expansion by bailing out the bust banking system that should have gone down with its epic Greenspan glut.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
"The intellectual has very strongly this feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense."
That's incomprehensible and therefore nonsense.
AKA What constitutes 'intelligible?' The framework/guidelines by which we organize intelligibility are entirely arbitrary and therefore unintelligible. Reductio ad absurdum.
3684541 1 year ago
@3684541 He might have been talking about you.
mj011n1r 1 year ago
@mj011n1r He may have been talking about dolphins. Or even you. What I was saying is the intellectual's position is nonsense. That isn't clear from my original comment.
3684541 1 year ago
@3684541 Gotcha...that's not what i gained...therefore I don't think he was talking about you. Dophins thing they can engineer the world, however, damn dolphins.
mj011n1r 1 year ago
@3684541
Lol, mj011n1r pwned you and you probably didn't even notice.
How does it feel knowing that you are infinitesimally inferior to the economist and great mind of real stature who is FA Hayek? Given that you've tried to disparage a salient and very prescient point he made in a lucid and now irrefutable manner (since Interventionism once again rules the world as in the 70s, and *real* economic theory is more or less dead as a popular scholarly tradition) you should feel like a prat.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
You completely don't get what Hayek's saying. Don't put pearls before swine.
The point he's making is that a lot of irresponsible, arrogant and statolatrist pseudo-intellectuals contribute by far the loudest voice in academia and public economic policy and their leftism is based on ignorance and denial and a refusal to come to grips with economic theory and indeed a disparaging of the very concept of irrefutable laws governing man's societal relations in exchange. He's damn right and THEN SOME.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago 2
Actually all investment roads lead to Asia.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Silly Conservative, Classical Liberals will always win.
highonhayek 1 year ago
This is part of the huge problem. Conservatives and Libertarians are always misinterpreting Keynesians and Socialists as power hungry tyrnats who lie for their own gain. That certainly is not me.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
Only some people misinterpret all socialists and Keynesians this way, there have undoubtedly been power hungry people who have used socialism as a method for controlling societies. I personally view most advocates of Keynesian economics and socialists as well intentioned, but wrong. Utopia is impossible, but the free market is the best possible system for the improvement of quality of life of the average person.
my4rk89 1 year ago
I think a more astute observation comes from another interview linked to the boxes on the right entitled "Hayek on Keynes" ... The biggest problem with Keynsianism was not Keynes himself but his followers... Keynes warned 6 weeks before his death to Hayek that he was displeased in his pupils desire to abuse inflationary policy... Its no different then how politicians abuse the constitution and take it out of context to justify their interests...
soliloqy 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker
Socialism and Keynesianism are always destructive. There is no reason to support such theories other than for power-hungry tyrants to make dishonest gain.
herbs814 1 year ago
Von Hayek's complaint about intellectuals is absolutely absurd. If I were to go to a private businessman today with a proposal that required him to take on some degree of risk, his first question would be what the tangible goal of this venture was. If I were to tell him that I cannot demonstrate by lowly logic that this proposal is conducive to a palpable good or benefit for him or for society at large, then he would reject the proposal. Sensible actions are the actions of the sane.
Thucydides2004 1 year ago
@Thucydides2004 Sensible actions are the actions of the sane. But rejecting what you do not understand makes you neither sensible or sane. Such a statement relies on the fallacious statement that all people who reject complexity are sensible and sane.
dxminfocus 1 year ago 2
@Thucydides2004
That's the favourite word of the snivelling 'intellectuals' rearing its ugly head again: 'absurd.' Or is it the phrase 'absolutely absurd?' Isn't Hayek absolutely absurd! in making a comment which obviously touches a nerve with you given that you're irrelevant counter argument.
EVERYONE-'absurd' in their language means-'I disagree with you but I cannot explain why because I am of a superstitious and closed mind.' Open your ears so that you can recognise the priests of violence!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Where is that accent coming from?
freesoul2005 1 year ago
He lived in Austria, as far as I know...german speaking...moved to US and layed the ground for the "Austrian School of Economics"
manoman0 1 year ago
UK!
korektphool 1 year ago
only those who hate the private sphere can criticize monopoly. way to go bork.
johnnondrowsyd 1 year ago
@johnnondrowsyd monopoly is one company. He said 3,4,5 you don't know you you are talking about.
markinu 1 year ago
If you YOU knew anything, you'd know that if that were the only case where the word monopoly was used, it would never be used. There's almost no Industry where there is actually just one company. ever heard of partial monopoly?
johnnondrowsyd 1 year ago
@johnnondrowsyd for example the anti-trust against Mirosoft was brought bit it's competitors, so in this case they were using politics to gain economic advantage.
markinu 1 year ago
Most anti-trust cases were brought in by competitors.
manoman0 1 year ago 19
@manoman0 So?
ironhills 1 year ago
@ironhills - you're free to draw your own conclusions....
manoman0 1 year ago