Right wing propaganda BS. Market fundies can't accept that their precious system has failed and are grasping at straws to defend their Free Market Theology. Now they are even trying to indoctrinate out youths trough popular culture.
So the generations before us bought the bullshit of the century, where a sole person knows better than 2500 years of worldwide experience in democracy. And here Hayek contradicts itself. So if Hayek wanted to show the world some honesty then lets be honest and accept his whole theory is a brainwash for inexperienced people. I will never be a socialist but i must say i am pretty deluded. His theories may well bring the human race to an end.
I think Hayek was an intelligent, very intellectual person, but i also think he had the same schizophrenia as Adolf yesterday and as Merkel today, Maybe his hatred of less educated and less hardworking persons in this world is based rightly on his own perceptions but we all know that is fascism.
and secondly from what i understand the outcome of Hayek's theory are monopoles which lead to inflated corporatism which is just a step from fascism. Hayek's theory maybe used to redistribute the money in rich countries but it will never work for the entire world.
And it is with great regret that i must finally accept that Hayek was wrong at many logical points. It is impossible to control prices with the help of the free market without too much government interference. Firstly because such a market can not exist due to human egoistic nature (find Alan Greenspan's interview accepting its defeat on the free market fight only due to human ego)
OK it is enough, this bald guy telling about the efficiency of offshore banking at 23:00 made me vomit. You have to be kidding ? What does normal banking business has to do with mafia laundering, billion tax evasions and internet casinos in Guernsey.
The psychological factor will always silence the cause of the free market...that's what prevents the system from being corrected. The guy summed it up so well...the idea of leaving it up to the market isn't easy to sell to voters who expect a government to protect them...
This is one of the fundamental flaws of democracy: people don't know what's good for them. It's as simple as that.
When they're stupid, they can't put the right people in power to solve their problems.
It's so fascinating how you can have so many economic and social signals...unemployment, inflation, protests, overall malaise and an "everything's fucked up" 70's declinist Britain attitude (all in the West of course because we're the ones bringing all this ridiculous shit on ourselves)...that basically CONFIRM, OVER and OVER and OVER again that the current system is clearly NOT working...and yet...we continue...
I can only wonder why the system at the time, and still today, promoted Keynes over Hayek...hmmm let's see...one empowers the individual while the other empowers...
Another voice, this time a consultant in the actual business with some brains, can help the unenlightened sheeple of this god-forsaken planet UNDERSTAND.
Allowing market forces determine interest rates is ludicrous. Central banks print money for 'fun', so there is no limit to supply which means there will be ever increasing demand. Look at today countries/people continue to debt service their lives, as long as there is a demand for it, market forces will drive us toward debt. Just 1 example where allowing market forces decide doesn't work today.
Neo-liberal/Austrian economics has been the dominant force in driving us toward economic catastrophy.
@islandboy68 This is illogical, Austrian Economists argue against a central bank. Also why would an increase in supply necessitate an increase in demand, surely it works the other way around unless you have a way of brainwashing people?
austrian economics offer nothing, it is essentially a pestimistic position asserting negative statements. i would like to hear some austrian school guys come out with the numbers of hospitals we would need to shut down if the nation adopted a austrian style economic plan. the vast majority of all hospitals only operate due to gov funding.
the major issue that caused the recent economic collapse was insider trading, fraud, etc..
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Not quite correct. Yes less regulation stimulates growth. Just see how we would grow if we removed minimum wage. However, bad money will destroy good money, so... in a limited government way, they must protect consumers from abusive business practices. Like the one thing for today's economy that would be a usury law. To charge an individual 35% on a credit card balance is predatory.
@PocketJokersdotCom market forces do play a big role, but what happened in America was bad ideas that spread like wild fire. Coupled with consolidation, poor education & great marketing pieces with teaser rates.. and wam, bam, thank you mam, and before they know it they are in debt up to their eyeballs with 35% interest and no lender will touch them because they believe that the consumer will file bankruptcy on the new loan - due to all their debt.
I'm not sure how much we can say about there being too much or too little regulation when regulators failed to do their job. If regulators fail to act on fraud and if financial vehicles (or artifices) allow for information to be kept in secret, what should we do? Shouldn't we focus on making regulation effective and markets transparent in the first place?
Please comment if you have any ideas on the matter!
@miguelcarvalho2008 Yes I also think the evidence for less regulation is suspect at best. I find that people who support these ideas, for the most part, have a very insular view of economics, only looking at their own countries.
It's clear if you look at the effects of massive deregulation in South America, South Africa, Asia in the 90s with the implosion of the Asian Tiger, that it always leads to the same thing, namely Economic Implosion. Competent regulation reduces speculative bubbles.
@3LARI: & of course, you use the examples of notorious gov't dominated crony economies to 'prove" your critique of liberal economics. Anything short of uniformed party members goosestepping through the streets & waving red flags is liberal economics.
@miguelcarvalho2008 I Think the problem is that regulators create a moral hazzard. A situation in which there is no risk for a party. The solution is less regulation. With less depositors and bankers know that if they let things get out of hand they will not get bailed out. The focus will not just be on return, but also on risk.
However, one could argue that with less regulation, bankers do whatever they want because they are too big to fail - one institution's failure could create a systemic problem so great that it would 'force' authorities to intervene. No one likes to bail banks out. They just 'have to'.
Another issue is the agency problem. Managers of these institutions focus on what's good for them, which is not necessarily the what is good for their banks. Their financial rewards are too great to be ignored. They run risks, quit or get fired, get their money and leave someone else to clean up the mess - in Europe it was the tax payer.
1. Insurance From the Fscs would pay if banks went bust .Government could even make money from lending the Fscs some money At an higher interest rate than the government pays for it's money . This money earned could of been used to lower the liabilities of the government. as for the managers of banks , it is in their interest to have a job . more regulation would increase entry costs , meaning less competition and more profits for the banks you despise.
Insurance? I don't think there could be anything big enough to bail large financial institutions. Think of AIG...
We need to ensure liquidity and proper capitalization. In the future we need to ensure that no institution is too big to fail - but that is proving hard to do. How? Making a clear separation between Investment Banking and Retail Banking.
It is not in the interest of bankers to have a job - the idea is to get rich and get out. Go talk to them. Or talk to your teachers at college who know these guys.
Talking about competition: ensure there is NOT excessive concentration of capital, market share or risk and then you can allow them to fail. By growing, corporations seek to eliminate factors of uncertainty in markets, so they'll keep growing - which hinders competition.
@miguelcarvalho2008 In so far as they need a job to earn the money to not need a job , they still have a interest in keeping their job/ job options available .As for the point on ensuring that there is not excessive concentration of capital , risk or market share , Your definition of what consitutes Excessiveness in these criteria will differs from my definition and everyone will disagree with both of us . "excessive" pooling of resources could allow capital,risk or market share to go bust.
@abycapri Free market banking didn't make sense to me at first, but then after reading up some monetary theory it became apparent that all monetary crises are just cases of suppy & demand for money being out of whack. In other words, Economics 101 applies (pretty much) to money: we need the supply & demand in equilibrium.
Now, what does the free market tend to do to supply & demand? Match them up over time. The case for free banking is terrific and it's not even primarily about competition.
Yes, don't be so surprised though, they 'balanced' it with a radical communitarian programme, made by their in house Economics editor. It goes without saying that there was no one comparable in house for the this programme. I am not even sure that this would have been made at all without the publicity from the Fear the Boom and Bust rap video.
@Malthus0 lefty? its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
lefty? its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
@WizardKing78 yes lefty its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
Right wing propaganda BS. Market fundies can't accept that their precious system has failed and are grasping at straws to defend their Free Market Theology. Now they are even trying to indoctrinate out youths trough popular culture.
DizzyCsango 4 days ago
multinkg: You are a self-important bore.
MCPetruk 1 week ago
So the generations before us bought the bullshit of the century, where a sole person knows better than 2500 years of worldwide experience in democracy. And here Hayek contradicts itself. So if Hayek wanted to show the world some honesty then lets be honest and accept his whole theory is a brainwash for inexperienced people. I will never be a socialist but i must say i am pretty deluded. His theories may well bring the human race to an end.
multinikg 1 month ago
I think Hayek was an intelligent, very intellectual person, but i also think he had the same schizophrenia as Adolf yesterday and as Merkel today, Maybe his hatred of less educated and less hardworking persons in this world is based rightly on his own perceptions but we all know that is fascism.
multinikg 1 month ago
and secondly from what i understand the outcome of Hayek's theory are monopoles which lead to inflated corporatism which is just a step from fascism. Hayek's theory maybe used to redistribute the money in rich countries but it will never work for the entire world.
multinikg 1 month ago
And it is with great regret that i must finally accept that Hayek was wrong at many logical points. It is impossible to control prices with the help of the free market without too much government interference. Firstly because such a market can not exist due to human egoistic nature (find Alan Greenspan's interview accepting its defeat on the free market fight only due to human ego)
multinikg 1 month ago
OK it is enough, this bald guy telling about the efficiency of offshore banking at 23:00 made me vomit. You have to be kidding ? What does normal banking business has to do with mafia laundering, billion tax evasions and internet casinos in Guernsey.
multinikg 1 month ago
I want this video on my H810 unit.
tysonstuart13 1 month ago
*sigh*
The psychological factor will always silence the cause of the free market...that's what prevents the system from being corrected. The guy summed it up so well...the idea of leaving it up to the market isn't easy to sell to voters who expect a government to protect them...
This is one of the fundamental flaws of democracy: people don't know what's good for them. It's as simple as that.
When they're stupid, they can't put the right people in power to solve their problems.
Spjungen 1 month ago
It's so fascinating how you can have so many economic and social signals...unemployment, inflation, protests, overall malaise and an "everything's fucked up" 70's declinist Britain attitude (all in the West of course because we're the ones bringing all this ridiculous shit on ourselves)...that basically CONFIRM, OVER and OVER and OVER again that the current system is clearly NOT working...and yet...we continue...
I believe that is what they call insanity.
Spjungen 1 month ago
This is so spot on, systematic, and concise...every person in the western world needs to hear this.
Spjungen 1 month ago
I can only wonder why the system at the time, and still today, promoted Keynes over Hayek...hmmm let's see...one empowers the individual while the other empowers...
the milk man?
Spjungen 1 month ago
THANK YOU
Another voice, this time a consultant in the actual business with some brains, can help the unenlightened sheeple of this god-forsaken planet UNDERSTAND.
Spjungen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is a favorite on Yerevan
jesscarey411 2 months ago
Allowing market forces determine interest rates is ludicrous. Central banks print money for 'fun', so there is no limit to supply which means there will be ever increasing demand. Look at today countries/people continue to debt service their lives, as long as there is a demand for it, market forces will drive us toward debt. Just 1 example where allowing market forces decide doesn't work today.
Neo-liberal/Austrian economics has been the dominant force in driving us toward economic catastrophy.
islandboy68 4 months ago
@islandboy68 This is illogical, Austrian Economists argue against a central bank. Also why would an increase in supply necessitate an increase in demand, surely it works the other way around unless you have a way of brainwashing people?
ShudderProductions 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Malthus0
austrian economics offer nothing, it is essentially a pestimistic position asserting negative statements. i would like to hear some austrian school guys come out with the numbers of hospitals we would need to shut down if the nation adopted a austrian style economic plan. the vast majority of all hospitals only operate due to gov funding.
the major issue that caused the recent economic collapse was insider trading, fraud, etc..
TheEvolver311 4 months ago
Why are all the BBC hating dickeads even showing up here? Hey the BBC like to make balanced programs even if they normally fail in the attempt.
Go back to your regular brain washing crapola on fox news, and remain the dumb idiots you are.
tony5pqv 6 months ago
an educational rap video???
---now there's an oxymoron for you
-----------moron being the predominant theme here
Another assinine contribution from a Retarded Liberal
Zendout1 8 months ago
@Zendout1 So you're saying that a retarded liberal produced a rap song promoting free markets?
shamgar001 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 8 months ago
Not quite correct. Yes less regulation stimulates growth. Just see how we would grow if we removed minimum wage. However, bad money will destroy good money, so... in a limited government way, they must protect consumers from abusive business practices. Like the one thing for today's economy that would be a usury law. To charge an individual 35% on a credit card balance is predatory.
cat1012000 10 months ago
@cat1012000 They would love to charge 35% on credit but they cannot because of market forces. Other firms would just undercut them..
PocketJokersdotCom 9 months ago
@PocketJokersdotCom market forces do play a big role, but what happened in America was bad ideas that spread like wild fire. Coupled with consolidation, poor education & great marketing pieces with teaser rates.. and wam, bam, thank you mam, and before they know it they are in debt up to their eyeballs with 35% interest and no lender will touch them because they believe that the consumer will file bankruptcy on the new loan - due to all their debt.
cat1012000 5 months ago
I meant "REGULATORS" efective.
miguelcarvalho2008 10 months ago
I'm not sure how much we can say about there being too much or too little regulation when regulators failed to do their job. If regulators fail to act on fraud and if financial vehicles (or artifices) allow for information to be kept in secret, what should we do? Shouldn't we focus on making regulation effective and markets transparent in the first place?
Please comment if you have any ideas on the matter!
miguelcarvalho2008 10 months ago
@miguelcarvalho2008 Yes I also think the evidence for less regulation is suspect at best. I find that people who support these ideas, for the most part, have a very insular view of economics, only looking at their own countries.
It's clear if you look at the effects of massive deregulation in South America, South Africa, Asia in the 90s with the implosion of the Asian Tiger, that it always leads to the same thing, namely Economic Implosion. Competent regulation reduces speculative bubbles.
3LARI 9 months ago
@3LARI: & of course, you use the examples of notorious gov't dominated crony economies to 'prove" your critique of liberal economics. Anything short of uniformed party members goosestepping through the streets & waving red flags is liberal economics.
VictorLepanto 8 months ago
@miguelcarvalho2008 I Think the problem is that regulators create a moral hazzard. A situation in which there is no risk for a party. The solution is less regulation. With less depositors and bankers know that if they let things get out of hand they will not get bailed out. The focus will not just be on return, but also on risk.
dorris1989 7 months ago
@dorris1989 You have a very good point!
However, one could argue that with less regulation, bankers do whatever they want because they are too big to fail - one institution's failure could create a systemic problem so great that it would 'force' authorities to intervene. No one likes to bail banks out. They just 'have to'.
miguelcarvalho2008 7 months ago
@dorris1989
Another issue is the agency problem. Managers of these institutions focus on what's good for them, which is not necessarily the what is good for their banks. Their financial rewards are too great to be ignored. They run risks, quit or get fired, get their money and leave someone else to clean up the mess - in Europe it was the tax payer.
miguelcarvalho2008 7 months ago
@miguelcarvalho2008 they don't
derrfes 6 months ago
@derrfes Are you going to defend your position? Any reasons? An argument?
Opinions are useless but I would love to hear good arguments.
miguelcarvalho2008 6 months ago
@miguelcarvalho2008 well okay then .
1. Insurance From the Fscs would pay if banks went bust .Government could even make money from lending the Fscs some money At an higher interest rate than the government pays for it's money . This money earned could of been used to lower the liabilities of the government. as for the managers of banks , it is in their interest to have a job . more regulation would increase entry costs , meaning less competition and more profits for the banks you despise.
derrfes 6 months ago
@derrfes thanks for accepting the challenge!
Insurance? I don't think there could be anything big enough to bail large financial institutions. Think of AIG...
We need to ensure liquidity and proper capitalization. In the future we need to ensure that no institution is too big to fail - but that is proving hard to do. How? Making a clear separation between Investment Banking and Retail Banking.
miguelcarvalho2008 6 months ago
@derrfes
It is not in the interest of bankers to have a job - the idea is to get rich and get out. Go talk to them. Or talk to your teachers at college who know these guys.
Talking about competition: ensure there is NOT excessive concentration of capital, market share or risk and then you can allow them to fail. By growing, corporations seek to eliminate factors of uncertainty in markets, so they'll keep growing - which hinders competition.
I don't despise banks or anyone :).
miguelcarvalho2008 6 months ago
@miguelcarvalho2008 In so far as they need a job to earn the money to not need a job , they still have a interest in keeping their job/ job options available .As for the point on ensuring that there is not excessive concentration of capital , risk or market share , Your definition of what consitutes Excessiveness in these criteria will differs from my definition and everyone will disagree with both of us . "excessive" pooling of resources could allow capital,risk or market share to go bust.
derrfes 6 months ago
Great discussion! Especially like the concluding remark on wasted effort of promoting free market banking, but too much is at stake not to.
abycapri 11 months ago
@abycapri Free market banking didn't make sense to me at first, but then after reading up some monetary theory it became apparent that all monetary crises are just cases of suppy & demand for money being out of whack. In other words, Economics 101 applies (pretty much) to money: we need the supply & demand in equilibrium.
Now, what does the free market tend to do to supply & demand? Match them up over time. The case for free banking is terrific and it's not even primarily about competition.
Myndir 10 months ago
Was this originally broadcast on (leftie) Radio 4???
WizardKing78 11 months ago
@WizardKing78
Yes, don't be so surprised though, they 'balanced' it with a radical communitarian programme, made by their in house Economics editor. It goes without saying that there was no one comparable in house for the this programme. I am not even sure that this would have been made at all without the publicity from the Fear the Boom and Bust rap video.
Malthus0 11 months ago 3
@Malthus0 And what hour of the day did the lefties at R4 decide to air this programme; 3am perchance?
I hate the BBC. I honestly can't understand why any previous Tory governments didn't privatise it. Seriously.
WizardKing78 11 months ago 7
@Malthus0 do you know if the collectivist show is either on youtube or I player?
underoathuea 10 months ago
@Malthus0 lefty? its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
rictorn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lefty? its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
rictorn 4 months ago
@WizardKing78 yes lefty its unbelivably middlecalss unbelivably establishment dreadfully biased toward the mainstream neoliberal model ove r the last 10 years, have you heard steponomics 3 programs i heard teh first and last 6 economist 5 of them neoliberal 1 kaynsian 0 marxian, generally radio 4 is better than this but the buisness department is unbelivably unquistioning and worships buisness rather tahn seeking truth
rictorn 4 months ago
Hayek, although an unassuming character, was undoubtedly one of the greatest men who ever lived.
WizardKing78 11 months ago 15