"He Warned Us 50 Years Ago" - Hayek's Nobel Prize in Economics | IEA Answers

[@danielpye7738]

I am always astounded by the number of people who simply don’t understand the basic economics of A) of earning your money B) producing something of value that can be sold or add real value. C) demand driven products and services There are so many people including a lot of politicians who ignore this reality. You see it a lot with sound bites in the media from individuals who claim their myopic views outweigh the actual reality.

[@DarkSyster]

I'd say you have it even more complicated than it is. Economics is the study of material valuation, that is, trade. It's based on how much the buyer is willing to pay for something based on what they think it's worth versus how much the seller thinks they can get for it.

[@HoneyBadger80886]

No mention of fiat currency debasement perpetually stealing from the workers?

[@randalltilander6684]

So the reason why healthcare is generally worse under private enterprise is that private enterprise requires a market price. A market price requires a free interplay between economic agents. That free place between market agents does not exist in a hospital. When you are doubled up with appendicitis, you are not in a position to negotiate. There is no market price. Similarly, with water and electricity, there is no competition therefore no competitive pricing. If I don’t like the price of the hydro, I can’t go anywhere else. There is only run power line in front of my house. There is only one pipe coming in from the water main. I can’t take my business to another supplier. So there is no market price for monopoly services. There are places for private business. And there are places where private business is not appropriate.

[@dallassegno]

except the government can be so utterly incompetent that everyone goes broke. May as well have own borders so anyone can choose the system they prefer.

[@TomPekarcik]

Are you talking about actual healthcare or healthcare insurance?

[@vgstb]

@@TomPekarcik Meaning?

[@TomPekarcik]

@@vgstb just like my fire insurance in California. Healthcare insurance has gotten worse because of government involvement which affects fire protection, and health coverage. The bigger government gets the smaller the Citizens gets

[@ywtcc]

@@TomPekarcik Government interferes with markets through regulations. Also, through contracts, business ethics and norms. In this way, limited liability Corporations are part of the government. They were invented to extend the power of the monarch, and to colonize. Big business and government are the same thing. The USA was several corporations before it was a country.

[@Forest_Knight]

By now it's clear that the best economic policy is a fair mix of free market activity and state regulation (especially monopoly regulation). Extremes are destructive.

What is "fair"?

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

That is an eternal question for the population of the day. There is no single answer.

@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha What is "fair"?. There is single answer. The answer it that the "fairness" is a deluded subjective fantasy. The pursuit of social 'fairness' has killed hundreds of million of people; mass murder, perpetuated by people professing to have the best intentions. They should be a social pariahs, not in Government.

[@randalltilander6684]

The data is quite clear that monopoly services like healthcare, water and electricity are better handled by the state. The private sector screws these up every time.

@@randalltilander6684 Yes..as well as food production, aircraft production, servicing and holiday flights, drug development, weapons design and production, cars, trucks, computers, software and affordable furniture ect, etc; and all the other essentials of life...thank God for government organisation; how would people ever survive without an army of fat, massively over paid, self serving, bent left wing Govt. officials deciding what they can buy, where they can live or do all day - the data is clear.

[@thomaskraus5125]

That is where we are now with government bureaucrats running up government debt without any one overseeing the government spending.

[@mtzzero]

Except that is exactly what the majority of people are voting for: Low taxes and no cuts to public services

[@MelvynRutter-q7s]

we go down an avenue of thought, where there are expected outcomes. But it is the unexpected things that change the world

[@samwhite6231]

You have a very effective country like Switzerland with a smaller but effective government. Or another effective government like Sweden with a bigger government. The issue is more about effective public and private industries- the us just isn’t doing either of thesethat well. We’ve been fighting for bigger versus smaller government. We should be more interested in effective ones.

[@brentsrx7]

What an awesome channel.

[@randywaldron2715]

What is a free market? A market free of government interference? That's the definition we've accepted since roughly 1880. Before this time, the accepted definition of a free market was 180 degrees reversed from the current definition. A free market was universally understood as a market heavily regulated by government in order to prevent the wealthiest citizens from using their wealth to game the system and funnel all the wealth to themselves. In fact, this earlier definition was exactly the definition put forth in The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. So, how did the definition get stood on its head? How did it become its opposite? Simple. The wealthiest citizens, the Robber Barrons of the Gilded Age, later examples of those Smith called The Masters of Mankind, gamed the system and funneled all the wealth into their own pockets and proceeded to buy up all the media of the day, newspapers and magazines, and also proceeded to contribute to schools and education, all in order to control the conversation. They were then able to create a definition of a free market which served their interests. This definition continues to serve the interests of the current Masters of Mankind in this, our current Gilded Age. Perhaps it's time to re-examine Adam Smith and that original notion of what a free market should look like.

[@jackdeniston6150]

Yeah you want tyranny.. Governments fail completely at this. And kill us. I Do not recall Smiths definition like you say, did you read past the pin story? Where is this definition?

[@tombrunila2695]

There has never been a free market! The owner of the marketplace has always controlled the market and decided who can sell and who can buy. In medieval times it was the local ruler that set the rules. There were strict rules on weights and measures to guarantee that nobody was ripped off! Markets had their own council that adjudicated any disputes. There was also a overseer who kept an eye on the activities. The supreme irony is that the loudest supporters of free markets are those that have the marketplaces that have the strictest rules and regulations. Like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. Even a fleamarket in any hicktown has its rules set by the owner of the fleamarket

[@lv4077]

Do you actually believe a planned economy can’t be “gamed”.I can’t think of anything easier than lobbying,bribing,a few bureaucrats as opposed to attempting to control countless individuals,all of whom must be individually influenced.

[@tombrunila2695]

@@lv4077 , a market with rules and regulations is NOT planned economy! The rules are meant to level the playing field and stop behavior that is detrimental to the economy like allowing monopolies to form. In planned economy the production of everything is planned by a state planning office. This planning office allocates production quotas to state owned factories. All means of production are owned by the state. Japan is not and has never been a planned economy. Japan has regulated its market in a way that has benefited the economy. All countries outside of the Soviet Bloc regulated their markets in order to protect their industries. And it was very successful in building wealthy prosperous societies. The free markets of today have only succeeded in hollowing out the industries of these previously wealthy and prosperous countries. The USA is prime example on how a country destroys its industrial base by clinging to free markets because of ideological reasons. Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan and China have been invited in to eat the lunch of American industry!

[@lv4077]

@ You must be some kind of stupid union organizer. If you can’t find an oppressor, you’ll fabricate one.

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

It is quite clear that in the marketplace of traffic, traffic lights maintain a more efficient system.

[@Nada-Mal]

Roundabouts do a much better job than traffic lights.

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

@Nada-Mal That is often the case, my - unchanged - point is that artificial constructs often lead to greater efficiencies than leaving it to the individual drivers and their individual impulses which often break the system completely.

[@Nada-Mal]

@@l3eatalphal3eatalpha traffic lights create chaos. Roundabouts create flowing majesty. Unless you are America, as I hear people in the USA can't use roundabouts.

[@l3eatalphal3eatalpha]

@@Nada-Mal OK, you were clearly abused by a traffic light as a child.

[@lv4077]

That has to be the most fatuous analogy I’ve ever heard

[@3d1e00]

Did Hayek ever talk about why the market economy beats the planned?

[@TheGingerjames123]

Yes, search for the "economic calculation problem" for one such example

[@bishimixes9871]

In early 2019, on national radio station LBC, James O'Brien called the IEA a politically motivated lobbying organisation funded by "dark money" of "questionable provenance, with dubious ideas and validity", staffed by people who are not proper experts on their topic. The IEA complained to the UK media regulator Ofcom that those remarks were inaccurate and unfair. In August 2021, Ofcom rejected the complaint.

[@msdm83]

The calculation problem is good work. It's just that they take to an extremes as an article of faith without empirical evidence to back the claims and ignore that free market have unintended consequences, excessive consolidation, increase in rentier income, the collapse of the middle class. There a lot of conventional economics that is really well empirically founded that contradict hayekian theory.

[@ywtcc]

The government enforces contracts, guarantees against fraud and theft, among other activities, in the private and public sectors. The goal of a free market is a PR campaign, not a practical goal. The free market is an illusion. There's a thread of government running through the whole activity. Big business is a way to force big government contracts on people. Competitive markets, and efficient markets are better goals. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and no such thing as free markets. Not even if you're outrageously entitled and cheap.

[@mtzzero]

Exactly the problem with Hayek and the Austrian school generally is that their methodology of mathmatical models over empirical evidence is counter to the hard sciences and the scientific method. In the hard sciences there are plenty of mathmatical models that are beautiful on paper, but if they dont match whats empirically measured and observed the hard sciences through them out not embrace them as fact.

[@msdm83]

@mtzzero they claim it's a priori and it's not. It's a rationalisation of the idea that would should only ever do what you want.

[@ywtcc]

We already knew all this. These people that formulated free market theory lived through the Great depression. It's better propaganda than science.

[@animalfarm7467]

One must remember that think-tanks like IEA and the IPA in the UK and Australia work for the interests of the elite through such institutions as Hayek's "Mont Pelerin Society" and the elites’ global “Atlas Network”. This is a coordinate effort to infiltrate politics around most of the planet and implement Austrian-economic policies that benefit the elite. They will give you a simple example of a local baker who may benefit briefly from their policies, but the real intent is to create monopolies through privatization and deregulation, and strip wealth from the majority. In a monopoly you have no market and that is their intent; after all, remember the words of Rockefeller, "Competition is a Sin". Notice how monopoly legislation is now either irrelevant or has been removed; this was their intent all along. This was all part of the pre-Reagan era's "Powell Memorandum”; a how-to guide on how to screw the American people. This has been in the planning by the elites for decades; it can be traced back to their response to Roosevelt's New Deal (1933) and the elites' response by such early think-tanks as National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Liberty League (the precursor to the contemporary Libertarian movement). But the treachery against the American people really got going after Nixon nominated Powell for the US Supreme Court (1971) and then Reagan implemented Reaganomics (Friedman's von Mises policies). Now we live in a growing monopolistic world by design (thanks to deregulation, privatization, and lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy) where the only winners are the elites. Friedman's old "Trickle Down" and "Laffer Curve" scams have impoverished most Americans and because the majority now has trouble consuming to the level necessary to maintain this Ponzi scheme, the approaching faltering economy is of concern to the elite who implemented this scam. Without wealth redistribution (which isn't going to happen), the elites see no alternative than to knock over the chessboard and take us to war. Just in case you haven't worked it out by now, the Libertarian movement works for the elites; they only talk the "non-intervention" talk as an enticer to get some well-meaning gullibles to join their cause. They have spent decades working alongside the Wall Street marketers to sell you on this Austrian-economic scam. When a Libertarian espousing Austrian economics talks about "freedom, prosperity, and liberty", they mean financial "prosperity" for the elites; the "liberty" to do as the elites wish to do, and the legislative "freedom" to screw you six ways from Sunday. I do enjoy the irony of Hayek's book "Road to Serfdom". That’s techno serfdom (e.g. rising costs, corporate owned government, surveillance, no freedom of speech, militarized police) for you!

[@vgstb]

Exactly, this video is part of a giant disinformation wave in order to cement the renter ("shareholder-Investor") position of power in the whole of Western sphere of influence.

[@lv4077]

I don’t think you understand anything at all about economics and you certainly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the Austrian school. On the one hand, you say, individual interests totally control politics and government which leads to an authoritarian system of government and control of the economy. A planned economy is planned by government not by an individual.. Individuals can take control of a planned economy, very easily through bribery of a bunch of bureaucrats that’s not difficult at all ,as a matter fact it’s common place. It’s virtually impossible to form a monopoly without government, power, and influence. Everything you attributed to the Austrian school and to Hayek is absolutely backward.

[@animalfarm7467]

​@@lv4077 You need to forget about "governments" and the "Individual"; there is no government and no individuals; there is only control by oligarchs and their corporations. The last remnants of government disappeared with Reagan and his, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" and the eventual "Citizens United" legislation by the Austrian-Libertarian think-tank the "American Legislative Exchange Council". This institution gave the Austrian Ron Paul's ex-business associate (Charles Koch) and other oligarchical associates the unfettered power to now buy the political processes. Remember, Charles Koch was the oligarch that coined the term, "collectivism". The Austrian-Libertarians hate the idea of a democracy; they use the pejorative that, "Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch". Austrian-Libertarians hate the part of the Gettysburg Address "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"; if Lincoln could only see us now. And when you disable a democracy and dismantle the people's government, corporations and their oligarchs fill the residual power vacuum. This was the intent of the Austrian-Libertarians and their oligarch masters all along. Do you remember the rantings of "deregulate", "privatize", and "remove taxes on the rich" by the Austrian-Libertarians over the past decades; now you understand their intent. Understand, there are no "individuals"; that's just a scam to massage the egos of the rubes; using their ignorance to aid in pushing the interests of the oligarchs. Understand there are no "Individuals"; there is only control by oligarchs and their corporations by design (Hayek). For a few moments just try to think outside of the Austrian-Libertarian cult. Forget about all that "Freedom-Liberty-Prosperity" garbage that has been programmed into you by Austrian think-tanks like the Mises Institute and individuals such as Ron Paul. Understand that the Rockefeller Foundation imported Austrian economics (and Ludwig von Mises) to the US around the start of WW2. The oligarchs then funded von Mises and set him up at Rockefeller's University of Chicago. Try to understand the Rockefeller Foundation didn't do this to benefit of the American people; always remember, JD's mantra was "Competition is a Sin". Austrian economics came out of Europe (e.g. Austria) where it was designed to benefit the European elite. Ludwig wasn't the originator of Austrian economics, but he was the tool the elites used to import it into the US. The question I have always asked is, "Why did the oligarchs wait until the Powell Memorandum and the Thatcher- Reagan administrations before they implemented their Austrian (Neoliberal) strategy?" Try to understand that Austrian economics was designed to destroy democracy, give corporations and their oligarchs free reign to do whatever they wanted, and extract the last drop of wealth from the working and middle classes and place it in the pockets of the oligarchs. Hayek's Neoliberal (Austrian) efforts have created a modern serfdom for everyone except the oligarchs - as expected.

[@animalfarm7467]

@@lv4077 For a few moments just try to think outside of the Austrian-Libertarian cult. Forget about all that "Freedom-Liberty-Prosperity" garbage that has been programmed into you by Austrian think-tanks like the Mises Institute and individuals such as Ron Paul. Understand that the Rockefeller Foundation imported Austrian economics (and Ludwig von Mises) to the US around the start of WW2. The oligarchs then funded von Mises and set him up at Rockefeller's University of Chicago. Try to understand the Rockefeller Foundation didn't do this to benefit of the American people; always remember, JD's mantra was "Competition is a Sin". Austrian economics came out of Europe (e.g. Austria) where it was designed to benefit the European elite. Ludwig wasn't the originator of Austrian economics, but he was the tool the elites used to import it into the US. The question I have always asked is, "Why did the oligarchs wait until the Powell Memorandum and the Thatcher- Reagan administrations before they implemented their Austrian (Neoliberal) strategy?" Try to understand that Austrian economics was designed to destroy democracy, give corporations and their oligarchs free reign to do whatever they wanted, and extract the last drop of wealth from the working and middle classes and place it in the pockets of the oligarchs. Hayek's Neoliberal (Austrian) efforts have created a modern serfdom for everyone except the oligarchs - as expected. This is all an act to manipulate the gullible. Always remember, Bannon was a media executive, a political strategist, and a former investment banker. Why wouldn't Bannon want to weaken the American labor market? Bannon works for Wall Street and his ranting against Musk is just part of the show. He is just another layer of controlled opposition; a mole of the oligarchs creating a narrative and just waiting for the opportunity to reinvent himself. Bannon's current job is to perpetuate hope; the same strategy used by Obama in his "Hope & Change" scam. Biden's current role is to retain favor and credibility by MAGA so he can exploit them in the future. This oligarchical strategy is ubiquitous in the west. In Britain there is a Bannon equivalent; his name is Nigel Farage. Farage has also been installed to manipulate the gullible and is a real contender for the next leadership role in Britain. Farage pretends to work for the interests of the majority when he is actually working for the interests of the few in the City of London. The oligarchs not only control the leaders in power, they also own and control those following in their footsteps. As I have said many times before, you ain't going to vote your way out of this one.

[@animalfarm7467]

@@lv4077 test

[@peterbradley6580]

The success of China's planned economy over the past 50 years presents economic facts that counter the fantasy economics expressed here.

[@TomPekarcik]

You’re talking about a country that actually uses slaves to support. It’s a economy.

[@DarkenedOne55]

China’s economy is far from a “planned economy.” a planned economy is one in which the government decides what is produced and what is invested in. China had a planned economy in the 1950s, but not after the economic performs in the late 1970s.

[@TomPekarcik]

@ it may not be “planned “. But try doing something the CCP doesn’t approve of.

[@babayaga6376]

I'm guessing Choyna planned everything, including the collapse of the real estate sector.

[@danielpye7738]

China is a clear example of free markets working how they should. They opened up to the world and western companies took advantage of a massive pool of cheaper labour. Allowing you to type that comment on a device.

[@jeffocks793]

If you are going on a date the worst thing you can do is plan your whole conversation in advance

[@mapleandsteel]

Hasn’t Walmart already proven to some limited extent at least, that a planned economy is indeed possible?

[@김도헌-o1k]

경제적 자유중에 경쟁의 자유가 보장 되어야만 혁신과 창조적 파괴가 일어나고 새로운 발견이 이룩될 것입니다.경쟁의 자유는 당사자들에게는 고통과 괴로움의 원천이지만 라는 하이에크 교수의 주장처럼 경쟁의 자유가 활발할수록 기술과 혁신이 계속적으로 발견되어서 우리 인류를 풍요롭고도 새로운 문명으로 이끌수 있을것입니다. 기업가정신은 경쟁의 자유가 보장된 제도속에서 일어나지 보호와 지원으로 된 제도적 보호 속에서는 결코 일어나지 않을것입니다. 김도헌 올림.

[@johndoubleu2952]

Good video. I just wish Ed Miliband would watch it.

[@DanHowardMtl]

Hayek rocks!

[@karlarcher8773]

Free markets sound good, but what are the risks of being a free market economy in a globalised system when other trading nations are not abiding by the same rules. I'm thinking of China being brought into the WTO.

[@MichaelClum]

Tariffs for China.

[@pwagzzz]

China never had a voice in what the west calls "the international order", a system designed to protect the hegemony of the economically superior.

[@chasethechase2298]

@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ff If you have a plan for an economy while includes nobody working I am sure it would be very popular. You should share it! I would love to not work and still reap all the benefits the socialists talk about.

[@chasethechase2298]

Ah yeah those damn Chinese invading nations to force them to trade in their currency. Ah yeah, those damn Chinese constructing a global system of trade enforcement that they refuse to be subject to. Those damn Chinese embargoing Cuba so that they can't participate in world trade.

[@gigamhzLOL]

@@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ffthat is the most ignorant and stupid thing I read in a while. thinking smart people that invent stiff do it exclusively for money ia really dumb

[@SamEisa-pt5up]

When he said a relative of Hayek, I thought he was gonna say Salma Hayek.

[@zhengyangwu8289]

Compared to Hayek the Nobel prize is nothing. Even Paul Krugman got the Nobel prize. By the way, Gunnar Myrdal shared the prize with Hayek that year. Gunnar Myrdal was the statist/socialist who ultimately dug the grave for his home country Sweden.

[@musiqtee]

Our largest «plan» is the asymmetry between legal economic subjects - the (individual) *person* vs the *incorporated body.* Ref. Stiglitz et al, Nobel laureates of 2001. In the end, this is a political-economic outcome of legislation, as described by i.e. K. Pistor. I seriously don’t think one needs to «be a socialist» to criticize the outcome of our actual legislation, and changes implemented across OECD through the last five decades. The critique is already rampant across the board, and at the moment «socialists» can’t be regarded as successfully converting it into political power. The «socialist worker’s» narrative is deprecated, replaced by individualism as the societal norm. The general global north situation seems akin to Italy, Germany or Japan a century ago - but this time not «isolated» to national or local economies, due to the transnational corporate and macroeconomic legislative shifts emerging _half_ a century ago. In turn, the right converts the public’s outrage into power - but not against the corporate realm, by which the right is supported from tradition. Rather, the outrage is channeled outwards, to real or imagined externalities and forces - away from our own (!) legislative power to change internal economic or ecological relations. We know - intellectually as well as intuitively - the dangers of this rather nationalistic path. Still, any idealism to counter it cannot be realised from an individualistic viewpoint. There we are, I guess - a _collective of individuals…?_ Hegel must have a field day, but he’s alone too…😅

[@grantgoldberg1663]

He just described central banking.

[@ReadingDave]

Private centerally planned economy is just as bad as public centerally planned economy.

[@Digibeatle09]

Anyone else wonder whether a “Central Bank Digital Currency” would be a “back door” to policies that have some of the characteristics of a “planned economy” ? I speak of a “digital currency” the ability to use which would be tied to satisfying certain conditions. Not something I would in any way want but if we’re in the last days of fiat currencies then it seems logical - from the point of view of “power hungry Govts.” - to go down that road 😱.

[@brendafosmire6519]

For me the problem with Hayek is that really are NO FREE Markets. It is the tendency of markets to be manipulated by the leaders of the market. This tendency is well documented in Piketty’s book Capitalism in the 21st Century. And FREE MARKETS have not mechanisms to deal with externalities. I can only go with Hayek’s approach if 100% of externalities must be accounted for by those who made the profit. What I am saying is that at as long as governments do not hold corporation to account for the longer term and short term impact on the system then the government if falsely holding up profiteers who put the burden of external costs on the government - so by definition it is not truly a free market. At this time in history there are zero free markets.

Absolutely. Economies can ONLY evolve, they cannot be designed. Old lessons the all career politicians refuse to learn; easier to pedal money for nothing daydreams than apply hard truth principals.Thatcher breathed a little Austrian air, but they didn't understand and have never bothered to learn what Austrian Economics actually is; assuming instead that the know all there is to know already anyway.

[@CapitalistSpy]

¡Hayek! ¡Poe favor!

[@xouat]

It is very important to highlight that "Socialist" in this context means a managed economy along the lines of the Soviet Union strictly managed by Gosplan, not a Western style welfare state where market generated price signals remain intact for the majority of economic activity.

[@n2201]

it seems free market work best for the employee and the growth of overall economy when there's threat from communism.

[@nathanngumi8467]

He was a prophet.

[@smallpeople172]

Why does he claim socialism is in favour of controlled economy? This is patently false, and one of the main socialist criticisms of capitalism is that it isn’t actually a free market. Even Marx, in capital, advocates specifically for free markets. Free markets are a left wing idea, inherently.

[@ABO-Destiny]

Interesting topic: I had a brush with business economics during my college days and it surprised me how economic models were trying to use graphs and probabilities to determine various economic factors and even predict economic future.

[@chasethechase2298]

This old propaganda didn't age well - state owned and operated services have been able to do quite well, from post offices to healthcare. Privatization has poisoned the rivers of the UK, left thousands of Americans dying every year from ungiven healthcare, and has continued the near-global housing crisis. It's easy to see how plans for economies can do better in a number of areas. Thatcher was a butcher, and there's a reason she was a fan of these ideas. To hamstring collective efforts for needs-meeting while enriching private entities for their mutual corrupt benefit.

[@secret_sauce-b5w]

Well said. On top, all these "mainstream" economists that love "free markets" just gloss over any fact that is contrary to their views: 1. China - the most successful, long-term planned economy in the world. It beat the US growth rate decades in a row. 2. Norway, Monaco, the Arab world, etc. are strongly managed 3. Mainstream economic thought is unable to model even the possibility of a recession, not to mention being able to read the signs. The economy always tends towards equilibrium, in their view. Any imbalance is externally caused. 4. Just look at the US, it is slowly turning into Ferenginar (Star Trek reference)

[@AkiraNakamoto]

Ur propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.

[@AkiraNakamoto]

This new propaganda doesn't age at all. Governmental corruption is at all time high today, in particular China. The more socialistic it goes, the more corrupted it is.

[@dallassegno]

China has a fake economy. It's data is unreliable.

[@dallassegno]

By the way, even with covid and the social disaster that followed, we live in a time when the least people are dying and everyone b is still terrified of death. My question is, so you want everyone to live forever?

[@tombrunila2695]

Hayek spewed nonsense 50 years ago and his followers spew it today! Hayek's ideas have NEVER produced a wealthy prosperous society!

[@lv4077]

What? Like all the great powerhouse “planned “ economies have.Look at the tremendous economic successes like The Soviet Union,Cuba,Venezuela and any other authoritarian regime has achieved.

[@gauravtejpal8901]

The same old garbage

[@leftmodernist5210]

Economics of course doesn’t have a real Nobel prize, as befits the dismal science

[@georgiebestmanutd4746]

Economics is a Dismal Science

[@dimiberberu]

His theory failed us miserably. Let's ignore the Biased Nobel Prize & the Western Illogical NON- Philosophy

[@dallassegno]

The theory commented on what would happen, and was apparently correct. It wasn't an application as much as an observation. The application apparently has actual results that might make the theory into law in enough years. That may be soon.

[@TomPekarcik]

We have free speech, and you’re allowed to say it is theory failed. That doesn’t mean that I or anyone else has to agree with you.

[@simonbrown8509]

Point 5 - should be no apostrophe after politician. A serious talk like this should have correct grammar or it reduces your credibility.

[@1960rlv]

Sound money is the key. Without sound money you have neither socialism nor capitalism. These two economic constructs deal with the assignment of ownership. In the case of socialism, ownership is granted to the collective. For instance, the people own the military and claim ownership through taxation. A businessman owns his enterprise and claims ownership through private equity. When money is “borrowed” ownership diminishes. As ownership withers away you are left with communism. That economic construct assigns ownership to the state. We are headed full steam in that direction.

[@brendafosmire6519]

For me the problem with Hayek is that really are NO FREE Markets. It is the tendency of markets to be manipulated by the leaders of the market. This tendency is well documented in Piketty’s book Capitalism in the 21st Century. And FREE MARKETS have not mechanisms to deal with externalities. I can only go with Hayek’s approach if 100% of externalities must be accounted for by those who made the profit. What I am saying is that at as long as governments do not hold corporation to account for the longer term and short term impact on the system then the government if falsely holding up profiteers who put the burden of external costs on the government - so by definition it is not truly a free market. At this time in history there are zero free markets.

[@TomPekarcik]

@@brendafosmire6519 thanks for your definition. I think markets try to be free.