Jordan Peterson explains Hayek and Mises in 1 minute!

This is taken from Dr. Peterson's recent interview with Dr. Robert P. Murphy. I do not own this content and my only aim is to spread the word.
The full interview is here: • Is Property Theft? | D...
I recommend you read F.A. Hayek and L. von Mises's seminal articles on this topic, namely:
"The Use of Knowledge in Society", by Hayek: www.econlib.or...
"Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", by Mises: mises.org/libr...

[@mr.mcfife4131]

This is the Hayekian "knowledge problem" and Misesian "calculation problem" although very briefly mentioned.

[@ShrewdCapital]

Absolutely right. Decentralization is essential to life.

[@SlavaU-ug7st]

Interestingly, Peterson came up with Hayekian ideas of social evolution in his "Maps of Meaning" without reading Hayek.

[@menaclaura]

which part? I am currently starting Maps of Meaning

[@SlavaU-ug7st]

@@menaclaura it just goes through the whole book: social evolution starts with repeating the actions of our ancestors without fully understanding the meaning of these actions. Then language appears which helps us to communicate and modify these actions more effectively. The function of this teaching-learning scheme is to help our group to survive and prosper.

[@Shoutinthewind]

Why do you think he didn’t read Hayek?

[@not_emerald]

@@SlavaU-ug7st You're describing a good chunk of The Fatal Conceit lol Maps of Meaning seems good then. I always thought Peterson should read The Sensory Order

[@rsimpson69]

​@@Shoutinthewindhe spoke more of Orwell and the Road to Wigan Pier, and his rebellion against his Christian upbringing, in the foreword, didn't he? The paragraph on luciferian pride stuck out to me almost as much as Mises paragraph in Human Action about the comparison of the free market to an election. It's been 6 years since I read either tho. It's possible Peterson had read Hayek by then, but I don't recall any mention by Peterson within MoM or prior to the publishing of that interesting work in the late 90's

[@NarcArtTherapy]

There is no such thing as a limited government, just as there is no wolf that won't eat sheep.

[@AbolitionistPrivateer]

@@novinceinhosic3531 Right--they protect the sheep from wolves, so that the sheep can be shorn and eaten by the shepherd.

[@Lobishomem]

So are you an anarchist?

[@luzi29]

Hayek was specific on this. He said everyone is responsible to make decisions in areas where he is knowledgeable of and which are in the scope of his decision making. To assume otherwise would be dangerous. However he also stated that the power of bureaucrats should not be underestimated and pose a real danger.

[@ryanh8709]

I doubt Peterson has ever read Mises

[@user-qb9ex8hc9o]

He gave a lecture series on the Bible without reading it first.

[@SisyphusIsSmiling]

He’s also critiqued Ayn Rand by arguing for her ideas - he put her strawman down and then argued what he thought was an original idea, but was really just the elementary explanation of Rands Aelf-interest. Kind of embarrassing how much of a hack he is. Same with Sam Harris.

[@dr.floydmillen4736]

Hayek's influence on Margaret Thatcher was phenomenal. My book "Thatcherism Hayek & the Political Economics of the Conservative Party" looks at this

[@exe089]

No! This one Minute does NOT explain Hayek AND Mieses in one Minute. How arrogant and missguided ...

[@rasqual78]

It's like saying you can have weather forecasting with no weather stations, just one meteorologist thinking in a room.

[@chubsteriffic]

Invisible Hand (markets) versus Visible Hand (autocrat)…

[@marcomotta2507]

centralization vs decentralization State vs market

[@williamdevonshire356]

awesome vid, one of my favourites now

[@Utrecht-s2b]

Big conglomerates are doing exactly the same thing

[@martonk]

This is a perfectly right summary, yes.

[@crispybrofu4888]

Like if Moicano brought you here

[@gabz72h]

Not All Heroes Wear Capes

[@the0crowd258]

This is a great argument for worker democracy. "Each [worker] is going to have knowledge that pertains to their [job]" which their boss won't. Hundreds/thousands of "expert distributed minds", who "specialise" in their roles, and have democratic power over a firm will know how to run said firm better than an unelected CEO.

[@user-iy3gx9qg4y]

That...conflates bunch of things together, unfortunately. While I'm personally is in favor of more worker democracy, to suggest that each and every employee understands everything and anything manager does is absurd. In fact, it directly misunderstands the role of the manager. Managers, especially lower down the chain, do not represent capital(ist class). They are worker themselves, busy at managing the overall functionality of the enterprise. Compare that to a non-profit. In an NGO, you can receive funds, hire and fire people, manufacture goods, maintain logistics etc. The only difference is that you are not doing it for the purpose of getting a continuous profit. But why would a HR or a logistics guy bother about each other? Why would an accountant care about safety measures or utilites? Not only is that not their job, they most likely have very clue about it. To force them to pay attention to these things is to divert their valuable, specialised time on things they can't really contribute to. This is econ 101 - called division of labour. Running a firm/NGO means thinking about it as a whole and it's place in the market. Contrast that with what a burger flipper at your burger chain thinks about and you realize that these two have nothing in common. I'd suggest reading Coase "Nature of the Firm".

[@themelancholicguy139]

wise as usual

[@sisyphus37]

Wonderful! Allow me to translate to Spanish please.

[@p_almeidajorge]

sure! go ahead

[@CarlosHernandez-dn2ry]

Please notify

[@JMG72ARG]

wonder why they abandoned something that worked so well, planned intentional collapse?

[@UltraRik]

hayek was kinda postmodernist and was interested in psychology i wonder what peterson would say abt it

[@complexphenom402]

Hayek was definitely not postmodernist, at all. This is bordering on smear.

[@mr.mcfife4131]

If you can call Hayek postmodernist you can just as easily also call JP the same why not do that?

[@Raiken333]

BITCOIN!!!

[@sinamirmahmoud7606]

a single mom ... having nothing ... raises up healthy kids ... despite everything she holds her up high ... what is the comparative value you contribute in contrast with her ...

[@rsimpson69]

She fed them nothing and they still grew healthily? Impressive feat

[@lucasmichelsivao4277]

boa pedrola

[@hachizhachix639]

No digo mucho.Pero los neoclásicos son tan infantiles con su utopía de libre mercado

[@mrsentencename7334]

We need to keep our eyes on the state apparatus regardless of how far you go with it. We cannot let it run out of control

[@sukhtatla]

Bitcoin fixes this

[@tedhoward2606]

Yes - it is a beautiful explanation of why markets worked well in the past, but fails to indicate why they fail in the presence of fully automated systems. Totally agree that distributed systems are appropriate in all but the most dire of external emergencies. When faced with real novel chaos there can be real value in central constraints, but typically such case are rare. In most instances diversity and autonomy at every level is the optimal approach to survival. Today, the idea that markets provide a useful arbitrage of value across domains can no longer be sustained; not without a high universal income.

[@petherpettersson6152]

False in all possible ways, there has always been automation and improvement of production, today is nothing new. UI will be catastrophic on the regular socialist policy standards.

[@mr.mcfife4131]

They probably said the actuak same thing to Mises in 1920 (albeit in German). Lefties defy evolution.

[@Penps]

I beg your pardon sir but as you called it a real novel choas was out there(the coronavirus) and it was highly centrally planned and freedom was coerced and harrased on almost every aspect of our life for the benefit of fellow men and we can now see how smarter it could've been if we would've just let the people the freedom to decide what they ought to do about the upcoming "dangers"

[@raylens]

income is useful in relations to other goods and only effective if prices remains the same over time, which is impossible on a dynamic environment like the market or by other circumstances like inflation you could say "universal income must be X" but by applying the same logic you could also say "the price of a dozen eggs must be Y", income is not the only factor who determines purchasing power something like an universal income would only rise the prices proportionally because all the consumers see their purchasing power increased the same way

[@tedhoward2606]

​@@petherpettersson6152 Today is fundamentally different, but it is different in ways that are deeply complex. Freedom is like water. Too little and we die of thirst, too much and we drown. Freedom is an essential part of being human. It is the ability to search the domains of the possible. Too little freedom, and we are unable to adapt to the changes that happen in reality. Too much freedom and we destroy the constraints required for the existence of complexity at some level. Freedom requires responsibility if it is to survive. And what responsibility looks like is a deeply complex notion, that tends to be extremely context sensitive. I have been programming computers (among other things) for 50 years. Chat GPT now codes faster and more reliably than I do - I use it for that function. For almost all of our history, it was not possible to meet the reasonable needs of every person. Scarcity for most was a very real thing. In that situation, markets are a very useful tool, in that they support distributed use of cognition and creativity across multiple domains. But as we develop the tools to be able to fully automate the production and distribution of an increasing set of classes of goods and services, in a way that could potentially make them available to all individuals; the economic incentives to make profit become orthogonal to the need to meet the reasonable needs of everyone. Universal income is a mechanism to prop up market capitalism, as it ensures that everyone has some ability to engage in markets, and thus there is avenue to make profit by meeting the needs of those people. It realigns the market incentives with human needs to some significant degree. It is not any sort of panacea, and it does get us some time to transition to something even more distributed and robust with lower long term risk profiles, that also supports individual freedom to the greatest degree possible.

[@paranadasimple7087]

Nonsense, stop pretending as if the capitalists are servants of consumers, consumers aren't king in this game. We are constantly pushed by ads to consume their products. There are thousand of consumption patterns being developed because we humans are social creatures, the rest is constructed, we are not born to "prefer" an Iphone.

[@SlavaU-ug7st]

We are born to prefer higher status to lower one. Capitalism just exploits it by providing us with the means of achieving it.

[@CV-ju6ul]

All preferences are constructed. Our preference for an iphone comes from its utility to us, and ads try to alert us of this. We aren't mindless drones. Capitalists are absolutely accountable to consumers for every dollar they earn.

[@arthurdayne5146]

it's not like advertising was a pointed weapon against your head tho

[@paranadasimple7087]

@@arthurdayne5146 right, but you still have a choice within a "given context", so they are basically trying to persuade you to buy their product as supposed to you atomically deciding out of your "own" preferences.

[@paranadasimple7087]

@@CV-ju6ul so they are also accountable for polluting the environment right???????