Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics

Speaker(s): Dr Daniel Stedman Jones, Professor Mark Pennington, Professor Lord Skidelsky
Chair: Professor Stuart Corbridge
Recorded on 16 January 2013 in Old Theatre, Old Building.
How did American and British policymakers become so enamoured with free markets, deregulation, and limited government? Based on archival research and interviews with leading participants in the movement, Daniel Stedman Jones has traced the ascendancy of neoliberalism from the academy of interwar Europe to supremacy under Reagan and Thatcher and in the decades since. He contends that there was nothing inevitable about the victory of free-market politics. Far from being the story of the simple triumph of right-wing ideas, the neoliberal breakthrough was contingent on the economic crises of the 1970s and the acceptance of the need for new policies by the political left. In his lecture he will describe neoliberalism's road to power, beginning in interwar Europe, then shifting its centre of gravity after 1945 to the United States, especially to Chicago and Virginia, where it was developed into an uncompromising political message, communicated through a transatlantic network of think tanks, businessmen, politicians, and journalists held together by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. A discussion for anyone who wants to understand the history behind the Anglo-American love affair with the free market, as well as the origins of the current economic crisis.
Daniel Stedman Jones is a barrister in London. He was educated at the University of Oxford and at the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a PhD in history. He has worked as a policy adviser for the New Opportunities Fund and as a researcher for Demos. His latest book is Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics.
Mark Pennington is Professor of Public Policy and Political Economy, King's College, University of London, prior to which he spent eleven years at Queen Mary, University of London. He holds a PhD from the London School of Economics. Mark's work lies at the intersection of politics, philosophy and economics with a particular emphasis on the classical liberal tradition. His latest book, Robust Political Economy (2011: Cheltenham, Edward Elgar) examines challenges to classical liberalism derived from neo-classical economics, communitarian political theory and egalitarian ethics. From January 2013 Mark will be the European Editor of the Review of Austrian Economics.
Robert Skidelsky is Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick. His three-volume biography of the economist John Maynard Keynes (1983, 1992, 2000) received numerous prizes, and he recently published Keynes: The Return of the Master.

[@glascoebowie9359]

Give you the freedom to self destruct but no freedom to live.

[@gordonbradley199]

" holy grail of flexible labour markets " ? Please elucidate. Go into great detail. Spare us none of the lash to be inflicted on the people for being poor and having nothing to sell but our labour. Don't be mealy-mouthed. Give it to us straight. I don't expect a response. Its a secret right ?

[@Irishandtired]

Very well said, Compassion is to be replaced with pragmatism. Very dangerous stuff.

[@klewqa]

@Gordon Bradley Hello. In Germany flexible labour markets mean: Reducing state labor laws, for example, less protection against dismissal, temporary: temporary workers have fewer rights and are paid less .....than the normal employees. If you don´t know about the relation between workers and companies speak with normal workers.

[@gordonbradley199]

Andi Jack Hello. That's exactly what " a flexible labour force " means everywhere. No rights ! No security! Dogs wages ! Bosses behaving like tyrants. Huge profits and bonuses on the backs of the peoples poverty and misery. They cannot stop until they have taken everything !

[@syzygy21055]

The "gig economy" sounds kind of sexy and free and entrepreneurial until you find out it's just a euphemism for per diem wage slavery with no security or benefits.

[@mns8732]

@@syzygy21055 Amen .

[@janegoodall2520]

Pennington finds 'moral' arguments in the Thatcher government's adoption of Hayek? Does he know the difference between moral and moralising? Thatcher had the moral intelligence of an upwardly mobile middle Englander at a garden party.

[@maxheadrom3088]

There's an explanation for Hayek's ideas: he escaped Austria when his family was persecuted by the Nazis. Hayek tried to create a system that avoided the concentration of power on politician's hands - like happened in Germany. If that is a moral argument I really don't know. What is really strange is how, given the evidence, people still believe in neo-liberalism - a model as failed as communism.

[@dranelemakol]

@@maxheadrom3088 as failed as communism, is it?

[@janegoodall2520]

@@Barklord Thanks for reference. I have read Whyte's book yet. Will check it out.

[@glascoebowie9359]

No peace without war from the cradle to the grave from generation to generation.

[@libertybellgaming6551]

Pennington's critique is essentially on the right track. The first speaker's contribution is yet another superficial analysis of "neoliberalism" that fails to distinguish adequately between the propositions of neoclassical economics and those of classical liberalism. For a clear analysis of the differences, see Norman Barry's "Welfare". It also over-emphasises the influence of "neoliberalism" on policy. This myth was debunked as long ago as 1985 by Taylor-Gooby's analysis of Thatcherism. In short, the state in liberal democracies is more intrusive now than it has ever been.

[@erdo2005]

Screwers of the uniiverse should be theire official titel.

[@glascoebowie9359]

These people want to destroy your physical and spiritual and physical creativity and that's the curse of your seed.

[@imanidin6867]

Your voice is memorising

[@maxheadrom3088]

Weren't the Masters of the Universe He-Man's friends? Aren't these two more comparable to Batman's villains?

[@psusac]

Boy that first guy has all the stage presence of a bag of potatoes. HARD to listen to.

[@tomplaytom]

+psusac The second guy too. Clever people, but unfortunately not well presented.

[@dickhamilton3517]

the first guy is supposed to be a barrister, too. One I wouldn't hire; not yet, at least. Barristers need to be good performers, actors. Let's hope he gets better as he grows up..

[@larrysmith2636]

No piece without war and no perpetual piece without perpetual war. Who _new?

[@allisonbrown1865]

i can only imagine the faces skidelsky is making under his face at 1:23:00 while pennington doubles down on the media scapegoating

[@mididoctors]

that's interesting that Hayek considered everything inherently inefficient. but the problem is that the narrative it was best or most efficient under a neo-liberal regieme. it also smacks of similar notions that the soviet union wasn't real communism. if ideas transform in application to a disordered reading of their underlying ideology then claiming seperation or "innocence" is perhaps a childish defence.

[@MichaelKowatch]

This is so beyond me but I wanted to hear what intellectual people thought of deregulation.

[@MrShbbz]

these are no "intellectuals" these are apologists for the rich. Apologists of 1) destruction of society, 2) destruction of state, 3) destruction of the planet. These are apologists for the destruction of everything people hold dear, all for a small fee.

[@LaureanoLuna]

1:01:10 Globalization as a way to restore the profit share, suggests Skidelsky. Agreed. But I wonder why he never makes it explicit the huge role immigration has played in the scheme.

[@mididoctors]

I thought Mark Pennington's position is a bit desperate not least because he decided to cherry pick his anecdotes from a comparison of the lesser market..london vs wall street. where there are numerous other markets in the world regulated in many different ways that were hit by contagion stemming from the US market which is hard to attribute to over or good regulation.

[@chel3SEY]

Pennington is boringly typical of the standard academic response to ANYTHING: well, it's complicated. Academics are often crippled by their aversion to saying anything worthwhile or, worse, letting anyone else.

[@lolspeckful]

10:18

[@jistikoff2361]

Liar, liar pants on fire, Mark CATO/Heritage Pennington

[@reganjo1955]

Pennington takes a much more strident tone, attacking Krugmanite ‘revisionism’ than Stanford Jones towards neoliberalism - defensive? The knife to the heart of 2008 must be blamed on something other to keep the faith.

[@reganjo1955]

There is in Pennington’s account some interesting follow ups on Basel accords effect on financial regulations.

[@xy-fj2wk]

What is it with academics and their need for long, droning preambles describing their project as opposed to the actual content? Don't talk about the genealogy of your research and name-drop every last person you've read/worked with/studied under. Give us your thesis (original, if you can), support it, answer challenges, then sit down. Also, why the monotone? Why the complete lack of affect? Is the complete lack of personality an academic conceit meant to create the impression of detached objectivity? The only thing successfully detached is the audience's interest.

[@science212]

LSE was founded by Beatrice Webb. So, LSE is a Left Center ( Popper, John N. Gray, Mirowski, etc). Too bad.

[@rclarke5995]

dam skidelski is giving my analasis,

[@mns8732]

What a boring cad.