sad that it has so few views

@Qazdar6

7 жыл бұрын

not everyone will be on top too ;)

@chip01chip

5 жыл бұрын

I also enjoyed his discussions on EconTalk

@weisenshi4556

4 жыл бұрын

People prefer having fun, who would really cared if they could just smoke another joint if weed ?

@nickthekickBelgie

4 жыл бұрын

Because it's rubbish. We need less government to avoid boom bust? Remember 2008 and the lack of control by the government.

@nickthekickBelgie

4 жыл бұрын

@The Swedish Truth What problem? Greed? Greed is not beneficial to any society. Mammon, it's in the bible. This same greed is the fundation of the market system. Greed is good, greed is right. Profit is privatised, losses are socialised. In other words, Jack Dipshit has to pay.

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

its coming boys good lawd....

Great video!

Interesting example of government stimulating demand and manipulating supply. As Adam Smith noted, those who derive profit have 2 objectives: expand the market and destroy competition. To the second, government is introduced by established entities to restrict competition including barriers of entry through excessive regulations. A free market economy without competition functions as well as a hot-air ballon without the hot air

@PaulTheSkeptic

5 жыл бұрын

Competition is key, you're right. But sometimes regulation can increase competition. Like if you say that companies aren't allowed to get together and set prices. Or if you say that a company isn't allowed to just take over everything and form a monopoly. But I agree that government spending on big business in the form of subsidies or loan guarantees is detrimental to the economy. And I definitely agree that all the red tape at the bottom is crap and is probably due to the influence of big business in the first place. Let small business start and grow.

@ferrarkumar1103

4 жыл бұрын

@@PaulTheSkeptic the regulation implies government's authority for that. It sews seeds for further regulatory capture later on with that authority being used the wrong way.

That right there best describes what happen in 2007

@johnwayne6646

4 жыл бұрын

Glad someone posted this.

@trent3727

2 жыл бұрын

Deregulation and bad loans ? All private sector f ups

@ascendedeconpol4551

2 жыл бұрын

@@trent3727 and nothing to do with the government guarantees given to them, what a clasic

@trent3727

2 жыл бұрын

@@ascendedeconpol4551 And private businesses crying poor and lobbying for more worker immigration and the offshoring of jobs that's sustainable?

@trent3727

2 жыл бұрын

@@ascendedeconpol4551 And how is offshoring jobs making us more competitive?

Good work!! These videos are excellent and a very good way to introduce the ideas of Hayek to the general public. I am sending links to friends!

Believe it or not, "what consumers want" is a very malleable entity. You might as well argue that advertising "distorts demand".

@Adam-go7cz

7 жыл бұрын

Advertising actualy have information value. When for example brand new product is on the market nobody knows about, advertising can bring the message to the customers.

@G11713

7 жыл бұрын

The purpose of advertising is not to simply inform but to generate demand. Without stiff regulation advertiser would willing engage is deception and not merely near deception as presumably they currently limit themselves to.

@Ro500501502

7 жыл бұрын

But when adverisers have falsely advertised in the past people just didn't buy anymore of their products and lost consumer trust

@G11713

7 жыл бұрын

Ro500501502 The con game is not based on repeat customers for the same product from the same person.

@Ro500501502

7 жыл бұрын

The first time around yes, but people generally choose to buy from companies they trust and don't just buy whatever they see on TV. To become big as a company you need repeat customers over and over and to advertise costs money so usually con men stick to other ideas. If if the government told ford that they don't need to follow "stiff regulation", and they did that they would lose all their customers to their competition and go bankrupt. Thats how the free market works.

1:06 I really like the "chocolate covered pickle". My wife does not.

Interest rates and property/stock and bond prices

The proliferation of political motives into economics, which consequently made business begins to invest into politics and hires massive lobbyists to secure its interests are also responsible to the detrimental of economy. Combine that with oligarchs, then you'd have potent recipe for perpetual disaster

can you make the same video, but with transistors instead of chocolate covered pickles?

This example does well at explaining what would happen if the government intervened to provide targeted investment to firms, but what about stimulus directed to the consumer?

@life_of_riley88

Жыл бұрын

Same thing. It's makes those operating(in this case consumers)in the economic system act irrationally.

@josiasnkwana9282

11 ай бұрын

Ppl act in response to where money is going not where it's supposed to go. On that note we have good and bad preference and what encourages either of the preference is money.

This happens with or without government intervention if there is more demand for a particular product but not enough supply prices rise and this means greater potential profit so lots of money flows into mass production of the product and jobs are created and a boom happens and the more you produce the more profits in theory buy the demand isn’t high enough for this explosion in supply so prices fall to unprofitable levels then bust people are laid off and the economy isn’t doing so well but now prices go up again because supply is once again below demand so people get back into work and a boom and then bust and the cycle continues

Perhaps the greatest absurdity in economic ideology and behavior is the “social fact” that a shortage of demand poses a great threat in the outcome of recession and depression. That, indeed!, the lack of want-the currently satiated desires for needs and wants-leads to the very situation of the lack of supply of those undesired product offerings. Not the lack of sustenance, which means a state of literal poverty-but the lack of want for that sustenance-a state of fulfilled needs-characterizes the “state of poverty.” A mass who buys into this “conventionally wise” doublespeak has been sold hook, line, and sinker and down the river that obscures in its ebbs and flows the other “social fact” that a lack of demand is not the poverty of the common fishermen but that of the sole proprietor of the bait and tackle shop. What lies at the roots of literal poverty, then, is the separation of the lone fisherman from the means of their own production. Each according to their own supply, each according to their own demand. Keep the interventionist officials and the seductive advertisers-alike!-out of this equation for self reliance! Perfect competition can only be accomplished when each learns to bait their own hook.

See: corn & grain subsidies

what the video does not say(and please tell me, if i am wrong): there are subsidies wich are very important, like enviroment subsidies (like solarplants or windwheel or whatever); oil and gas is still cheaper, but the enviroment is getting destroyed - and we only have this planet wich means it is priceless... i know it is a bit polemic, but i think you get the point, right?

@G11713

7 жыл бұрын

Oil and gas is has long been subsidized as a way to motivate exploration and other R&D.

@arthurbaz2

6 жыл бұрын

Although there are some theories now that say there is no global warming, let's assume that you're right in this aspect (and I personally agree with you in this one, I see no credit in the above mentioned conspiracy theory). There are two central points in this debate that must be taken into consideration: 1. Oil plants, factories, steel industry and so on make a lot of pollution. The most direct consequence is the low air quality in the micro-environment (i.e. the neighborhood or the entire city/region), and also the greenhouse gases sent to the atmosphere. The more direct these so-called negative externalities impact someone, the easier it is to charge the "guilt" ones (not taking into account the political difficulties such as lobbying and regulatory capture). What I mean is: according to libertarian economists such as David Friedman, in a free economy, private individuals directly affected by these industries would be able to sue them for their damage to its private property (including their own lungs!). This partially solves our problem, as industries would actually seek the most effective environmental-friendly manufacturing processes, as it reduces their money spent compensating prejudiced individuals. Still, there is yet the problem of the permanent damage to the ozone layer, as it would be the hardest one not just to privatize but also to charge the real guilt ones. 2. Is global warming a bad thing? Yes, of course it is (again, assuming it is a true theory, which I do). Nevertheless, this is not a sufficient argument to justify government's intervention. Nowadays, this utilitarian way of thinking and planning public policies seems quite logical, but we must not simply ignore some ethical points in the public policies' debate only because it's not the rule anymore. When people sustain such an argument (government should subsidize solar energy, government should offer universal healthcare and so on), although they are, for most of us, result of a concern with real troubles of the life, what they actually say is that everyone should be compelled (i.e. stolen) by some other ones (the State) to pay for it... No matter how particularly dear are these causes for us, we must not let this blind us from the ethical problems concerning invading the liberties of others (and that's why they gave a Pickles example, I guess: so that the point can be clearly seen). Well, I am sorry for the huge answer, but I see no smaller way to say it .-.

@NZH00

4 жыл бұрын

@@arthurbaz2 so do you believe that the state should have no right to collect any form of tax whatsoever?

@arthurbaz2

4 жыл бұрын

@@NZH00 precisely, taxation is thefth

@amirfaqihi9130

2 жыл бұрын

If you take a deeper look in yourself, you realize there are actually things that you demand, on a daily basis, that rely on fossil fuels, because there are no proper alternatives to meet those demands at the hand for now, if you do assess that, you realize that you prioritizs your current welfare over genuine climate friendly policies, idk, the entire telecommunication industry, transportation, transformation of data and all these things at this enormous rate of functioning would collapse without fossil fuels, a good example is blackouts and inflation that if go worse, i poromise people will find themselves in such a misery that they no longer give a damn to climate and environment, the climate issue gets solved by engineers and scientists, not politicians.

Alguem consegue traduzir para BR ??

Even in 2022 People still ignore these basic rules of cycles.

(im a newbie at economics but..) Japan's did this, the goverment intervened and favored national companies over foreign ones.. and their economy grew like crazy! (yes, they also implemented some great liberal measures) Why did Japan's intervention worked? If Japan didn't intervene, maybe the country could've grew faster and wider?

@noonegivesafork6320

3 жыл бұрын

I'm really interested in reading about this. Could you please tell me which time period you are referring to so I can look it up?

@srta.carlota696

3 жыл бұрын

@@noonegivesafork6320 If i'm correct I think it is right after the WWII finished. 1950's

@JK-ku2mj

3 жыл бұрын

The growing in Japan is close to 0 since 20 Years by heavily invention of the central bank - it is not working... The bad companys have to make space by busts...if you help companys in trouble you have no growth.

at 1:09 But Brian's plan... can someone spell the next word pls

@jonaskoelker

8 жыл бұрын

+vudulp "But Brian's plan is flawed: he assumes there will be great demand for chocolate-covered pickles"

@bigy4360

8 жыл бұрын

+vudulp "But Brian's plan's *flawed*."

the bust in reality was caused by companys building to fast because the demand was so great but eventually it ran out of steam and the people bought the one they wanted consistently and given that Gov is the issuer of currency and banks loan out the currency at its roots all currency is created by Gov.banks are for profit the Gov isn't

An important question is why our society continues to experience cycles of boom and bust. There is sound historical research on this issue that is ignored because the findings are too politically volatile. Our systems of law and taxation have evolved NOT to stimulate a non-inflationary full employment outcome but to secure and protect what in economics is referred to as rent-seeking privilege. The outcome of laws that favor rent-seeking result in the redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producers, or free riders. The way government at all levels raises revenue to pay for public goods and services has many of these elements. We tax income earned producing goods and providing services. We tax the tangible goods we produce. And, we tax the exchanges of these goods and services. Such taxes impose high consequences on economic output, referred to in economics as "dead weight losses." And, then, there is nature. The cost of production of nature is zero. No human labor is required. No capital goods are required. From a moral perspective, the earth is the birthright of all persons equally. What the individual needs to apply labor and capital goods to nature is secure possession. In return for secure possession, the individual who controls nature (which, in most cases is a parcel or tract of land, whether in a town or city or in a rural region suited for agriculture or mineral extraction) OWES to the community a payment for this protection, for the privilege of being permitted to control some portion of the planet. What, then, ought to be this charge? We can look to the 18th century political economist Adam Smith for the answer. Every parcel or tract of land has some potential rental value, what people engaged in competitive bidding would pay to gain control of that part of nature. Political economists referred to this charge as "rent." What individuals would bid is based on the advantages attached to the land involved over other locations. The English political economist David Ricardo applied scientific analysis to determine how the rental value of locations would change over time, as population increased and the opportunity disappeared for people to move to and produce on land not then occupied or claimed. Late in the 19th century, the American political economist Henry George concluded that the primary reason why societies experienced these cycles of boom and bust, the primary reason that income and wealth was becoming increasingly concentrated, was because rent was left in private hands and government taxed what really belonged to people, earned from working, from producing goods and providing services. Henry George's lesson to us remains to be put into practice. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer by our own hands. Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

@abcrane

2 жыл бұрын

my vision for a new economic model may resonate with you it's a rather lengthy video, but explains in detail the nuts and bolts of the vision kzread.info/dash/bejne/fYirw7CPlqjYh6Q.html

I actually make chocolate pickle, it does not taste bad!

Hayek is the Tesla of Economics.

Canada

Gasp, you mean stimulus checks are a bad thing? The future is grim.

Aren't there ways of creating jobs without distorting prices. Instead of giving subsidies, the government can invest in things we really need, like hospitals, roads, bridges, , energy, waterplants, sewages or public housing etc. With this kind of plan, we can avoid a bust in the economy without distorting prices.

@TheHexicle

5 жыл бұрын

Loïck Lépine Well, those are all things that do have a demand, unlike chocolate-covered pickles, and investing into those businesses are merely a more direct way of supporting the businesses and totally rely upon the government having good judgement.

@hogbowlbeats

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheHexicle And as the rule of thumb goes, a system dependent on the right people running it is not a good system.

@sambatterson

3 жыл бұрын

@@hogbowlbeats Is there a system that doesn't need people running it? Do we install wind chimes to run everything?

@hogbowlbeats

3 жыл бұрын

@@sambatterson I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Every system does require people, but some systems like capitalism can work no matter who is sitting in the White House.

change chocolate pickles to solar and that is how solyndra failed.

Really could use one of them chocolate covered pickles right about now

So why can’t the government understand the market first and then create job opportunities where demand is in correspondence with what the market wants?

@amirfaqihi9130

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is that governments have always been confident that they understand the market, that's why you find them passionate to pass laws in favour of the respective economic purposes, but the fact is that market is tightly linked to the people's demand, and people's demand is not sustainable over time, at least not much enough to keep up with the long-term economic meassures that absorb a huge amount of money, so the demand and the pre-conditioned trillion dollar governmental programs can not go hand in hand and the entire thing goes to waste! he who knows market, knows well that market can not be foreseen. and that is the mystery of market that collides with economical edicts.

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." the Ayn Rand Lexicon

Didn't they do massive infrastructure projects with FDR's New Deal? Using chocolate covered pickles as an example is kind of reductive.

@Swift-mr5zi

4 жыл бұрын

*The point*

@samuelthornton9179

3 жыл бұрын

They have to use bad examples because it doesn't work in real life.

@craigthebrute2409

3 жыл бұрын

Like a road to nowhere

@adamreed2256

3 жыл бұрын

They absolutely did, but there are some key differences. First, they didn't simply throw money at businesses like we often see (bailouts, stim packs, etc...). I could be wrong but I don't think Hayek argued that the government doing things is wrong, but rather its the approach that matters. Second, these infrastructure projects were later privatized as their function (employment) had been finished and it mattered less if they weren't necessary. Finally, analogies by nature are reductive.

There are actually at least three fundamental parties in modern capitalist transactions, the consumer, the producer, and the investor. The profit goals of the investor and the value goals of the consumer are fundamentally at odds. Government acts as the forum for the transaction. The produce and investor may be one in the same like a doctor with an independent practice who belatedly develops a cheap cure for all diseases and goes bankrupt facing no repeat customers but outstanding capital loans.

@CyanTeamProductions

6 жыл бұрын

G11713 So lets just change it up and make it SOCIALIST

@CyanTeamProductions

4 жыл бұрын

The Swedish Truth Hell yes

@CyanTeamProductions

4 жыл бұрын

The Swedish Truth Except it hasn’t and has only built up countries.

@CyanTeamProductions

4 жыл бұрын

The Swedish Truth China, USSR and like Cuba did not rack up national debt. You must be mistaken for the United States that has the highest national debt in the world.

@CyanTeamProductions

4 жыл бұрын

The Swedish Truth Ok you need to specify which President Roosevelt you are talking about. The War in Afghanistan is not what ruined the USSR by any means. The biggest lost the USSR talk was a geo political one. I know China today is a state capitalist hellhole. And no I’ve never been to Cuba but I talked to a good amount of people who have both been to Cuba and some parts of the United States and Latin America. They say Cuba has their shit together and they are glad they live there. I appreciate you forming a good argument instead of just saying “umm actkualy communismsm has killed 26373837372932837338393737388 people under Joseph Ze Castro, leader of socialist Mexico”.

That's great; but doesn't say anything about monetary supply or WHEN governments should act on the monetary supply... because Hayek takes a "hands completely off" model; which ignores modern economics.

@AbhishekSingh-pp1ks

6 жыл бұрын

What does this have to do with reccesions before government interference? Recessions always happen but government intervention can cause them too. The market and the government can't fix it all and we have to deal with problems. Hayek thought that the government couldn't deal with these problems. Whenever the government tries to fix a problem it prolongs it. Instead of short minor reccesions like we have before the FDR era we had longer more severe Recessions because the government intervened.

@davidknapp5403

5 жыл бұрын

Abhishek Singh not to mention the #1 interfering factor in the economy.. The Fed. If currency was finite the values of products would have more meaning. But with a fiat currency (not money) there is nothing to peg value to. Goods and services in turn become more difficult to assign value to, at least a value that can be associated to a finite factor. Such as gold and silver. (Human nature automatically assigns more value and a impulse to conserve when there is a known limit to any commodity, IE, my last 20 bucks till payday) But when value is subject to the speed of the printing press,,what real value does it really have?

@killianmiller6107

5 жыл бұрын

I have to wonder if there is a purpose for both fiat currency and commodity currency in the economy. Fiat is very malleable and can be adjusted with ease while commodity is grounded and intrinsically valuable.

Since the 1980s, Western leaders have insisted on the Chicago School free-market claim that neoliberal economies are naturally self-regulating and more productive than mixed economies with government regulation and ownership of basic infrastructure. Friedrich Hayek proclaimed that such government “interference” is the road to serfdom. That was the Orwellian rhetoric that so entranced Margaret Thatcher and American libertarian free marketers and deregulators, and which underlies much of the New Cold War’s hyperbole. A “market” with public “interference” is accused of “violating” economic “liberty”- by which is meant the liberty of the wealthy to deprive debtors, clients and consumers of their own economic and personal freedom. The two thousand years of historical experience since classical Rome shows that such liberty or “free markets” for the wealthy lead to oligarchy, and that oligarchies literally are the road to serfdom. Michael Hudson. The Destiny of Civilization

@TheAgathist

Жыл бұрын

I both agree and disagree with the claims made here. I say this while acknowledging Hudson's experienced history looking at the effects of debt and rent-seeking on an economy...which I believe is mostly a result of regulatory capture and lobbying. Now... (1) Western leaders can spout all they want about "free market" this and that, but have they really implememented the majority of policies advocated by economists like Hayek and Friedman? Hell no! They're still hung up on Keynes for the most part, because Keynes provides most of the justification for political power and interference in the economy. (2) Regulatory capture was NEVER the plan for those Austrian School and Chicago School economists, and they were also well aware of it...especially Friedman. Favoritism in the forms of subsidies, grants, bigger percentage of tax cuts, etc., were NEVER advocated by true laissez-faire adherents. (To my knowledge, anyway🤔). (3) And while the subject of oligarchy may not have been perfectly understood or studied by Hayek, I don't believe that it annihilates Hayek's overall point that government (even in the form of oligarchy) can end up being the road to serfdom.

@spiritofgoldfish

Жыл бұрын

@@TheAgathist The term "free market" has a meaning. It means to be free from economic rent. Economic rent is extracted by monopolies and the banks (FIRE, finance, insurance, and real estate). This rentier oligarchy is the anti-democratic deep state cited here: Reagan’s election marked the ascension of deep political forces to a position of sovereignty. Practically speaking, what emerged was an exceptionist tripartite state comprised of (1) a feckless public state, (2) a sprawling security state, and (3) the anti-democratic deep state to which they are subordinated. This consolidation and institutionalization of top-down power was such that US governance could thereafter be described as a deep state system. Good, Aaron. American Exception: Empire and the Deep State (p. 260). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition. where exceptionist means the US can break any rule it feels like

@TheAgathist

Жыл бұрын

@@spiritofgoldfish Unfortunately, the developed world's citizens have ceded too much power to the state apparatus to make decisions for them, leading to our current dilemma with the deep state. It did not start with Reagan, but it can be argued that its seeds really started back in the days of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations. It just slowly got worse from there. Be that as it may, does this still not reinforce the idea that it is the STATE which is the primary problem here, and that it causes so many of our other problems? Basically, I agree with your fundamental definition along with classical economists, but even they acknowledged that issues such as economic rent was mostly a result of the bigger problem of state intervention. It was one of many issues against the state, and economists such as Smith, Bastiat, and Say would know about it. Smith especially spent a good portion of The Wealth of Nations talking about it (and I'm not ignoring what he recommended government SHOULD do). I suppose, as a minor detail, I should also mention that definitions change over time. How many definitions of the word "socialism" do people have anyway? The same goes for "free market". It tends to make conversations confusing, but it helps to make clear what people are talking about with each other. However, I believe on this issue the classical economists would agree on the connection of rent and state intervention, and that their writings can demonstrate that. My contention is this: If we want to be free from economic rent (especially with private equity firms buying up more land to rent with publicly subsidized money), then we have to loosen the bonds of state interference (since the state makes all this power and wealth concentration possible through favorable legislation). In the short term, I am also not against the idea of a land value tax if it can be partnered with either a flat tax, Pagovian tax, or both of them, since I think the Georgists may have a good argument on that front and they could replace other taxes altogether. Ideally, though, I would be in favor of abolishing the state, since I consider myself an individualist anarchist.

@spiritofgoldfish

Жыл бұрын

@@TheAgathist Getting rid of "the state", or "the government" would only mean direct rule by the oligarchy instead of through government. It wouldn't remove the powerful from power, just leave the powerless completely exposed. In the empire whose home is America, central planning is done by the managers of large concentrations of wealth such as JP Morgan and Blackrock, and number about 300 individuals managing $50 trillion as of the posted interview, instead of democratically elected representatives as the classical economists envisioned. This oligarchy hires the politicians, regulators, spies, and generals, of either or both parties in the US and client oligarchies around the world, through the revolving door on the deferred compensation plan, and they are who the governments work for. Corporations spend more lobbying than the combined payroll and other costs of running both houses of congress, and this doesn't count money in political campaigns. Congress only votes on laws written by corporate lawyers. kzread.info/dash/bejne/jIl7ypOMpZqTn84.html

@spiritofgoldfish

Жыл бұрын

@@TheAgathist At the dawn of the twentieth century, the application of classical economics combined with advances in technology led people to believe that a golden age of human progress and prosperity was approaching. But the reactionary rentier class used its rentier fortunes to launch an economic “Counter-Enlightenment.” As Michael Hudson summarizes, To deter public regulation or higher taxation of such rent seeking, recipients of free lunches have embraced Milton Friedman’s claim that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. [. . .] The actual antidote to free lunches is to make governments strong enough to tax economic rent and keep potential rent-extracting opportunities and natural monopolies in the public domain. The point here, articulated by Orwell, is that technological progress in production and in economic planning should have ushered in a golden age of civilization. Instead, activist elites recognized the implications of this dynamic and responded by using their wealth and power to maintain the inequality and material insecurity that are preconditions for their continued dominance over society. Good, Aaron. American Exception: Empire and the Deep State (p. 180)

Even in a simple explanation, it seems detrimental anyway.

What if something is really important and necessary but no really profitable ?

@miiscrayolacat2

4 жыл бұрын

I think it becomes expensive

@seanpaulhiggins4365

4 жыл бұрын

If a product is important and necessary, why wouldn't it be profitable?

@pacflip10

4 жыл бұрын

Sean Paul Higgins if the benefits are mostly long term. Think the about the environment or space exploration. These are thing to care about in the long run but it’s hard for people to see a return in the short run.

@rianhoward3911

3 жыл бұрын

@@seanpaulhiggins4365 Feeding poor people

@LaminarSound

3 жыл бұрын

If it’s really important, really necessary, and hasn’t been profitized, it’s obviously something the government is running.

It is SAD that people don't realize GOVERNMENT is a normal person graduated to a key position, called Government by election of people who trust, like his/her views or corruption with-in the electorate Normally all Governments are held in Proxy to a Elite system of individuals that direct a Countries political direction that benefits them. One such World directed entity is the Central Banks , held by the Rothschild empire and the US Federal Reserve. It seems the US President Trump is working to redirect correctness in our World system. Corruption has created Wars for profit and the Rich elites of the World.

Hayek FACT, only BILLIONAIRES know that chocolate covered pickles SUCK ! (Hey, buy my Tesla car ! I'm sure it won't suck right)

Poor sound volume and quality. THUMBS DOWN.

So, Hayek said we shouldn't be giving all these subsidies to big companies? It seems to me that whether you're a proponent of Hayek or Keynes, you should be voting Democrat if the economy is your main concern.

@Leadlight280

3 жыл бұрын

Hayek wants the government to stop interfering in ANY WAY, not just the ones that benefit companies but also regulations.

@amirfaqihi9130

2 жыл бұрын

Hey, 2022 now and democrats are in, what do you think now?

@olubunmiolumuyiwa

2 жыл бұрын

@@amirfaqihi9130 lmao

This straw man argument is kind of irritating. It doesn’t even mention demand side economics, and the command economy subsidy was something ridiculous like chocolate covered pickles, instead of electric cars or space technology.

And of governments didn't get involved, there would be no Internet. Ahhh well, nothing like a little more propaganda from the Fraser Institute.

@CCon2284

5 жыл бұрын

The internet was the ARPANET funded by the US Department of Defense. Defense is well within Government limits. ALL the things your average person enjoys about the internet is due to unregulated Business use and development not the Government.

@amirfaqihi9130

2 жыл бұрын

I can't believe people like you exist. free market produces, politicians claim the credit, and fools fall for it.

Hayek thinks that market signals are perfect? directly contradicting Minsky's theory of the inherent instabilities of the market.

I love how you have to go to the comical extreme to hide the dark side of Hayek's economics... When you are talking about chocolate covered pickles it is fairly easy to make the government's hand seem out of place... Talk about the food people need, the fuel they depend on, or the houses they live in and suddenly this sounds like the load of free market hogwash it is.

@RollinsFN

4 жыл бұрын

The market follows what people demand, if there is demand for food and housing, then the market will produce such things. One thing this video fails to mention is that the bubbles are not only cause by bad investments by capitalists, but also by unsustainable loans made by regular people, Spain right now has a housing price crisis, because the government has house construction severely regulated which difficults production and cuts the offer of them(driving the prices up) and the fact that the European Union is printing money just to give it to banks for loans, which allows the bank to give people loans that can be paid for as long as 40 FUCKING YEARS, which of course means they give gigantic loans which in turn drives prices higher(cuz people just keep loaning more and more money, to match the house prices). Government can and does destroy the market stability and create bubbles.

@iyang2341

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with a free market society, but I do believe that healthcare and education should be free, funded by wealth taxes.

@sambatterson

3 жыл бұрын

@@RollinsFN The market follows money. People's demands are a corollary. Let's be clear on that.

Given the huge amount of "deregulation" since the 80's, which was a result of "hands-off" government. Now that's not worked out too well has it? Huge wealth transfer, mega to big to fail banks. Economic offshoring resulting in a hollowing out of jobs and economic prosperity for most. Financial services taking an ever larger share of the economy with all the funny money created with the credit explosion ( enabled by deregulation ).

@SwornInvictus

5 жыл бұрын

James Lovering Does QE mean anything to you?