Not a single mention of Mises? He was a huge influence on Hayek.

@theGuilherme36

8 жыл бұрын

***** It mentioned so much "neoliberalism", an ideology which Hayek rejected: for him, he was a classical liberal in the tradition of Locke, Smith and Hume.

@knk5306

7 жыл бұрын

Just fyi there are better justifications for your point. It is a gross simplification that Hitler "came" to power... it is well documented that the WP/Nazis seized it by force and intimidation.

@salvyy

7 жыл бұрын

Two of the most horrible humans ever lived. Their theorries have caused disasters in the world.

@theGuilherme36

7 жыл бұрын

John Elmot Their theories were never applied

@thomasmurphy9429

7 жыл бұрын

+Guilherme Resende Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, the IMF. 🤔basically all neoliberals.

As an LSE student, I can confirm the professors still brag about Hayek being alumni.

@niovioikonomou8449

4 жыл бұрын

EconBuz Economics 😂😂😂😂

@commentconnoisseur1001

4 жыл бұрын

I know I am late to the party here, but I would highly appreciate some advice on getting in to LSE, as it is a serious prospect for me at present.

@jonwlls

4 жыл бұрын

@@commentconnoisseur1001 what A-levels and grades do you have

@Swift-mr5zi

4 жыл бұрын

@@commentconnoisseur1001 You need A*AA if you're in the UK and a very good Personal statement. My PS had lots of smart economic history references that show a great depth of knowledge.

@Xez1919

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong, I have only met professors at the LSE (with the exception of one individual), which were very proud of the Fabian Society. If they mentioned Hayek, they critizised many of his ideas.

You said that he noticed that "when economies were in a recession central banks often artificially injected more money and credit". But actually he noticed that such injection happened *before* the recession, during the so-called boom. His theory of business cycle explains how easy money and credit by central bankers creates such artificial and unsustainable booms, and thus contributes to business cycles (rather than alleviates them).

@MTCoblivsicas12345

5 жыл бұрын

He says essentially that the Central Bank sets interests rates low, inject unnecessary capital which gets confused for real funds that they borrow at then often injected into poor Investments.

@geminix365

4 жыл бұрын

Well, of course, before AND after, as it is in a cycle forever

@alecneal8335

4 жыл бұрын

The Boom leads to the Bust

@C_R_O_M________

4 жыл бұрын

@@MTCoblivsicas12345 which is exactly what's been happening for years nowadays and we have ended up with a corporate bond market of over 60% in the speculative-grade (Baa Moody's and/or BBB S&P) range, a first ever in history (if I'm not mistaken about the latter). For sure the worst ever in the past few decades.

@nickolas7407

4 жыл бұрын

Well that makes more sense

his voice is so clear and well spoken that even the auto generated subtitles are getting it right

Went to my university's library today. An entire shelf dedicated to Marx's works. Not one copy of On the Road to Serfdom in the entirety of the economics and political theory sections.

@masterkaran4u

6 жыл бұрын

it was for a reason, one is a titan, another is just an ant.

@Ayzahar

5 жыл бұрын

And they had to make the ant bigger than the titan.

@brunopbch

5 жыл бұрын

People who think Marx was something don't understand the time value of money neither people's subjective time preferences.

@NuncEstBibendumX

5 жыл бұрын

That's weird, my uni has lots of stuff about Hayek, and during lessons in philosophy and political science his name is brought up multiple times.

@dorottagati6883

5 жыл бұрын

Jonnathan Crane can say the same thing about yourself xddd

As someone who has read everything by Hayek, let me correct you. He was never comfortable with authoritarian dictators as long as they left the market free, his stance was that if Rule of Law and not of men. Dictators are not compatible with that vision, only democracy is, a democracy restrained by Laws.

@gustavop5706

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, very well pointed!

@jasonbourne9819

Жыл бұрын

Laws protecting life, liberty and property.

@carneades.

Жыл бұрын

A lot of videos on this channel take a political stance. It's clear that the school of life is not neutral in it's videos.

@leeoreilly6797

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonbourne9819 "protecting life" Does that include healthcare?

@jasonbourne9819

Жыл бұрын

@@leeoreilly6797 healthcare is your own responsibility and choice.

Thank you The School of Life for creating free content for the community. I hope you realise how much people appreciate your videos and work :)

@Renato84Br

6 жыл бұрын

K. It's not free. You don't want it to be free, by the way. It's created in a environment of minimal barriers, so that a huge number of people get to watch a content you choose. It's called advertising space. It works poorly for AAA videogames, for example, but works wonderfully for the kind of content that is offered at youtube. It feels like free and it makes a lot of great content available to millions of people. It' extremely clever.

@umakemeill7

6 жыл бұрын

K. And

@PremiumCheeses

3 жыл бұрын

@@Renato84Br Dude he was complimenting them. You pay for internet access, but you're not paying directly for the creation of this video through that.

@superhond1733

3 ай бұрын

Actually. They get paid. Commies are... something.

On bombing watch: "That tie looks stupid" "So does your hair"

@thesoliloquist1940

5 жыл бұрын

someone needs to do a comedy sketch of that night..

@MarioJPav

5 жыл бұрын

There is a 2 round rap battle between them. Funny as he'll. Just search youtube Keynes vs Hayek rap battle

Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman please

@honved1

4 жыл бұрын

@Monster Mash Hayek for cunts.

@nishanthk5306

4 жыл бұрын

@@honved1 shut up

@OrthoHoppean

4 жыл бұрын

Micky Cripplejohn Mises was a great intellectual, much better than Hayek imo.

@nishanthk5306

4 жыл бұрын

@@OrthoHoppean will read, thanks for recommendation

@OrthoHoppean

4 жыл бұрын

Nishanth K Of course. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, to dismiss him as "Hayek for cunts" is completely ignorant and condescending. Mises was truly a brilliant intellectual.

Overall a fair review of Hayek, although I do take issue with your statement that he was comfortable with dictators in some way or another, which is clearly not true. It is a different matter to say that a dictator who let's markets work to a greater degree than one who does not is clearly better, but in no way is that *good*.

@MrBeen992

2 жыл бұрын

THATS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AMERICAN LIBERTARIAN. HAYEK DIDNT CARE ABOUT POLITICAL REGIME, HE ONLY CARED ABOUT ECONOMIC REGIME.

@happy_thinking

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrBeen992 Sure his book is titled "The Road to Serfdom" and his other book was called "The constitution of liberty" , but he doesn't care about freedom.

@Doomlike7

2 жыл бұрын

@@happy_thinking he cares...about freedom of markets being a fundamentalist. The freedom of people through markets is a laughable idea. And yes Hayek oposed only the authoritarian left. not in fact every authoriatarian political figure. austrian economic cult is about being a hypocrite

@happy_thinking

2 жыл бұрын

@@Doomlike7 I don't think we have the same view on Hayek. If you read his book The Road to Serfdom you will agree that Hayek was a man who thought and cared deeply about freedom and like other libertarians he thought that political freedom is not possible without economic freedom. I think many people, you included don't see the whole picture when discussing Hayek. Hayek doesn't say that free markets are the cure for everything wrong in the world, what he does say is that free-market capitalism is a prerequisite for freedom. This still means you need to have a reasonable code of conduct or in other words respect for the law and constitution of the country, but this is very hard or impossible in collectivist societies or societies which are capitalist in name only. P.S There are other things worth mentioning, but i will stop here.

@Doomlike7

2 жыл бұрын

@@happy_thinking dictators that hayek didnt oppose whatsoever had a respect for the law and constitution; In defence of dictatorship Woodcut from a Diggers document by William Everard. Wikimedia Commons. Hayek intended his writings to serve as a wake-up call to defenders of liberalism. When such defenders took actions in support of private property, Hayek was unashamed in his support for them. In 1973, General Pinochet launched a coup against the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and instituted a dictatorship under which thousands of trade unionists were tortured and murdered. Hayek wrote an infamous letter to The Times defending the coup in the following terms: “I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.” Hayek later described Allende’s administration as the only totalitarian government in Latin America. He couched his defence of Pinochet in a broader context of supporting democracy only insofar as it contributes to the formation and maintenance of a liberal market order: “In Modern times there have of course been many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under democracies”. He offers Salazar’s “early government” in Portugal as an example and suggests that there are many democracies in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America and Asia that fail to protect personal liberty. Hayek influenced Margaret Thatcher, and via her, many contemporary conservative party politicians and ideologues including those at the helm of the current conservative party in Britain. In another letter to The Times entitled “the dangers to personal liberty”, he endorsed Thatcher whilst restating his claim that the marketplace is “indispensable for individual freedom” while the ballot box “is not”. To be sure, conservative neoliberals in advanced capitalist countries such as the UK and USA did not use military coups to undermine democracy. They were able to use the parliamentary structures established during the previous century to do so. Hayek sees liberalism and democracy as potentially compatible. But he also sees the former as compatible with authoritarianism. “It is at least possible in principle that a democratic government may be totalitarian and that an authoritarian government may act on liberal principles”. Liberalism does not, therefore, require democracy. For modern liberals the protection of private property and the ability to do with it what one wishes is paramount, while political democracy is desirable but not essential. “The progressive displacement of the rules of conduct of private and criminal law [i.e. negative freedoms] by a concept derived from public law [positive freedoms] is the process by which existing liberal societies are progressively transformed into totalitarian societies.” (Hayek, 1966). For him trade unions represented the greatest threat to the implementation and operation of liberal principles: The “monopolistic practices which threaten the functioning of the market are today much more serious on the side of labour than on the side of enterprise.” Hayek’s opposition to organized labour was expressed through his support for dictatorships. Two traditions of liberalism Hayek begins by contrasting two traditions of liberalism. The first, his favoured one, emerged in the England of the Old Whigs from the mid to late seventeenth century and was fortified by the theories of Edmund Burke, John Locke and Adam Smith. The second was a continental European product elaborated theoretically by writers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. The first tradition of liberalism is “inseparable from the institution of private property”. It has its roots in human nature. It is superior to any form of centralized state planning. It: “[D]erives from the discovery of a self-generating or spontaneous order in social affairs…an order which made it possible to utilize the knowledge and skill of all members of society to a much greater extent than would be possible in any order created by central direction…” (Hayek, 1966). For Hayek, the second, continental tradition of liberalism advanced by writers such as Voltaire and Rousseau points in a fundamentally different direction. There is a straight line from it, to what he labels, the totalitarian politics of the French revolution and modern socialism. Through democratic practice, this tradition attempts to subordinate society to a set of political/normative objectives. Under such conditions, individuals are no longer free to do as they please, and certainly not free to use (or even own) their property in ways they see fit. Hayek argued that this tradition of liberalism “has in effect become democratism rather than liberalism and, demanding unlimited powers of the majority, has become essentially anti-liberal”. Hayek’s concern was to defend the first tradition of liberalism in a global context of increasing state intervention and control over the economy, in which he argued, it was being increasingly undermined. To do so he distinguishes between what are often labelled negative and positive freedoms. The former refers to freedom from constraint, the latter to a process whereby individuals are enabled to fulfil their potential. The roots of Hayek’s liberalism Hayek posits that whilst a liberal market order is paramount, it does not require political democracy: “Liberalism and democracy, although compatible, are not the same. The first is concerned with the extent of governmental power, the second with who holds this power". Hayek identifies the roots of what can be labelled private property-based liberalism as emerging in England following its “glorious” revolution in the mid-seventeenth century. This was a period when the Old Whigs’ political party was politically and ideologically dominant. During the English revolution they had sided with parliament against the King, Charles I, and his feudal supporters. They were opposed to Charles’ attempts to raise taxes arbitrarily. They wanted tax raising powers to be more fully subordinated to parliament, which was itself dominated by the landed gentry. In short, they aimed to limit the state’s ability to interfere in the private affairs, and the property of, the emergent agrarian capitalist class. The Old Whigs sought to justify intellectually the strengthening of private property rights over previous forms of property, including common property. The latter, for example, granted peasants access to public lands, without requiring them to have a defined individual property right over them. Private property in land granted the rapidly expanding landlord class rights to do with the land what they pleased, free from state interference. More significantly, it freed them from any obligations to the peasantry and emerging agricultural labour forces, which had previously worked and depended upon the land for their subsistence. The strengthening of private property in land was achieved through mass enclosures of previously common land, the expulsion of its inhabitants, and its transformation into private property. The Old Whigs fought tooth and nail against political organisations such as the Levellers and agrarian socialists such as the Diggers during the mid-seventeenth Century. These organisations aimed to establish equality before the law, equitable land reform and an expansion of public common land. They also aimed to establish political democracy, to ensure the rule of the majority for the majority. Such a system would guarantee that public land (amongst other things) could not be transformed into private property. For the Old Whigs these visions of popular democracy were antithetical to private property. The Old Whig antipathy to popular democracy on the one hand, and support for private property rights on the other, stands at the core of Hayek’s political philosophy. From this starting point he theoretically de-links liberalism and democracy. This move is designed to a) explain how liberalism can exist without democracy, and b) to limit, significantly, democratic influence over a liberal private property based market order. Hayek’s advocacy for negative freedoms over positive freedoms logically limits democratic content. If governments want to guarantee a liberal market order then they must guarantee negative but not positive freedoms. By default then, they are precluded from implementing widespread social programmes designed, for example, to redistribute wealth, power and property towards the poor. These policies would necessitate imposing obligations upon society in order to pursue a designated outcome. Such actions, according to Hayek, represent the first steps towards totalitarianism. Liberal freedoms would be undermined as society is forced to submit to an 'artificial' (i.e. planned) overarching objective, as opposed to benefitting from the free play of the natural, spontaneous market order. Hayek was "pro-freedom" only when it suited his ultra-conservative narrative and markets fundmendalism. Nothing more nothing less. A hypocrite Austrian like the rest of them. P.S i have read road to serfdom twice. enjoyed it...it has nothing to do about the real meaning of freedom.

This is unexpected to me. Pleased to see TSOL taking some thinkers from all over the political spectrum. Good choice and may you guys do this more often.

I'm really grateful for such a relaxed and reasonable take on this very political laden topic.

I don't think we should ever loose sight of egalitarianism. The free market centralizes wealth and power over time making it harder for someone born at the bottom of society to become an entrepreneur. The less people can afford to own land, go to university or start a competitive business, the more capitalism begins to look like just another kind of feudalism.

@TheZarkoc

8 жыл бұрын

I feel another revolution coming on ;)

@anabanana9582

8 жыл бұрын

No, it does not. You didn't explain why, so I won't even bother.

@Leonardo-or1ll

8 жыл бұрын

Tell that to Carnegie. University has increased in price because the demand for it is so inelastic and the government continually attempts to subsidize it. A BA is a signalling mechanism, not a form of human capital. Thus, a college degree is suppose to be limited in its ubiquity. If everyone has it, then it becomes meaningless like a high school diploma. As for land, it is not necessary to have land in order to become wealthy. I don't see Steve Jobs tilling any soil. Anyway, land is dirt cheap in the U.S.

@davidliddelow5704

8 жыл бұрын

If land is cheap in the U.S. then why does anybody rent? Maybe its only cheap to people who are already rich.

@Leonardo-or1ll

8 жыл бұрын

David Liddelow I meant to say cheap in rural areas of the country. You can go out there and buy much more land per dollar than any other country in the world. As for cities like New York, yes, its more expensive, but that's basic supply and demand.

I was born in Romania, my parents are from a working class and I am from a working class family, yet I find it amazing that I get to live in Vienna and even study at the University of Vienna, such an honor trully.

@imrebenedect

3 жыл бұрын

awesome! How is life going? Best to you

@MrBeen992

2 жыл бұрын

Okey ? And what does that have to do with this video part from Hayek beong viennese ?

"Capitalism is awful!"--they said watching a KZread video, on their Apple laptop, sitting in their two story home, feeling the cool breeze of the air conditioner, before entering their pantry filled hundreds of food items

@RadicalShiba1917

8 жыл бұрын

"Capitalism is evil" they said as they used goods created by labor

@deletemymind565

8 жыл бұрын

"The state is awful!" they said using the internet and other government funded technology like the iPhone...

@empeearr7058

8 жыл бұрын

message sent via satellites invented by Soviet communists...:-)

@jonahdavis7833

8 жыл бұрын

And perfected by innovative entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley where 17 companies are producing revenue in the billions and working more efficiently than any state-operated initiatives

@empeearr7058

8 жыл бұрын

+Jonah Davis actually perfected in publicly funded universities like M.I.T. :P

Mussolini a free market dictator? Seriously?

@vetgirig4209

6 жыл бұрын

Yes he was a fascist.

@necroyoli08

5 жыл бұрын

@Levis. H I'd say "some aspects of socialism" is actually an understatement. The only difference between Hitler and Mussolini against Stalin is that having lost the war, their scope in the eyes of history limits to defeated warlords, but the truth is, if they had won, roles would be inverted, placing Hitler as a major socialism trademark.

@PaoloCarloGagliano

5 жыл бұрын

@Levis. H The video puts Mussolini's face there, and is half right. At the beginning of the fascist regime Mussolini indeed did support laissez faire. But of course to hold a strong grip over a nation, especially in times of preparation for a war, he had to change his strategy and go back to his "old" view (socialism) and he ended applying the most important social reforms in Italy of last century, with one of the highest levels of state intrusion in the economy ever seen by Italians. To push for nationalism, he even ended up promoting autarchy, which for many reasons was unachievable in Italy.

@Lolux1701

5 жыл бұрын

@@necroyoli08 I think you're wrong. What you are doing is assuming there really only are capitalism and socialism and no third position. Hitler actually won an intern strive in the Nazis party AGAINST hardcore socialists who wanted to totally expropriate businesses and transform Germany into an socialist farming society (The Strasserist wing as well as the Röhm wing of the SA). Therefore all of the top business owners in Germany actually SUPPORTED Hitler because they feared a takeover of the communists wether they were in the communist party or in the NSDAP itself. IF Hitler would have been a radical socialist he could have never rise to power.

@necroyoli08

5 жыл бұрын

@@Lolux1701 The fact that Hitler didn't support a communist party doesn't make him any less communist. Moreover, in a free enterprise system the market is clear from state intervention, in contrast to communist societies like Nazi Germany according to your own argument. The deal with Hitler wasn't to expropriate buisness because party members owned most of them and could easily control the rest through state force. Same animal, different name.

Hayek's work is important for the discussion of economics and politics. Personally he was not such a nice man. I have first hand knowledge of this because my father (+) was his lawyer in Hayek's Austrian years. The professor wanted to make some money selling a part of his library to the University of Salzburg (not a very good university, even now). The transaction did not happen also because it would have been extremely complicated. The famous professor did not believe this and he did not believe my dad explaining it in detail to him. Some nasty remarks were exchanged. I still remember when Dad came home, completely exhausted from the discussion with Professor Hayek. Conclusion: The reality is not always like lovers of theory want it to be. It bites even great minds.

@christopherarmstrong2710

5 жыл бұрын

yuuki hoffner - thanks for sharing your story.

@Betoskiki

5 жыл бұрын

So interesting

@chrisg5545

5 жыл бұрын

yuuki hoffner It is well-known that he was viewed as an unpleasant person given how he treated his wife.

@laudfarter1957

4 жыл бұрын

@Y T Best comment, regardless of political bend. And I have many friends who are lawyers.

Please do a philosophy video on Diogenes.

@nicanornunez9787

8 жыл бұрын

yes

@maxstirner8717

8 жыл бұрын

Yeeees!

@sc7597

8 жыл бұрын

He didn't bring much to the table when it comes to philosophy, or did he?

@andym28

8 жыл бұрын

+Favourite Douchebag lol

@sc7597

8 жыл бұрын

Andy M lol

Do Milton Friedman :)

@DolphinPain

7 жыл бұрын

Manos Biermann So did Hayek. He still believed into a safety net. And the assumption that believers of free markets simply hate the poor is both myopic and insulting.

@condaquan9459

5 жыл бұрын

Eric B Friedman was not ok with the poor dying in fact his ideologies on competitive capitalism helped keep people from becoming poor... before you make such a bias statement I would suggest knowing what your talking about : )

@cch312

5 жыл бұрын

@@condaquan9459 Yes! Friedman's ideologies are about fostering a strong society where the poor get out of poverty with generations of endeavors. Financially helping the poor is cheap help, which only fulfills the poor's materialism without enhancing their minds. Ironically, the living standards of the poor in America is pretty high.

@condaquan9459

5 жыл бұрын

Will Cheung I agree to the highest extent thank you

@Xez1919

4 жыл бұрын

@@cch312 Is that why the USA has so many homeless people sleeping on the streets?

I find Hayek interesting. He has a very different idea of liberty to myself, but it is good to understand this viewpoint, because it then enables you to see why so many people argue around this idea of 'liberty' - because there are so many competing different ideas of what it means.

I eagerly look forward to these weekly shows. 'Oh, is it Friday already? I wonder who they'll highlight this week,' I ask myself. Keep it up!

3:17 its Murray Newton Rothbard

@zonderkennis8106

7 жыл бұрын

lmao

@nr3336

7 жыл бұрын

You spelt Cancer wrong.

@kubawilk8396

7 жыл бұрын

+Eternity Snipin anarchocapitalism :)

@jewishdad7675

7 жыл бұрын

i thought it was funny how randomly placed he was

They (Keynes and Hayek) actually met regularly. Hayek sais so himself in the interviews made with him

@matthewlucas4142

4 жыл бұрын

Mtn. K. Yes, there was a time long ago when we could discuss things with people whom we disagreed with, without it breaking down into screaming ad hominems at one another. I know, sounds crazy but it’s true.

@user-ks1hp2pb5g

4 жыл бұрын

@@matthewlucas4142 Except Keynes agreed with Hayek on many things.

@isaacolivecrona6114

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, they were actually quite cordial and complimentary towards each other.

@C_R_O_M________

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-ks1hp2pb5g Keynes would have disagreed with neo-keynsians see "Keynes vs the Keynesians" by T.W. Hutchison.

@user-ks1hp2pb5g

4 жыл бұрын

@@C_R_O_M________ Care to give a specific excerpt showing this?

3:17 heyyyy that's not Hayek... that's Rothbard

+The School of Life Leaving my personal sentiments aside on Hayek's work. I must say that this was one of the best videos, if not the best, you have uploaded so far! Well done mate!

Hayek at last! Do another video on his cultural evolution and philosophy of science, please!

You continue to do exceptional work Alan!

Thanks for the video, hope modern politicians find some inspiration in Hayek's ideas.

Lol, wonder what Friedrich would have to say about Negative Interest Rates...

@099Nitro

5 жыл бұрын

You have to be crazy to support negative interest rates.

@geminix365

4 жыл бұрын

@@099Nitro I mean, yeah, better for the Banks to keep their money in the central bank than investing it, right?

@Alfie-ni7lx

4 жыл бұрын

@@geminix365 You mean the money they get for selling things they couldnt sell to a bank that can print money. Real fuckin genius that one mate

@C_R_O_M________

4 жыл бұрын

@@geminix365 central banks are supposed to supervise the banking system and draw levers like manipulating interest rates and printing currency when there's a need to do so. Negative interest rates came to be (as far as I have gathered) because sovereign debt would become unsustainable if the rates were still "real" (aka positive). This creates a torrent of other distortions like capital allocation to startup companies (most of which end up bankrupt) and zombie companies refinancing their unsustainable business models and corporate debt. That's where we are now.

@geminix365

4 жыл бұрын

@@C_R_O_M________ ok, then again, better for banks to keep their billions for themselves, instead of attempting to reactivate the economy You take bankrupcy as the main scenario, while it's a small %

Now do Murray Rothbard. You even put his photo in there at one point so you know it follows from this

To anyone who is not that big a fan of markets, please don't be turned off by Hayek. Even if you don't agree with him, he is still a very stimulating thinker. People from many disciplines and political backgrounds have enormous respect for his work. He is very much worth looking into.

This is one of your best videos. Absolutely fantastic and very enlightening.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

Also , suggest viewing The School of Life's video on John Locke .

This is a great video please make more videos like this even for other disciplines. I got hooked to School of life because of these types of videos.

thank you for being honest when covering Hayek. I did not expect that

Please do an episode on Alan Watts, Eric Hoffer, and or Erich Fromm.

Excellent!!! Thank you for this video.

Great information, thanks! What about a video on Keynes? But not about his economical theory, rather about his theories on human collective behavior. The "animal spirits" and how this idea changed social sciences. How science in general can be a metaphor of humans and how by taking this approach we can discover amazing things.

Great video. Though near the end this video insinuates that its the lean towards Hayek's theories that caused the financial crisis. This is surprising because its quite obvious that; (and take the US example;) central banks dictated many factors that led up to the housing crisis in '07-09. The biggest mistake being setting the interest rate. Under Alan Greenspan the central bank chair at the time, rates were lowered all the way to 1%... Then gradually back up to 5% which led to mass over investment in housing. Pile on top that fact taht you can write off your mortgage in the US. Not surprisingly once Greenspan raised rates it popped the housing bubble. In the aftermath, Bernanke and then Yellen had rates lowered down to 0% for 7 years... Another disaster in the making which we have yet to deal with. Central to Hayeks theories were criticisms of this very policy. Central banks, or governments should not control interest rates. The price of money is the most important aspect in a free market system, money is after all half of every transaction, and when it is set at the wrong rate it can be and has proven to be disastrous. It was not an alignment with Hayeks theories that are to blame, but continued reliance on top down control and interference in markets; which at this point I don't even know can be pinned on Keynes as I doubt even he would approve...

@onewhoseeks17

8 жыл бұрын

And thats the problem with Hayek and capitalism in general. It gets out of control. Even hayek realized that governments ought to regulate activities of the finance industry. A glaring contradiction within his line of thought.

@pradyumnabanerjee3333

Жыл бұрын

@@onewhoseeks17 Central banks are not exactly market forces. they do the government's bidding

Thank you for the video, i thoroughly enjoy this channel. I would love to see a video made on Noam Chomsky, and/ or Alan Watts!

Keep up the good work! Thank you!

Could you do a video on Noam Chomsky? Perhaps not on his politics but on the philosophical implications of his cognitive science?

Your videos are really well explained. BUT you should make subtitles for foreign users... it is sometimes quite difficult to understand economy in an other language !

@theschooloflifetv

7 жыл бұрын

Like many You Tube channels, we allow users to add subtitles in the languages they are interested in. Sadly we don't have the budget to translate our films into the world's languages ourselves.

@jorgetepastor

7 жыл бұрын

How can we do that? I whink lot of us would love to colaborate.

@MrPrettyInPinkTV

7 жыл бұрын

When you look at the CC/subtitles option one of the options is add subtitles/cc

@richardlluch17

7 жыл бұрын

The School of Life I would settle with English subtitles!

🎉🎊 Hayek! Wonderful video, I would say that the idea of Hayek being comfortable with any of the 20th century dictators I can think of as slightly absurd. Primarily because dictators tend to take laissez faire lightly and because they roll over individual liberty which was Hayek's most quintessential concerns. As a classical liberal (free minds and free markets) I was starting to think this channel got it only half right.

@rebecaortega6476

3 ай бұрын

I know this comment is from 7 years ago, but c'mon. The only reason why Hayek could destroy my country's economy and social rights system, was because back then Chile was a dictatorship. Famous is the letter Tatcher wrote to Hayek on why she couldn't, even though she super liked, use fully his economics models on the UK; since the UK was a democracy, the model was impossible to implement cause it went against the people's interests.

LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR POLITICAL THEORY BITS! ESPECIALLY ON ECONOMICS!!!

Oh, and the entire Austrian school deserves videos of their own.

@yeabuddy1610

3 жыл бұрын

@@JinjaOnHere why?

@yeabuddy1610

3 жыл бұрын

@@JinjaOnHere They didn't actually invent it by themselves, but what are your criticisms of praxeology?

@yeabuddy1610

3 жыл бұрын

@@JinjaOnHere why is that a criticism?

@lukanelson3146

3 жыл бұрын

@@JinjaOnHere why is rejecting empiricism bad

@yeabuddy1610

3 жыл бұрын

@@JinjaOnHere if is a "soft" science, by which I think you mean social science, why are you using empirical tools?

Hayek drew the line at providing a legal framework where entrepreneurs can engage with free markets, can someone explain to me examples of this? Current or past policies, or political stances that was/is based on hayek's recommendation. Thank you very much

@MetroplexBias

2 жыл бұрын

Reaganomics

@24killsequalMOAB

Ай бұрын

​@@MetroplexBiasReaganomics is utterly incompatible with Hayek as the government still has control over the currency

School of Life, could you please produce a video about E. F. Schumacher? From what I know, he had some quite elegant solutions to the Hayek/ Keynes debate which really ought to be part of today's economic discourse. I loved this episode and would love to see more about economic political theory.

love that image from Twelve Angry Men such a fantastic film.

Great video, as per, Alain and TSOF team! Any chance you could do a video on the Portuguese genius Fernando Pessoa?

@TheDmolitionMan

8 жыл бұрын

Since you'll be around portuguese literature, how about Saramago? And some brazilians, too! Machado de Assis on literature, Darcy Ribeiro on Sociology, Paulo Freire on Political Theory... And so on!

@yasmincarpenter5784

8 жыл бұрын

CELSO FURTADO on economy!

@pedroalexandre2167

8 жыл бұрын

apoiado

@csscszcsgv

8 жыл бұрын

+The School of Life Yaaaay!

@pierrotmonami9506

8 жыл бұрын

+1 on pessoa, and maybe dylan thomas ?

Hayek didn’t believe that liberty was to be reduced to a market logic. That doesn’t seem right. He consistently develop liberty under Kant’s influence. For Hayek liberty consist in the recognition of the objective value of the individual that should not be use as a mere means for the ends of others. He is more than a free marketeer, I don’t think you give him enough credit for his intricate philosophical system of thought. He was an economist, a lawyer and a deep political thinker. Also, he defended a market economy because he didn’t believe in social engineering or a planed economy. For him that didn’t made sense cause it was not feasible. In the other hand, he argued that a centralized single authority whose purpose is the redistribution of wealth is, as a model, incompatible with democracy. All centralized economies, even those that were approved by democratic methods, would end up giving a lot of power to the State, and therefore, putting a lot of stress in the effective limits of political power.

This was a great video on Hayek, cant wait for videos on Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, & Samuel Edward Konkin III

good explanation of the business cycle.

I decided to abandon economics after my undergrad degree because it was so utterly clear that the field disregards Austrian thinking as a sort of quackery...or simply irrelevant. Fundamentally it's the only school I agree with, and still don't understand why no serious academic institute takes it seriously. I suppose it's because economics is tied to political outcome, and since WWII we've moved more and more into Keynesian territory? Very sad for me still, it's works like the Road to Serfdom that made me love the subject in the first place!

@Overtime123

2 жыл бұрын

It's because its very incomplete, its assumptions questionable, and it's aversion to mathematical models means it doesnt incorporate the latest discoveries well if at all.

@yydd4954

2 жыл бұрын

Austrian school of thought is very important in economics, practically it hasn't been applied but it's a very important topic for economics students and in capitalism too. The one that is ignored in economics is those Marxism, socialism kinda stuff

@zackkilgore528

2 жыл бұрын

Hell I’m somewhat sympathetic to Keynes but the mainstream idea to simply disregard the opposition is itself utter quackery. Hayek and others within the Austrian school of economics make valid points about not only the economy but also the drawbacks contemporary politics could have on it and thus should essential to at least be familiar with their train of thought. The problem with Academia, at least from my perspective, is has devolved into some sort of dogmatism that stifles the debate which in the end is ultimately counterproductive.

@zackkilgore528

2 жыл бұрын

@@yydd4954 I’m studying economics right now and I’m telling you, at least where I’m at, Marxism and Socialism are not being ignored whilst I had to study Hayek in my free time

@yydd4954

2 жыл бұрын

@@zackkilgore528 oh that's sad bro Maybe in future I might have to study it But for now I have mainly studied classical and Keynes

You have to do Friedman now! The two economic giants of the last century.

Brasil loves the School of Life. Thank you so much for all great leassons. Keep at it.

I can agree with Hayek's opinion on how the interference of states distort and wounds economies, but I wish he had said more about the influence of huge corporations (many of them are like states in size and power) in controlling markets. I think that's a huge issue for today's economies.

By the way, The School of Life has thus far been an excellent source of useful learning material.

it is hard for any plan to work when behind the scenes it is dysfunction by design.

3:48 - That was quite a funny detail, when a picture of the movie "12 Angry Men" was shown as the narrator said "Hayek's colleagues at the London School of Economics"

Wonderful video!!! I would like to suggest one about Étienne de La Boétie. Thank you for everything.

The narrator has the most soothing voice ever

@thesoliloquist1940

5 жыл бұрын

if u like the british accent..

Great to see you finally did a video on this intellectual giant. You should do a video on individualism vs collectivism.

Excellent! Thank you for doing this video, Alain. One really tiny criticism is that he wasn't so much neoliberal as he was part of the austrian school of economics of which von mises, he and rothbard were the biggest influencers of the 20th century. But the Chicago school was (and is?) quite neoliberal so it was a fair statement.

I would love to watch a video about the italian genius Norberto Bobbio, his work has been great part in my studies. I have great apreciation for his work and i think a lot of people would find the weight of his thoughts, if presented in a video, a valuable lesson. Another interesting italian would be Umberto Eco.

How could they possibly say Hayek might have been ok with dictatorships. It's completely contradictory to his philosophy. It's implied, hence why Keynes wanted clarification as to how Hayek wasn't just arguing for anarchy

@KarmasAB123

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe he was initially okay with them (I haven't read his stuff yet)?

@joshsanmiguel192

3 жыл бұрын

@@KarmasAB123 I've read the entire collected works of Hayek (besides the pure theory of capital) that would be a huge contradiction of his philosophy, as he lays out in constitution of liberty, and all 3 volumes of law legislation and liberty.

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

As usual. KZread videos have their Fairshare of bias. Most are left leaning.

@theomitchell416

3 жыл бұрын

Hayek supported Pinochet

@joshsanmiguel192

3 жыл бұрын

@@theomitchell416 Hayek supported Pinochet because he was a capitalist

The greatest contribution of the Austrian school was subjective value theory (Menger). It's what eventually leads to the socialist calculation problem (Mises/Hayek). Something that isn't really refutable. The price system is a heuristic for decision making. It incorporates subjective preferences from actors within the market economy and feeds them back to people at a low transaction cost. Central control over aspects of the economy will then distort the price system and cause misallocations of resources. "T]he extent of socialism in the present-day world is at the same time underestimated in countries such as the United States and overestimated in Soviet Russia. It is underestimated because the expansion of government lending to private enterprise in the United States has been generally neglected, and we have seen that the lender, regardless of his legal status, is also an entrepreneur and part owner. The extent of socialism is overestimated because most writers ignore the fact that Russia, socialist as she is, cannot have full socialism as long as she can still refer to the relatively free markets existing in other parts of the world. In short, a single socialist country or bloc of countries, while inevitably experiencing enormous difficulties and wastes in planning, can still buy and sell and refer to the world market and can therefore at least vaguely approximate some sort of rational pricing of producers’ goods by extrapolating from the market. The well-known wastes and errors of this partial socialist planning are negligible compared to what would be experienced under the total calculational chaos of a world socialist state. " -Murray Rothbard

@BigHenFor

5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, economics as taught today is too crude to be useful. It makes big claims, but fails to deliver benefits for all. That should be its job, not just pandering to the Capitalists.

@nabo1871

4 жыл бұрын

@Y T Well, I wasted 15 seconds reading your comment and another minute writing this. No addition here but unnecessary insults.

@nabo1871

4 жыл бұрын

@Y T Lol, who hurt you so much? Edit: Btw, reading and citing Rothbard is a waste of time, and the subjective theory of value leads to circular thinking. The Austrian school can offer interesting debates in the context of the twentieth century but not a functional epistemological framework.

@nabo1871

4 жыл бұрын

@Y T Me refiero a la praxeología como propuesta científica, la cual no es más que basura epistemológica. No acepto lecciones de lectura de un payaso que reparte insultos gratuitos en lugar de aportar algo, aunque sea una crítica, en sus comentarios.

@nabo1871

4 жыл бұрын

@Y T La epistemología es el estudio del conocimiento, y la praxeología es una metodología pseudocientífica porque no presenta sustento empírico a sus proposiciones asumidas. El término ontología aquí es tan irrelevante como no excluyente. Ni idea qué tienen que ver los comunistas en una discusión sobre la escuela austriaca, ni idea qué aporta para usted el ad hominem y la proyección salvo a mostrarme el nivel en el que discuten personas sobreideologizadas e irrespetuosas de su calaña. Buenas noches/dias.

Did not expect this one. Kudos!

Thanks for this, greetings from Chile

I'd love a video on John Maynard Keynes, or even a whole series on economics!

@tracesprite6078

3 жыл бұрын

You may enjoy reading Ha Joon Chang's book "Economics: the user's guide." It's very readable for the ordinary person. (However you may not be ordinary???)

Check out Rothbard at 3:17

Perhaps this question has already been asked, but are you considering making videos on movies in the future. There was a short text in the Philosopher's mail by Alain on the movie "Before Midnight" that was very accurate (he really captured the essence of the film). It would be wonderful to see such text translated into videos! Perhaps "Somewhere" by Sofia Coppola would be an interesting subject for a video?

Informative and precise.

I would love to see a video on Peter Kropotkin.

I loved that cameo of Murray Rothbard. Great video by the way.

Great video, as always. Do a video on Rothbard next

I kind of remember reading back in 1974 that when the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich Hayek, one was astounded that he (Myrdal) had to share the prize and the other was surprised that he (Hayek) was even given it.

I very much appreciate how you always (atleast for the german names) pronounce them correctly

When is an episode on James Joyce coming? Amazing content by the way.

@amiralirahmani77

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Hay un gran libro de Fernando Escalante Gonzalbo, Historia mínima del neoliberalismo que revisa muy bien las ideas de Hayek y hace una historia crítica del neoliberalismo desde el ámbito económico, político pero principalmente ideológico. Muy recomendado.

I suggest reading Mark Blyth's Austerity: a History of a Dangerous Idea. His analysis on liberalism and neoliberalism is very solid and easy to read. The book is not exactly about Hayek but he is discussed there.

Do one on Mises!

It's funny that Macri appears at the end like an example of politician who accepts hayek's ideas when he and all his team are keynesians

@francobaudino6938

3 жыл бұрын

I was just thinking this ! and argentina remains, unfortunately, in the shitter

Thanks for the video

Perfect description

Dear The School of Life, you are stating that Hayek was comfortable with dictators. I believe you are making false statements about Hayek, can you please back up your claim and provide one statement or quote from Hayek were he states that he was comfortable with dictators?

@philastevenson

5 жыл бұрын

the road to serfdom decries totalitarianism on almost every page...to think that people will just swallow this video without checking up...

@ThreeJaw

5 жыл бұрын

I have read a lot of Hayek, and while he absolutely appreciates the value of personal liberty, he is not a strict democrat (small d). He was openly supportive of dictators like Pinochet in Chile (hence his picture along with Than Shwe at 7:20), saying in a 1979 interview with the New York Times: "In that much condemned country, Chile... the restoration of only economic freedom and not political freedom has led to an economic recovery that is absolutely fantastic." When he was asked to follow-up on that in regard to political freedom, he said, “You can have economic freedom without political freedom, but you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom.” - Source: www.nytimes.com/1979/05/07/archives/new-vogue-for-critic-of-keynes-von-hayek-still-abhors-big.html He also leaves the possibility open that democracy is not always a necessity for his ideal if liberty. He says: "Liberalism (in the European nineteenth- century meaning of the word, to which we shall adhere throughout this chapter) is concerned mainly with limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not, whereas the dogmatic democrat knows only one limit to government- current majority opinion. The difference between the two ideals stands out most clearly if we name their opposites: for democracy it is authoritarian government; for liberalism it is totalitarianism. Neither of the two systems necessarily excludes the opposite of the other: a democracy may well wield totalitarian powers, and it is conceivable that an authoritarian government may act on liberal principles." [Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 166.] So, granted using a shorthand of being comfortable with dictators may not be fully representative of Hayek's views, it is not without merit.

@philastevenson

5 жыл бұрын

@@ThreeJaw another layer of the onion, thanks josh!

@philastevenson

5 жыл бұрын

@@ThreeJaw been following up on your useful comments and found this interesting quote from FA Harper: “Anyone who will defend his liberty must guard against the argument that access to the ballot, ‘by which people get whatever they want,’ is liberty. It would be as logical to assert that liberty in the choice of a wife is assured to a person if he will put it to the vote of the community and accept their plurality decision, or that liberty in religion is assured if the state enforces participation in the one religion that receives the most votes in the nation.”

@099Nitro

5 жыл бұрын

Economy had nothing to do which why those countries were dictatorships.

I dont think anyone could have explained Hayek better in only 12 minutes

Good video. I learned how Friedrich Hayek defined freedom.

You should do more architecture videos! I quite like those.

7:50 gururlandım :')

@playboycartisgf7909

4 жыл бұрын

aynen ahahsha beklemiyodum

Very well done! Could we possibly see a video done on Murray Rothbard and David Friedman of the economic anarchist camp, deontological and consequentialist respectively? I would also very much like to see a video for Max Stirner that cuts to the heart of his individualist nature, since many collectivists regularly consider him an ally.

Please do a video on Peter Kropotkin, who gave an alternative interpretation to Darwin when applied to societies. Wonderful video as always guys!

Thank you for your content

Wow! this explains everything- rising inequality, debt/credit trap, worthless products, rising property prices. Thank you so much!

@enematwatson1357

4 жыл бұрын

All blamed on the free market to add insult to injury.

@lonestarasshole584

3 жыл бұрын

Inequality.... I don't like Thatcher, but when she said "You'd like to be poorer, provided that the rich had less than they have now". Left Wing Economics is a crusade against the Rich, nothing less, nothing more.

Please make a video on brexit

Alguien podría decirme con qué programa se realizan este tipo de ediciones?

Please make a video answering what to do about loved ones who fail to find a way to make their lives worth living. Should one give up and let them live unfulfilling lives or should one attempt to make them realize it even if it causes distress in the short-term?

Really great video! I would love to see a video done on the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, being that it plays well with Adam Smith's and Friedrich Hayek's beliefs!

0:56 Hayek was descended from Franklin Pierce?

Amazing how so much of Hayeks video is dedicated to Keynes.

The Political Theory videos never fail to disappoint!!