"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists"

>"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists"

What did the greatest economist of all time, Friedrich Hayek, mean by this? Can anyone explain?

Other urls found in this thread:


because Adolf Hitler proved him wrong before the elite went gunning for germany because they were loosing jew bux

go ahead ban me i don't care jewmod


That's a weird way to spell Keynes.

Social Security was a mistake.
Public Highways were a mistake.
Nuclear Power was a mistake.
Public Education was a mistake.
Space Exploration was a mistake.
Internet was a mistake.

-t. economists

While you are correct that nazi germany was the only successful example of a socialist state, it would have failed miserably of it had existed for longer than a decade.

>While you are correct that nazi germany was the only successful example of a socialist state

Hayek in a nutshell
>the only thing 2000 years of moral philosophy has definitely definitely told us is that freedom is good and coercion is bad

>state-directed economies are inefficient because they value resources based on the intelligence of a select few rather than the collective intelligence of every person in the state

>a society is not something that can be described as just or unjust because a society is a spontaneous order of free interactions between independent agents

>the inefficiencies introduced by state-directed economies make everyone poorer, introduce coercion that dispels the dignity of man as a free moral agent, and pave the road to serfdom

>unfair property standards meant to redistribute wealth are not laws, but rather commands because they single out one group and do not apply equally

socialists BTFO

i seriously hope you guys don't do this

>asking a question you know the answer to so you can get circlejerked

>makes unbelievingly sweeping claim that Hayek is the "greatest economist of all time"
>clearly doesn't even understand the basics of Hayek's theory or else he wouldn't have to ask that question
>alternatively, baiting a flamewar in the (You's)


He was critizing actual socialists, like the ones trying to get it going in the USSR, not the people we like to call socialists but aren't really, like Keynes.

baka senpai

isn't that the guy who suggested that we put bank notes in bottles, then bury them in unused coal mines whose digging rights would then be sold to corporations?

Central planning doesn't work. End of story.

Keynes general theory got blown the fuck out by Hayek in 10 minutes flat


>implying all socialists are statists who believe in centralization

>implying socialism exists otherwise

It means that the economy is a dynamic system, and that central planning is a complete waste of time.

>centrally planned
>tons of public sector jobs
>debt up the ass
>nationalization of industry
>very shakey "recovery"
>would have collapsed without war
So that inage proved me right?

Hayek overall theory blown out by reality in 10 years flat.

Herberd Hoover was paleoconservative "don't touch the economy" guy.

Roosevelt changed the constitution to meddle in economy.

That's obviously just a coincidence the market forces simply caused the economy to rebuild right after Roosevelt was elected he only slowed it down!

>inb4 fabricated statistics
>inb4 statistics don't count because economy can't be modelled(and other austrian-school dumbfuckery)

Although I agree that keynesians did one thing wrong - after the period of dumping money into business, when the situation is more or less fixed, the government should fuck off from economy and only maintain various control, monitoring, regulations mechanisms.

>nazi germany

Wasn't the Nazi party originally socialist until it was hijacked by Hitler and his gang? They changed most of the parties ideology over time until what remained was Nazism as we know it.

You can argue like that.

Hitler actually added the "socialist" part in the name but that was just populism.

The Nazi party itself with Strasser, Rohm and several others reminded some of the edgier leftists I saw recently here and there, I think at some point we will call them "alt-left" or something. Italian Fascists were also similar to them from time to time, but let's just say that Mussolini changed his mind over this stuff over and over.

SPD actually cooperated with them for some time.

Hitler was initially sent to infiltrate the new movement by the Weimar administration(in his Freikorps days he proved himself to be enormously good and intelligent leader so he was the right person for the job). Whether what he did was part of that infiltration job or he went rogue is another question.

However, you can also argue that they've had more in common with agrarian/folk parties, they were just more radical and authoritarian.

>academic video
>baroque music starts playing

This is where the heterodox Austrian trash stops replying.

This was a bit of a joke, you get the idea, instead of mining for bank notes invest in infrastructure etc when aggregate demand is rather low.

>What did the greatest economist of all time

>literally tried to reduce economics to a subet of moral philosophy
>information theory should have blasted everything he said in the 50s but it was too niche and not well known outside of a very few circles.

>implying any of what he thought about information can be considered scientific

What we know now about the nature of information fundementally undermines that entire arguement. It's vastly more efficient if all data was collected to a single source, and then processed. All it would take are sufficiently powerful computers to simulate possible sates of economy states of the economy using this information. And this isn't unrealistic by any means and hasn't been since the 90s.

tl;dr economics is a science, deal with it.

>Nazi Germany
>not being forced to start a world war or face bankruptcy

pick one

Who the hell can even support the austrians? Why do they still exist?

Socialism simply means looking after interests of society as whole rather than wealthy individuals.
And not just economic interests.
So for example free trade might be sound in economic sense, but not sound in political/social sense.
Increase in overall wealth doesn't necessarily mean progress.

>Austrian School.

I literally don't get how this school even exists still, basically everything they have said is proven wrong through even mainstream economic theory and basic observation of how humans actually function within the market.

For example, Austrian price formation, literally BTFO'ed for decades, 100% proven absolutely wrong, both in economic theory and in real world observation.

>But Hayek has a nobel prize.

So do Socialist economists, also there is actually no nobel prize in economics.

desu people make efficient economy really hard. It'd be much nicer if we could do it without them.

There are lots of ways for the government to correct market failures so it can enjoy the large pie of capitalism and still give each a decent sized slice. I'll list some examples: pigovian taxes for externalities (3rd party harmed by trade, the tax is used to pay for the damage and also to shift he equilibrium to a socially optimum point), progressive taxation used to provide a minimum level of opportunity (I.e free at the point of use primary and secondary school, with subsidised university for poorer students, free schools to retrain adults when they lose jobs), the competitive nature of the market is kept through anti trust laws, universal healthcare, heavily taxed and regulated privitised utilities, unemployment benefits (bankruptcy laws for individuals). For most of the things people criticise free trade for ( Irish famine/Indian famimes), free trade didn't work because those who starved were kept poor though systems of rent and tariffs( in India) which meant that they couldn't actually pay more for food than usual as their pay was handed over to the landlord's/east india company. Were they allowed to compete freely and fairly, their wages would have been higher, allowing them to pay more for food, price goes up, more food is imported by traders, famine made less worse.

/pol/. If there's something fucked up in the world that isn't lefty, jewy or muzzy, they'll support it


Care to explain? Two of the things I recommended were listed by Marx towards the end of the communist manifesto. Also universal healthcare isn't left wing? I was also arguing against a repressive government

1. Herbert Hoover was not a lassie faire guy.

2. Its agreed that suspending convertibility of the dollar was the most effective Roosevelt policy.

Calling someone /pol/ when they disagree with you is just as bad as pol calling anyone who disagrees with them 'liberals" or "joos"

First, Hoover was never a paleoconservative. No intellectual dishonesty, please. Second, the main topic. The "success" of Roosvelt model is, in many respects, similar to the "success" of Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Basically, during the 1930s, global trade fell back to a minimum, limiting competitiveness. It was possible for the first time, to transform national economies in isolated units. With global trade broken, governments could artificially inflate their economies as never before.

Until, of course, it comes the time to pay the bill. The US managed to delay the exhaustion, by a different factor - after the war, it was virtually the only intact industrial power, without competitors. Indeed, it was what prevented these to suffer a ruin as resounding as the Soviet empire.

He is implying that it wasn't successful even in its first (and last) decade.

What list?

That Nazi Germany's economy was pathetic is beyond question, but you seem to be implying the USSR's growth was 'artificial' as well, whatever that's supposed to mean. You've made your excuse for the US economy about the war saving it (despite record state spending during WWII doubling GDP) but I'm curious as to how you'd explain the strong economic growth in the Soviet Union throughout the 50's and 60's.

>Indeed, it was what prevented these to suffer a ruin as resounding as the Soviet empire.

Here, coupled with your earlier comments, you seem to imply the USSR's economic troubles were somehow related to the industrial growth under Stalinism, yet their economy only showed real problems at the end of the 60's which had nothing to do with 'paying the bill.'

The secret of the Soviet Union, as indeed was the Tsarist Russia was a vast amount of natural resources; even poorly-utilized, yet was able to power a working economy.

It turns out that the Soviet Union achieved astonishing deeds with misuse. I mean, how the hell a country that has chernozem soil from Ukraine to the Volga can have a food crisis?

The problems of the Soviet economy did not begin in the 1960s; they became visible in the 1960s There is a noticeable difference here. Now, spending money does not necessarily mean growth.

They invested heavily in basic industry, but did not know what to prioritize. They had plenty of resources - notably energy - but had no market, competitiveness or efficiency. Eventually, the problem becomes too obvious to be ignored.

I'm not really arguing for centralized economy m8, I just said that socialism doesn't necessarily mean centralized economy.

Socialism has many different uses. It's best to specify what one means.

Perhaps the OP was just talking about command economies?

Socialism and economics doesn't go hand in hand exactly.

Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.

>social security was a mistake


>muh roads

nice meme

>nuclear power

Very socialist.

>public "education"

Shit education anyways.

>space exploration



Very socialist....

It was called the German Worker's Party and it was always a radical Nationalist party which opposed the communists. But they suscribed to the specifically "right" socialism that Spengler had outlined in "Prussiadom and Socialism"

>What did the greatest economist of all time, Friedrich Hayek, mean by this? Can anyone explain?
He meant:
>We must privatise everything and let the free market run things. If you disagree with me, you are a stupid socialist. Praxis told me so.


>Space Exploration
>still trying to work out the finer points of putting shit into orbit

>what was the development of Japan, South Korea and recently China

China was forced to liberalise part of the economy, SOEs are still corrupt, Look at north Korea, wonderful central planning. South Korea had private ownership of the means of production with government loans, only succeded after liberalisation. in Japan the government aided private enterprise

>Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

Hayek would be considered a communist by modern Republicans. I think he is right on this front though. Getting cancer or AIDS is its own fucking punishment. No one is going to do it because you insured them.

True, but it was still centrally planned.

Obviously full Mao tier central planning is retarded. So is no planning. You want a balance.

The economic miracle in China is a history changing achievement, and I wouldn't discount it. I doubt you'll see similar activity out of India.

>Still trying to work out the finer points of putting shit into orbit AND bringing it back down again safely.

Fixed. It isn't hard to go into orbit you mong, you just need enough thrust to go UP. It's the bit after that's the difficult bit.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India it's starting. What sort of central planning you want senpai? What do you mean by balanced?

so what you're saying is that he invented the bitcoin (i.e. artificial difficulty obstructing the growth of currency supply) before the technology was adequate to do it. So really, he was just way ahead of his time.

He meant that the free market will fix it.


Hayek's theories are just as, if not moreso, BTFO in reality,

>What sort of central planning you want senpai?
He probably means forcing the economy towards a certain direction. One big example, was Hamilton's policies in America setting up the Bank and raising tariffs across the board in order to incentivize industrialization in the North. Without him, the Industrial Revolution may never have been economically feasible on shores until much later in our history, and kept us agrarian for a far longer period of time.

Remember that time Pinochet followed the Chicago School and Chile's economy sucked until he finally started to regulate again?

There's a lot of countries with great fertile land that had food crises.

Most Soviet land is suspectible to harsh drought and harsh winter every few years.

Same for capitalism.

2008-2009 showed that.

The fact China and many other East Asian (and also European 1950-1990) economies were mixed economic systems that produce(d) great economic returns shows that government can have an extensive beneficial role in much of the market.

India's economic liberalization is practically as far along as China's... Yet the results have been far poorer for a multitude of reasons.

The simple truth is that Indians and Indian government is not nearly as competent as Chinese and the current Chinese government.

>artificial difficulty

Looks like someone doesn't understand how the blockchain works.

Socialism in the way Americans generally use it is just a boggy man word for 16 y/o kids that just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. Soviet style central planning of the economy doesn't work, but countries like Denmark with free markets and a generous welfare state do.

I agree completely

>Friedrich Hayek
A bootlicker for the rich. His views are comletely detached from reality and only meant to justify the unaccountable centralized power of capital.

How do you know an economist is wrong?>Keynes general theory
Has been shown to work countless times in reality.

China is probably poorer now than before the industrilization.
>muh GDP
does not account for externalities, non-monetary economy, depletion of natural resources etc.

>welfare wuz inventors n' shiiet

A man builds
the parasite asks "where is my share?"

>Hurr hurr, if you can't figure out how to spend government funds just bury it and hire people to retrieve it.
I hope you're trolling.

Not really. The only reason Chile has now the best economy and quality of life in LA is because of Pinochet's economic reforms.
Chile was going downhill under Allende. Inflation was soaring and the public sector had grown unsustainably large. Chile still has, to this day, the most liberal economy in the continent, and that's what made them different from the rest.

Could be, if the government worked exactly the way Keynes wanted. It doesn't though.
Once government intervenes, it's almost impossible to get it out.

>Let me dismiss facts with unprovable vague statements

>Hurr hurr, if you can't figure out how to spend government funds just bury it and hire people to retrieve it.
>I hope you're trolling.
It would still lead to increased economic activity , even outside the diggers. Wages would get paid, debts serviced, companies founded.

Of course you are a fucking retard who can only think in strawmen. No one wants to bury money, but there are bridges that need building, kids needing better education and taxes that need lowering. The last one only works if the poeple whose taxes are lowered have a high propensity to consume, so poor people.

And just to keep your idiocy in check, no it does not always work. Only when there is large amounts of unused capital and labour. Like now.

Let's suppose the economy is composed of four persons A, B, C and D. A buys from B, who buys from C, who buys from D. If something bad happens to A, he will buy less from B and, since one person's spending is another persons income, this will trigger a chain reaction causing the whole economy to slowdown and work under its potential.
Keynes would say "let the government buy from A, so eveyone can go back to growing". The problem with that is that it creates a dependence in the economy. If government were to stop intervening, there is a big chance the whole thing would crumble. Not to mention the human factors, such as lobbying and corporatism, that arise from that.

>a society is not something that can be described as just or unjust because a society is a spontaneous order of free interactions between independent agents
That's literally wrong. What kind of world does this nigger live in?