What does Veeky Forums think of Friedrich August Hayek?

Hayek was the least bad Austrian tbqh.

Except the central thesis is bullshit. The Soviet union was a dictatorship run by and in the interests of a small inner elite and never had any democratic input. You cannot compare that to Social Democratic governments in the west.
Post WWII progressive governments and the old left at least attempted to maximizing domestic employment and economic potential and that gave us the golden age of capitalism in the "bad" old 50s.
After the 80s the all power was handed over to private financial planners who aimed at maximizing the price of real estate, stocks and financial securities relative to wage levels. This has just benefited the cosmopolitan internationalist elite and the state of the working class has gotten relatively worse since then and is now resulting in a populist backlash with people like Donald Trump that actually might push into some real type of totalitarian territory.

Overrated.

Never undestood my the Academy loves Hayek so much while the greatest mind in Austrian Economcs is Mises.

He's pretty damn good, but even Friedman is better IMHO.

Well said. I would also like to add that in the late 60's and early 70's the USA began using it's financial dominance to establish economic hegemony. Actions like this were common in the early 20th century but it was under Nixon that the USA reached the height of its power. Carter did little to expand this but it was under Reagan (as many probably guessed) that the carefully constructed empire became unglued.

I always shill the book Super Imperialism if anyone wants to learn more about this.

>neoliberalism
No such a thing.

>Never undestood my the Academy loves Hayek so much while the greatest mind in Austrian Economcs is Mises.
It's because Hayek never embraced the goofy praxeology method which no one with a brain could take serious

Also the only Austrians seriously worth note are Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and Joseph Schumpeter

Why do neoliberals always seem to get so defensive when called neoliberals? No other ideology is so pathological when getting called what they are. kek

>He was pretty much proven objectively wrong by history.
Even though History does not prove anything in Social Sciences?
>He was pretty much proven objectively wrong by history.
Even though History does not prove anything in Social Sciences?
>He was pretty much proven objectively wrong by history.
Even though History does not prove anything in Social Sciences?
>no Menger
He was even more important to defeat Socialism in the field of ideas than Mises, Hayek and Böhm-Bawerk. HE was really underrated, probably the best and most important economist of the second half of XIX century.

Explain the difference between neoliberalism and Classic Liberalism. "Neoliberalism" is a strawman you call ideas you don't like. Even socialists are "neoliberals" now.

neo is used to denote revivals of ideologies
the term is also particularly useful in america where the term liberal is misused
it certainly is a "thing" if you are equating it to classical liberalism, btw, that's a thing
i would say that neoliberalism is obsessed with marketisation at the expense of other "liberties"

yeah except the whole surveillance state and dying freedom of expression

>neo is used to denote revivals of ideologies
Except that Liberalism was never dead
>the term is also particularly useful in america where the term liberal is misused
That's why the term "libertarian" exist. Also MIses and Friedman refused to use any other therm but liberalism because of that.
>i would say that neoliberalism is obsessed with marketisation at the expense of other "liberties"
Have you ever read any "neoliberal" author or only analysis by Anderson, Habermas and those people? It is quite the opose, most of "neoliberals" defend every kind of liberty much more than their predecessors. Most of the Liberalism thinkers of XIX were also social conservatives. Hayek, Rand and the others loathed social conservativism.

Why are neoliberals so obsessed with the concept of "growth"? It's just another extension of progressivism. How hard are this people gonna kick and scream when they realise earth's finite resources finally gives out and we're all completely fucked?

Schumpeter is great. Austrian tends to mean that fuck Mises and his stupid followers but Schumpeter is different.
He was wrong about depressions though

0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/other_commentary/Farmand.02.17.1951.pdf

This essay shows some of the differences between neoliberalism and classical liberalism

econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html

>The neoliberal revolution combines the free markets of classical liberalism with the income transfers of modern liberalism. Although this somewhat oversimplifies a complex reality, it broadly describes the policy changes that have transformed the world economy since 1975.

There we go

They know, they just don't care. Assuming humanity survives liberalism it will go down as the greatest and longest lasting evil of all time.

no, im a marxist

That is horseshit.

People Just do not read the autors they call "neoliberal" so they dont know they"ré even more radical than" classic" liberals.

One of those is written by Milton Friedman thanks.
Strawmanning neoliberalism is horseshit.
I can't argue with you if you don't know what neoliberalism is and here's a tip:
It's not what the guardian tells you.

>Explain the difference between neoliberalism and Classic Liberalism. "Neoliberalism" is a strawman you call ideas you don't like. Even socialists are "neoliberals" now.

Classical liberalism never really incorporated the notion of modern enterprise into its legal forms or theory. Adam Smith was pretty anti-corporate and you even had guys like Jefferson who didn't even like commerce or banking much.

Liberalism was always about the rights of individuals (not corporate entities)... neoliberalism on the other hand just began to view corporations as actual individuals to work around this instead of developing more advanced theories to deal with corporate entities.

Pretty much all the classical liberals you can think of were not extreme natural law or laissez-faire dogmatists, they were concerned primarily about what type of LIMITS should be assigned to the market (Adam Smith), rights (John Locke), or the utilitarian calculus (Jeremy Bentham).

Neoliberalism however is more of a political project attempting to elevate the logic of the market to the position of a generalized normative logic, from the state to innermost subjectivity. Capitalism to remain thriving requires us to constantly "recreate ourself" by being consumers of different sorts of commodities otherwise corporate profitability might diminish and crises will break out.

Neoliberalism sees corporations as interfaces for interactions between individuals
Neoliberalism does not see corporations as actual individuals

Neoliberalism has the same goal as modern American liberalism, utilitarianism.
The goal is the same the means are different.
Neoliberals see markets as being the way in most cases, not all, but most.

It's pro-market not pro-business.
Pro-market as in pro-consumer.
Neoliberalism!= Big business
A central policy prescription of neoliberalism is removing barriers to entry into markets, which is bad for big business.

Hayek > Keynes

Anyone who disagrees obviously didn't study economics.

Fucking plebs, the lot of you.

That's exactly what contemporary law and economic theory postulates. The old radical institutionalists were the only ones who differed on this. Individuals cannot be the real unit in a corporatized economy.

Marx said share-capital is the seed of communism for a reason.

>Austrian """economics""""

Hayek and the Mont Pèlerin Society are some of the key actors responsible for the EU and other globalist institutions, don't be stupid
Hayek was all about regulations to promote business institutions and promote a petty-bourgeois lifestyle

>Hayek
>Promoting regulations

Mises>Friedman>Hayek.
Proof me wrong.

Everyone>Mises
Friedman supported empirical evidence. That's very clear from essays in positive economics. Thats completely opposite to Mises.
Mises was a nut case.

I don't think it is so easy to define schumpeter as an Austrian . He dismisses the calculation problem and even sets out a way of planning the economy, he's skeptical of the Austrian business cycle as well . What I've read of him he doesn't really go in for praxeology

>Except that Liberalism was never dead
yes it was, postwar planning consensus

as for "authors", yes i'm sure neoliberal theorists are consistent in their application (or try to be), but "neoliberal" as descriptor is used for politicians, decision-making, etc; the perhaps "incomplete" liberal platform

>Mises was a nut case.
Aren't tou confision with Rothbard?
> Thats completely opposite to Mises.
On their time, sure, but their epigones don't see this way. Read Vienna and Chicago, friends or foes?.

>yes it was, postwar planning consensus
Human Action was first published in 1949

He doesn't go for praxeology, in capitalism socialism and Democracy he looks at studies of "total output growth". I just think a lot of his work was theoretical like his entrepreneurship stuff and history of economic analysis. He was wrong about structural adjustments being the main cause of depressions and that nothing can be done to ameliorate them though. Now that I think about it it's kinda like the real business cycle stuff.

Praxeology and the rejection of empirics in economics is pretty nutcase though.
Murray "sell crack to kids" Rothbard was a lunatic too.

Friedman was a pragmatic libertarian, he came up with the idea of a negative income tax and supported government funded primary schools ( through school vouchers of course ). For those sorts of beliefs Mises called him (and others ) socialists at a mont pelerin meeting

oh god

date of relevant ideology
and
book publishing dates
two different things famalam
but again, this is a neoliberal politics vs some books nomenclature mishap
you're refusing to acknowledge other terms

Hayek, in his more Ordoliberal phase, was supportive of regulations which would increase competition. He thought the state should actively work to marketize non-market spheres and create competition. Hayek would have supported things like carbon trading schemes for example

>While it would be an exaggeration, it would not be altogether untrue to say that the interpretation of the fundamental principle of liberalism as absence” of state activity rather than as a policy which deliberately adopts competition, the market, and prices as its ordering principle and uses the legal framework enforced by the state in order to make competition as effective and beneficial as possible — and to supplement it where, and only where, it cannot be made effective — is as much responsible for the decline of competition as the active support which governments have given directly and indirectly to the growth of monopoly.

>it would not be altogether untrue to say that the interpretation of the fundamental principle of liberalism as absence” of state activity ... is ... responsible for the decline of competition

He's an incredible liberal legal theorist. Any marxist here who will rave on how horrible he is doesn't know shit about law.
Law, Legislation and Liberty and A Road to Serfdom are amazing works on how to form and maintain a state where men are free.
He was right on social democracies moving towards totalitarian regimes. The EU had a perfect structure to implement it within a few years.
This is I believe correct. His economic work is not as interesting or 'right' as his other relevant works.

I'm my mind carbon trading schemes are pro-market. These sorts of regulations make markets more "free" as they correct for negative externalities.
As to regulations that support competition I would say I'm in favour of them, although I'm not a hayekian.
Sorry I thought you meant regulations in favour of big business, my misunderstanding.
Ordoliberalism is fine except for the fact that they didn't bother implementing Keynes's demand management in times of a recession.

>He was right on social democracies moving towards totalitarian regimes. The EU had a perfect structure to implement it within a few years.
The EU isn't a social democratic institution. It's the exact opposite and must undermine state sovereignty, which is necessary for social democracy to function. The EU at its core exists to standardize regulations to allow trade between countries and promote monetary stability at all costs, even if it destroys the real economy.

The myth that regulations generally favour "big business" is bullshit. Most countries have a progressive taxation structure and give so many incentives and subsidizes to small business it's not even funny. Big businesses have accumulated more funds and therefore can manage depreciation expenses better and can buyout smaller businesses when the first sign of crises breaks out and the small businesses go broke. Without state intervention capital would tend to accumulate into a smaller amount of hands.

>The myth that regulations generally favour "big business" is bullshit.
Jesus fucking Christ it's not a myth when every empirical and rational argumentation shows it's true.

You mean studies undertaken by the bourgeosie? Lmao people actually think they don't act as one big group, in unison

Polilogist is indeed the most retarded part of Marxism.