quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, to be fair, Samp, the videos do wear their bias on their sleeves. That some people interpret this as partisan bias just reflects reasonable confusion.

---

I look at the videos as a thought experiment by people who obviously love Hayek trying to put him in a fistfight to thematically win in principle, acting out against the diminishing relevance of austrian economics, and the walloping that economies like Ireland took.
 

---

Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
 
Its worth noting that Lord Robert Skidesky, the eminent Keynes biographer and supporter, felt that the first video fairly represented Keyne's views. For an interesting podcast between the two creators of the videos, check out Econtalk podcast
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
I lack the background to judge accuracy, but my impression was that the first video was emotionally slanted heavily towards Hayek. The second video still played up Hayek as the underdog, but I felt like it did a good job of showing them going back and forth without letting one of them get the last word.
 

---

Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
 
Why did the the police officer in the second one and the receptionist in the first one not recognize Hayek?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Because the creators of the videos believe -- rightly, to some extent -- that Hayek is not sufficiently appreciated, especially by the common man and the political flack. One of the points (or perhaps insinuated) by both videos is that Keynes is more popular because he and his theories pander to the masses' desires.
 

---

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
In case it matters, I was actually Glenn Arnold in the above post (forgot to switch logins. My bad).
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Well, this thread and video inspired me to knuckle down and ask a bunch of questions about austrian economics.

My own personal biases aside, I was surprised with how silly the austrian school actually is. Like, not in terms of ~socialism~ versus ~the free market~, but just in terms of its assumptions and methodology.

I no longer really wonder why austrian economics seems to be marginalized and fading!
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I agree with Hayek for the most part, 'bailing out the losers' is bad and to me sings of diminishing returns and signals corporations they can get dependent on the government saving them.

(An exception would be if in fact the federal government had bought a commanding share of the corporation and had tight control over it but this never happened)

On the other hand I don't think "Big Business and Regulators" being in cahoots even had the time to even transpire, in our case they were completely either blocked by republicans or defanged and defunded by republicans of their powers.

Though based on the video I'm not sure specifically which context of oversight he means, from the video I think Hayek is perfectly in favor of strong rule of law and an even playing field legally, the question comes down to if hes anti trust or not as thats I think the key point of business regulation. Preventing monopolies.

I don't think either Keynes or Hayek however had to deal with the encroaching globalization thats currently happening though; in the past if a railway company went bust it would just be bought up cheaply by another competing railcompany located in the same country.

Now if said company goes bust it'll be bought by China, the question of security I don't think was ever addressed.

I think the answer to Keynes regarding suffering people is that it will/would be cheaper, far cheaper and healthier to the economy simply instead of bailing out an industry to supply a living wage directly temporarily until they can retrain or find another job.

The Japanese government did similar, when an industry was euthanasized they directly moved people around to find work elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Had you asked me a few years ago if I would ever see you type the words "I agree with Hayek for the most part," Blayne, I would have laughed aloud.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Planned economies generally work best from the perspective of developing from a low position of development. IE 1950's China where there's "nothing" and little means to gain investment capital except for neomercantalistic trade policies. However such economies completely sidestep the issue of "boom and bust" and rely on providing a consistent average growth and work on providing the foundation for later freer market growth to take off.

Sans GLF and CR in China its easy to see that China's gdp and per capita gdp would've been much higher, perhaps ten years ahead of where it is now assuming Deng Xiaping reforms happen at the same date and not sooner.

(Since one could assume that for the GLF and CR to NOT happen means that the 'Capitalist Roaders' so to speak had a much higher degree of influence then what was historical. So "Cat white or black as long as it catches mice" probably would happen sooner).

What good is free market when the railway companies, light industry, fabric factories, machine tool shops, electronics all don't exist in the first place and the educational infrastructure is still early and immature? And the number of "capitalists", entrepreneurs and industrialists are a staggering minority if not non existent?
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I also play a lot of "Victoria 2" where Kensyian or Kayekian economics can both be tested and viewed in accelerated time on a 19th century economy. Sorta. There's still a bunch of design flaws that prevents this being fairly seen practically in game.

Basically Kensyian economics works well from the perspective of your willing to keep workers employed in strategic industries at government cost to keep the "industry score" high and to provide "supply" of goods that suddenly become scarce during a war.

But this results in half of my factories needing subsidies to be profitable which is really expensive, a more Hayekian economy which is more free is much healthier and generally much more profitable. Problematically though it means (because the game has difficulty right now properly modeling true pricing; quality vs quantity, distance of shipping etc) your industry will lack certain production of goods that during say peacetime are unprofitable and thus will become scarce and unattainable during a war.

So some sort of balance is needed until paradox fixes the game and properly adds some much needed variables.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBzXpH3Tjo0&feature=related

Creation of the first video.

[ May 19, 2011, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

Planned economies generally work best from the perspective of developing from a low position of development. IE 1950's China where there's "nothing" and little means to gain investment capital except for neomercantalistic trade policies.

---

quote:

---

Marx's view I'm certain was probably colored by the implication that the "developing" world was probably mostly going to be divided up and conquered by the developed imperialist world anyways and thus any capitalism that would occur would be via imperialistic fiat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Marx's view I'm certain was probably colored by the implication that the "developing" world was probably mostly going to be divided up and conquered by the developed imperialist world anyways and thus any capitalism that would occur would be via imperialistic fiat.

---

I'm guessing you haven't read much Marx. Your assessment really doesn't mesh well with the whole materialist dialectic.

---

quote:

---

For one thing, Marx would have scorned the idea that socialism could take root in desperately impoverished, chronically backward societies like Russia and China. If it did, then the result would simply be what he called "generalized scarcity," by which he means that everyone would now be deprived, not just the poor. It would mean a recycling of "the old filthy business"—or, in less tasteful translation, "the same old crap." Marxism is a theory of how well-heeled capitalist nations might use their immense resources to achieve justice and prosperity for their people. It is not a program by which nations bereft of material resources, a flourishing civic culture, a democratic heritage, a well-evolved technology, enlightened liberal traditions, and a skilled, educated work force might catapult themselves into the modern age.

---