I managed to catch only part of Stephanie Flanders on Hayek last night: it was deeply hidden in the menu of the Dutch hotel room where I was staying. So what I say here may be partial, but I got the end of it, which I think was what mattered.
As she concluded, the right wing neoliberal idea, beloved of so many trolls, the Institute for Economic Affairs , the Adam Smith Institute and so many other Tory think tanks is, as I think she put it, an ideology of closing down all regulation withdrawing government, standing back and hoping for the best.
And as her tone but not words made clear, that's an ideology of the irresponsible only subscribed to by those from beyond the paramaters of reason.
And as her words put it' she can't see that happening in her lifetime. I hope she's right because we have to remember, this is the logic of tax havens. And Tories want to turn the UK into a tax haven.
Her optimism may be misplaced. Hayek's philosophy may be irresponsible beyond most people's imaginations, but it appeals to the rich and powerful. The sort who treat protest like scum and want to turn the dogs on people. The sort who call the police plebs.
Thatcher may have eventually backed off from Hayek. Her followers may still not do so. Flanders was right, I think, but only if we're vigilant and only if we continuously take on these insidious people.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This was the philosophy attributed to Greenspan in his apocryphal lunchtime chat with Brooksley Born, if you remember. One could argue it might have been right as the lawlessness was never allowed to run its course and face its natural consequences. Instead, law pressed by politics stepped into preserve the broken banks in their unatural ‘zombie’ states, where they remain. If we’d followed the Greenspan/Hayek philosopy, as I understand it, the banks would have gone bust when they should have and inevitable we’d be looking at a completely diffferent market by now. We should remember that we’re not looking at that situation any more than we’re living in a capitalist society. This is neither, so we’re really not in a position to judge going by what we’re living in now. It isn’t market-driven at all, it’s neofeudal if it’s anything.
You clearly did miss it. Watch the whole thing.
Oh dear, have I let her off too soon?
I missed it too, Richard, but will watch this evening. I didn’t think she did a bad job with Keynes last week, though, but I thought her natural instincts (as it were) might get the better of her with Hayek. How she deals with Marx will be another matter entirely.
I watched all of this, found it to be pretty one sided to be honest. Had to sit through lengthy passages of the likes of lawson and ron paul fawning over Hayek, while talking heads on the counter side were almost non-existent; Krugman was limited to only a few words before Flanders narration took over usually with “but….”. Having said that next weeks episode is Marx so hopefully that will get a fair representation. Need to catch the Keynes ep on iplayer too.
Josh,
When you have seen it, please point me to your critique of the first programme, in which she is equally fair to Keynes. In fact, I don’t remember a single commentator in that programme being as opposed to his views as you would expect Krugman to be to Hayek’s.
I say this as someone who reads and agrees with most of Krugman and suspects Hayek’s ideas to basically be crazy (though in a way it would be interesting[1] to see what did happen if they could actually be put into practice).
[1] as in to view from the outside
Then you didn’t notice Philip Booth from the IEA – a man who out Hayek’s Hayek regularly
Are you being wilfully blind or just unobservant?
“The sort who treat protestors like scum and want to turn the dogs on people.”
Like the Barclay brothers in Sark? Or vested interests in Jersey getting Leah Goodman banned from the country?
Did you watch the Max Keiser Report with Leah McGrath Goodman, the journo in question? I suspect we’re wasting our time trying to negate the actions of the government on points of law or taxes. In just the same way the authorities never got rid of Capone for bootlegging or racketeering but eventually managed to get him on unpaid taxes, I think we’re going after the Cameroonies for the wrong reasons. The banning of Miss McGrath Goodman suggests there’s a vulnerability on Jersey that the authorities are very sensitive indeed about. I want to l know more! I’m hearing alarming things on the fringes, Cameron stealing nuclear warheads to fund the Tories back in Thatchers day for example. While I regard that as an extreme I’m convinced Cameron Osborne et al are crooks pure and simple, nothing more. I believe investigating wrong-doing on Jersey might reveal a lot more than many suspect. It’s an avenue we should lend all support to.
If Hayek’s ideas were ever to be implemented it would be the rich, who are currently protected from market forces, that would howl the loudest.
For example, the banks would have been allowed to fail. Anyone would be able to set up a bank or an energy company. These big boys don’t like competition outside the labour markets where workers fight for jobs like rats in a sack.
Nope. They wouldn’t like Hayek’s universe at all. That is why we are unlikely to see it in Stephanie’s lifetime.
Anyway, next week, Marx. That’ll be worth watching.
It’s a little unfair to say that Hayek’s theories should only be implemented from the point the bank failure occurs. I imagine his supporters would say if they had been implemented in the first place either the banks wouldn’t have failed, or the impact of them failing wouldn’t matter anyway.
Oh that’s just silly
Let’s assume a perfect starting point whall we?
Please try looking at the real world once in a while will you?
As someone at the LSE in the 50’s who studied under a range of teachers, some were Hayek’s former colleagues and students, it is all very much more complicated than the programme suggested. Critically, like them all, he was a man of his time. This was before computers and modern communications and a lot else, for example, container shipping. One thing did strike me as correct in the programme, that is the infinite capacity of politicians of all stripes to get it wrong when fiddling about for short term political reasons and often badly wrong. Invariably, they are well behind the game both in data and understanding.