"You're all a bunch of socialists" Mises on Friedman

Hayek loved mountains he said they breathed freedom but he saw socialist ideals and the planned economy as threats to freedom and so he organized a conference at a formerly fashionable hotel on the top of Mont Pelerin pilgrim mountain well what happened in 1947 was that Hayek at last brought off a great dream which was to assemble 36 mostly economists some historians a few journalists a handful of what he regard as survivors good eggs good intellectuals who understood the market economy and the whole of the case one of the delegates was a young economist from Chicago Milton Friedman the point of the meeting was very clear the Hayek and others felt that the world was turning toward planning and that somehow we had to develop an intellectual current that would offset that moment they met downstairs in the cocktail bar the debates were passionate at one point Hayek's former mentor Ludwig von Mises stormed out of a meeting in the middle of a debate on the distribution of income in which you had people whom you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian people like myself and Mises got up and said you're all a bunch of socialists and walked right up a rope

  1. Mises was clearly centuries ahead of his time. I bet 98% people never heard of him… Such a shame… World is going towards biggest crisis, this debt thing must end in some point

  2. Free Market economists and many of those who follow them have a nasty habit of calling everything to do with government socialist. Socialists may want the government to control the entire economy and perhaps everything but that does not mean that government control of the economy is inherently socialist.

    Kings in 900ad who forced people to pay taxes were not socialists. A socialist is someone who wants the government to control 100% of an economy, which also abolishes private property. Full stop. There are other implications but if they do not want this they are not socialist.

  3. It's just the difference between purists and pragmatists. The position of Friedman, Hayek and the like is to look at where we are and see what changes can be made in the right direction – it's working with the material at hand, working around the difficulties inherent in the system.

    The position of the hardcore Austrians is to hold to the ideal and propose bold solutions that will attain the ideal.

    Bold solutions aren't going to work in a relatively stable democracy – there's the fitness peak of the ideal over there, but to get there you'd have to go through the trough of a severe economic turmoil, which is impossible to sell to the populace as a positive, and that negativity will be taken advantage of by demagogues to warn the populace off the proper remedy, and draw attention to their own nostrums, which promise a continuation of good times.

    On the other hand, there are times when things are already in turmoil, when bold solutions can be proposed because people are looking for a bold solution.

  4. Mises missed the point of debate and comparative outcomes. There's such a thing as a policy being less damaging than another.

  5. For those interested in discussing more about the Austrian school of economics join this facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/Austrian-Economic-Discussion-Page-1777767159139233/

  6. I love this video and anytime I get to talk about the Austrian or the Chicago school of economics. I think one of the reasons I would say I liked the Austrian school of economics more is because they predicted some important outcomes of monetary policy that the Chicago school of economics was wrong about. On an individual level I thought Ludwig Von Mises deserved the Nobel Prize in Economics more than Milton Friedman did. There was probably more to this story than the one sided perspective they gave for both accounts. I remember hearing about this story though.

  7. Professor Mises was usually quite reasonable, intelligent, and civil in his discourse with other people, even with those whom he disagreed. What may have been said at that meeting which provoked him into such a tirade-especially against those who would be inclined to strongly AGREE with his free market, sound money, and free trade viewpoints?

    Could it be that the intellectuals, scholars, and journalists at Mount Pelerin were NOT as anti-statist and pro-liberty as Friedman or the narrator imagined them to be? In all events, Mt. Pelerin  society since 1947 has NOT been as influential in the growth of countervailing sentiments against central planning as Hayek had hoped they would be, have they?

  8. Mises on Friedman?  This title is very misleading.  "You are all bunch of socialists" does not equal specifically Friedman.  Fix it.

  9. Milton Friedman originally supported President Nixon's price freeze; I remember, as a student, seeing Murray Rothbard debate and demolish the pro-price control arguments raised by Friedman.

  10. Actually back in a day it wasn't that far from truth. Milton used to have much more statist views than what is known for. It was around 50s&60s when he truly shifted towards laisser faire and possibly radicalising with age.

  11. I don't see that Mises was mistaken: redistribution of income by public policy programmes is indeed a socialist initiative.

  12. Many of the low life maggot scum at the occupy rape parties were pot smoking upper middle class white dopes. So what you are saying is that rich jews want to keep others down and control them with big government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *