sc94597 said:
Funny video. Would like to correct the one part though, Hayek didn't believe in laissez-faire. He believed government had a role in the economy through the rule of law, as opposed with arbitary central-planning. So, for example, Hayek agreed with anti-trust laws but not the nationalization of a market. He often talks in "The Road to Serfdom" about government's purpose being to aid competition, not to remove it. |
Quite. Laissez faire only really works in a realm of small producers making goods and providing services that others could easily provide, ironically being best suited for the proto-capitalist era in which the concept of the Invisible Hand was originally designed, before the scale of industry made the production of non-agricultural products (or at least the ownership of means of production) quite impossible for anyone but the super-rich or those who had their backing. Things like industrial cartels or monopolies are natural in a laissez-faire setup, because if no laws were set to govern the conduct of businesses (aside from basic no stealing no killing laws, etc), the natural end-game for some industries is for one player to win completely, or for the multiple players in an oligopoly to realize that they could dictate the terms of their industry with impugnity if they decided to work together (with no real incentive to backstab the other cartel members in a competitive fashion, because you're just in absolute hog heaven once you're carteled up).
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
