Road to Serfdom

[DaytonBuck]

Hayek?s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down ?the road to serfdom? and reached tyranny. Hayek argued that within a centrally planned economic system, the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group, which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners? disposal.

"The socialists of all parties".

Wikipedia



Single best book I ever read at OSU. I fondly look like at the example of domestic intelligence agencies in Europe as a reminder.

 

[DaytonBuck]

For the nationalize healthcare, give more control over your life to the government crowd that freak about fisa look how common camera surveillance is common in places like the UK. It's really pretty comical that the left bemoans civil liberties but is perfectly willing to turn us in Europe.

 

[Steve19]

Wikipedia
Single best book I ever read at OSU. I fondly look like at the example of domestic intelligence agencies in Europe as a reminder.

The influence of the Austrian School of economics is highest in British economics departments and some economists here still support its central figures. I like its more balanced emphasis of entrepreneurialism and liberalism. One of its members, William Harold Hutt, first proposed the concept of consumers sovereignty and is credited by many as the father of the modern marketing concept. He argued as its lonely proponent for three decades, beginning during the Great Depression, until others rallied to his side in the late 1950s. Hutt, by the way, was Professor of Commerce at the University of Cape Town.

The Austrian School is now quite old and its influenced has waned considerably. As a general criticism, its theories typically lack scientific precision and make greatly exaggerated claims that are impossible to test (see link). This has left many respected economists of later times, like Paul Samuelson, feeling very critical.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the School, when considered for relevance in our time, is its inability to account for heterogeneity within and across modern societies and the effects of extra-market forces.

Consider inland rural Chinese and coastal urban Chinese. One group is receiving contact with the industrialized world and access to modern educational institutions. The other is not.

The Austrian School would argue that these two groups should be allowed to compete freely against one another in free markets. It would argue that, even though the urban dwellers would "win" the competition for resources, eventually it would pay them to share resources with their poorer inland countrymen. They would argue that, even if they didn't want to share resources, the resources of inland regions, under control of the rural dwellers, would increase in value and that market forces would handle things quite well.

This may be true in free markets, but realpolitik says that the city dwellers would use their resources to control the government and find new ways to change the game in their favor, so that they could permanently stay in a preferred situation. Thus, the markets would not be truly free.

Even if one argues that this then would result in the most efficient market, it makes the assumption that all of the players in a market will not act to take wealth by creating new rules (e.g., robbery, burglary, insurrection). While such claims were reasonable in the information poor era of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, when the Austrian School enjoyed its heyday, it is not today.

Today, the "have-nots" receive daily updates on the lives of the "haves" on their TV screens. TV is a daily incentive to create those new rules of competition outside of normal market mechanisms.

Were the inland rural Chinese not be able to compete fairly, they would be very aware of this. Moreover, they would be very aware of the fruits being accrued to their urban cousins.

In the ideal world of the Austrian economist, all roads would be toll roads, even the one you live on. There would be no social net of any kind, no insurance, no subsidies. I understand the arguments and agree with the sentiments expressed in much of the work. However, like the work of Marx, it often lacks substance when a reality check is administered.

 

[DaytonBuck]

The influence of the Austrian School of economics is highest in British economics departments and some economists here still support its central figures. I like its more balanced emphasis of entrepreneurialism and liberalism. One of its members, William Harold Hutt, first proposed the concept of consumers sovereignty and is credited by many as the father of the modern marketing concept. He argued as its lonely proponent for three decades, beginning during the Great Depression, until others rallied to his side in the late 1950s. Hutt, by the way, was Professor of Commerce at the University of Cape Town.

The Austrian School is now quite old and its influenced has waned considerably. As a general criticism, its theories typically lack scientific precision and make greatly exaggerated claims that are impossible to test (see link). This has left many respected economists of later times, like Paul Samuelson, feeling very critical.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the School, when considered for relevance in our time, is its inability to account for heterogeneity within and across modern societies and the effects of extra-market forces.

Consider inland rural Chinese and coastal urban Chinese. One group is receiving contact with the industrialized world and access to modern educational institutions. The other is not.

The Austrian School would argue that these two groups should be allowed to compete freely against one another in free markets. It would argue that, even though the urban dwellers would "win" the competition for resources, eventually it would pay them to share resources with their poorer inland countrymen.

This may be so, but were the inland rural Chinese not be able to compete fairly, they would be very aware of this today. Moreover, they would be very aware of the fruits being accrued to their urban cousins.

Even if one argues that this then would result in the most efficient market, it makes the assumption that all of the players in a market will not act to take wealth by creating new rules (e.g., robbery, burglary, insurrection).
While it was tenable to make such claims in the information poor 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, when the Austrian School enjoyed its heyday, it is not today in a world in which the "have-nots" receive daily updates on the lives of the "haves" on their TV screens. TV is a daily incentive to create those new rules of competition outside of normal market mechanisms.

In the ideal world of the Austrian economist, all roads would be toll roads, even the one you live on. There would be no social net of any kind, no insurance, no subsidies. I understand the arguments and agree with the sentiments expressed in much of the work. However, like the work of Marx, it often lacks substance when a reality check is administered.

I thought the big competing difference in China was the coast being industrial and having free trade zones and the interior being agriculture?

Austrian economics might not be perfect but like democracy they've sure clobbered the alternative.

 

[Taosman]

Wikipedia



Single best book I ever read at OSU. I fondly look like at the example of domestic intelligence agencies in Europe as a reminder.

See! Told ya you were a communist! :tongue2:

 

[Taosman]

For the nationalize healthcare, give more control over your life to the government crowd that freak about fisa look how common camera surveillance is common in places like the UK. It's really pretty comical that the left bemoans civil liberties but is perfectly willing to turn us in Europe.

Your throwing every thing into the same "stew"! In fact the UK and most of Europe are far ahead of this extremist ruled country. They think we've gone completely mad! But, this is a discussion best "left" to the Poli! :tongue2:

 

[Flocka]

But, this is a discussion best "left" to the Poli! :tongue2:

I can only hope to one day smoke as much pot as you.

 

[Taosman]

I can only hope to one day smoke as much pot as you.

And how did your day in court turn out?

 

[Flocka]

And how did your day in court turn out?

Probation.