drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Notes on the Hayak Problem.

First off the good bits Biblical Capitalism - The Sacralizing of Political and Economic Issues - a very important background discussion. Since it is that moment in Network where we learn that it is bad to say scary things about the ruling elites, and we must preach the gospel, well, of folks who would love to be tyrannies.

On the flip side of the song book we have "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem where we get a rather broad swath of kvetching about the delta between Hayek and Keynes. What is crucial to understand is that Hayek is actually clear that he is NOT a conservative, please, no, actually READ his "why I am not a conservative" some time. No I am SERIOUS. If you actually read him you will learn that no, he did not consider himself a conservative, which is really not all that surprising a problem - since in the long run it IS a critical part of the analysis that all too often is not discussed in PsuedoCon circles as they light their joss sticks and pray to his Icon. But these are normally also the same folks who want to have their masturbatory fantasies about Milton Friedman, and how cool things would be, if only we could have our own Military Dictatorship, you know like China or Chile, or all of those other cool bastions of anti-freedom that these freaks in the long run want to, and traditionally, support.

So yes, it would be nice IF we could believe in the rational expectations of the market to protect us from the problems of 'irrational expectations' - but please - let us at least speak honestly. The alleged arguments about rational expectations have been trashed beyond belief. It was NOT the failure of regulatory over-sight that brought about the most recent economic fiasco! It was precisely the opposite! A point we COULD lay to blame on the Clinton administration for such horrors as ending the Glass-Steagal act. But that would require us to say that the years of the Dubya Administration were, well, blithely naive about the actual american history, and that they knew only the world AFTER WWII, and were absolutely and totally blocked from any knowledge about a time before 1944!

Which given the intellectual acumen of the time might be a reasonable assessment. Married to the IRONY that Ayn Rand had branded Allen Greenspan a mere 'social climber' - and gosh, those Randianists would be lifted by their own petards, since, gosh, they bought into him lock stock and two smoking barrels.... right up to the moment that he was Shocked! Shocked! to find out that given the conflict between personal greed and corporate civic duty so many corporate execs would opt IN on greed.

How absolutely shockin!

Hum.... I am sure that everyone agrees that the idea of allowing child and spouse abuse should be left to the free market to decide, since, well, clearly children would learn that they had other options and would embark upon such as the market allowed. Or that we all agreed that murder should only be defined in market terms, since clearly to allow the excess governmental regulation would mean, well limiting the freedome of the market.

When libertarians can go there, and follow their ideological frothing at the mouth for their love of the tyranny that Hayak has to offer, then we can at least have a reasonably HONEST discussion about their commitment to letting the market decide. Otherwise we have already established their position and are merely negotiating the price.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments