Forum Post: Economics In One Lesson
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 2:20 p.m. EST by Dutchess
(499)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
PREFACE
This book is an analysis of economic fallacies that are at last so prevalent that they have almost become a new orthodoxy. The one thing that has prevented this has been their own self-contradictions, which have scattered those who accept the same premises into a hundred different "schools," for the simple reason that it is impossible in matters touching practical life to be consistently wrong. But the difference between one new school and another is merely that one group wakes up earlier than another to the absurdities to which its false premises are driving it, and becomes at that moment inconsistent by either unwittingly abandoning its false premises or accepting conclusions from them less disturbing or fantastic than those that logic would demand.
There is not a major government in the world at this moment, however, whose economic policies are not influenced if they are not almost wholly determined by acceptance of some of these fallacies. Perhaps the shortest and surest way to an understanding of economics is through a dissection of such errors, and particularly of the central error from which they stem. That is the assumption of this volume and of its somewhat ambitious and belligerent title.
All one needs to understand the tragic policies of Hayek/Friedman and Austrian/Chicago economics is to study the Pinochet experiment in Chile. Or Thatcher in England, Yeltsin in Russia, or Reagan here at home. The rest is spin by our fair Ron PauI campaign volunteer here. The statements she'll use to defend Hayek to progressives are the exceptions that prove the rule, and are considered heresy by the Austrian "establishment." Please, do not be fooled. Pinochet, Reagan, Thatcher, Yeltsin, Greece, IMF, neoliberalism. These are what you need to know about (or perhaps consider the Austrian idealization of the Gilded Age).
I'm about to be called uneducated/ignorant, or told that my education has gotten in the way of my learning, or simply instructed to read road to serfdom.
The Shock Doctrine is a movie now, free even: http://vimeo.com/14847387
Good find on the shock doctrin brother but for the average guy it's hard to tell if your post is or is not pro Friedman unless one knows the shock doctrine. Good find though thank you
Thanks Steve. Yeah this is an ongoing debate, new thread, so context is a problem. Added "tragic policies" which may help. Better yet, hopefully people will watch the film. :)
Lolll.
to pick one..Reagan did not practice Austrian school of economics ( free market capitalism)
He practiced TODAY'S Keynesian with fiat money ( central economic GOVERNMENT planning)
And WHAT did Reagan do?
he BROKE DOWN the protections Keynesian ( central economic govt planning) NEEDS!
Like the Sherman Anti trust Act and the Glass Steagal Act.
I am so tired of this level of ignorance!
Brother I think you missed his point. Although you may not agree with all he says I think you should look into his info. By the looks of your post " the Sherman act and Glass Steagal" I think you are on the same page as him. Don't sweat inaccuracies. Communicate them out so we learn and find common ground.
Libertarianism. The economic system for the 1%.
If you want most wealth and power to amass in a few hands at the top, libertarianism is the most effective way to accomplish that.
[Deleted]
I understand what libertarianism is.
When your only rule is make as much money as possible, just don't harm someone or their property, you will wind up with a barbaric, uncivilized, dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim society where all wealth and power concentrates in the hands of the few winners.
And liberty will exist in abundance for those few winners, not so much for everyone else. In a society where everything has a price tag, your freedom to do anything is limited to the amount of money you have. So the 1%, with all the money, will have loads of freedom, not so much for everyone else.
[Deleted]
"The purpose of advocating a smaller government that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence is to prevent the "barbaric, uncivilized, dog-eat-dog" world you fear."
That is ridiculous.
Everyone opposes jackbooted government government thugs. But libertarians ALSO oppose any intervention in society that interferes with whatever results a capitalist economic system produces.
Giving people a right to a fair wage, health care and education does not create a "barbaric, uncivilized, dog-eat-dog" society. Not giving people a right to it does. It is barbaric to have a system that lets someone die of poverty or from lack of medical treatment.
.
"Both Socialism and Conservatism were taken to extremes in the 20th century, and both systems individually produced death camps"
Socialism and conservatism do not advocate death camps. Crazy people do. Death camps have nothing to do with socialism or conservatism.
.
"socialism seek to limit individual freedoms and control people"
Socialism is the ONLY system that maximizes freedom. Capitalism restricts freedom to only those who have money. Socialism gives you access to enough money as a right so that you can exercise all the same freedoms a wealthy person in a capitalist society can.
.
"Libertarians seek to promote individual liberty"
For only those who have money. A poor person in a libertarian society doesn't have the freedom to do much of anything.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of kids who have perfect health and live within the socialism of their parents.
[Deleted]
"If socialism maximizes freedom why are left wing socialists always promoting gun control?"
You are free to act so long as it does not reasonably violate that same right to act in others.
So people who support freedom and gun control do so because owning a gun violates their right to live in a safe, gun-free community. You don't have a right to build bombs in your garage either since that violates my right to live in a house without the risk of it taking a blast from my your garage.
Owning a gun and building bombs reasonably violate another's freedom to live in safety.
Of course, what is reasonable is debatable. You can make a good case for either side in gun control. You probably can't, though, for building bombs. .
"A poor person in a libertarian society has the freedom to get off their ass an earn a living."
And a girl in a Taliban ruled village has the freedom to get off her ass, overthrow the government, and install a new government that doesn't ban education for girls.
Only 3% of all workers earn an average income. That is not by choice. So 97% of workers do not even have the freedom to get a job that pays an average income.
.
"Libertarian believe in maximum personal liberty"
Did you get that from the libertarian website too? Hat tip: Don't believe everything you read. A poor person in a libertarian society doesn't have the same freedom to go to school / own a home / live in a nice neighborhood / drive a nice car / vacation regularly in 5-star spots, etc. that someone in a socialist society does where everyone gets access to that as a right. Only a small, wealthy handful of people have the freedom to do that in a libertarian society.
.
"socialism is systematic stealing from one group to give to another group that wants a handout"
Socialism doesn't steal anything from anyone. Your property is yours. Capitalism, however, is founded on the stealing of every resource from the native population, using murder in most cases, then using those resources for the thief's personal benefit and using violent force to protect that stolen benefit. There is not a single resource in capitalism that wasn't acquired through plunder.
.
"I'm paying over 1/3rd of my income in taxes"
Socialism is not a system that taxes capitalists. Socialism is publicly owning the means of production. You would be earning at least $115k per year in a socialist society which is likely 3 times the amount you do now. You would be wealthier, not poorer.
.
"my wife is unemployed due to cancer"
So she is living off the socialism of her husband? What would your wife do if she wasn't married in a libertarian society? Oh, that's right, Ron Lawl says she can go to church and ask for hand-outs to pay for her cancer treatments. Libertarianism is for morons.
.
"Get your left wing hands away from my wallet"
Socialism would likely make you 3 times wealthier. It is capitalism that is stealing your money.
[Deleted]
"I'd quit immediately and go teach dance for a living"
And if there is a job opening, that is what you should do. Why do you want society to be designed to force people to do things they don't want to do?
There are more than enough people who don't wanna dance, who want to earn twice what you do, who will operate the nuke plant. And if there is a shortage of nuke plant operators, we can produce energy in Bill Gates's nuke plant design which doesn't require operators or produce it using another source.
.
"there were a very big pay raise"
Difficult work would get paid a minimum of $230k with a chance to earn up to $460k, which is at least twice what everyone else makes:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-339860
.
"Massive inflation"
Redistributing existing income does not cause inflation. The increase in the minimum worker pay to $115k is fully offset by the decrease in the top earning worker pay to $460k. Read this comment for more information:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-329780
.
"the Taliban is not a libertarian form government"
Right, but it is a government that oppresses freedom just like a libertarian government does. A girl in a Taliban village has the same lack of freedom to get an education as a poor girl in a libertarian society.
The only society where everyone has the freedom to, for example, get an education is a socialist society where everyone is given enough income as a right to afford school.
.
"Pol Pot? Mao?"
Read a book. Capitalism and Pol Pot are not the only 2 options.
I advocate democracy and a market for goods and services, not dictatorship, totalitarianism and a command economy.
.
"any type of government taken to an extreme will not work"
Eliminating poverty is an extreme that will not work!?! I don't think so. Our current system is an extreme that does not work.
.
"socialism would do is steal from those who work and save"
Giving 97% of workers an increase in income is not stealing. Your math is backwards.
.
"Do you honestly think 70% of all current work can be automated?"
No. I believe 55% can:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-rebels-or-revolutionaries-choose-revolutio/#comment-71303
.
"If that were possible with todays technology capitalist businesses would do it and fire the employees"
That's not how business works. We have automated checkout machines, yet we still employ millions of cashiers.
.
"If you really want to have a $115K income, find a $115K problem and learn how to solve it"
Yes, we can have your moronic system where people go on $115k treasure hunts which leaves 97% of all workers earning a below average income, 50% of all wage earners making less than $26k, 1 in every 3 people at or below poverty, 16% underemployed, 52 million without health insurance, and 55% of all workers doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology.
Or we can have a more rational and humane system that just pays everyone well - at least $115k and up to $460k or whatever we democratically determine.
.
"Taking care of my wife is very Libertarian"
No, giving her health care without her working for it is socialist.
You avoided the question. Who pays for her health care in a libertarian society if she isn't married?
.
"It would be Socialist if I didn't take care of her"
You got it backwards. Everyone gets health care in a socialist society. Only the rich and beggars get it in a libertarian society.
A quick question- while I'm all for trying out socialism, I was curious as to how a libertarian government would oppress freedom. As far as I know, libertarians are advocates of personal freedom and individual rights, not the other way around. I'd ask if you were thinking of totalitarianism, but you obviously know what you're doing. Great post, by the way.
The answer is private tyranny. Check out Chomsky on the subject (whole quote is good, but towards the buttom..):
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-libertarianism-and-its-meaning.html
More in-depth here:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm
(By the way, I'm a liberal, not a socialist, for more, check out: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/ )
Thanks, I think I get it now. I guess I didn't think about economic libertarianism, just the political side of it.
Freedom is the ability to do something without coercion or restraint.
In a libertarian society, only wealthy people are free. If you are broke, you do not have the freedom to go to school because you cannot afford the tuition.
In a Taliban society, only men are free. If you are a woman, you do not have the freedom to go to school because it is banned by the government.
In a libertarian society you have economic restraints. In a Taliban society, you have political restraints.
In a socialist society you have no restraints.
Like looselyhuman said below, Chomsky is great on the subject.
Also read George Orwell who was also an advocate of democratic socialism. Capitalists have hijacked words like freedom. It is all part of the propaganda necessary to get people to tolerate this ridiculous system.
[Deleted]
This is why I love this site so much. Ask one question, get two good, sensible answers that differ completely. It's like a round table. A huge, digital round table, but still. Thanks for the insights, both of you.
Correct me if I'm being too idealistic, but would it be possible for Libertarian individual rights to be mixed with a Socialized economy?
[Deleted]
I have a degree in economics and business from a top biz school. I worked for the Fed and as an investment banker. But I spent most my career as an entrepreneur, owning several businesses. I am 40 and semi-retired.
Who pays for her health care in a libertarian society if she isn't married?
Not exactly. It is true that American Libertariansim is terrible in explaining some of the problems that can arise but Nobel Peace Prize winner Friedrich Hayek did a superb job in giving explanations and how to solve these issues.
May I remind you...Its NOT lIbertarianism that is failing today!
btw, you replied to my post on the other thread but I cannot find the link. Which link was it? I clicked on your reply but for some reason my screen jumped to another thread. It was the one where you said........you worked for the Fed .
There you go again with the "Nobel Prize Winning" crap. Hayek got a "lifetime achievement award," and a die-hard socialist SHARED the award with Hayek in that very same year. The Nobel committee was NOT endorsing anything Hayek said, and it's specious to keep mentioning the Nobel Prize as though it infers a halo of acceptance on Hayek's work.
You KNOW all of this because we have gone though all this already. Nevertheless, you persist in using deceptive practices to sell your opinions. In my mind, this speaks loudly against ANYTHING you say from this point forward. You are not seeking truth, you are SELLING, and you are willing to say ANYTHING.
Socialism is not working....Look at todays Corporate socialism...Corportate welfare......you are paying for it, slaving for it and robbed by it through your taxes.
I'm doing just fine. Better than I even imagined in fact. I don't hate the system, but it IS in serious need of revision so others can enjoy the same success as I. THAT'S what I'm fighting for here.
collectivism ... treats society as if it were a super-organism existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form (e.g., tribe, race, or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value." --
So how is your government in bed with big corp/banks working out for ya?
Well, as I noted, it worked out pretty well for ME, it's the folks BEHIND me and the subsequent generations I'm concerned about. I believe our system is fundamentally good EXCEPT for the corrupting influence of money in politics AND a huge number of consumers who don't THINK about how they buy. Get the money out and raise awareness of responsible consumption, and I think we'll be fine.
Chomsky Fuming About Distortions of Adam Smith's Legacy
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2008/01/chomsky-fuming-about-distortions-of.html
Hayek was a notorious libertarian.
When he got older, he got hit with a dose of reality that people who oppose libertarianism already figured out through simple common sense: A libertarian society only works for the small percentage of people who are wealthy. When the Koch brothers tried to get him to come to the US to front their libertarian propaganda machine, it was revealed in private correspondence that Hayek refused because he was older and the US didn't have universal health care.
Let me find some very sensible quotes by Hayek that address the most common concerns from collectivists....
He was a very brilliant man who's predictions have become reality today.
Although Hayek believed that government intervention in markets would lead to a loss of freedom, he recognized a limited role for government to perform tasks of which free markets were not capable:
""The successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even requires certain kinds of government action""
While Hayek is opposed to regulations which restrict the freedom to enter a trade, or to buy and sell at any price, or to control quantities, he acknowledges the utility of regulations which restrict allowed methods of production, so long as these are applied equally to everyone and not used as an indirect way of controlling prices or quantities, and without forgetting the cost of such restrictions:
""To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose""
He notes that there are certain areas, such as the environment, where activities which cause damage to third parties (known to economists as "negative externalities") cannot effectively be regulated solely by the marketplace:
""Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation""
The government also has a role in preventing fraud:
""Even the most essential prerequisite of its [the market's] proper functioning, the prevention of fraud and deception (including exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and by no means fully accomplished object of legislative activity""
The government also has a role in creating a safety net:
""There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.""
He concludes: "In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing
and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE......DON'T you dare mentioning the Koch Brothers!!! in the same breath with Friedrich Hayek. They are FAKE Libertarians who are Corporatists and hijacked the ORIGINAL NON PARTISAN Tea party movement for their own corporate agenda!
Silly girl. That stuff is old hat and leads to too many problems.
It'll take some time and thinking outside the box, but this gets rid of the FED too, and allows for a freer sovereign monetary system.
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
'Silly gilr' is an adhom attack usually for people who cannot handle intellectual honesty and debate the issue at hand.
Its always funny how people dismiss information they do not comprehend nor have mastered.
So read the thing then.
I'm just sick of libertarian economics. It's a FAIL. It's frustratingly hard to deal with it, over and over and over. Everywhere it's been attempted. It's a FAIL.
Admit it and move on.
LOLLLLLLLLL
Its NOT LIBERTARIANSIM that is failing today.
its CORPORATISM that is.
And it is GOVERNMENT that is for sale. Our R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S who are bought up and ALLOW THEMSELVESto be bought up.
There is NOTHING libertarian about it!
It's neoliberal.
Yes that's libertarian to it's core.
If not, why are most of the CEOs admitted libertarians?
They're just privatizing our government. It crashed.
Actually...let me enlighten you.
Free market capitalism endorsed by libertarians....is NOT collectivist meaning it does not have c e n t r a l government planning.
what is failing TODAY....is c e n t r a l government planning through the form of Keynesian economics backed by a fiat monetary system and a crumbling legal system.
;)
As for the FAKE libertarians like Alan Greenspan, the Koch brothers etc etc...they love to rail people in with free market slogans , only to screw them over with corporatism. Thats exactly what Reagan did. He TOOK DOWN the protections for Keynesian economics pretending it was necessary for free market capitalism to work. But if you had studied the subject at hand you would know..........Reagan NEVER practiced free market capitalism. He kept the exact same format of economics on the books ( central economic government planning )
See. No one really knows what a real libertarian is.
It's neoliberal economics.
The politics are just added sweetener, and they seem to find it fun to watch us squirm.
They are of course a political faction. Politicians all lie. Even libertarians. Even though you don't think they do. You need to accept that. All politicians lie.
I used to be one. They were different back then too, but run by the very rich, who stayed in the background. They still do.
I have come to distrust them the most of all political persuasions, because their followers think they don't lie.
Like their not politicians or something.
Like I'm supposed to trust them more than any other politician.
I don't.
Do you understand that about me now?
So please, take a look at another way to view macro economics. It's deep and I don't quite understand it fully either, but it does get rid of the FED, and give us complete monetary sovereignty.
Control of our money supply.
http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
I do agree with you....
But I have found a few who don't and they come from throughout the spectrum
Dennis Kucinich (D), Ralph Nader (GP) and Ron Paul (R).
And I have checked these three out up the ying yang.
My personal wish...for them to form some sort ot coalition since they agree on four major topics that could get this country back on track!
And in the Middle Ages, when people criticized the idea of government privately owned for the personal benefit of the royal family, you would have been the first in line apologizing for the monarchy saying the real problem is the collusion between kings and barons. But having kings is just fine because 3% of the population eventually become part of the nobility.
You have just dismissed everything Hayek said in these quotes. I cannot make you read. Nor can I make you comprehend. I can only take the 'horse to water but cannot make him drink'
And that quote that last one ...
The government also has a role in creating a safety net:
""There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.""
goes directly against your... """""When the Koch brothers tried to get him to come to the US to front their libertarian propaganda machine, it was revealed in private correspondence that Hayek refused because he was older and the US didn't have universal health care."""
not to forget the Koch brothers PRETEND to be libertarians but are hardcore Corporatists...
I am banging my head against the wall and you say you have been an investment banker and worked for the fed? Not over my dead body have you NOT!
"some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health"
You can't live like kings and the nobility. But Hayek is benevolent enough to not allow the peasants to live and starve in the streets.
Slave owners had a way of rationalizing their inhumanity too.
No thanks, I prefer a society that works well for everyone as a right. We are more than capable of making that happen. I don't want a dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim society like we are living in the wild. I want society to be civilized.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision...you forgot.
For the record, I come from a country that ranks 6th in social justice....and I live in a country ( the USA) that ranks 27 in social justice.....
Nr 1 reason I think.....this country is too big and people do NOT challenge their local govts. Most people are not up to challenging injustice when it crosses their path. I have been the lone soul standing for doing what is right and seek justice....also because I cannot comprehend how someone does not want justice and rather ignore the bad.
I think we are being played....a little documentary on the Arab uprising... Proof that Occupy Wall Street is just another NWO uprising http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrC6GL7430&feature=channel_video_title
"Occupy Wall Street is just another NWO uprising"
You are not in touch with reality.
You are one of the 1%'s useful idiots.
See...you proved my point...
The documentary done by Journeyman pictures is totally legit....
The title 'Occupy Wall Street is just another NWO uprising' is given by a private YT owner. who felt his own title would justify the documentary.
Why is it people CANNOT investigate, check, cross check and look at the entire picture?
Oh and look at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?cl=1391269184&v=11160
[Deleted]
And my informed opinion is telling you...it all sounds wonderful but it cannot work.
[Deleted]
It is indeed. Ignorance is rampant here.
what do you think of my ideas? don't worry i wont be offended if you don't have the time to check them out.
http://www.citicommons.com/contributors/jesse-heffran
Here is the link you are looking for:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/federal-reserve-the-root-cause-of-probelms/#comment-372050
I hope you do not believe the fed is the root cause?
No, not at all. I was just commenting there.
The root cause of all problems is lack of income from our system that allocates income unequally.
Explain
If we paid everyone equally, based on the amount of work they did, there would be enough income to pay everyone from $115k to $460k. And when you have an economic system that guarantees you a job that pays at least $115k, nearly every social problem is fixed:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
Ah yes. If we base a pay system as you suggest.
1-2-3-4 based on skill
Where would you place a retailers skills?
Regular store clerks would earn $115k (or whatever the minimum is). Executives would be able to make up to $460k (or whatever the maximum is).
You can see the calculations here (and how the minimum would be lowered to $100k if the maximum was raised to $1 million):
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-339860
How do we determine what the incomes are in a democratic economy? Read this comment:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-353341
You are advocating maximum wage. Has this ever been done? What would be the outcome?
Our economy already works on a maximum wage. Company sales, company profitability and GDP set maximum amounts you can earn.
The outcome would be the end of poverty and financial struggle and a society where every worker is wealthy at a minimum.
I was inside a realtors office where the sign on the wall read," our company policy is to make the maximum amount if profit.
With your price limit of 450,000$. Would this impede human progress? Example: a highly skilled surgeon charges the maximum wage to perform a single operation. His hands would be tied for the rest of the fiscal year? How would you compensate for this?
There will be no realtors in a democratic economy. People only become realtors out of desperation.
Wasting a human life, the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the universe, on driving people to homes for sale or saying hello to people during an open house or making a phone call to confirm an offer is a criminal waste of the most valuable resource we have.
Realtors along with 55% of all the jobs we do will be immediately automated with existing technology.
Of course, we will invest whatever amount is necessary to maintain full employment. But people will have an opportunity to contribute in more useful, important and meaningful ways.
The Mayo clinic, one of the best hospitals in the world, pays their doctors a flat salary. They don't pay their surgeons based on commission. If you are the best surgeon, you can take pride in being able to save more lives in addition to earning the top income.
We should compare notes
I don't know what you mean.
1% cannot keep 99% in dark for eve.Everything has to improve in the course of time.Including the economics.
The economy is so simple it can be figured out in one read?
Don't be an idiot.
As a lucky man married to a beautiful & wonderful teacher, all I can say is that kids have a lot of crazy interests and trade school ain't so bad. We don't need to be a disposable society, Not everyone is gonna be a doctor, lawyer or businessman.
Read more about the author at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt
I KNEW I'd find Ayn Rand in there somewhere ( she ALWAYS shows up SOMEWHERE near Ron Lawl and his friends ) :
"Even prior to her success with The Fountainhead, the novelist Ayn Rand was a friend of both Hazlitt and his wife, Frances, and it was Hazlitt who introduced Rand to Mises, bringing together the two figures who would become most associated with the defense of pure laissez-faire capitalism."
Later we see Hazlitt, Ayn Rand, and Ron Lawl connected, "Ayn Rand called it a "magnificent job of theoretical exposition," while Congressman Ron Lawl ranks it with the works of Frédéric Bastiat and F. A. Hayek."
Don't ascribe these connections to Wikipedia alone. Google "Hentry Hazlitt Ayn Rand" and look at how many times the two names are associated.
The libertarian belief that unfettered laissez-faire economics produces companies that serve the public interest has been disproven over the course of history from the time of the robber barons, through to the DDT fiasco, pollution, and so forth.
In addition, the irrefutable facts that show the 1% control the majority of the nation's wealth is a prima-facie case against gold; if we were to switch to gold tomorrow, the 1% would have it all, and the rest of us would have nothing.
The Libertarian title has been hijacked by silly people with no understanding of modern international finance or economics advocating a disastrous return to the "good old days" of robber barons and gold. I am a Social Libertarian, and I RESENT the wholesale hijack of the term by the silly goldsters.
Ayn Rand does not believe in altruism. Ron Paul does ;) And again, I am now turning into a broken record...its NOT Libertarianism ( Capitalism, Free market capitalism defined by Adam Smith) that is failing.
Free Market Capitalism does NOT HAVE Government central planning.
Todays economic system DOES HAVE Government central planning with GOVERNMENT AIDING the Big corporations and Banks.
I cannot believe the stupidity I see here with my own eyes. No wonder the U.S ranks nr 27 on the social justice scale.
You don't understand central planning, which of course we've covered before. There is no such thing here. Obtuse propagandist.
I am a propagandist because I am telling you your government is planning our economy?
You got to be kidding me babe!
Your r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have ALLOWED ( allowed...look it up in the dictionary) to be bought up. They are our representative govt. They are THE corrupting link.
FYI, The federal reserve act was passed so Congress could SPEND WITHOUT the public knowing it is being taxed. Time to pick up that book on the fed.
YOU deserve the very government you have today because you failed to be the very informed citizenry you ought to be..
When WE the people ARE the government and We the people don't even understand the basic mechanics of our who plans the economy....
Again, you don't understand central planning. A microeconomic activity. How many times do we have to go through this? The government does, fortunately, intervene, but it's not embedding itself in every industry and planning the economy like Stalin. You are far too loose with your terms, and for ideological purposes, which qualifies as propaganda.
"The government does, fortunately, intervene, but it's not embedding itself in every industry and planning the economy like Stalin. You are far too loose with your terms, and for ideological purposes, which qualifies as propaganda."
Lolll...is that why people created Occupy Wallstreet.
Again, you don't understand todays Corporatism. It is the very revolving door BETWEEN Government and Big Corp/Banks the people are now demonstrating against!
Market agents are interfering with government, more than the inverse, that is usurping democracy. It is not central planning.
Who writes legislation? Congress does!
Who buys up that legislation through the lobbying process?
Big Corp and Banks do.
Who allows for it?
The Congress!!
"Who writes legislation?"
ALEC.
Campaign finance reform (100% public financing), lobbying reform, undo Citizens United. Reinstate democracy. That's all we need to do, the rest will fix itself.
Citizens United undid McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform. but your 'thats all we need to do , the rest will fix itself' is rather optimistic if you actually would have a grip on the scope of issues that we are facing today.
Duchess I held your view and fought to defend it for a long time. I must say, I was wrong, History proved me wrong but I had to learn it before I could be aware of it. . American economic history 1870 - 1940 was conveniently edited out of my school books . Unfortunately history is written by the rich so my enlightenment took longer than it should have.
Libertarianism is not responsible for our current problems. It WAS, however, the cause of many problems in the past.
It WAS?
so explain...explain...and please don't start with Reagan because he did NOT practice free markets.
He practiced freer markets, as his guru Friedman advised; a trend that's continued since, and look where it's gotten us. Thatcher followed Hayek on the same course. Your solution: go freer still. Yeah, yeah, previous attempts were not pure, didn't fix the monetary travesty, removed necessary constraints, etc... Everyone knows your arguments by now.
You do know Friedman and Hayek are closely linked by everyone serious that studies these things, and that Friedman was a member of Hayek's society, etc, right? They have similiar ideas, and similiar policy prescriptions, and both supported the "reforms" of people like Pinochet. Hayek is just one of many free market fundamentalists, but you've been sucked in completely by him.
I really wish you would read or watch Shock Doctrine, instead of going out and reading the CATO/Heritage hit job on it. You might have a clearer picture of the direction that this resistance to your lovely ideas comes from (not that neoliberalism wasn't a problem before Klein distilled it for us). It's available for viewing free online: http://vimeo.com/14847387
I like "Your solution: go freer still" statement !
Let's double-down with free markets !
Thanks Rico.
Your double-down statement made me think about today's NYT editorial on Elizabeth Warren. Good piece - grounded, not gushy (like I am about her - admitted fanboy). Here's the excerpt:
'“I thought, 2008, that’s it, that is the watershed moment,” Warren says. “We put sensible people in the House, in the Senate and in the White House.” But even with the new leadership, Warren said, “the people who broke the market doubled down on the failed policies. This was not supposed to happen. But it did happen.”
I posted about it, including links: http://occupywallst.org/forum/99-for-warren-for-senate/
Yep, she's a sharp lady, and we clearly think alike !
I think she'd like me better than you. ;o)
Haha, you probably have the age advantage. Wonder what she looked like in college..? :p
Well, Elizabeth has a fine mind, but Michelle's got 'da skills !
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/tppllc/6045994357/lightbox/
OMG I just about peed my pants. Thanks for that!
;o)
Chomsky On Adam Smith
"What we would call capitalism he despised"
By Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Class Warfare - 1995
May 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- David Barsamian: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival... is Adam Smith. You've done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated... a lot of information that's not coming out. You've often quoted him describing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people."
Noam Chomsky: I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research. Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.
He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.
He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call "national interests." He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the "merchants and manufacturers," and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, "most peculiarly attended to," no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.
This truism was, a century later, called class analysis, but you don't have to go to Marx to find it. It's very explicit in Adam Smith. It's so obvious that any ten-year-old can see it. So he didn't make a big point of it. He just mentioned it. But that's correct. If you read through his work, he's intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy and feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work, much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of that period, the Scottish Enlightenment.
Now we're getting somewhere, finally. I agree with Chomsky on just about everything.
So, they key point is here:
"He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at."
Smith knew his ideas on capitalism were utopian, we knew perfect liberty was not achievable, and so other mechanisms needed to be in place to promote equality. That's why he was for, for example, progressive taxation. He would not have been a free market fundamentalist, but was, and would be, for a moral society. Which is liberal.
"And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
Ron PauI and American Libertarians vehemently disagree.
Now, let's move on to Chomsky's thoughts on Hayek and Ron PauI.
from http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-libertarianism-and-its-meaning.html
Actually, I don't think I've ever called myself a "libertarian," because the term is too ambiguous. I do often call myself a "libertarian socialist," however.
The term "libertarian" has an idiosyncratic usage in the US and Canada, reflecting, I suppose, the unusual power of business in these societies. In the European tradition, "libertarian socialism" ("socialisme libertaire") was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense).
I use the term in the traditional sense, not the US sense.
I strongly dislike the figures you mention. Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. Friedman was an important economist. I'll leave it at that. ...
Hayek was the kind of "libertarian" who was quite tolerant of such free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the most grotesque of the National Security States instituted with US backing or direct initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that spread over the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank to the level of arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there during the most vicious days of the dictatorship.
Quite apart from practice, I don't suggest that they understood it, but in their "libertarian" writings these figures were in fact supporting some of the worst kinds of tyranny that can be imagined: namely private tyranny, in principle out of public control. Traditional European libertarian socialism addressed this issue. I often found myself agreeing with US-style libertarians -- not those you mention, but many in the Cato Institute, for example; in fact I could only publish in a journal of theirs for years. But we had fundamental differences, specifically, about the nature of freedom.
from http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html
Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of Libertarianism?
Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but [Paul's] form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion, on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.
...
Would you support Ron PauI, if he was the Republican presidential candidate, and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
Noam Chomsky: No.
(There's a lot more from this piece, please read it)
And now it is time to pick up a book and find out what REQUIREMENTS Capitalism NEEDS in order to work
Start with Constitutional Attorney and civil liberties advocate Glenn Greenwalds "With Liberty and Justice for some' the Two Tier Justice System.
Now add Edward Griffins " The Creature from Jekyll Island, A second close look at the Federal Reserve' and you find yourself a titbit more informed on WHO is screwing the merican people royally!
AS for some of Chomsky's opinions...I find them abhorrent, especially since I did read RAnd ( who I do not care for as a person but who was highly intellectual and who differs GREATLY from someone like Hayek, who was Jewish and who had an ABSOLUTE grip on HOW Hitlers road to power was paved and WHO'S predictions are now materilizing in the United States.
The fact that YOU agree a 100% on everything a person ( like Chomsky ) says...........says enough for me.
NOBODY knows it all. Chomsky had some aweful things to say on Cambodia..google Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy
How did a man who describes the Khmer Rouge regime as "the great act of genocide of the modern period" come to be vilified as a vocal supporter of Pol Pot?
SPEAKING of the GReat Noam Chomsky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You didn't have time to process this, nor check my links.
My contention with you is on your support of Ron PauI and constant thumping of Hayek and immoral Austrian economics in general. I tfurther think you folks are obsessed with the Fed, and I know an advanced capitalist economy couldn't survive without a central bank, but I'm not actually worried about anyone succeeding in abolishing it. Insofar as reforming it for transparency, I'm with you, but it's not a hot-button for me. I'm also not with the ideological underpinnings of abolishing the Fed for the purpose of hobbling government's ability to invest in the American people when needed.
Guess what? Chomsky is with me on this stuff.
You will get no arguments from me on Greenwald.
Man oh man....How many times have I said I am in favor of a coalition of Kucinich/Nader/Paul since they agree on FOUR major areas 1) Civil Liberties 2) Foreign policies including the wars 3) the Federal Reserve 4) the National debt?????????????
BTW Greenwald is on the LEFT of the political spectrum.
Drop Paul, add Sanders or Warren.
[-]looselyhuman1 points 0 minutes ago
"Permalink it is, every single time"
LOL
Keep laughing.......your country is falling apart. Fascism it is.
[-]looselyhuman1 points 0 minutes ago
Ron PauI is dangerous. That's the extent of my interest in you.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
Ahhh, so is ignorance and/or infiltration to curb those who pose that 'danger' of seeing through the bullshit! Permalink it is, every single time.
"Permalink it is, every single time"
LOL
[-]looselyhuman1 points 12 minutes ago
"Permalink" (i.e. no reply link) is about thread depth limitation. Your intellect never ceases to amuse.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
funny, how permalink only happens when I want to respond. You sure like my 'intellect' or you would not follow my posts on this forum. I would think it to be below your desire to respond. I guess not.'
Ron PauI is dangerous. That's the extent of my interest in you.
[-]looselyhuman2 points 22 hours ago
Pandering, trying to expand their base on both sides. They are diametrically opposed on everything but war. On the Fed: Kucinich wants to nationalize it (bad idea, talk to Rico - makes it a political football), Paul wants to abolish it (worse idea).
↥like↧dislikepermalink
This permalink habit is always a reflection of those who like to dictate their views. That being said, you obviously did not do your research, check and cross check. Typical but not surprising....permalink is for those who have to steadfast hold on to their beliefsystem and cannot possibly be bothered with being challengend.
"Permalink" (i.e. no reply link) is about thread depth limitation. Your intellect never ceases to amuse.
Nope! You may add Sanders and Warren but........ I am a 100% with DEnnis Kucinich on this one ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
yup I do do my research unlike many
Pandering, trying to expand their base on both sides. They are diametrically opposed on everything but war. On the Fed: Kucinich wants to nationalize it (bad idea, talk to Rico - makes it a political football), Paul wants to abolish it (worse idea).
No dollie...Reagan DID NOT practice free market and NEITHER did Milton Friedman.
And the sole person standing up against the Republican Party and the Republican President Ronald Reagan?? calling him out????
One guess
The age of laissez-faire and the robber barons. You know them; they were big hits back when everyone had the liberty to do as they pleased without interference by the government ! John Jacob Astor (real estate, fur), Andrew Carnegie (steel), Jay Cooke (finance), Charles Crocker (railroads), Daniel Drew (finance), James Buchanan Duke (tobacco), James Fisk (finance), Henry Morrison Flagler (railroads, oil, the Standard Oil company), Henry Clay Frick (steel), John Warne Gates (barbed wire), Jay Gould (railroads), Edward Henry Harriman (railroads), Mark Hopkins (railroads), Andrew W. Mellon (finance, oil), J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation), Henry B. Plant (railroads), John D. Rockefeller (oil), Charles M. Schwab (steel), John D. Spreckels (sugar), Leland Stanford (railroads), Joseph Seligman (banking), Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads), Charles Tyson Yerkes (street railroads).
[Removed]
The economy is sinking deeper and deeper in debt. The solution won't be found in any text book. " a sales profit Cap placed between points of buy and sell will save the economy
But again...you did not read this book. It points out the fallacies that mankind keeps falling for. There is a difference...
Pointing out fallacies. Does it point out solutions. I will not read the book millions have and still we. Are in this mess. It always amazes me how shallow book smart people can be. They can not think on their own very deeply
If millions of people read the solution to a problem, and yet the majority act out with reactionary 'problem starting' solutions, because the short term benefits of creating a long term problem seems more beneficial than a long term solution with short term problems, then is it fair to call people shallow when they actually call for the long term solutions.
There are many solutions pointed out if only people would have the fortitude to wade through the muck before arriving at dry land. Unfortunately, today, we live day to day and year to year, and as a society have no sight for the long term future.
Well it's a good thing we are above insults. That never solves anything
You have me thinking though. Process/ outcome. Right and wrong is truly in the eye of the beholder. ie. the wealthy would say thins are good the way things are. There is no problem therefore no solution required. On the other hand the millions out of work and out of home. Gathering in the streets .. Their voices go unheard. Long term or short term dry land would be a welcome sight.
I suppose I deserved the underlying insinuation. After my bold slap
I thank you for the moment to respond. If anything the solution will be negotiated through dialogue. Book smart , people smart, or just plain off the wall crazy ideas, .. Brainstorming is a critical part of any discovery. And I thank Duchess for pointing out and educating us with anything and everything she has. It is interesting to think the very problems we deal with as a civilization were discussed centuries ago. With all due respect
Your assertion is absurd. If you would like to debate I am waiting....
Still waiting....
Still waiting................................4 months later
Still waiting. I'm going to bed.
Wow.....I posted a book.....and you already read it within an hour and within the hour you are impatiently waiting?
I've been waiting 4 months.
waiting for? someone to educate you?
Please enlighten me, oh great wise one.
thats not how it works. You enlighten yourself by stepping out of your comfort zone. Maybe google Edward Bernays on how you have been indoctrinated maybe?
Oh, I see. You "understand" Bernays while the rest of us are all lemmings.
Thank you, oh great wise one.
[Removed]
Society has always seemed to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice.
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist, right? I only bring it up because of some of your other posts...
Socialist, Capitalist, Communist. None of them were perfect but they all have something we can learn..
No he wasn't.
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents" <-- criticizing his own.
George Orwell on Socialism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPgIqDWBLDQ
"I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique' of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before."
Read it again. You didn't get it.
Nope, you don't. George Orwell was a socialist.
"The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before."
Everyone points to Animal Farm, which was a critique of revolution and Stalinism - Stalinism which ruined socialism for someone like Orwell.
Know who else was a socialist? Albert Einstein.
Right-wing indoctrinees have no idea what any of this stuff means. As a liberal, I've never been so afraid of the left that I was afraid to look over there and understand this stuff before judging it. You should try it. You all have a caricature of Stalin and Mao as the archetypal socialists, and in fact they were socialists only in the loosest terms possible.
Socialism is collectivism and it was the strong socialist tendency of the Weimar Republic that paved the way for Hitlers Reich. If people had not surrendered their rights and looked for a central government to fix all their problems and instead had held on to their independence, Hitler would not have stood a chance.
Blah blah Hayek blah. I wasn't even advocating socialism, but had I been, I could point out that the progressive reforms of the New Deal spared us from a turn towards true statism, and also that imposed free market reforms a la Hayek, in places like Chile, Thatcher's England, and 1990s Russia, have necessarily been coupled with brutal authoritarianism.
Here's the conservative/free-market Hoover institute agreeing that FDR saved capitalism; biased and dismissive of his policies as it is, it's still worth a read: http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7076
Finally, you might read about the history of the Reich from a source other than Hayek. It was many factors, including WWI reparations and a global depression, that led to Germany's economic and social problems.
Chomsky Fuming About Distortions of Adam Smith's Legacy
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2008/01/chomsky-fuming-about-distortions-of.html