To argue in favor of Hayekian models of society is to argue for the desires of the few over the many.
The 20th century was one of world wide revolution by the masses and peasants against the accumulation of wealth and power that the Hayekian models promulgated.
That no such state models exist in the modern world is a testament to their inefficiency and I would say their immoral nature. "No one" wants them. The only way to have a Hayekian society would be by forcing it onto the people which is obviously contradictory to its very nature.
In my opinion the modern day supporter of Hayek needs to be more pragmatic about the implications of Hayek and less ideologically pure.
dg lesvicFebruary 5, 2009 at 11:13 am
If the Keynesian policy simply doesn't work, the morality of it isn't an issue. So, making an issue of it implies that it does work.
RandyFebruary 5, 2009 at 11:32 am
Don; "Is Keynesianism Moral?"
Irrelevent. Its political.
Muirgeo; "…the modern day supporter of Hayek needs to be more pragmatic…"
Keynesianism has been the dominant economic theory of the political class for the better part of the last century. Its disregard for long term consequences is the effective cause of the gathering storm. I agree that the current political class should have been more pragmatic. Perhaps the next one will be.
Keynesian policies are economic violence against the unborn.
There, I said it.
Flash GordonFebruary 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm
A further reason Keynesian economics appeals to politicians is that it enables them to appear to be doing something. In that sense it is a perfect theory for a politician who cares more about his public image among voters who have no understanding of economics than whether the laws and programs he supports actually work. He believes they do work for the thing he cares about most, which is the next election.
Those who say Keynesianism is morally irrelevant because it is also political make a curious argument. Much that is political raises a moral issue because it is so political. To the extent Keynesian economics has an existence separate from the man whose name it bears and who were he alive might not even agree with all of it, it may be analyzed as a political philosophy that is infused with moral questions. Here is one: Is it moral for a politician to support a massive stimulus bill that he believes will help him win votes with his constituency even though he knows what most voters don't know, namely, that it will not work and that it is colossal fraud on the public.
Muirego: There was no revolution of the masses and peasants in the 20th Century against wealth and power. There were several revolutions by gangs of murderous criminals that were imposed on the masses and peasants. A little over a hundred million of the masses and peasants were murdered in those revolutions. This is what you defend?
MnMFebruary 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm
In my opinion, modern day detractors of Hayek should seek to understand him before they offer criticism of those that enjoy his work. Such nonsense smacks of dogma.
RandyFebruary 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Flash,
Much that is political raises a moral issue because it is so political.
That's one way of looking at it. The way I see it, politics is the art of exploitation. It is concerned with morality only to the extent that exploitation under the cover of propaganda is often more efficient than naked exploitation. Perhaps what I should have said is that Keynesianism is propaganda.
Keynesianism is the politics of economic manipulation, as such, it is an extension of mercantilism. That government can affect the economy is evident. Keynes merely pointed out that fiscal policy was an available tool for manipulation of economic behavior and explained what policy might effect certain results.
It is the Keynesians who are of concern to us now.
MezzanineFebruary 5, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Let's clarify the terms first.
Government = what a majority of citizens wish to do. If we have a vast, intrusive government then that it because the people wish it. Let's not pawn this off on the politicians, they are merely the messengers.
Let's not pawn this off on the politicians, they are merely the messengers.
Never heard of spin?
MezzanineFebruary 6, 2009 at 12:38 am
Yes they are spinmeisters supreme, but how dumb are the American people to buy it? I wonder how truly advanced America is compared to any random 3rd world hellhole.
RandyFebruary 6, 2009 at 7:29 am
Mezzanine,
Yes, spin. Who rules, those who vote, or those who tell the voters what to think?
Are people stupid? I think not. I think they are smart enough to realize that in a mass society their best bet is to go with the flow. You and I could someday be brought in front of a tribunal for our comments here. Does our opposition to the propaganda mean we're smart? – or stupid?
Mezzanine – I've long felt that the genius of American free markets and work ethic has created a situation where the truly stupid can enjoy prosperity and be insulated from the effects of their poor choices.
However, YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.
Government IS NOT "what a majority of citizens want to do." Instead, our little experiment in representative government has outgrown its petri dish, and is now a sprawling Leviathan devouring our toil and treasure.
Government as we know it has emerged as a self-sustaining engine, full of pieces and parts that no one really needs anymore but we're stuck with.
We inherit the accretion of millions of little appropriations for this special interest or the other. It's a byproduct of having concentrated gains for a very few, and distributed pains for the rest of us. Only now, the ship of state is being pulled under by the weight of several feet of coral and barnacles on the hull.
This is NOT what the "majority" wants. This is what the power-brokers in DC want — the permanent bureaucratic class that enjoys charging the toll at the nexus between power and money. They charge us for the "privilege" of living in this country, then exact from us promises of political loyalty to have back the very money they taxed from us.
I challenge you to find me more than a handful of things that "the majority" truly want, that "the majority" is willing to pay for. Logrolling and vote trading don't count – that is the work of professional politicos trading their influence with each other.
I'll reframe this as a free-market question: How can a government where people "vote" once every two-four-six years be as responsive and reflective of the needs of the people as a marketplace where millions of decisions take place every second?
Polls have consistently shown that a majority of responders think "the government" is too big.
However, the system is rigged such that the only choices ultimately offered to voters is "more government" and less "more government", and it seems that even less "more government" often turns out to be more "more government".
Share
{ 14 comments }
To argue in favor of Hayekian models of society is to argue for the desires of the few over the many.
The 20th century was one of world wide revolution by the masses and peasants against the accumulation of wealth and power that the Hayekian models promulgated.
That no such state models exist in the modern world is a testament to their inefficiency and I would say their immoral nature. "No one" wants them. The only way to have a Hayekian society would be by forcing it onto the people which is obviously contradictory to its very nature.
In my opinion the modern day supporter of Hayek needs to be more pragmatic about the implications of Hayek and less ideologically pure.
If the Keynesian policy simply doesn't work, the morality of it isn't an issue. So, making an issue of it implies that it does work.
Don; "Is Keynesianism Moral?"
Irrelevent. Its political.
Muirgeo; "…the modern day supporter of Hayek needs to be more pragmatic…"
Keynesianism has been the dominant economic theory of the political class for the better part of the last century. Its disregard for long term consequences is the effective cause of the gathering storm. I agree that the current political class should have been more pragmatic. Perhaps the next one will be.
Muirgeo:
Keynesian policies are economic violence against the unborn.
There, I said it.
A further reason Keynesian economics appeals to politicians is that it enables them to appear to be doing something. In that sense it is a perfect theory for a politician who cares more about his public image among voters who have no understanding of economics than whether the laws and programs he supports actually work. He believes they do work for the thing he cares about most, which is the next election.
Those who say Keynesianism is morally irrelevant because it is also political make a curious argument. Much that is political raises a moral issue because it is so political. To the extent Keynesian economics has an existence separate from the man whose name it bears and who were he alive might not even agree with all of it, it may be analyzed as a political philosophy that is infused with moral questions. Here is one: Is it moral for a politician to support a massive stimulus bill that he believes will help him win votes with his constituency even though he knows what most voters don't know, namely, that it will not work and that it is colossal fraud on the public.
Muirego: There was no revolution of the masses and peasants in the 20th Century against wealth and power. There were several revolutions by gangs of murderous criminals that were imposed on the masses and peasants. A little over a hundred million of the masses and peasants were murdered in those revolutions. This is what you defend?
In my opinion, modern day detractors of Hayek should seek to understand him before they offer criticism of those that enjoy his work. Such nonsense smacks of dogma.
Flash,
Much that is political raises a moral issue because it is so political.
That's one way of looking at it. The way I see it, politics is the art of exploitation. It is concerned with morality only to the extent that exploitation under the cover of propaganda is often more efficient than naked exploitation. Perhaps what I should have said is that Keynesianism is propaganda.
Keynesianism is the politics of economic manipulation, as such, it is an extension of mercantilism. That government can affect the economy is evident. Keynes merely pointed out that fiscal policy was an available tool for manipulation of economic behavior and explained what policy might effect certain results.
It is the Keynesians who are of concern to us now.
Let's clarify the terms first.
Government = what a majority of citizens wish to do. If we have a vast, intrusive government then that it because the people wish it. Let's not pawn this off on the politicians, they are merely the messengers.
Let's not pawn this off on the politicians, they are merely the messengers.
Never heard of spin?
Yes they are spinmeisters supreme, but how dumb are the American people to buy it? I wonder how truly advanced America is compared to any random 3rd world hellhole.
Mezzanine,
Yes, spin. Who rules, those who vote, or those who tell the voters what to think?
Are people stupid? I think not. I think they are smart enough to realize that in a mass society their best bet is to go with the flow. You and I could someday be brought in front of a tribunal for our comments here. Does our opposition to the propaganda mean we're smart? – or stupid?
Mezzanine – I've long felt that the genius of American free markets and work ethic has created a situation where the truly stupid can enjoy prosperity and be insulated from the effects of their poor choices.
However, YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.
Government IS NOT "what a majority of citizens want to do." Instead, our little experiment in representative government has outgrown its petri dish, and is now a sprawling Leviathan devouring our toil and treasure.
Government as we know it has emerged as a self-sustaining engine, full of pieces and parts that no one really needs anymore but we're stuck with.
We inherit the accretion of millions of little appropriations for this special interest or the other. It's a byproduct of having concentrated gains for a very few, and distributed pains for the rest of us. Only now, the ship of state is being pulled under by the weight of several feet of coral and barnacles on the hull.
This is NOT what the "majority" wants. This is what the power-brokers in DC want — the permanent bureaucratic class that enjoys charging the toll at the nexus between power and money. They charge us for the "privilege" of living in this country, then exact from us promises of political loyalty to have back the very money they taxed from us.
I challenge you to find me more than a handful of things that "the majority" truly want, that "the majority" is willing to pay for. Logrolling and vote trading don't count – that is the work of professional politicos trading their influence with each other.
I'll reframe this as a free-market question: How can a government where people "vote" once every two-four-six years be as responsive and reflective of the needs of the people as a marketplace where millions of decisions take place every second?
Polls have consistently shown that a majority of responders think "the government" is too big.
However, the system is rigged such that the only choices ultimately offered to voters is "more government" and less "more government", and it seems that even less "more government" often turns out to be more "more government".