Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

Your very statements show me your failure to understand. Adam Smith's invisible hand is nothing more than a shortcut for everyone being able to make their own choices for their own reasons. Management is not a means to replace choices made by one's potential customers.

What are the limitations in his critique of central planning? Do we lack examples of the evils that befall countries that go down that path, including our own? Are we not worse off when do-gooders make our choices for us?

- - - Updated - - -

I think that he knows some things. It is just the things he knows are irrelevant to discussions involving freedom and liberty.

 

Mentioned once by the great man (who was also undoubtedly an egalitarian). Note of course I've been referring to the visible hand. A phenomenon that Hayek couldn't explain as his whole approach is inconsistent with hierarchy.

Crikey, read some Coase and catch up! The visible hand replaces the allocative role of the market. It is economic planning, by definition.

You're asking for repetition. The problem is two fold. First, its based on an attack on economic planning that cannot explain why economic planning is so common in capitalism. Second, he's responding to naive market socialism based on the idea of replicating the Walrasian auctioneer. Market socialism analysis hasn't been based on trying to ape perfect competition for some time. See, for example, Burczak's analysis which takes Hayek's approach and shows that he hasn't actually provided a valid rebuke for the socialist calculation debate. Instead he simply hasn't understood socialism. We shouldn't blame him mind you. He was attempting to understand the socialist calculation debate from a naive start which he didn't engineer

 

At least you are consistent in your failures.

Hayek even discussed the sort of failure you display for us all to see. His argument is not against individuals planning. His, and my arguments are against the state attempting to centrally plan the nation's economy. Your miss is all the more pathetic given your claim of understanding.

Market socialism is a lie oft repeated by socialists for each others benefit. You demonstrate yet another failure.

 

My only failure is to assume that you will respond with validity. A nice failure to have!

Again, I've already led you by the hand over this. We know that Hayek failed to win the socialist calculation debate. His whole approach is reliant on a rejected socialist approach based on mimicking perfect competition (made even worse as empirical analysis shows that we can expect productivity gains from the elimination of inefficient economic rents). That makes anyone using his analysis 'naive'. Its made even worst by the fact that we can't actually apply distributed knowledge to understand capitalism.

You said nothing again. Shame and all that, but I reckon your next post will be a wowser moment

 

Hayek did just fine. Who are you again?

 

Again with the lack of comment. I appreciate you're a fanatic of Hayek. That could be seen as kind of puppy cute. However, we should be after more here. We should be striving for economic comment. Please respond to the post this time:

We know that Hayek failed to win the socialist calculation debate. His whole approach is reliant on a rejected socialist approach based on mimicking perfect competition (made even worse as empirical analysis shows that we can expect productivity gains from the elimination of inefficient economic rents). That makes anyone using his analysis 'naive'. Its made even worst by the fact that we can't actually apply distributed knowledge to understand capitalism.

 

You keep screwing it up. Perhaps there is a cultural gap involved. You are located in Europe. Are you unaccustomed to freedom and liberty? That would explain your consistent failure.

 

How is "mimicking" perfect competition a "failed" approach when the theory of demand and supply assumes perfect competition?

 

Again there is lack of content in your post! Its difficult to refer to freedom and liberty when referring to hierarchical firms which can use that hierarchy to increase rent-seeking coercion.

 

If you are a true innate conservative, that would explain your readiness to assume members of groups other than your own are inferior.

 

I am Keynesian in my orientation (left-of-center), and I do think misterveritis does have an adequate point, even if he has framed in what can be seen as a slightly inflammatory manner.

Europe has had many countries where bureaucracy and government has gotten to the point where it is invasive to a person's individual liberty and freedom so to speak. Think of England's CCTV. I also see that happening in the US to a degree too.

 

Bastiat dealt with your objections years ago. You are a socialist. No problem. You are an enemy. It is good to know.

 

Inferior?

LOL. Wasn't that clear from his very first post?

This was about living immersed in the filth of socialism in Europe where the people are no longer free and they are kept ignorant so they will not recognize their plight.

 

QED

If you really believe that, you've never met even a halfway educated person from Europe. And most of people there are educated more that halfway.

There is nothing so weird that an ideologue won't believe it. (I used to repeat that saying with 'intellectual' as the key noun, but I think it's even more apropos this way.)

 

I lived in Germany for a decade. I have seen the changes. I have relatives who live in Germany. They believe their rulers. And they love Obama. He is cut from the same Marxist cloth. The difference is that he knows it and they do not.

 

Good grief. Obama is very US establishment in his orientation. His idea of Marx and Lenin would be this:

 

Are socialists more well educated, on average than capitalists on average?

 

You can't use Hayek to reject socialism. What's left?

 

I can. You cannot. Personal problem. What's left (besides yourself)?

- - - Updated - - -

Socialists tend to be intellectuals who hare responsible for little. They change what actually works for things that sound good but do not work.

 

We know very little about Obama but what we do know from what was ghostwritten about him is that he surrounded himself with Communists, socialists, Marxists, radicals and Progressives. Perhaps you are naive.

 

No, you can only use Hayek to attack the idea that the Walrasian auctioneer can somehow be replicated through economic planning. I'm being optimistic here too!

 

Perhaps you mistake innuendo for evidence.

 

Alleged conservatives are worse.

 

Have you read any of his ghostwritten books? He claims they are autobiographical.
Dreams of my [Communist] Father which Obama claims to have written describes how he surrounded himself with malcontents and Marxist professors. Of course there is more but why bother. You already know what I am saying is true.