Craner Explains Hayek to Padraig

[vimothy]

he definitely overstates the risks of planning. consider that the firm--every firm--is an island of command and control

 

[Clinamenic]

he definitely overstates the risks of planning. consider that the firm--every firm--is an island of command and control

You mean as planner nodes? I think he’s more averted to planning when it’s a state body, with a monopoly on coercion, engaging in systemic planning.

 

[vimothy]

I just mean that in general planning is literally essential, markets do not make themselves

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

in general, Hayek is better than his acolytes

I agree with this fwiw

I disagree with a lot of Hayek's ideas not only on economic grounds but fundamentally about human nature (which granted, economics is based on)

but he was writing in a specific context during WWII, and he could be relatively pragmatic

he was not a free-market fundamentalist in the way many of his acolytes were or are

and lot of his most objectionable views (racism, support for dictatorships, etc) weren't directly connected to his economic ideas

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and while I do disagree with his kind of core ideas, I also and perhaps more importantly object to the way he and his disciples impose those ideas

I already said how, so I'll just quote myself instead of restating

if you look back you'll see that I never said Hayek or Friedman were hostile to or against personal freedom, I said they were contemptuous of all personal freedoms besides the "freedom to choose" i.e. to take part in the market.

that one specific freedom is indeed the basis of their position - they think that all other freedoms flow from that freedom, which is what @vimothy says above i.e. neoliberals see the market as the best guarantor of personal freedoms in general - but at the same time they're actively hostile to anything that impedes the optimization of society for the market. that is, in name of the supposed freedom the market brings they're happy to trample over many other kinds of personal freedom, i.e. using the power of the state to impose austerity and other widely unpopular policies, as well as to dismantle parts of society that resist market logic as Thatcher did. as I said in the other thread neoliberals - the "neoliberal thought collective" as Mirowski puts it - resemble, with deep irony, nothing so much as a vanguard of Communist intellectuals imposing their ideas on the people in the name of the people's supposed ultimate freedom.

"indifferent" to other kinds of personal freedom might be a better way to put it than contemptuous, but the contempt comes out whenever there's a clash between the freedom to participate in the market and any other kind of freedom. thus their general contempt for democracy - it's only useful if it advances their goals. if not, they find some other way to advance their goals, which is exactly why Hayek stressed the importance of creating think tanks - Institute of Economic Affairs, Manhattan Institute, etc - to get upstream of having to actually sell the public on their ideas.

another way to say it would be that Austrian economists etc are disinterested in the political processes by which markets come into being. they just want it to happen, they don't really give a shit how it happens. trample a little freedom in the process, trample a lot, whatever, the end justifies the means.

 

[Clinamenic]

and while I do disagree with his kind of core ideas, I also and perhaps more importantly object to the way he and his disciples impose those ideas

I already said how, so I'll just quote myself instead of restating

Yeah I think I’d agree, that a lot of neoliberals (who may not seriously care about the intellectual project Hayek was defending/building) are against government intervention when it’s convenient for them, and for it when it advances either their economic interests or their cultural values.

 

[Clinamenic]

I am loving this book though.

 

[Clinamenic]

I agree with this fwiw

I disagree with a lot of Hayek's ideas not only on economic grounds but fundamentally about human nature (which granted, economics is based on)

but he was writing in a specific context during WWII, and he could be relatively pragmatic

he was not a free-market fundamentalist in the way many of his acolytes were or are

and lot of his most objectionable views (racism, support for dictatorships, etc) weren't directly connected to his economic ideas

Out of curiosity, which dictatorships did he express support for? So far in road to serfdom, he’s not exactly categorically against dictators, but he does say that comprehensive economic planning does (more or less) inevitably reduce democracy to a hinderance to the efficacy of such planning, and that when taken far enough such planning ends up justifying an “economic dictatorship” in the interest of providing a coherent and unified economic scheme, something which a heterogenous congress couldn’t reliably agree upon. But he frames this as the reason why economic planning shouldn’t be pursued to far, not as a fault of democracy (as he seems to, at least prima facie in this text, be a defender of liberal democracy insofar as it naturally couples with economic liberalism). Pretty drunk now, for what it’s worth.

 

[Mr. Tea]

it's clear that the existence of nationalised health care, for example, doesnt lead to inevitable tyranny, and it would be a bit ridiculous to suggest otherwise

Getting soft in your old age, vim?

 

[Clinamenic]

Anyone read Declaration of the Rights of Man by HG Wells? In chapter six of Road to Serfdom, Hayek provides what I think it’s a pretty shoddy critique of it, but I haven’t read Declaration so I’m not sure. Anyway, Hayek seems to be using it as a strawman for what he considers the confused logic of his contemporaries who want stronger social welfare and equality programs/planning but who claim that individual liberties aren’t at odds with it (Hayek is generally arguing that the two are at odds).

 

[Clinamenic]

hayek is on solid grounds criticising the efficacy of comprehensive centralised planning. the notion that planning in general is destructive of democracy doesn't hold water however - it's clear that the existence of nationalised health care, for example, doesnt lead to inevitable tyranny, and it would be a bit ridiculous to suggest otherwise

Woah, in the chapter “Security and Freedom” Hayek is actually defending and advocating for a basic social welfare program. Still need to finish the chapter, and see if he undermines this position or backs away with a litany of disclaimers, but at any rate this was unexpected:

 

[Clinamenic]

 

[WashYourHands]

@mixed_biscuits look at that minimal design and fabric, your grandfathers would be proud

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@mixed_biscuits look at that minimal design and fabric, your grandfathers would be proud

Quite. If only more of them were still around to see.

 

[Clinamenic]

From a NYBooks review of a new Hayek biography, by Bruce Caldwell (who edited the version of Road to Serfdom I'm reading):

"In a new biography, Friedrich Hayek emerges as a paradoxical figure: a passionate liberal whose most enthusiastic supporters have been conservative."

"Yet nowhere in The Road to Serfdom does Hayek attack (or even mention) the New Deal. His only direct reference to Roosevelt is an approving quotation taken from a speech the president gave attacking the “collectivism” of corporate America and calling for the reintroduction of a “democratic competitive order.” Hayek never even uses the term “free market” in the book. The problem, as Oreskes and Conway admit, is that the nuanced version of The Road to Serfdom is not one that reached the American people. Instead, Reader’s Digest produced a twenty-page condensation that found a mass audience. This version, of which over a million copies were printed, included the assertion that “competition must be left to function unobstructed.” But these words aren’t found in the original text. General Motors paid for the distribution of an even cruder cartoon version."

 

[Clinamenic]

Also from the review:

"Hayek was always attracted to intellectual gatherings. In April 1947 he brought together several dozen like-minded scholars at Mont Pèlerin, near Lake Geneva, among them economists from the University of Chicago, a handful of former Austrian comrades, Karl Popper and Robbins from the LSE, and the historian Cecily Veronica Wedgwood (the sole female participant). At the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society, Hayek read a paper called “‘Free’ Enterprise or Competitive Order,” in which he criticized laissez-faire and argued for government regulation of monopolies. This was too much for his old mentor, Mises, who jumped up, announced to the assembly, “You’re all a bunch of socialists,” and stomped out of the room."

 

[Clinamenic]

Apparently Hayek was also in love with, and eventually married, his cousin.

 

[luka]

I like the title of this thread. Its pitched to do two things; to stress out and panic craner who, naturally, can't explain Hayek, and to infuriate Padraig, who also can't, but has dutifully read him. That's an insight into the Luke process.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I like the title of this thread. Its pitched to do two things; to stress out and panic craner who, naturally, can't explain Hayek, and to infuriate Padraig, who also can't, but has dutifully read him. That's an insight into the Luke process.

I'm just amazed that nobody has yet pointed out that he was Salma Hayek's grandpa.

 

[Clinamenic]

I'm just amazed that nobody has yet pointed out that he was Salma Hayek's grandpa.

Now there is someone craner could explain to Padraig.