Socialism in Stages

[mogrovejo]

Socialism in Stages (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjcyY2ZlYzhhZmM4YTY2ZGZjMjdkYTk0ZDdlNTI1OTk=)
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.

By Dan Oliver Jr.

America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.

Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0913966630), who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.

When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.

Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.

If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.

Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.

The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.

[mogrovejo]

Bios:

Who was Von Mises? by Prof. Jörg Hülsmann (http://mises.org/misestributes/misesjgh.asp)

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises)

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics article (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Mises.html)

Von Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism (book - PDF) (http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf)

Socialism: An economical and sociological analysis
Socialism by Ludwig von Mises - online version (http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx)

Buy (http://www.amazon.com/SOCIALISM-Lib-Works-Ludwig-Mises/dp/0913966630)

Other books and essays:
Human Action - online version (http://mises.org/resources/3250)

Interventionism: An Economic Analysis (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Interventionism%20_An_Economic_Analysis.pdf)

Liberty and Property (http://mises.org/books/liberty_and_property.pdf)

A review of Keynes' lecture "The End of Laissez-Faire" (http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1702)

Middle-of-the-Road Policy leads to Socialism (http://mises.org/midroad.asp)

Español:

La Biblioteca Ludwig von Mises (http://www.biblioteca.ufm.edu.gt/index.php?title=Portada)

[Spursmania]

Obama believes and wants wealth distribution.

The current health care bill fiasco has so many tax increases in there it'll make your head spin.

[mogrovejo]

When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.

Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.

This is called in economics the Economic Calculation Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

A short review of the debate about the ECP in the middle 20th century: The Socialist Calculation Debate (http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//essays/paretian/social.htm)

The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism (http://www.la-articles.org.uk/ec.htm) (Prof. David Steele)

The Use of Knowledge in Society by F.A. Hayek (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)

[ChumpDumper]

So every country with government controlled or regulated health care is destined to fail?

I find that rather simplistic. If there are examples of the complete failure of "soft socialist" countries that had already reached a US or western European level of industrialization, that is the kind of thing that should be discussed here. We are not and never will be the Soviet Union; it's a straw man argument.

It's also fun to see the contradictions in the article saying communism was going to fail no matter what but Reagan should get all the credit for making it happen.

[boutons_deux]

"expansions of government produce poverty"

contractions of government regulation of the capital markets have produced poverty in millions of US families and dozens of countries.

As always, the VRWC farts out its socialist and other fogs to distract the rabble from the real crimes and culprits.

[Blake]

I lost IQ points after reading this thread.

If Obama and Fannie Mae and a few other quips weren't mentioned, you could tell me this article written in 1981 and I might believe you.

[Winehole23]

Zing.

[EmptyMan]

"expansions of government produce poverty"

contractions of government regulation of the capital markets have produced poverty in millions of US families and dozens of countries.

As always, the VRWC farts out its socialist and other fogs to distract the rabble from the real crimes and culprits.

There can be no top without a bottom. There will always be a spectrum that exists in anything. No man-made system will ever overcome the natural order of this reality. If you can't eventually get comfortable in the system that is in place, well...sucks for you. Quit having kids, work harder & longer & eventually smarter, and spend your money more wisely. It really is that simple. Life sucks. Life sucks more when you complicate it by burying yourself under negative variables.

Government fucking up the system by punishing those that understand the game is....well, it's government.

I don't need to be a spawn of Satan brainwashed by St. Ronnie to understand this.

[mogrovejo]

So, how many of you have actually understood the problem of economic calculation?

[Winehole23]

proponents of the problem overstate the strength of their case, in describing socialism as impossibleLike mogrovejo.

Surely a large number of theoretically impossible socialisms actually exist. At least as many as there are socialist countries, no?

[mogrovejo]

Like mogrovejo.

Surely a large number of theoretically impossible socialisms actually exist. At least as many as there are socialist countries, no?

Sure. Are you suggesting that Mises wasn't aware of the existence of socialist countries?

[Winehole23]

Not at all.

The proponents were specified.

The theory may have other problems Wino is unaware of.

Quien sabe?

[Blake]

So, how many of you have actually understood the problem of economic calculation?

pretend nobody does and explain the problem of economic calculation to us

[Blake]

Sure. Are you suggesting that Mises wasn't aware of the existence of socialist countries?

seems to me Mises is waiting for a socialist country to hit the skids so he can jump in with an "I told you so".

[mogrovejo]

Robert Heilbroner, the bestselling writer of economics, died early this month at the age of 85.

Heilbroner was an outspoken socialist; if only a libertarian could write an introductory book on economics that could—like Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068486214X/reasonmagazineA/)—sell 4 million copies.


He was not entirely impervious to new evidence, however. In 1989, he famously wrote in The New Yorker:
"Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won... Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism."




In The New Yorker again the next year, he reminisced about hearing of Ludwig von Mises at Harvard in the 1930s. But of course his professors and fellow students scoffed at Mises's claim that socialism could not work. It seemed at the time, he wrote, that it was capitalism that was failing. Then, a mere 50 years later, he acknowledged: "It turns out, of course, that Mises was right" about the impossibility of socialism.





On the big issue of capitalism vs. socialism, though, he did continue his rueful acknowledgment of error. In 1992, he explained the facts of life to Dissent readers:
Capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure. Here is the part that's hard to swallow. It has been the Friedmans, Hayeks, and von Miseses who have maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop incurable ailments. All three have regarded capitalism as the 'natural' system of free men; all have maintained that left to its own devices capitalism would achieve material growth more successfully than any other system. From [my samplings] I draw the following discomforting generalization: The farther to the right one looks, the more prescient has been the historical foresight; the farther to the left, the less so.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/01/21/the-man-who-told-the-truth

[Winehole23]

Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialismIs the basic theme propounded by the ECP. Left at that, I see no problem with it.

[mogrovejo]

What's the ECP?

[boutons_deux]

There's no industrial country that is purely capitalistic or socialistic. There are only degrees of mixed economies.

The US is socialistic with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and 100s of $Bs of state and federal subsidies and tax breaks to the MIC, farmers, big oil/gas/coal, etc.

Anybody who thinks the US is purely capitalistic is full of bullshit.

And conservatives wet dream of unregulated "Greed is Good" reptilian, predatory capitalism has delivered a huge depression to the USA and world, and destroyed $Ts in wealth of non-capitalists.

And non of the conservatives and capitalists managed their affairs and foresaw enough to see the bubbles and deflate them less painfully. In fact, the capitalists are always looking to inflate the next bubble and exploit THEIR capital on the backs of the non-capitalists.

[mogrovejo]

There's no industrial country that is purely capitalistic or socialistic. There are only degrees of mixed economies.

The US is socialistic with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and 100s of $Bs of state and federal subsidies and tax breaks to the MIC, farmers, big oil/gas/coal, etc.

Anybody who thinks the US is purely capitalistic is full of bullshit.

And conservatives wet dream of unregulated "Greed is Good" reptilian, predatory capitalism has delivered a huge depression to the USA and world, and destroyed $Ts in wealth of non-capitalists.

And non of the conservatives and capitalists managed their affairs and foresaw enough to see the bubbles and deflate them less painfully. In fact, the capitalists are always looking to inflate the next bubble and exploit THEIR capital on the backs of the non-capitalists.


Socialism in Stages (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjcyY2ZlYzhhZmM4YTY2ZGZjMjdkYTk0ZDdlNTI1OTk=)
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.

By Dan Oliver Jr.
(...) Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.

[boutons_deux]

the market "remaining" wasn't unfettered, it was unregulated and it fucked up the planet, except for the upfuckers who got bailed out by the fuckeduppers.

Glass-Steagall worked 60+ years. Kill it, and don't regulate derivatvies, and within 10 years, the capitalists inflate a bubble and cause another extreme depression.

[Nbadan]

I lost IQ points after reading this thread.

If Obama and Fannie Mae and a few other quips weren't mentioned, you could tell me this article written in 1981 and I might believe you.

:lol

[Nbadan]

the market "remaining" wasn't unfettered, it was unregulated and it fucked up the planet, except for the upfuckers who got bailed out by the fuckeduppers.

Glass-Steagall worked 60+ years. Kill it, and don't regulate derivatvies, and within 10 years, the capitalists inflate a bubble and cause another extreme depression.

+1000

Boutons is on his game...

[mogrovejo]

the market "remaining" wasn't unfettered, it was unregulated

What?:downspin:

[PixelPusher]

Move to Somalia, mongrovejo. Zero government. Zero regulations. Absolutely 100% Socialism-free.

[mogrovejo]

Move to Somalia, mongrovejo. Zero government. Zero regulations. Absolutely 100% Socialism-free.

Perhaps you're confusing a liberal regime with an anarchy?

[PixelPusher]

Perhaps you're confusing a liberal regime with an anarchy?

Your OP confuses government regulation with socialism. par for the course.

[mogrovejo]

Your OP confuses government regulation with socialism. par for the course.

Nah, it makes a different argument. You should re-read it (and the links posted).

[PixelPusher]

Nah, it makes a different argument. You should re-read it (and the links posted).

blah, blah Fannie Mae...blah, blah Universal Health Care...fallacious leap of logic to Soviet Union and our doom...DOOM...DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!

[iggypop123]

when is the stage when people get exterminated?

[Winehole23]

Nah, it makes a different argument. You should re-read it (and the links posted).Always giving assignments but you seldom show your own work, profe.

[Winehole23]

It would have been just as brief to say what you meant, instead of admonishing Pixel to do his homework.

[mogrovejo]

Always giving assignments but you seldom show your own work, profe.



It would have been just as brief to say what you meant, instead of admonishing Pixel to do his homework.

Just for clarification, are you a moderator here?

[mogrovejo]

blah, blah Fannie Mae...blah, blah Universal Health Care...fallacious leap of logic to Soviet Union and our doom...DOOM...DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!

There's no leap of logic. If you can prove there's a leap of logic, you're debunking the work of guys who won the Nobel Prize. You can be instantly rich and famous, so what are you waiting for? There are terms in which you can disagree, but I doubt it's a good idea to pursuit the argument of formal mistakes.

[Winehole23]

Just for clarification, are you a moderator here?Relax. I'm not the fuzz.

[mogrovejo]

Relax. I'm not the fuzz.

But you would like to be, wouldn't you?

It seems to me that you have little interest in discussing issues, but rather on discussing how posters discuss and in assess their behaviour. Am I wrong?

[clambake]

But you would like to be, wouldn't you?

It seems to me that you have little interest in discussing issues, but rather on discussing how posters discuss and in assess their behaviour. Am I wrong?

wtf?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, there were leaps alright.
So every country with government controlled or regulated health care is destined to fail?

I find that rather simplistic. If there are examples of the complete failure of "soft socialist" countries that had already reached a US or western European level of industrialization, that is the kind of thing that should be discussed here. We are not and never will be the Soviet Union; it's a straw man argument.

It's also fun to see the contradictions in the article saying communism was going to fail no matter what but Reagan should get all the credit for making it happen.

[Winehole23]

But you would like to be, wouldn't you?I prefer a mod-free, or very lightly moderated board. For myself, I would not choose to be a mod.

[ChumpDumper]

Just for clarification, are you a moderator here?Just for clarification, are you whining here?

[mogrovejo]

I prefer a mod-free, or very lightly moderated board. For myself, I would not choose to be a mod.

Nice. Do you mind to answer my second question?

[Ignignokt]

Just for clarification, are you whining here?

I've never seen that jab before.

[ChumpDumper]

I've never seen that jab before.i've never seen the mod one before either.

[Winehole23]

Nice. Do you mind to answer my second question?Talking about posters is a pastime. Was that your question?

[rjv]

But you would like to be, wouldn't you?

It seems to me that you have little interest in discussing issues, but rather on discussing how posters discuss and in assess their behaviour. Am I wrong?

i love irony.

[ChumpDumper]

So is Portugal a failed state?

It does have a public health care system after all.

[TeyshaBlue]

So is Portugal a failed state?

It does have a public health care system after all.

Not to mention the fucking nightmare that is Canada!:lmao

[mogrovejo]

Not to mention the fucking nightmare that is Canada!:lmao

I barely spend any time in Portugal or Canada, but I live in countries with socialized health-care, and PJ O'Rourke is absolutely right: "if you think that health-care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free".

[ChumpDumper]

Which countries?

Are they failed states like the article says they must be?

[Ignignokt]

Which countries?

Are they failed states like the article says they must be?

the cancer mortality rates compared to the US and britian are an indication.


What is you definition of all this, anyway? A failed state? You want us to find an Industrialized state that was driven into the ground and is in collapse only because of healthcare? Is that what the OP said?

[Ignignokt]

i love irony.

link?

[Ignignokt]

i've never seen the mod one before either.

Sarcastic reply, but it does speak volumes.

[rjv]

link?

a link to what? a dictionary ?

[ChumpDumper]

the cancer mortality rates compared to the US and britian are an indication.An indication of a failed state? If the US rate was higher than that of another country that had a public health service, would you consider the US a failed state?



What is you definition of all this, anyway? A failed state? You want us to find an Industrialized state that was driven into the ground and is in collapse only because of healthcare? Is that what the OP said?The OP says that every country that has socialist programs is destined to fail, or at least there is some kind of tipping point where it must.

Where is that point? I have difficulty thinking of a country that doesn't have at least a mixed economy. According to the OP, they are all at different stages of failure.

[ChumpDumper]

gtown, if it was found that the best rate of cancer survival would be found under a government that forces employers to give a rather generous health package to any employee working over 20 hours a week -- would that then be the model you would want to emulate?

[Ignignokt]

gtown, if it was found that the best rate of cancer survival would be found under a government that forces employers to give a rather generous health package to any employee working over 20 hours a week -- would that then be the model you would want to emulate?

But you have one in britian that has a bad track record. While we're at it, if it was found that countries who have absolutely no gay marriage have a low divorce rate would that be a model you would want to emulate?

[ChumpDumper]

But you have one in britian that has a bad track record.The plan I described is nothing like that of Great Britain.

[Ignignokt]

An indication of a failed state? If the US rate was higher than that of another country that had a public health service, would you consider the US a failed state?


The OP says that every country that has socialist programs is destined to fail, or at least there is some kind of tipping point where it must.

Where is that point? I have difficulty thinking of a country that doesn't have at least a mixed economy. According to the OP, they are all at different stages of failure.

Right now that has more to do with the current crisis in finance, but before all this countries like Britian were running massive debt like us and having problems finding people to work in the field of medicine, amongst other things like long waiting lines, and denied practice because of lack of resource.

We're also a mixed govt/economy in a sense because of the NEw Deal, and we've been failing in many aspects of trying to relieve our debt.

Now you want to further compound the problem by adding a massive govt program?

[Ignignokt]

The plan I described is nothing like that of Great Britain.

I would like to see the country you speak of.

[ChumpDumper]

Right now that has more to do with the current crisis in finance, but before all this countries like Britian were running massive debt like us and having problems finding people to work in the field of medicine, amongst other things like long waiting lines, and denied practice because of lack of resource.

We're also a mixed economy in a sense because of the NEw Deal, and we've been failing in many aspects of trying to relieve our debt.

Now you want to further compound the problem by adding a massive govt program?So any country with a public health system is destined to fail?

I'm really trying to get a handle on what people here believe.

[Ignignokt]

So any country with a public health system is destined to fail?

I'm really trying to get a handle on what people here believe.

that's a dumb question. There could theoritically be country with a public health system, with no need to pay for public schooling, a military, or give any foreign aid, and have very few govt programs, and the only big one would be public health. This country dealing with only one huge govt program most likely will not be crippled.

That's not us.

We have a huge military budget, huge social budget and heavy debt, it will lead us to failure maybe not in the sense that we become post war Germany circa 1919, but severely weakened.

[Ignignokt]

If the US didn't have any large govt programs to fund and no debt, and we had a surplus, having a public health system would not hurt us.

We could have chocolate rivers, toffee roads, and gingerbread houses while we're at it.

[ChumpDumper]

I would like to see the country you speak of.It is the United States -- more specifically a state in the United States.

It has the highest cancer survival rates, the highest longevity, the second lowest premiums and the lowest Medicare costs in the country.

I am not saying it is by any means perfect, but I'm showing that there are alternatives out there that have nothing to do with a single-payer system. Frankly, bringing up Britain and Canada is now barely relevant to the kinds of reform being discussed in the US.

[ChumpDumper]

If the US didn't have any large govt programs to fund and no debt, and we had a surplus, having a public health system would not hurt us.

We could have chocolate rivers, toffee roads, and gingerbread houses while we're at it.So public health could be an option to you if other spending and debt were addressed?

Interesting.

[Ignignokt]

It is the United States -- more specifically a state in the United States.

It has the highest cancer survival rates, the highest longevity, the second lowest premiums and the lowest Medicare costs in the country.

I am not saying it is by any means perfect, but I'm showing that there are alternatives out there that have nothing to do with a single-payer system. Frankly, bringing up Britain and Canada is now barely relevant to the kinds of reform being discussed in the US.

Is this massachusets?

A state is different from a nation.

A state can afford to pay for it's own healthcare. But also, i'd like to point out that because the rest of the country still operates on a private system, Massachussets doesn't suffer the same consequences that england does.

basically Massachussets is enjoying the public healthcare on the back of a Private Health care economy.

[Ignignokt]

So public health could be an option to you if other spending and debt were addressed?

Interesting.

Or you could just have low debt, a great economy and let the private sector absorb health cost, and still have innovation. having a majority of americans covered because of a good market is a better option.

[ChumpDumper]

Is this massachusets?

A state is different from a nation.

A state can afford to pay for it's own healthcare. But also, i'd like to point out that because the rest of the country still operates on a private system, Massachussets doesn't suffer the same consequences that england does.

basically Massachussets is enjoying the public healthcare on the back of a Private Health care economy.It's not Massachusetts, and there is not a public system there. I'm just familiarizing myself with it at present.

I was just working with your metrics. The results seem pretty impressive according to those metrics. I'm willing to entertain options.

[PixelPusher]

There's no leap of logic. If you can prove there's a leap of logic, you're debunking the work of guys who won the Nobel Prize. You can be instantly rich and famous, so what are you waiting for? There are terms in which you can disagree, but I doubt it's a good idea to pursuit the argument of formal mistakes.

Dan Oliver, Jr. did not recieve a Nobel Prize for this or any other conservative screed.

[mogrovejo]

Dan Oliver, Jr. did not recieve a Nobel Prize for this or any other conservative screed.

Well, I think you're too focused on the author of the article and not on the subject of the economic calculation problem.

[PixelPusher]

Since mogrovejo and the NRO hack he linked to think merely name dropping Austrian free market economists qualifies as an "argument"...



“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,” – The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 9).

[mogrovejo]

Yeah, Hayek was not opposed to "safety net" programs. Neither am I. Mises was, Hayek was in the Mount Pelerin meeting where he said that famous tirade "You're all a bunch of socialists".

That said, I think there's a good chance that you're misunderstanding Hayek if you're reading that paragraph out of context. In that section Hayek enumerates the different levels of securities that people can get from the state and how they disrupt their freedoms (the chapter is entitled Freedom and Security or something like that). Hayek was a big proponent of voluntary, spontaneous, safety nets. After that paragraph he explains why you can't expect the government to provide a large, inclusive, safety net - he cites the minimum wage, for example.

[mogrovejo]

I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

Krugman gets it.

[Winehole23]

Everyone gets it, you sententious knob. Entitlement programs get bigger and more expensive over time. You don't have to be Krugman or Mogrovejo to get it.

[Winehole23]

Or that reform starts out modestly. This is more gnomic prose, mogrovejo. I have a hard time seeing what you're so proud of saying here. These are commonplaces.

[mogrovejo]

As I say, you refuse to discuss ideas and all you do is personal baiting.

[Winehole23]

As I say, you refuse to discuss ideas and all you do is personal baiting.So you say, over and over again. Would you say frequent repetition makes one's point more or less memorable, in the long run?

[mogrovejo]

Would you say frequent repetition makes one's point more or less memorable, in the long run?

I'd say less. That's why I keep advising you about your constant personal bickering. It gets old fast. You need to find some new tricks. But I'm done with this, if you want to discuss classic liberalism, socialism, the free price system, economic calculation, praxeology, etc. let me know.

[Winehole23]

I'd say less.So would I.


That's why I keep advising you about your constant personal bickering. It gets old fast.You sure got old fast.

[Ignignokt]

So would I.

You sure got old fast.

So you know govt growth is bad, yet you still want to expand it cuz "We Won". No, you don't get it.

[Winehole23]

So you know govt growth is bad, yet you still want to expand it cuz "We Won". I know this is supposed to be a spoof of something I said, but what? You keep throwing it up on the wall that I'm an Obama voter, or a health care booster or something.

What makes you think so, Iggy?

[Ignignokt]

I know this is supposed to be a spoof of something I said, but what? You keep throwing it up on the wall that I'm an Obama voter, or a health care booster or something.

What makes you think so, Iggy?

Cuz, precisely for the reason you said. You've said it before, and you did it cheeringly. Can't be too far off..

[Winehole23]

You've said it before, and you did it cheeringly.I doubt it. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Got a link handy, or are you just relying on your personal recollection?