Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Guest — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:33:43 -0000

And, MnM, any other ambassadors of it anywhere?

Why do you expect others to be the ambassador for your ideas?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Guest — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:30:30 -0000

dg,

Personally, I don't care whether or not you expound upon it. The point is, there are people reading your posts who haven't seen your rationale. Do you wish to leave them in the dark?

Sam is simply asking that you explain your meaning to those you speak with and to stay on topic.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:29:39 -0000

Sam,

Here, again, a brief summary of the idea:

Taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t just draw money but manpower downward upon the hierarchy of production, and the manpower faster than the money. For manpower doesn’t merely follow money but anticipates it. And, with manpower and competition among the poor increasing faster than the redistributed money, they’ll be poorer than they would have been without it.

Is there anything about it that you don't understand, or could improve upon?

And, MnM, any other ambassadors of it anywhere?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Sam Grove — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:24:04 -0000

Dg, Hayek wrote a book. Where's yours?

Before you lay bricks, you need a foundation, and you assume that you can lay bricks anywhere without checking the foundation.

BTW, I already knew that government hurts the poor the most long before I ever came to Cafe Hayek.

You assert that income equality is the issue for most people.

I do not assume that. I think most people support political government rather reflexively because they haven't learned to imagine any other order.

They believe that government orders society, and they are willing to accept the harm it causes for the sake of that order.

For me, the foundation issue that people need to learn is that political government actually causes disorder.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:04:52 -0000

MnM,

You may not have noticed, but I have "expounded" on the idea repeatedly and at great length.

Would you like me to do so again?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Guest — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:48:11 -0000

Sam,

I explained it in such a way that it became obvious to you. Getting you to see the light is no longer the problem. Getting you to pass it on to others is the problem. What are you waiting for, the next holocaust?

I know I run the risk of speaking for Sam, but dg, you miss his point. He is saying that you are a poor ambassador for your ideas. Rather than expounding on the idea you simply assert and these assertions are disruptive.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:46:08 -0000

Sam,

Hayek began The Constitution of Liberty with an apology.

"The apology concerns the particular state at which I have decided to submit the results of my efforts to the reader. It is perhaps inevitable that the more ambitious the task, the more inadequate will be the performance. On a subject as comprehensive as that of this book, the task of making it as good as one is capable of is never completed while one's faculties last. No doubt I shall soon find that I ought to have said this or that better and that I have committed errors which I could myself have corrected if I had persisted longer in my efforts. Respect for the reader certainly demands that one present a tolerably finished product. But I doubt whether this means that one ought to wait until one cannot hope to improve it further. At least where the problems are of the kind on which many others are actively working, it would even appear to be an overestimate of one's own importance if one delayed publication until one was certain that one could not improve anything. If a man has, as I hope I have, pushed analysis a step forward, further efforts by him are likely to be subject to rapidly decreasing returns. Others will probably be better qualified to lay the next row of bricks of the edifice to which I am trying to contribute. I will merely claim that I have worked on the book until I did not know now I could adequately present the chief argument in briefer form."

Sam, you can either waste that great intelligence of yours heckling from the sidelines, or lay the next row of bricks.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:54:03 -0000

Sam,

If you really don't understand it, and want to be helpful, tell me what about it you don't understand.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:47:27 -0000

Sam,

I explained it in such a way that it became obvious to you. Getting you to see the light is no longer the problem. Getting you to pass it on to others is the problem. What are you waiting for, the next holocaust?

John,

You wrote:

"Where dg goes, Godwin follows."

If that old barbarian followed me back to civilization, he'd be way ahead of you.

Aaron,

Rather than righteous indignation, I would propose shame for a follower of Marx, Stalin, and Hitler.

And Daniel, where are you? Cow brains are alright, but I really miss that prime rib.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Sam Grove — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:02:07 -0000

Jews (and Gypsies and gay people, etc) were vilified in Nazi Germany because they were Jews (or Gypsies or gay). It was an issue of race, or sexual preference.

Part of the reason Jews have often been chosen as scapegoats is that they have a strong work ethic, laud intelligence, are culturally cohesive, and tend to be successful wherever they go.

So it's not an issue of race per se, after all they share a racial heritage with many Arabs, but nonetheless, many Arabs hate Jews.

As outsiders, and successful ones at that, they make easy targets for envy during hard times, no matter the cause of the hard times. Politicians seem to have an instinct for picking easy targets.

dg:

Yes, your theory of redistribution making the poor poorer may be the case, but it's not obvious on its face and you don't seem to be able to explain it in such a way that it becomes obvious to others.

Maybe you should work on that instead of disrupting forum threads with repetitions of your mantra.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Aaron — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:49:00 -0000

Perhaps, dg, it's hard to respond to your equating the progression in Nazi Germany with the progression here and now because it seems beneath reason.

Personally, I was refraining from saying anything, even though it may have been my comment that sparked this fairly crazy debate, because it is just hard to know how to respond to something this preposterous.

Jews (and Gypsies and gay people, etc) were vilified in Nazi Germany because they were Jews (or Gypsies or gay). It was an issue of race, or sexual preference. Describing Jews as 'bankers' was a way to get people to focus their ire, to engage ethnic stereotypes, to inflame an existing prejudice. But the prejudice itself came first. That is not what's happening now.

Now, another thing about your recent posts, dg, that concerns me, is that you seem to be trying to claim a certain kind of authenticity by identifying a holocaust survivor whom you recognized in a film about Auschwitz.

If I trot out the survivor friend of my family who was a lifelong leftie, a doctor who was a proponent of, for example, socialized medicine, does that impact this discussion? Does it make my opinion more worthy?

I would have to say in both our cases it doesn't, except perhaps to illustrate that you cannot generalize about concentration camp survivors or authenticity. I would have to say it cheapens us. My apologies to my family's friend.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

John — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:05:52 -0000

Where dg goes, Godwin follows.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:28:40 -0000

Gil, and Daniel, too:

Be honest, now.

Don't you feel just a little bit uneasy following in the Nazis' goosesteps?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Gil — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:09:58 -0000

What the hell are you going on about dgl?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:05:40 -0000

Just got through watching a film about Auschwitz. I knew one of the survivors in the film personally. A great lady. A privilege to have known her.

Makes me a little ashamed of my frivolity above. This is serious business. For my children and grandchildren. For yours.

Again:

"The course they have chosen is a middle one between socialism and capitalism."

That was the Nazis. And it's us again today.

And that's no laughing matter.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:56:49 -0000

Fellows,

Don't take it to heart. I'm just having a little fun with you. I really like you both, even if you are stupid assholes.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:51:58 -0000

Still nothing from Daniel.

It looks like fools may rush in, but Daniel ain't no fool.

And nothing more from Gil, either, so maybe he's getting a little smarter, too, which couldn't have been too hard.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:53:46 -0000

And, by the way, can't the redoubtable Daniel Kuehn speak for himself?

Does he need Sir Gilahad to fight his battles for him!

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:52:07 -0000

Wow! First, rare roast beef, and now waffles.

Don't forget the apple pie.

OK, Gil, you give us the numbers!

And no more waffles, now, nor French toast, either.

Just the numbers.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Gil — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:59:54 -0000

Golly, let's see, after giving my 'burger' example:

"I don't recall whether it was you or someone else who previously had pointed out that my theory would not hold true in the case of taking from the employed to give to the unemployed.

And you may not recall that I agreed with that, with certain qualifications, and limited the main part of my theory to the case of taking from the richer to give to the poorer among the employed themselves." - dg lesvic

and:

"dg lesvic's masterstroke would respond: "but the loss of the burger would present a huge burden to the burger maker, he would have no incentive to work anymore and he would just close his shop in despair - leaving everyone poorer". This is the problem with the masterstroke - it IS sensible IF you assume completely unrealistic responses to redistribution and taxation. Those completely unrealistic responses are very easy to argue if you have an aversion to using numbers to estimate actual responses, as dg lesvic does. As long as he lives in the world of foundational axioms, he can have whatever axiom he wants to describe how the burger maker will respond - it doesn't have to resemble reality!" - Daniel Kuehn

Yep. It's sounds as though D. Kuehn gives a direct response whereas you waffle about whether it was me or someone else who posted something about the employed and unmployed (which must have been someone else since I don't know what you're going on about).

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Sam Grove — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:54:55 -0000

I like this from Garrison:

Thus, while the intention of Keynesian policy is to stabilize the economy, the actual effect is to “Keynesianize” the economy. It causes the economy to behave in exactly the same perverse manner that is implied by the Keynesian assumptions. This convoluted interrelationship between theory and policy has long obscured the fundamental flaws in the theory itself.

I'll have to process that for a while.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

vidyohs — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:45:51 -0000

Don,

I tried to post an explanation, an apology, and the satirical piece again and it doesn't come through.

I don't know what the deal is.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

John Pertz — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:08:28 -0000

Is it just me or is Mario Rizzo the most important public intellectual on the pro market side? Arnold Kling and Robert Higgs have also been extremely insightful in dealing with this crisis too.

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

dg lesvic — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:59:30 -0000

Daniel,

Your friend Gil accused me of ducking you, but here I am chasing you from one thread to another.

You can run but you can’t hide from the challenge, for it’s the same wherever you are

You had addressed a comment to Gil about my approach to these issues, and then one directly to me about their relation to the Holocaust.

First, the Holocaust, and from the Wall Street Journal this morning, Anti-Semitism and the Economic Crisis by Ira Stoll:

"Jews have been victims not only of unrest prompted by economic distress but of attempts to remedy such economic distress with socialism. Take it from Friedrich Hayek, the late Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist. In 'The Road to Serfdom,' Hayek wrote, 'In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism.' Thus, the response in those countries, National Socialism, was an attack on both capitalism and the Jews."

You had written, and, would no doubt, repeat:

"...we weren't defending socialists...We were just saying regulating the banking history is in no way parallel to the holocaust."

As the earlier are in no way parallel to the terminal stages of cancer.

That is respectable Holocaust denial, denying its middle-of-the-road origins, which is worse than denying the Holocaust itself.

From Fascism and National Socialism by Michael T. Florinsky, 1936, P 69:

"The course they have chosen is a middle one between socialism and capitalism."

Their middle way to holocaust, and now yours.

Next, my whole approach to economics.

You wrote that my theory "IS sensible IF you assume completely unrealistic responses to redistribution and taxation. Those completely unrealistic responses are very easy to argue if you have an aversion to using numbers to estimate actual responses, as dg lesvic does."

I'm still waiting for you to give us just one example of those elusive numbers in economics. I am absolutely sure that you will never do so, that you will tap dance around it, and pretend to do so, but never really do it. We will never get any of those alleged numbers of economics from you.

Never!

Let me repeat that, Never!

One more time.

Never!

And don't ask me to define never.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Apr 7, 2009 12:50:06 PM

Gil,

You wrote:

"So does that make dg lesvic an answer ducker (especially since Daniel Kuehn had a go)?"

What have I ducked? I can tell you this, I wouldn't duck Daniel Kuehn any more than a free meal. And that guy is a slice of rare roast beef.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Apr 7, 2009 1:06:35 PM

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

Sam Grove — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:51:56 -0000

I don't talk about Krugman because I pay him absolutely no attention.