The Forum > Article Comments > Hayek and red tape > Comments
Hayek and red tape : Comments
By Nicholas Gruen, published 17/4/2008Friedrich Hayek theorised, quite rightly, that central planning is a dysfunctional way to run an economy.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:04:19 AM
| |
Hmmm... you'd think business was the only stakeholder in a society! Business, generally speaking, has a one-sided perspective: to gain market share and increase profit. This is not always congruent with the broader needs and interests of the community.
Regulation is about more than the economy and if we look a little more closely at the analogy of central planning and the engineer, I for one do not want to sit in a car that is not centrally planned by an engineer. Chances are the wheels will fall off. Posted by Voevod, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:11:53 AM
| |
The now-time world is vastly complex, beyond imagination.
Hayek was one of the benighted god-fathers of the adolescent Chicago-boyz who gave us the Shock Doctrine as portrayed by Naomi Klein. The CIS and the IPA were founded on his adolescent so called "philsophy". These excerpts from by favourite "philosopher" sum up what their "world"-view is really all about. "The popular competitively individualistic "culture" or, really, anti-culture, is characterised by the politics of adolescent rebellion against "authority", or the perceived "parent" in any form. Indeed, a society, or any loose collective, of mere individuals does not need, and cannot even tolerate, a true culture---because a true culture must, necessarily, be characterised (in its best, and even general, demonstrations, and, certainly, in its aspirations) by mutual tolerance, cooperation, peace, and PROFUNDITY. Therefore, socities based on competitive individualism, gross self-fulfillment, and merely gross (or superficial) mindedness actually destroy culture, and all, until then, existing cultures, and cultural adaptations. And true cultures are produced (and needed) ONLY when individuals rightly and participate in a collective, and, thus and thereby live in accordance with the life-principle of ego-transcendence AND the Great Principle of Oneness, or Unity." And. "When the entire human world founds itself on the adolescent motive to aggrandize the individual ego-"I", then everyone is collectively working towards the destruction not only of human culture and mankind itself, but even of the Earth itself, the very vehicle that supports life." See also 1. http://www.ispeace723.org/timetestedpolitics2.htm These "right" thinkers like to quote Lord Aston re the corruption of power. And yet they all champions of the unbridled inherently out of control power of the capitalist world-machine. And even, or rather especially, the single most concentrated (organised) source of power the world has ever seen--the Pentagon military-industrial-entertainment complex. Of course both of these inter-related juggernauts have a momentum which is virtually unstoppable. A momentum powered by a 3 millennia long drive to total power and control--- According to the Hindu cosmology we are now at the very dark, potentially catastrophic, dark end of the the Kali Yuga age. An age of world-wide cultural dis-integration. Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:20:27 AM
| |
Hayek as did Popper, Mise and others were trying to encourage a practical and critical approach toward being "sensible of our ignorance".
Their conservations rested with their belief in the governance of 'self knowledge' and interests of the individual. They believed that with more knowledge the individual can network their social and economic needs /interests best IF they had access to the right knowledge. In this sense Hayek & Co are were right. This argument follows a person having access to freedom, as a right to pursue knowledge. And that is a seen today as a persons agency toward empowerment. However, where the argument divides is in the ways that we in our day and age interpret the works of the writers above, ever so convincingly, to suit ourselves without first doing the homework. We lift "grabs-lines' out of their background data and parrot them as if they could fit neatly into a modern world context. If todays “free economy” were so perfect (without leaning on the usual customary statements), then “why” do we have so many homeless youth in Australia, a major world food crisis (Darfur-Sudan-Asia) and or the resisting forces arguing as we have, in identifying the inter-relationship between the global-micro-economy and climate change? Free Markets as we see in modern times do not solve all the problems that we wish they would or even could. Yet, because they cant, we return focus back to Hayeks “life-works” as he warns us historically at the "dysfunctional" elements of central planning for it’s non-productive, over-bureaucratised construct of regulations and red-tape and especially as we compare a grasping fact, about how red-tape alienates a society from itself as it seriously curbs creative imagination, new and evolving ideas of practical design, shared-social-incentives and innovation. Unless you are suggesting that history can only ever be repeated, I suggest we open our heart as well as our minds. See below; Posted by miacat, Thursday, 17 April 2008 1:48:08 PM
| |
At the core is the need to direct all eyes to a modern context and reconsider a question that investigates an ‘Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding’. In the light of todays events, it is this questioning of ‘virtues and weaknesses’ and or how Hayek as did Popper, Mise, Nietzsche , Foucault, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and others contribute to the arguments of ‘self-governance’, and it is the mindfulness given on how knowledge is constructed and transferred, that shapes our world. The role of institutions be it in government, the economy, or within the family at individual and ground levels is being congested, is contaminated, being impeded by opposing wills for unwholesomeness, a desire we wish to call it, a ‘business as usual’.
Yet, it is individuals who make up the activities that influence ‘what actually happens’ in the economy, as it is individuals who make up the activities that influence ‘what actually happens’ in government in the same way we blame individuals and families at ground levels. Neither as we see, necessarily exhibits the heart or soul of what we are in fact seeking to build as a sustainable society, so the question as asked by those many before us is always “WHY”? Is it the balance of self, as the ecological question, we leave unanwersed through a ‘Mille Plateaux’ as mentioned and mastered historically, as innate and oblivious?. Until we reach an engagement that comprehends an attentive need for this agency to be inclusive, responsible, for the thoughts and all inter-action, no notion of individuality, perspective of others, trancendence from a third-sector, a local government, an economy, or greater state, will have opportunity, authenticity or substance. This is because our own consciousness as individuals needs something collective. We each know this. Yet we are each histoically subjected to politico forms of structural power that has us competing externally and internally with conflicting interrelationships, among ourselves that are opposite to the needs in reality. We need addressed, what is crucial within our informal societies. All the above writers have tried each, to lead us to this. http://www.miacat.com/ . Posted by miacat, Thursday, 17 April 2008 1:50:04 PM
| |
The United States is the most-sympathetic-to-Hayek's veiw's place I have visited.
It is also the most dysfunctional place I have visited. The U.S is hardly a shining example of a perfectly functioning, self-balancing market economy is it Mr Gruen? Only in a capitalist fantasia can a well run society and economy exist bereft of any kind of central planning. Hayeks theories were like Marx's - theories. Posted by Fozz, Friday, 18 April 2008 5:03:44 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
The CIS and the IPA were founded on his adolescent so called "philsophy".
These excerpts from by favourite "philosopher" sum up what their "world"-view is really all about.
"The popular competitively individualistic "culture" or, really, anti-culture, is characterised by the politics of adolescent rebellion against "authority", or the perceived "parent" in any form. Indeed, a society, or any loose collective, of mere individuals does not need, and cannot even tolerate, a true culture---because a true culture must, necessarily, be characterised (in its best, and even general, demonstrations, and, certainly, in its aspirations) by mutual tolerance, cooperation, peace, and PROFUNDITY. Therefore, socities based on competitive individualism, gross self-fulfillment, and merely gross (or superficial) mindedness actually destroy culture, and all, until then, existing cultures, and cultural adaptations. And true cultures are produced (and needed) ONLY when individuals rightly and participate in a collective, and, thus and thereby live in accordance with the life-principle of ego-transcendence AND the Great Priniple of Oneness, or Unity."
And.
"When the entire human world founds itself on the adolescent motive to aggrandize the individual ego-"I", then everyone is collectively working towards the destruction not only of human culture and mankind itself, but even of the Earth itself, the very vehicle that supports life."
See also 1. http://www.ispeace723.org/timetestedpolitics2.htm
These "right" thinkers like to quote Lord Aston re the corruption of power. And yet they all champions of the unbridled inherently out of control power of the capitalist world-machine. And even the single most concentrated (organised) source of power the world has ever seen--the Pentagon military-industrial-entertainment complex.