NP: No gov't; best gov't..from John Lanchester LRoB

[Paul Mackin]

On 9/6/2011 6:58 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> Yeahp...agreed...the market will out....central planning creates 
> 'black markets'...
> What I think Von Mises was wrong about, in the part of his Bible I 
> tackled, was that
> he had all kinds of theoretical logical ideas on 'human action'........yet
> I---anyone---could throw out lots of other, mostly irrational ways 
> that people act
> And his system meant nothing then....
> My small-bore utopian vision is worker-owned businesses ..................

That would be great so long as they had a good CEO who understood markets.

I misconstrued your earlier post.  I was making only a very limited 
defense of the Austrians--their critique of the labor theory of value 
and socialist economics.  But unregulated markets are a disaster.

P


>
> *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> *To:* Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com>; pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2011 5:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: NP: No gov't; best gov't..from John Lanchester LRoB
>
> On 9/6/2011 3:38 PM, Richard Fiero wrote:
> > Paul Mackin wrote:
> >> On 9/5/2011 10:07 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> >>> Since other reads are faltering, maybe we all ought to read some good
> >>> n-fic along the financial lines so many have been talking about...
> >>>
> >>> I did a bit of 'refutational' reading a while back with Von 
> Mises'--grandaddy
> >>> of all of them there Viennese witchdoctors--Human Action......it 
> was easier
> >>> than I thought to show-up his supposed premisses and first 
> principles, if I say
> >>> so myself, and I have to, since i had no one to challenge me and 
> don't know how delusional
> >>> I was....
> >>
> >> Well, the very fact you're considering the possibility means you're 
> not delusional.
> >>
> >> But, practically no one is totally wrong about everything.
> >>
> >> No matter how problematic it is, the market system at least has  a 
> mechanism for setting prices and allocating resources, while the 
> socialist system must rely on central planning, which is even more 
> problematic.
> >>
> >> Too bad everything's not as free as cyberspace, although THAT 
> unlimited resource does produce a lot of clutter.
> >>
> >> P
> >
> > Certainly von Mises and Hayek are an ideology without evidence.
>
> They may be almost medieval  in not bothering about empirical 
> evidence.  Doesn't Austrian School mean NOT German? Nevertheless 
> deductive reasoning does have its uses.  It just isn't enough by 
> itself. But if A, therefore B is still a necessary, if not sufficient, 
> way to reason.
>
> > If one doesn't like central planning, then Mexico may be one's 
> favored model. Otherwise Brazil and China might be examples of 
> successful economies.
>
> Brazil has a moderately free market economy and a huge stock market.  
> China has free markets.  They operate however at the pleasure of the 
> Party.  I'm betting the market will win.
>
> > The US which is becoming a right-to-work state may consider Canada a 
> better model. Canada has a higher standard of living than the US. Its 
> citizens pay their takes and get far more services than US citizens 
> and US non-citizens that form its permanent working non-voting underclass.
>
> True but both economies are very market oriented. Social programs much 
> less so for Canada and everyone but the Republicans think that is a 
> good idea.
>
> > It's very important that US citizens vote their interests in spite 
> of our dumbed-down news reporting.
>
> If only. But the point is,  von Mises et al were not incorrect in 
> emphasizing the flaws in socialist economics.
>
> P
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110907/d57b5fbb/attachment.html>