I am still in the editor's introduction written by Bruce Caldwell and there's a section that I found quite interesting.
John Maynard Keynes read the book on the way to the Bretton Woods conference, and delighed Hayek when he wrote him that it was a "grand book" and that "morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement." Keynes went on to say, though that "You admit here and there that it is question of knowing where to raw the line. You agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that the logical extreme is not possible. But you give us no guidance as to where to draw itMany modern economists that have enormous influence on our government's policies worship Keynes and despise Hayek. There are many articles by Paul Krugman praising Keynes. There's Krugman's introduction to Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Then there's another article titled Why aren't we all Keynesians yet? Reading these articles leaves no doubt that Krugman holds Keynes as an economic god. And it was just as easy to find an article by Kruman attacking Hayek. In it, he says
And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.He actually compared Hayek's work with the theory of creationism. Yet, his economic hero Keynes said of Hayek's pivotal work that it was a "grand book" and that "morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement." Also, did Krugman forget that Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics? This isn't too surprising. Economists like Krugman use Keynes as the intellectual cover to move America towards socialism, even if this wasn't what Keynes had in mind.
Moving on. Caldwell goes on in the next paragraph to say
Hayek evidently took these criticisms to heart, for in the coming years he would make two further important contributions to political philosophy that would refine and extend the arguments made in The Road to Serfdom. In The Constitution of Liberty he laid out the philosophical foundations of liberal constitutionalism, where in a private sphere of individual activity is defined, the state is granted a monopoly on coercion, and then is constitutionally limited by the rule of law in its use of those coercive powers. In the last third of the book Hayek outlined specific sorts of government policies that were consistent with such a political setup. In Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Hayek lamented how western democracies were increasingly circumventing the spirit of liberal constitutionalism by passing coercive legislation, typically under the guise of achieving social justice, but in reality serving well-organized coalitions of special interests.That last line really resonates with me. "Hayek lamented how western democracies were increasingly circumventing the spirit of liberal constitutionalism by passing coercive legislation, typically under the guise of achieving social justice, but in reality serving well-organized coalitions of special interests." This is happening more and more and it is frightening. And in many cases, it's not even under the guise of social justice. It's simply corporate lobbyists writing legislation that is designed for the benefit of their corporations. You can see this in the Medicare Pharmaceutical plan to "help" seniors and the ending of Posse Comitatus so that the President can use the military to "help" in the case of a crisis. This is corporatism, not capitalism. I wonder if the HMO lobbyists are busy right now writing the legislation for Hillary's healthcare plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment