Re: Was Hayek nuts or just immoral?

[Bruce McFarling <brmcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Roger Koppl wrote:

> Hayek's has no disdain for the facts.  In spite of the influence of
> Mises, famous for his apriorism, Hayek was always an empiricist.
	I'm not claiming that Kayek had disdain for the
facts. I wouldn't want to bog down the Post *Keynesian*
Thought network with a discussion focused on the merits or
demerits of Hayek. That would be your Post *Hayekian*
Thought network there.
	To clarify: one can write fictional history with
real facts.  The easiest way is to color your view of the
period with later culture that *you* inhabit.  I believe
that even old Karl mentioned something along this line
in his Introduction to the _Grundrisse_.

> Now a couple of comments on Bruce McFarlings response to Greg's post.
> Bruce says,
>
> >     It is important to note that market order is
> > *not* spontaneously generated, any more than organisms
> > are spotnaneously generated.
>
> I'm not with you, Dr. McFarling.
	! I'll tell my committee:it will save us all a lot
of work this semester!

> Aren't biological organisms "spontaneously generated"
> in the sense that a process of natural selection led
> to the emergence of them without any designing mind
> first imaging the result?
	This is a false dichotomy. That was my point.
Spontaneous generation vs design leaves out evolved
from pre-existing forms. And, evidently, life evolved
from complex non-living forms, though it can't happen
again because organisms would eat the stuff up before
it had a chance to evolve again. Spontaneous vs
design vs evolved.  Try trichotomies for a change.

> > You can hide the institutions [etc]...
>
> The first part of this quote doesn't apply to Hayek. ...
	If I'd wanted to restrict the comment to
Hayek alone, I'd have subscribed to pht (see above).

> >    And, beyond that, for a wide range of
> > economic activities, centralized redistributive systems
> > have been far more successful than market solution: these
> > centralized redistributive systems are called corporations.
> > No OECD nation has gotten to that level without a substantial
> > corporate sector.
>
> Hayek never, NEVER, denied the utility of planning.  He objected ONLY
> to CENTRAL planning...
	Either this is an oxymoron, or the questions are
how central planning may be before its bad.  And what
form of central planning we are talking about.  Take a
pertinent example: provision of low-interest finance to
investments in productive equipment that the planning
board approves as socially beneficial.  When does this
qualify as central planning, and where is it utilitarian
decentralized planning?  The municipal level?  The state
level?  The Federal level?  A multinational organizational
development bank?
	Recall that the socialism the Keynes hinted at
(last chapter of GT, for example) was public planning, but
*not* public ownership.
...
> The planning of a corporation carries costs and benefits.  If the
> benefits of expanding the scope of a planning island should exceed
> the costs, it seems likely that such and expansion will occur.  If
> not, no such expansion occurs.
	Benefits and costs in what terms.  I suggest
that it is in terms of the power of those controlling
the island of planning, not benefit in terms of welfare.
If expansion provides the wherewithall for further
expanion, it proceeds, and the surfeit for expansion
over the requirements of maintaining a position runs
out, expansion stops.  The selection would have to be
in terms of welfare for the result in terms of welfare
to be as direct as the original quote suggested.

Over and out on Hayek (or maybe checking out pht?)

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Knoxville
brmcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx