Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

keynes admits Libertarianism is superior

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:40:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
In the Libertarian book by F.A. Hayek, Hayek discusses how central planning is bad and how libertarianism is good. Here is whT Keynes stated about the book, after realizing that Keynesianism is detrimental to society.

"In my opinion it is a grand book...Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement."
http://reason.com...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 10:06:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:29:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/13/2016 9:15:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
404
The webpage cannot be found.


http://sciblogs.co.nz...

Okay... so the punch line?

He's not endorsing libertarian economic policy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 11:23:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 10:06:01 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 9:29:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/13/2016 9:15:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
404
The webpage cannot be found.


http://sciblogs.co.nz...

Okay... so the punch line?

He's not endorsing libertarian economic policy.

Nope just a book that represents libertarian economic policy, and in fact saying he agrees with the books conclusions.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 11:28:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 11:23:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
Nope just a book that represents libertarian economic policy, and in fact saying he agrees with the books conclusions.

Morally and philosophically -- not with his economic policies.

I just read a bit more into this. This article [http://www.economist.com...] does a great job.

Some good excerpts;

"Keynes agreed with Hayek that fascism was not a healthy reaction against communism, as many contemporaries in Britain thought, but was instead equally dangerous for liberalism.

Fascism is a bad idea... .Totally controversial!

"Keynes rejected the populist interpretation of Hayek's argument"that any increase in state planning is the first step on the way to tyranny"but agreed with the overall view that the bounds of state intervention needed to be clearly defined for liberal democracy to remain safe (and more explicitly than even Hayek himself did in the book). Receiving an early copy of the "Road to Serfdom" from Hayek personally, Keynes wrote back to him, praising the book. But Keynes thought Hayek should have been more explicit in what sort of red lines would be necessary for increased state intervention not to imperil liberty."

The first sentence is the most important here -- there's some point at which state planning can become overbearing, but in no way or form are we there yet, or is any increase in government intervention ipso facto dangerous.

And a great summary:

"In short, Keynes took the lessons of Hayek's work as a warning that the expansion of state should be limited and politicians need to know when to stop"which he fundamentally agreed with. Although he thought more state control in some areas may be justified, governments always need to demark a line beyond which they do not traverse. That may be a lesson not only relevant for then, but also for our time as well."

So, nice try, Wylted.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:06:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 11:28:37 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/13/2016 11:23:27 PM, Wylted wrote:
Nope just a book that represents libertarian economic policy, and in fact saying he agrees with the books conclusions.

Morally and philosophically -- not with his economic policies.

I just read a bit more into this. This article [http://www.economist.com...] does a great job.

Some good excerpts;

"Keynes agreed with Hayek that fascism was not a healthy reaction against communism, as many contemporaries in Britain thought, but was instead equally dangerous for liberalism.

Fascism is a bad idea... .Totally controversial!

"Keynes rejected the populist interpretation of Hayek's argument"that any increase in state planning is the first step on the way to tyranny"but agreed with the overall view that the bounds of state intervention needed to be clearly defined for liberal democracy to remain safe (and more explicitly than even Hayek himself did in the book). Receiving an early copy of the "Road to Serfdom" from Hayek personally, Keynes wrote back to him, praising the book. But Keynes thought Hayek should have been more explicit in what sort of red lines would be necessary for increased state intervention not to imperil liberty."

The first sentence is the most important here -- there's some point at which state planning can become overbearing, but in no way or form are we there yet, or is any increase in government intervention ipso facto dangerous.

And a great summary:

"In short, Keynes took the lessons of Hayek's work as a warning that the expansion of state should be limited and politicians need to know when to stop"which he fundamentally agreed with. Although he thought more state control in some areas may be justified, governments always need to demark a line beyond which they do not traverse. That may be a lesson not only relevant for then, but also for our time as well."

So, nice try, Wylted.

We already have clearly defined lines and they were given to us by America's founfing fathers. The Lockean principles that the founders all agreed with (until taking office at least and veing pieces of crap who taxed whiskey), are a good guide to when the government shpuld intervene. Negative rights theory is the moral framework that determines when intervention is good or bad.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:33:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:06:37 AM, Wylted wrote:
We already have clearly defined lines and they were given to us by America's founfing fathers.

You act as though they all were in agreement as to the optimal size and scope of government: they weren't.

The Lockean principles that the founders all agreed with (until taking office at least and veing pieces of crap who taxed whiskey), are a good guide to when the government shpuld intervene.

I agree.

Negative rights theory is the moral framework that determines when intervention is good or bad.

I agree.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:38:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:33:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:06:37 AM, Wylted wrote:
We already have clearly defined lines and they were given to us by America's founfing fathers.

You act as though they all were in agreement as to the optimal size and scope of government: they weren't.

The Lockean principles that the founders all agreed with (until taking office at least and veing pieces of crap who taxed whiskey), are a good guide to when the government shpuld intervene.

I agree.

Negative rights theory is the moral framework that determines when intervention is good or bad.

I agree.

Are you trolling me or did I just change your pitical views and you are now a good person and not a market interventionist?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:46:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:38:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
Are you trolling me or did I just change your pitical views and you are now a good person and not a market interventionist?

No, I'm agreeing with you that the Lockean view of government -- and emphasis on negative rights -- is a sensible way to organize society. I didn't say it was comprehensive, though.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:53:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:46:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:38:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
Are you trolling me or did I just change your pitical views and you are now a good person and not a market interventionist?

No, I'm agreeing with you that the Lockean view of government -- and emphasis on negative rights -- is a sensible way to organize society. I didn't say it was comprehensive, though.

If it's not the perfect philosophy what is?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 12:55:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:53:50 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:46:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:38:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
Are you trolling me or did I just change your pitical views and you are now a good person and not a market interventionist?

No, I'm agreeing with you that the Lockean view of government -- and emphasis on negative rights -- is a sensible way to organize society. I didn't say it was comprehensive, though.

If it's not the perfect philosophy what is?

My answer is too long to fit in 8k characters...

... well, not quite, but I'm too lazy to type it out at this moment.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 1:06:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 12:55:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:53:50 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:46:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/14/2016 12:38:25 AM, Wylted wrote:
Are you trolling me or did I just change your pitical views and you are now a good person and not a market interventionist?

No, I'm agreeing with you that the Lockean view of government -- and emphasis on negative rights -- is a sensible way to organize society. I didn't say it was comprehensive, though.

If it's not the perfect philosophy what is?

My answer is too long to fit in 8k characters...

... well, not quite, but I'm too lazy to type it out at this moment.

I will be a proponent of your philosophy if I don't find any holes in it.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 12:05:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Keynesian economists are immoral. They have no concern for individual rights, one method used is aggregation to hide harm to individuals.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:11:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 12:05:23 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Keynesian economists are immoral. They have no concern for individual rights, one method used is aggregation to hide harm to individuals.

Yes. The George Bush financial crisis bailout was evil.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 12:41:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:11:13 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/18/2016 12:05:23 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Keynesian economists are immoral. They have no concern for individual rights, one method used is aggregation to hide harm to individuals.

Yes. The George Bush financial crisis bailout was evil.

Agreed. The 2008 bailout and 2009 stimulus were evil, both parties are full of Keynesians that oppose free markets and honest money.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.