Hayek vs. Rand
Excellent article, however I think the article is way too kind to Hayek. Ultimately Hakey is a social collectivist but not a political collectivist. Here is my analysis of Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkwIL..., which tracks many of the points in the article.
My talk at Atlas Summit 2015 discusses these as does my new non-fiction book, the Source of Economic Growth.
I don't really think we can look at much in economics as a "predictive" science, but rather historical analysis. We can learn much of general trends and prevailing attitudes and we can isolate many of the tools in use, but I'm not so sure we can use them to effectively map out the future as we would in a hard science.
I do agree that basic economic principles such as supply and demand, laissez faire vs Keynesianism, etc. are all valid principles, but they only serve as very rough indicators. We can predict that because of the continued violation of sound economic principles that our economy will collapse, but we can't really predict when that will happen because it largely depends on those less measurable aspects. To go further into the realm of a hard science, we have to be able to be much more precise in our understanding so as to accurately predict outcomes - including when, where, etc. I question as to whether or not this will ever really become feasible simply because - again - we're trying to measure a constantly changing medium - human values.
Hayek seems to be based more on the "average person" who is less prone to rational thought, and more to emotion; also less prone to individualism, and more to social interaction, as in "we're all in this together".
I can see where Hayek's concept of the world may be helpful when dealing with those outside the Gulch (we may not agree with them, but maybe we can at least understand them). I'm basing my observations strictly on the article linked, however. I have not spent any time studying Hayek's work.
Jan
Old Dino was initially relieved to see that Ayn Rand was not being compared to Salma Hayek.
This frankly involves paying off the moochers in order for them to leave us alone to make things. It's a pragmatic idea.
The ability to produce things without having the government control and manage us might be worth paying them 'protection' money as taxes.
I'm also wondering about what an 'economy of abundance' society would look like when sufficient goods and services for everyone to have a 'middle class life' can be created by the labor of 5% or less of the population assisted by automation.
'The good is the enemy of the best'.
It means that doing just enough to get by, devalues the efforts of those who do the very best they can.
Safety net-
Emotionally I like this but I observe that wherever it is tried it
i. just grows more ambitious, and
ii. it encourages a life style for those who are content to do nothing.
The result is a growing public sector and growing unemployment.
It may be possible to devise a safety net that does not have those problems, my current thinking is that it is not possible.
I have a more benign view of Hayek, yes some of his views may be approaching mysticism, but about reality, I see his view as saying that human perception of reality is necessarily limited rather than saying that there is no ultimate reality.
Good enough for government work.
Do we not viscerally understand the negatives attached to that???
I don't think that we are going to, at least in the near term, get the country to accept objectivism. Socialism is too firmly entrenched with too many people benefiting from it. If we could use Hayek's non collectivist approach to the economy with the promise that the economy will then generate more for everyone we might make ground.
Human perception of reality is necessarily flawed, our sense organs are limiting factors. We believe, for example that objects are solid although physics tells us that they are mostly empty space. Nevertheless that doesn't mean there isn't a real, knowable, world.