6 ms·

>The problem with Marxism is that whenever it doesn't work, people say it wasn't tried enough. You see, that's funny, because a much more obvious example can b

by scrod 15y ago

>The problem with Marxism is that whenever it doesn't work, people say it wasn't tried enough. You see, that's funny, because a much more obvious example can be found in free-market austrian-school economic policies.

bjcy 15y ago
I'm not terribly familiar with free market Austrian-school economics, could you expound on what you mean?
- scrod 15y ago
  It's a type of junk-economics which has been forced into public consciousness over the last 30-40 years, and which originated in the '30s with philosophers such as von Mises and von Hayek. Read David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273 http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harv...) for a stunning exposition of the social and economic crises that have developed around the world as a result of governments attempting to apply this philosophy.
  - magoghm 15y ago
    The book seems interesting. But Neoliberal economists, even though they talk a lot about free markets, have a very different world view than that of Austrian economists. One example: Neoliberals promote treaties like NAFTA that allow the free flow of goods and capital between countries, but don't allow the free flow of people between countries.On the other hand, Austrian economists would insist on the importance of also letting people choose were they want to live and work. Furthermore, despite its name, NAFTA is not really about free trade. NAFTA is a huge set of regulations.
    - scrod 15y ago
      Neoliberalism is Austrian-school thinking put into practice; it's the best that governments can do given the economic and social realities of the day. People like Milton Friedman and other Chicago school economists drew heavily on the Austrians, and those Chicago school economists were directly advising developing nations from the '70s onward. Responses like yours only reinforce my thesis: your philosophy can never be practiced successfully. Where it fails, the problem is only ever due to some sort of impurity or oversight in implementation. The market can never be "free enough".
      - danssig 15y ago
        If people actually saw what went on "free enough" would have been put to bed years ago. The Chicago boys were given free reign in Chile under Pinochet and nearly destroyed the country. They had to back off of their "free enough" goals to start the trend upwards again to be able to write their "The Chilean Miracle" propaganda piece [1]. [1] http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC11 http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC11 (sorry for a link that originates from the Anarchist FAQ but this is the best aggregated source on the subject I've found).
      - philwelch 15y ago
        If you're equating the Chicago school and the Austrian school, you don't know the first thing about either and you're not qualified to start the moronic, off-topic flame war about the subject you've gotten everyone into.
- brc 15y ago
  I would ignore the inflammatory language and just educate yourself. The wikipedia page is informative, if a little heavy going for the non-economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School As I posted above, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a simple, easy to read book that encapsulates most of the arguments put forth by the Austrian school.
drumdance 15y ago
Yeah I've noticed that too. Extreme types on both sides think this way. My favorites are the ones who swing from one to another. Lots of hard core right wingers started out as communists. David Horowitz comes to mind. PJ O'Rourke too, though he seems more sensible.
- kaybe 15y ago
  Some say the political spectrum is a circle.
kbutler 15y ago
Free-market austrian school is generally "hands-off, believe the price system". I've generally seen the "not enough" argument in conjunction with Keynesian "government stimulus" (e.g., google "not enough stimulus" and the first half-dozen articles arguing that the recent $700B + stimulus was not big enough). I haven't seen a similar corpus of arguments that the freenmarkets haven't worked because they weren't free enough. I think the chinese experiment opening up to capitalism is a great endorsement of additional freeing of markets "at the margin" increasing economic benefit.
- scrod 15y ago
  >I haven't seen a similar corpus of arguments that the freenmarkets haven't worked because they weren't free enough. Well, then I'm glad to find someone else who isn't under the impression that continuing and intensifying de-regulation and privatization will somehow solve our present economic crisis.
- kbutler 15y ago
  I should clarify: I think the "stimulus not big enough" argument is fallacious. I think that government spending substitutes for private spending, rather than stimulating it. (e.g., dollars the government spends on tanks are not spent on goods desired by consumers. It may stimulate economic activity, but it reduces aggregate well-being.)
brc 15y ago
East/West Germany is the clearest example around. West Germanys post-war 'economic miracle' was largely guided by Austrian school economic thinking, while East Germany went the other way. This is the clearest A/B test ever devised of implementing two different economic strategies on a homogenous population. North/South Korea is also similar, but less so. Most people don't even understand what the Austrian school actually says. That's not surprising, most people who comment on Marx have never opened his book, either. For the record, it's based on the freedom to trade backed with strong rule of law using sound money. It also prescribes a lack of intervention by the government in the economy, mainly due to misallocation of productive resources and the likelihood of government intentionally or inadvertently creating monopolies that harm the consumer. Probably the best introductory book on the subject is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Even if you oppose the idea, it's good to read and understand the theories and supporting arguments properly. For the record, West Germany abandoned this model during the 1960s and moved towards a more social democratic model, and the USA hasn't tried it since before the 1930s. The current economies of the west are nothing like an economy under Austrian principles, in the same way the Chinese economy is nothing like an economy under Marxist/Maoist principles.
- scrod 15y ago
  >West Germanys post-war 'economic miracle' was largely guided by Austrian school economic thinking, while East Germany went the other way. One of the most predictable things about Austrian advocates is their inability to conceive of alternatives beyond some kind of cartoon-stereotype Soviet command-economy. You seem to be aware of social democracy, so you are knowingly assuming a false dichotomy to make your point. I'd say it's even more intellectually dishonest when one considers that no one ever argues for a centrally-planned economy. At the very best, such a comparison holds no value today in evaluating Austrian-school thinking.
  - brc 15y ago
    It's not my fault the East Germans chose the Soviet model so I hardly think it's fair to suggest I came up with a false dichotomy to prove a point. One half of the country chose the soviet command economy model, the other half chose to pursue an Austrian model. One half did immeasurably better than the other half. Those are the facts. You can compare and contrast post-war West Germany and Great Britain if you like - the latter made great strides towards a more socialist governance probably as a direct result of the largely increased Government functions during the war, and the rise of those who thought that centrally planned economies would do better. The point of bringing up West Germany is that the country prospered as a result of the liberal economic policies introduced in the immediate post-war period, both absolutely and relative against their East German counterparts, although the differences were small in the early years. It would be foolish to suggest that this is entirely down to the policy choices - all growth from zero looks impressive - however, it certainly did no harm and a lot of good.

by scrod 15y ago

bjcy 15y ago

I'm not terribly familiar with free market Austrian-school economics, could you expound on what you mean?

scrod 15y ago
It's a type of junk-economics which has been forced into public consciousness over the last 30-40 years, and which originated in the '30s with philosophers such as von Mises and von Hayek. Read David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273 http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harv...) for a stunning exposition of the social and economic crises that have developed around the world as a result of governments attempting to apply this philosophy.
- magoghm 15y ago
  The book seems interesting. But Neoliberal economists, even though they talk a lot about free markets, have a very different world view than that of Austrian economists. One example: Neoliberals promote treaties like NAFTA that allow the free flow of goods and capital between countries, but don't allow the free flow of people between countries.On the other hand, Austrian economists would insist on the importance of also letting people choose were they want to live and work. Furthermore, despite its name, NAFTA is not really about free trade. NAFTA is a huge set of regulations.
  - scrod 15y ago
    Neoliberalism is Austrian-school thinking put into practice; it's the best that governments can do given the economic and social realities of the day. People like Milton Friedman and other Chicago school economists drew heavily on the Austrians, and those Chicago school economists were directly advising developing nations from the '70s onward. Responses like yours only reinforce my thesis: your philosophy can never be practiced successfully. Where it fails, the problem is only ever due to some sort of impurity or oversight in implementation. The market can never be "free enough".
    - danssig 15y ago
      If people actually saw what went on "free enough" would have been put to bed years ago. The Chicago boys were given free reign in Chile under Pinochet and nearly destroyed the country. They had to back off of their "free enough" goals to start the trend upwards again to be able to write their "The Chilean Miracle" propaganda piece [1]. [1] http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC11 http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC11 (sorry for a link that originates from the Anarchist FAQ but this is the best aggregated source on the subject I've found).
    - philwelch 15y ago
      If you're equating the Chicago school and the Austrian school, you don't know the first thing about either and you're not qualified to start the moronic, off-topic flame war about the subject you've gotten everyone into.
brc 15y ago
I would ignore the inflammatory language and just educate yourself. The wikipedia page is informative, if a little heavy going for the non-economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School As I posted above, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a simple, easy to read book that encapsulates most of the arguments put forth by the Austrian school.

drumdance 15y ago

Yeah I've noticed that too. Extreme types on both sides think this way. My favorites are the ones who swing from one to another. Lots of hard core right wingers started out as communists. David Horowitz comes to mind. PJ O'Rourke too, though he seems more sensible.

kaybe 15y ago
Some say the political spectrum is a circle.

kbutler 15y ago

Free-market austrian school is generally "hands-off, believe the price system". I've generally seen the "not enough" argument in conjunction with Keynesian "government stimulus" (e.g., google "not enough stimulus" and the first half-dozen articles arguing that the recent $700B + stimulus was not big enough). I haven't seen a similar corpus of arguments that the freenmarkets haven't worked because they weren't free enough. I think the chinese experiment opening up to capitalism is a great endorsement of additional freeing of markets "at the margin" increasing economic benefit.

scrod 15y ago
>I haven't seen a similar corpus of arguments that the freenmarkets haven't worked because they weren't free enough. Well, then I'm glad to find someone else who isn't under the impression that continuing and intensifying de-regulation and privatization will somehow solve our present economic crisis.
kbutler 15y ago
I should clarify: I think the "stimulus not big enough" argument is fallacious. I think that government spending substitutes for private spending, rather than stimulating it. (e.g., dollars the government spends on tanks are not spent on goods desired by consumers. It may stimulate economic activity, but it reduces aggregate well-being.)

brc 15y ago

East/West Germany is the clearest example around. West Germanys post-war 'economic miracle' was largely guided by Austrian school economic thinking, while East Germany went the other way. This is the clearest A/B test ever devised of implementing two different economic strategies on a homogenous population. North/South Korea is also similar, but less so. Most people don't even understand what the Austrian school actually says. That's not surprising, most people who comment on Marx have never opened his book, either. For the record, it's based on the freedom to trade backed with strong rule of law using sound money. It also prescribes a lack of intervention by the government in the economy, mainly due to misallocation of productive resources and the likelihood of government intentionally or inadvertently creating monopolies that harm the consumer. Probably the best introductory book on the subject is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Even if you oppose the idea, it's good to read and understand the theories and supporting arguments properly. For the record, West Germany abandoned this model during the 1960s and moved towards a more social democratic model, and the USA hasn't tried it since before the 1930s. The current economies of the west are nothing like an economy under Austrian principles, in the same way the Chinese economy is nothing like an economy under Marxist/Maoist principles.

scrod 15y ago
>West Germanys post-war 'economic miracle' was largely guided by Austrian school economic thinking, while East Germany went the other way. One of the most predictable things about Austrian advocates is their inability to conceive of alternatives beyond some kind of cartoon-stereotype Soviet command-economy. You seem to be aware of social democracy, so you are knowingly assuming a false dichotomy to make your point. I'd say it's even more intellectually dishonest when one considers that no one ever argues for a centrally-planned economy. At the very best, such a comparison holds no value today in evaluating Austrian-school thinking.
- brc 15y ago
  It's not my fault the East Germans chose the Soviet model so I hardly think it's fair to suggest I came up with a false dichotomy to prove a point. One half of the country chose the soviet command economy model, the other half chose to pursue an Austrian model. One half did immeasurably better than the other half. Those are the facts. You can compare and contrast post-war West Germany and Great Britain if you like - the latter made great strides towards a more socialist governance probably as a direct result of the largely increased Government functions during the war, and the rise of those who thought that centrally planned economies would do better. The point of bringing up West Germany is that the country prospered as a result of the liberal economic policies introduced in the immediate post-war period, both absolutely and relative against their East German counterparts, although the differences were small in the early years. It would be foolish to suggest that this is entirely down to the policy choices - all growth from zero looks impressive - however, it certainly did no harm and a lot of good.