Two pieces in the new issue
George Soros funds effort to topple free-market theory. But what Newsweek calls market extremists are nothing compared with Mises.org. Soros should buy anti-mises.org; it would help with publicity.
Then’s there’s the Governor of South Carolina on Rand and her legacy.
{ 10 comments }
I don’t think Soros is going to have much luck fighting the rise of Austrianism within economics. I don’t think anybody is truly fascinated by mainstream economics and in our post-Ron Paul Revolution world, there are far more young Austrian economists then ever before.
I wonder what the leftists who think that mainstream economists are “market fundamentalists” will think in a few decades when the economics profession has been taken over by the Austrians spawned by the Ron Paul Revolution. I don’t think too many of those Obama cultists can handle the math necessary to become a Keynesian economist.
All I have to say is what does Soros have to gain? First of all, as we all know here, the market isn’t free and government intervention caused what is happening now. So the real issue becomes, those that continue to say “free-market fundamentalism” hurts our economy have one of two things happening. Either they clearly do not understand what government intervention is and what a free-market is, OR they have legitimate interests in, and feel they have real influence over a command economy.
My bet on Soros investing $50 million into talking heads that will make his point is that he feels he’ll make a huge return on that $50 million investment if he can influence a fascist economy.
In my opinion, Soros doesn’t like the free market because he’s concerned about his wealth preservation should he be subject to it. And why subject yourself to that when you can influence Government officials to see it your way?
It is ironic that under a true free market, Soros’s $50 million investment wouldn’t generate a return, yet in a government influenced economy he has much to gain from such an escapade.
Government = Corruption
Wow the spinning that is going on with this is absolutely astounding.
“Free market economists who have dominated for decades.”? What are these morons smoking?
“Free market economists didn’t predict this.” Bull. Crap. The “free-market” economists who they chose to acknowledge sure didn’t. The Austrians have and have done so during ever boom and bust.
Interesting conundrum:
In a fascist economy one may keep one’s wealth by making connections that protect one; on the other hand, one is equally vulnerable to making enemies that take this wealth away. Essentially, accumulated wealth is protected, by a different mechanism has to be used to obtain more wealth (state monopolies, etc.), all of which fail if fascism destroys the economy completely.
In a free-market economy one’s wealth is at the mercy of the market, and the efforts one puts into creating useful items the economy wants, and cooperating with others to help achieve this, automatically results in accumulated wealth *for the purpose of creating more wealth*. The two processes of production and protection are related, and so IMO much easier to tackle.
Why would people prefer the first to the second?
Soros Article: Seems Soros and his cronies and Michael Moore learned from the same school of “economics.” The ideology demonstrated in this article is a good example of what is wrong with the field of economics.
“Economics has failed not only to predict and explain what happened but has also failed to protect society,” says Robert Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Managemen
–For me there are two broad types of economics: those that try to explain why government should intervene in the market and those that try to explain why they shouldn’t. Naturally there is that idea of a middle ground or “mixed” economy, but this is fallacious. When the government takes over plants or industries, it does not mean those plants are not subject to the laws of the market. It simply means the gov-industry can make up for losses by extracting cash from other productive sectors. The field of classical economics was essentially an effort to minimize government control and abrogate mercantilism. Free-marketers rely on logic. The nerve. You’ll find those arguing for government interference substituting logic for curves, equilibrium, differential equations, and algebraic abstractions; not as a useful school of thought but as a forward prediction for policy. These calculations only make sense if you eliminate time, and individual discrepancy–obviously two irrelevant factors. The problem is the modern intellectual–that is, intellectuals who are heavily over-supplied and rely on government funding for their existence tend to come to more “progressive” conclusions. The highest position you can attain as an economist is in a politicians cabinet to help him implement policies or in the Federal Reserve. The whole operation is like a large scale bank robbery. These mainstream economists get the blue prints, access codes, ext.. to tell the robbers the best way to rob.
As for the South Carolina Governor: seems to be arguing against Rand at the end by making the same argument she makes for the role of government.
I love this part:
“Even Adam Smith, the founder of free-market thinking [...]“
I’ll say it again — its a shame that Mark Sanford’s personal life is such a train wreck.
He was considered a front-runner for 2012, agreed w/ Ron Paul on 95% of the issues, and writes op-eds on objectivism.
Well, I guess we’ll get ‘lipstick on a pig’ stump speeches instead.
the soros article is typical. no big surprise there.
the Sanford artcile is interesting. not really sure what he’s trying to say because his writing is just not very coherent. i guess he sorts likes rand and sorta doesn’t and he kinda likes the free market but he kinds likes a government role. of course this is coming from a guy who used public funds to help facilitate his affair.
Well Soros is an execrable pig.
Why did Newsweek, (a virtual mouthpiece of – or cheerleader for – the Obama Administration), choose to publish a “guest column” by Gov Terry Sanford (of The Appalachian Trail/Argentina infamy) extolling Ayn Rand and the two new biographical studies of her legacy? Perhaps because juxtaposing Rand and Sanford does not enhance the reputation of either of them.
Comments on this entry are closed.