1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14024/planning-science-and-freedom/

Planning, Science, and Freedom

September 27, 2010 by

F.A. Hayek, in a forgotten article from 1941, observes the tragedy that “men of science and engineers” may “frequently be found leading a movement which in effect merely serves to support the unholy alliance between the monopolistic organizations of capital and labor.” FULL ARTICLE

{ 8 comments }

michael September 27, 2010 at 4:23 pm

North Carolina is a leader among states now, both in new job creation and in export-led production. The thanks are due to our enlightened approach to central economic planning.

Two of every ten dollars earned in the state come from manufacturing– twice the national average. And most of this today takes place in advanced technologies, spurred by active state government investment in the university system’s basic research units. These new jobs and businesses are in such fields as optical science, genomics, medical technology, chip manufacture, computer-directed production equipment… the list goes on. Exports from these innovative products have surged in recent years, a very good trend for our trade imbalance. If a farmer in Germany loses a leg to his combine, chances are his new “smart” leg will come from North Carolina.

Without intelligent government investment these miracles never would have happened, as evidenced by the fact that in many other states they HAVE not happened. Of course these are mere facts, and in no way adequate to counter elegant a priori theories about government malinvestment.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/27/700797/building-it-in-nc.html

Idiot September 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm

michael,
You look at the limited data of NC etc and determine that the political mechanism is capable of ‘enlightened central planning’. This insistance implies particular axiomatic assumptions. I have a question then. Can central planners get an accurate account of the opportunity costs of their decisions (and their own roles) without recourse to money prices? In other words, it isn’t just the Bastiat Broken Window Fallacy at work in your empirical model: There was no profit/loss accounting of the middleman’s (government) activities and decisions, and no possibility of doing so. The means for the subsidies were acquired through force and applied politically. You must also be implying that it is unnecessary to account for government economically, that politics will serve just as well.

You may further believe that a mixed system is truly stable and progressive. But disaggregation shows market vs. political, voluntary vs. coerced, economic vs. irrational relationships.

Mashuri September 27, 2010 at 5:11 pm

How do other states, also with heavy government intervention in their economies, prove that NC is better off with heavy government intervention? How do you know if these innovations in NC happened despite government intervention instead of as a result? How do you know that NC would or would not be better off without any intervention in its economy? You present some statistics, call them facts and then subject them to heavy interpretation to reach your conclusions. Do you see how a person’s interpretation of history is a poor instrument for proving or disproving any economic theories?

Humphrey September 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm

your article didn’t have anything about NC being the leader in ‘new job creation.’ It only mentioned 200 new jobs being made in one city as a result of a new facility.

without ‘intelligent’ government investment, many technological miracles happened, how do you explain that? Many other states also have heavy subsidized government spending into state university and research systems. And yet no ‘miracles’ have happened there either.

what you stated about government subsidies into technology are not ‘facts’ at all, but mere inconsistent associations that don’t materialize in other parts of US or Canada. If in one instance government subsidy fails to achieve innovation, you say there’s not enough subsidies and it’s not ‘intelligently’ done. If in another instance innovation occurs in the presence of subsidization, without real proof that the subsidy was the actual CAUSE, not merely a coexisting variable, you would tout it as ‘proof’ and ‘fact’ that ‘intelligent’ government investment works

and how exactly will you make sure government investment is ‘intelligent.’ Who decides? Bureaucrats? A group of 10 professors? What is the objective measure that the investment is ‘intelligent’ or not? who makes these ‘objective’ criterion? What happens if innovation does not occur?

the fundamental problem with government is that it always comes down to a group of unelected, unaccountable, bureaucrats or state employees who have achieved their position usually through patronage and cronyism.

who regulates the regulators?

Russ the Apostate September 27, 2010 at 5:12 pm

michael wrote:
“It’s a meaningless word salad designed to confuse gullible people into questioning the obvious facts.”

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Pot. Kettle. Black.

Not Idiot September 27, 2010 at 6:36 pm

You disagree with mises’s calculation argument or just how it pertains to government in the situation michael used? Or merely as presented by Idiot?

Idiot September 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Resorting to animal imagery is not an argument but a diversion. You must have something sophisticated up your sleeve? You are aware of the clash between the Austrian take on apriori vs. Karl Popper’s insistance that all valid claims be falsifiable? You are the one saying that this apriori business give way to observation more.
This is how you react to my observations? Hmmm. Were you looking in the mirror while scheming the cuttlefish reply?

Raimondas September 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm

Government is not businessman on contrary it gather people having no qualities to make business.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: