Hacker News Reader

Comment by padobson | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree. His review [0] of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom [1] illustrates his capacity for nuance combined with his willingness to face those unpalatable truths.

As a sample, he was a socialist who also wrote this:

It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.

[0] https://maudestavern.com/2008/10/09/george-orwell-review/ (Not sure where to find the original, but I've read it several times, and this looks like a faithful copy)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

View on HN

The article also quotes this line, the next paragraph for context:

> Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.

I'm not sure why more democracy doesn't solve both issues, while retaining the benefits of both, which seems to be where most modern nations are broadly headed, in fits and starts.

In my view it’s because democracy is somewhat orthogonal to capitalism or collectivism, and masses are easily controlled anyway (they can live with the illusion of being in control). A democracy loses something central to the concept when a restricted group has a very concentrated power (be it political, as in the case of pure collectivism, or economic, as with pure capitalism). In my opinion there can’t be true democracy when there are strong imbalances in a society, even when there are regular democratic elections.

"A democracy loses something central to the concept when a restricted group has a very concentrated power (be it political, as in the case of pure collectivism, or economic, as with pure capitalism)."

Yes, it's concentrations of power which are the real enemy.

Unfortunately, no matter how many dictatorships, oligarchies, monarchies, theocracies and kleptocracies the world suffers through, we never seem to learn that lesson.

Orwell wrote that review at pretty much the same time as the Bretton Woods system of international monetary exchange was implemented, which the largest single piece of the Keynesian economic foundations for 25 years of economic growth with a high level of stability and a low level of inequality in the US-centric world.

There were good reasons why Bretton Woods failed in 1970, but the subsequent ascendance of Hayekian neoliberalism doesn't look so good 40 years on.

> Hayekian neoliberalism

That very concept is a nonsensical. No Hayekian economist or ideologue calls themselves neoliberal.

Hayek himself used the term "neo-liberal" to describe the "movement" of liberalism to which he belonged [0]. The historian Quinn Slobodian [1] advocates using the term "neoliberal" for the intellectual history surrounding the Mont Pelerin Society. In this context, it is sensible to distinguish between a Hayekian strand and, say, Wilhelm Röpke's version of neoliberalism.

[0] The Freeman, 1952. https://mises.org/library/freeman-july-1952-b

[1] Globalists. The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism.

Thanks. I didn't know that. My bad.

Coordination problems are really hard to solve.

Most of the world has settled on capitalism because it solves a specific class of coordination problems really well, and targeted intervention can stave off the externalities enough to make the system bearable.

Slumps and unemployment aren't, like, an avoidable curse, but they're pretty damn hard to avoid, and so far no system has had real success.

But you're wrong. If you look at economic records going back to the middle ages, you can see the effect of Keynesian economics, central banks, social safety nets, social security systems, etc. Have had on reducing slumps and unemployment. We've gotten very, very good at it. In the 1600's, there were great depression-style crashes every 5 years or so. Despite massive wars, pandemics, geopolitics, and automation, economic slumps and unemployment have been incredibly moderate the past 90 years or so, and they have gotten milder as a function of time over that timeframe.

I didn't downvote you but .. it can easily be argued that the reduced slumps is because of the liberalisation of trade and reduced central control of money. e.g. floating currencies.

It has also been plausibly argued that the great depression was lengthened (and possibly deepened) by things like the New Deal.

Fair enough. To reformulate my point: no system has been successful at eliminating them completely.

Social safety nets and technological progress do improve life outcomes a lot.

To me it seems that capitalism leads to monopolies.

ask an investor if they would rather invest in a monopoly or not a monopoly.

seems like the only thing standing in the way of a world full of monopolies is corporate founders egos not willing to sell out for more profits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com