BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

F. A. Hayek Archive

Thursday

16

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Obama’s Fatal Conceit

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy

I, like many others, made light of the President’s recent shocking display of economic ignorance.  In an interview on NBC’s TODAY, the President claimed that productivity, the source of our prosperity, is really a “structural issue” holding back the job creating benefits of his policies. Hogwash, obviously. But what came later in the interview was perhaps even more disturbing (the transcript at the link wasn’t completely accurate so I cleaned it up):

[T]here are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; You don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy and what we have to do now, and that’s what this job counsel is all about, is identifying where the jobs of the future are going to be, how do we make sure that there’s a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist, how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.

Obama’s fundamental problem – his fatal conceit, if you will – is that he thinks we need him and his jobs counsel to figure out what the jobs of the future are going to be. We no more need this today than it was necessary for past leaders to identify the jobs of today. This is a task for the private sector, and one which only its vast network of dispersed information and decentralized decision-making is capable of determining.

What does Barack Obama know about the technologies of today, much less the future? Why does he imagine he can direct capital and resources to the right place better than investors? When has history ever shown politicians capable of doing so?

As F.A. Hayek wrote in The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Barack Obama is clearly too enamored with his own intelligence to recognize how little he knows – or that any one individual or group of individuals could possibly know – about where the next economic breakthroughs will emerge, or where future resources will need to be deployed. Who even 20 years ago possibly could have imagined the range of technological innovation from which we benefit today, and the subsequent new jobs and roles it has created in the economy? There is no such person, which proves the impossibility of Obama’s desired model of central planning.

Friday

29

April 2011

0

COMMENTS

From Where Do These Magical Regulators Come?

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

George Soros recently penned an interesting Op-ed in Politico, coinciding with an appearance at the Cato Institute (is there a libertarian equivalent to Holy Water, and was it burning?) for an event reflecting on the impact of F.A. Hayek (I think).

I actually found the Soros article rather interesting. In it he recounts his view of an ideological battle of sorts between Hayek and his colleague Karl Popper, under whom Soros studied. There were many things I found wrong with the piece, both in terms of facts and opinions, but I want to address only one here. Soros ultimately claims to find value in both views, but what I really keyed on was the presence of a bit of magical thinking common on the left. First, here’s a snippet of the conclusion to the Soros piece:

Because perfection is unattainable, it makes all the difference how close we come to understanding reality. Recognizing that the efficient market hypothesis and the theory of rational expectations are both a dead end would be a major step forward.

As I see it, the two sides in the current dispute have each got hold of one half of the truth. which they proclaim to be the whole truth.

…I recognize that the other side is half right in claiming that the government is wasteful and inefficient and ought to function better.

But I also continue to cling to the other half of the truth — namely that financial markets are inherently unstable and need to be regulated.

Earlier in the piece, he makes the case that perfect knowledge is not attainable, which inevitably leads to the “inherently unstable” nature of markets. This argument is internally inconsistent and fails on its own premise.

If financial markets are inherently unstable because perfection is unattainable, why would government regulators not be subject  to the same constraints? Are they not bound by the same inability to achieve perfect knowledge? It is a common fallacy of the statists to believe that regulators can magically rise above all the problems faced in the market, but this is not the case. In fact, they face even greater challenges because politics has been thrown into the mix.

As regulators have no greater ability to achieve perfect knowledge than market participants, how does placing more power in fewer hands improve the situation? It seems to me the more stable system is the one that sees less power in each individual hand, while spread out among many more decision-makers.

On a related note, EconStories.tv dropped round 2 of the Hayek vs. Keynes rap. I highly recommend checking it out:

Monday

25

January 2010

0

COMMENTS