tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post7152949425828927490..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Hayek on Social SecurityEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-68147837163178156842012-05-13T13:45:09.218-04:002012-05-13T13:45:09.218-04:00Hayek's concern wasn't the level of redist...Hayek's concern wasn't the level of redistribution, but whether funds were being designated for specific groups in such a way that fit someone's conception of how society "should" look like.<br /><br />The Constitution of Liberty is still confusing on these points. I would recommend looking at the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty if you wanted something clearer. Ransom is mostly right.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18341935691462262579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91238851110580533962011-10-02T22:10:30.330-04:002011-10-02T22:10:30.330-04:00I dunno.
Medicare clearly isn't a single-paye...I dunno.<br /><br />Medicare clearly isn't a single-payer system, since people supplement it with health insurance from the private market.<br /><br />Single-payer means an abolition of private health insurance. Most of Europe works rather differently (see Switzerland).Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-35072709120541784862011-10-02T20:38:52.672-04:002011-10-02T20:38:52.672-04:00Gary-
And what percentage of Americans favor Medi...Gary-<br /><br />And what percentage of Americans favor Medicare? How many would favor its abolition if told that it is a dreaded "single-payer" system?<br /><br />If we're going to consider the systems in continental Europe not to be single-payer, then I'll modify the claim: public health insurance, whether single-payer, Bismarck, or Beveridge, works well and is popular everywhere they have it, including here.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-39343880745478887662011-10-02T20:17:29.961-04:002011-10-02T20:17:29.961-04:00FWIW: According to Rasmussen only 34% of Americans...FWIW: According to Rasmussen only 34% of Americans as of 2010 favored single-payer. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/34_favor_single_payer_health_care_system<br /><br />FWIW: Politifact stated this in 2009: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/<br /><br />Only four countries have single-payer plans, the rest of the world does something else. Indeed, the only non-Anglophone nation to have single-payer is Taiwan.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-45090482658694177012011-10-02T16:44:50.861-04:002011-10-02T16:44:50.861-04:00Daniel-
Why don't you like single-payer? It w...Daniel-<br /><br />Why don't you like single-payer? It works well and is popular everywhere they have it (including here). The best criticism of it would seem to be that it is less efficient than NHS/VA-style systems.<br /><br />Greg-<br /><br />What have you got against yellow journalism and pornography? I should think that libertarians would see the value of both.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-71602170872656400332011-10-02T14:54:38.053-04:002011-10-02T14:54:38.053-04:00If you do happen to come back here, I'm still ...If you do happen to come back here, I'm still interested in an articulated argument as to why my understanding of the chapter is wrong. I have yet to see that from you.<br /><br />To reiterate, it seems clear to me that:<br /><br />1. Hayek supports a social safety net<br /><br />2. Hayek does not support any of the Social Security, national health, or welfare programs existing in Western Europe or the United States.<br /><br />3. Hayek does not support them because of their socialist and totalitarian qualities<br /><br />4. Hayek wants them gone and wants his prefered social safety net in place.<br /><br />These four points seem to be EXACTLY what the chapter says, and so I don't see anything wrong with what Levine and Zernike wrote.<br /><br />If you can show me how I'm wrong in this four point interpretation WITHOUT yelling about how I "spread bullshit" and am "pathetic", I would appreciate it.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-52170953196330984242011-10-02T14:50:10.614-04:002011-10-02T14:50:10.614-04:00re: "It looks like Daniel is the one who dele...re: <i>"It looks like Daniel is the one who deletes posts ...."</i><br /><br />I most definitely have a commenting policy that I've made no secret of. If you have a comment that does nothing but fill my comment space with several lines of insults, I'm not going to keep it.<br /><br />If you continue to make assertions about Hayek that are relevant to the content of this blog, I'm going to continue to critique them here. You haven't answered any of my criticisms of you and more importantly you haven't offered any counter-argument to my interpretation of Hayek on Social Security. Don't get upset when people note that you aren't contributing any viable arguments to the conversation.<br /><br />re: <i>"I've marked your comments at my blog as spam, and I will not be coming back here."</i><br /><br />That's unfortunate because nothing I have said on your blog - not a single thing - amounts to spam or trolling. I've kept it entirely substantive and provided evidence for all my claims. If that's how you want to run your comment thread, that's your business but I consider that unfortunate.<br /><br />You are, of course, always welcome at Facts and Other Stubborn Things. And of course if you post other comments that do nothing but insult me or my commenters, I will delete those in the future too.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-55787464883745998232011-10-02T13:46:03.657-04:002011-10-02T13:46:03.657-04:00I'm done being trolled by you, Daniel.
You ca...I'm done being trolled by you, Daniel.<br /><br />You can't repeatedly put words in my mouth, and then deny doing it, you can't keep pretending not to have read may positions which you then report as something else, and you can't delete my comments here pointing this out, etc. and still find a welcome invitation to my blog.<br /><br />Time is too limited to deal with such nonsense, reading incapacity, dishonesty, or whatever it is.<br /><br />I've marked your comments at my blog as spam, and I will not be coming back here.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30574683563678043512011-10-02T13:36:01.052-04:002011-10-02T13:36:01.052-04:00It looks like Daniel is the one who deletes posts ...It looks like Daniel is the one who deletes posts ....Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-8929669348096603942011-10-01T17:48:20.254-04:002011-10-01T17:48:20.254-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-79062546701263031742011-10-01T16:45:50.483-04:002011-10-01T16:45:50.483-04:00eardniw -
My read of that chapter is that he pres...eardniw - <br />My read of that chapter is that he presents a great deal of both theory and principle. Perhaps you read it differently, but I'm not seeing that.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58820861238674744802011-10-01T15:55:40.369-04:002011-10-01T15:55:40.369-04:00edarniw,
You just won the thread I'd say.edarniw,<br /><br />You just won the thread I'd say.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-43408014934796752462011-10-01T15:48:14.043-04:002011-10-01T15:48:14.043-04:00One more quick point. You seem to be confusing &q...One more quick point. You seem to be confusing "principles" with "theory". <br /><br />In none of Hayek's writings do you find criticism of individuals making use of public facilities. What you find is criticism of the <i>incentive structure</i> and <i>selection mechanism</i>. <br /><br />In fact, if Hayek had <i>rejected</i> public facilities, that could be interpreted as being more in conflict with his theory than had he not, as this would suggest that individuals will not exploit opportunities when presented. <br /><br />The point is that this has nothing to do with principles - I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.edarniwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30191695508331605502011-10-01T15:38:12.603-04:002011-10-01T15:38:12.603-04:00Cahal,
What I find amusing is the persecution com...Cahal,<br /><br />What I find amusing is the persecution complex that is common across the economic discipline (which of course other academic fields share), no matter what economic ideology is involved. I wonder if a sociologist has ever done a focused study on the in-group and out-group dynamics of economists.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90409110960529139242011-10-01T15:28:46.479-04:002011-10-01T15:28:46.479-04:00"Ultimately you're doing exactly what Hay..."Ultimately you're doing exactly what Hayek was doing..."<br /><br />Yeah, you're right, because we both have a different philosophical position than you do Daniel. The breakdown and reform of the welfare state is part of a spontaneous order; its creation is due to different forces of ordering social life. <br /><br />"But he found that could be challenging..."<br /><br />In a system that took from him resources so it could make decisions for him, yes. There are a preceding set of facts after all. Your narrative only works by ignoring this inconvenient fact. But you know facts are stubborn things. <br /><br />edarniw,<br /><br />Well put.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44690481006259649902011-10-01T15:08:55.483-04:002011-10-01T15:08:55.483-04:00What amazes me about Austrians is how blind they o...What amazes me about Austrians is how blind they often are to the disgusting way they interact with people. Is it LvMI? Have they intentionally bred a dogmatic, rude internet army to pervade the web? Bob Murphy and George Selgin are the only Austrians I can debate without feeling physically violated.<br /><br />They also seem to live in a freedom hating parallel universe where Keynesianism only survives because of state subsidies by evil politicians who just want to keep spending (funny, I could have sworn they are all trying to outdo each other on spending cuts).Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-40350193212738724912011-10-01T15:00:31.960-04:002011-10-01T15:00:31.960-04:00re: "rob's point just went straight over ...re: <i>"rob's point just went straight over your head...."</i><br /><br />Why do people always think that when I don't agree that a given point is the most important point, I somehow don't understand the point.<br /><br />rob was saying that Hayek was acting rationally given the institutions he was faced with. I agreed and agreed.<br /><br />rob was worried Hayek was being criticized. I assured him I don't think that's really the point.<br /><br />MY POINT, which I understand you and rob aren't as interested in, is that Hayek had ample opportunity to plan for himself, and he found value in an existing system. That's worth noting.<br /><br />Stop assuming people don't understand your point just because they don't fawn over you and the value of your points.<br /><br />re: <i>"C'mon Daniel. Set up an OLG model with social security and see what it's effect on optimal savings is...."</i><br /><br />That brings back memories!<br /><br />rob -<br />re: <i>"My post was meant to demonstrate that this is an absurd charge."</i><br /><br />I'd agree - although I'd be careful not to take this too far. Was Hayek acting rationally? Sure. Was he acting on principle? That's more questionable. And if you fail to act on principle enough one starts to wonder about your principles. But I agree - my takeaway from this certainly isn't that Hayek did something wrong or that I'm in a mood to criticize Hayek.<br /><br />re: <i>"(for example around Keynes allegedly pro-Nazi preface to the German edition of the General Theory)."</i><br /><br />Well now you're just trying to ingratiate yourself to me :)Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9478722887480989862011-10-01T14:53:27.900-04:002011-10-01T14:53:27.900-04:00Others are saying (or implying) that Hayek was a ...Others are saying (or implying) that Hayek was a hypocrite to take advantage of a social security system he was against in principal, and therefore his ideas are somehow devalued.<br /><br />My post was meant to demonstrate that this is an absurd charge.<br /><br />This incident does make one wonder how confident those who would use this kind of thing to push their own agenda are of their own positions, though I suppose to be fair one does see the same sort of thing from the free-market side as well from time to time (for example around Keynes allegedly pro-Nazi preface to the German edition of the General Theory).robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12446283631827437412011-10-01T14:42:08.653-04:002011-10-01T14:42:08.653-04:00C'mon Daniel. Set up an OLG model with social...C'mon Daniel. Set up an OLG model with social security and see what it's effect on optimal savings is....<br /><br />Are we to interpret this as the agents affirming the value of public solutions?! Is that illustrative?! <br /><br />Sometimes the lens you see things through....edarniwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-31490362086905629622011-10-01T14:34:03.500-04:002011-10-01T14:34:03.500-04:00rob's point just went straight over your head....rob's point just went straight over your head....edarniwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-86513169455529997592011-10-01T14:06:01.743-04:002011-10-01T14:06:01.743-04:00I agree completely rob. The point isn't that H...I agree completely rob. The point isn't that Hayek has done something "wrong". It's just a telling incident. <br /><br />He had plenty of opportunity to provide for himself, though, and probably did to a certain extent. But he found that could be challenging and found real value in public solutions - so much so that he'd rather participate in a society where it was publicly provided then risk it in another one. That's not "wrong". That's illustrative.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-4078714611428614912011-10-01T13:53:38.740-04:002011-10-01T13:53:38.740-04:00I'm not sure what Hayek is supposed to have do...I'm not sure what Hayek is supposed to have done wrong.<br /><br />In the optimal economic system people envisaged by Hayek people would be responsible for their own health and retirement planning.<br /><br />In the economy where Hayek actually lived government intervention in the form of high taxation and compulsory social security payments distorts the ability to carry out such planning. <br /><br />In Austria Hayek would have been forced to pay into the Austrian system and it would have been irrational for him to be planning his finances on the assumption he would be moving to the US in his old age.<br /><br />During his years in the US(it is not clear to me if he chose to pay into SS or if it was also compulsory) it sounds again like he was just making rational economic choices given the available options - and luckily for him this gave him coverage when he ne3eded it.<br /><br />My point is: It is absurd to expect believers in a free-market system to live there own lives as if they lived in their ideal system. They will make rational economic decisions based on the economy they actually live in , not the one they would like to live in.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48739944364456151462011-10-01T13:38:07.982-04:002011-10-01T13:38:07.982-04:00re:"This was one very odd point of the chapte...re:<i>"This was one very odd point of the chapter. Hayek was denouncing social insurance as it existed as violating spontaneous order at the same time that he seemed to be presenting evidence that the welfare state we have today is a RESULT of spontaneous order".</i><br /><br />I don't find it odd at all. He spends a lot of time explaining in his work the difference between spontaneous order and other types of order. I think he devotes the most to this in "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" - especially the first book. You at least need to acknowledge that the mechanisms governing the development and administering of social security vs. those governing private retirement insurance are quite different in many important respects, and to ignore those would lead to faulty conclusions. You can argue that the semantics of his distinction is poor, but hardly that the substance of it is illusory.edarniwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27247514343532689102011-10-01T13:23:42.400-04:002011-10-01T13:23:42.400-04:00For all the "purists" out there, these &...For all the "purists" out there, these "contradictions" between Hayek's public assertions and his private life may be troublesome. But I see no problem, nor contradiction, with advocating one system, yet taking advantage of the existing system. A variety of current libertarian intellectuals are employed at public universities. Does that make them hypocritical? I wouldn't say so. <br /><br />Look, it's perfectly sound to criticize inefficiencies - from a welfare perspective - arising from certain institutions or policies, but at the same time, exploit the fact that they exist. For example, I think the "food stamps" program is a complete disaster. The amount that it's abused is extraordinary. And if you think that most the people using it are in dire need of food assistance, just calculate their average weight and compare it to those not using it. I think most are all aware of this funny reality. Yet I do, and will continue to in the future, make use of the food stamps whenever possible. Why wouldn't I? I NEVER claimed that the individual use of the system, as such, is evil. In fact, I'm only affirming my own arguments in taking advantage of low-hanging fruit. The same applies to Hayek. I see nothing wrong with Zernike and Levine's factual claims. It's the implication they're hoping shallow thinkers - an implication that they seem to believe - will latch on to - that there's a sort of contradiction between these things.edarniwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9202929190275930722011-10-01T12:30:14.482-04:002011-10-01T12:30:14.482-04:00About six times I've explained to you Daniel w...About six times I've explained to you Daniel why Levine & Ames are correctly described as "sewer rats from Russia" and just as many times you are intentionally ignored that and and said something which was not my reason -- in other word you made it up contrary to evidence.<br /><br />This is the kind of bad faith and poor reading skills that typify your interactions on the web.<br /><br />What's up with that?Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.com