Political Economy: Utopianism or Practicality?

yeah well i am not going all in with hayek its just there are things that show validity in some of what he said. You have to adapt with the times and take an objective look.

I only say Keynesian economics is the more utopian because of the corruptness, and political influence that would make a central planner inefficient and do to history have suspicions about the agenda of central planners.

Why don't you go ahead in shoot holes in the austrian persecutive? I would like to see what you have to say.

 

But it isn't based on 'efficient' central planning. That would be more akin to out-of-date market socialism and the suggestion that, through information flows, an economic planner could ultimately ape the Walrasian auctioneer.

Socialist political economy does have some compatibility with Keynesianism (only some mind you!). See, for example, the stuff on a permanent arms economy (used to reduce the threat of macroeconomic crisis). They'd ironically call the government spending 'waste'

I've already said my piece. It can be summed up on 2 grounds: no coherent theory of the firm and zero understanding of the labour market. There's no understanding of economic agents and the innate coercion that is generated in capitalism. Its utopianism 101

 

How does the current view of forms of central planning account for central forms of planning from a central bank; is it really that "utopian".

In my view, the central planning involved in the Space Race was also of benefit.

From my perspective, it isn't "central planning" that is the problem, but the subjective value of morals that may not be centrally planned that is more of a problem for us in the US.

 

Well, I'm sorry but Hayek and the Austrian school arose as a response to Socialism, that you want to nestle that within Socialism now, but reject any notion that the Coasian firm and Hayekian knowledge problems is just flat out hard to digest.

I understand that at it's core one is about coercion and the other is about asymmetric information, but see no reason why they both can't be used to understand the 'rise of the firm' if you will.

 

Its about consistency. Its not difficult to maintain the Austrian stance within a market socialist framework (although they still are naive over labour and therefore the true gains from the paradigm). It is not possible to use the Austrian stance to understand capitalism. The whole notion of institutionalism is beyond its approach, being an aspect of economics that naturally blends firm analysis and the labour market (both excluded because we naturally refer to coercion)

No, one is about distributed knowledge and the other about transaction costs. The attempt to twin it on the face it is fine. However, it then leads to conclusions completely inconsistent with the Austrian view over economic relations and contract theory

 

Ok, so with that being said their would be blatant contradictions between the Socialist views on property rights and core beliefs from which the Austrian school arose. Additionally socialism appreciates the role of planning within the market, Austrian have little appreciate for mathematical and statistical approaches that justify it.

 

Nope. Its very easy to construct socialism around the premise of the protection of property rights. We'd just be giving the Austrians a labour economic analysis capable of understanding the coercion that can exist in the labour contract

Again, no need to refer to planning at all. You'd have to refer to outdated forms that didn't get past the socialist calculation debate

 

What is your opinion of purely public financing of any candidate wanting to run for elected office?

 

What objection can there be to a federal research university system with a campus in every State of the Union and the federal districts, with its own supercomputing array and redundant fiber optic network; to discover Pareto Optimal solutions to our social dilemmas in modern times?