Glenn Beck and the Cato Institute ¬´ Bad Conscience.
Paul Sagar shows that Dan Mitchell and his friends are close to the gross misinformation being peddled in the US about the NHS.
Which they're just about as wrong about as they are about tax.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for the link Richard, more libertarians at Bad Conscience is exactly what I want!
Although I’m not sure if you’re statement is fair.
Glenn Beck is peddling gross misinformation about the NHS/healthcare reform, and Cato-associated people have featured on Beck’s programmes, but maybe we want to draw back from the implication that Cato are peddling disinformation about the NHS/healthcare reform, simply because they’ve been on Beck’s show?
Hi Richard
Are you worried about the influence of the Austrian School. I was at a talk by Larry Elliot and two people in the audience mentioned Von Hayek and Mises as being the way out of the current crisis. This is worrying as the only country which carried out their ideas went bust and also because these ideas seem to find a natural home in the Conservative Party who are likely to form the next government (eg see yesterday’s Observer re NHS). The return of Toryboy is not tobe welcomed.
Also, on a slightly different point John Redwood has gone very quiet re the wonders of low tax rates in the Republic of Ireland, I wonder why.
Simon, Which country are you thinking of? If we compare the course of monetary policy and the political and economic consequences in Germany and Austria after WWI, it reflects rather better on the Austrian school than on the historicist, easy-money, tax-and-spend school.
Bruno
You mean they were both wrong?
Richard
Richard, I doubt there’s ever been a case of perfect government, but the Austrians stabilized their currency under the advice of Mises, while the Germans debased theirs to disaster, both economically and ultimately politically. The Austrians were far from perfect before the war, but there was a reason why a particularly warped Austrian found more fertile ground for his ideas in Germany than in his own country, and why Austrian-school economists were some of the strongest intellectual opponents of the fascists. I hope, agree or disagree with their economics, that you will at least acknowledge that.
I’m still curious. Maybe you know which country Simon was referring to?
Bruno,
The Austrian school refers an economic (and political) strand of thinking exemplified in Hayek, but with many other followers. It was developed after WWII, in specific response to the rise of state socialism.
It has never been put into practice. Especially not in the interwar period.
You twit.
Paul,
Heard of Carl Menger, Eugen v. Boehm-Bawerk, Friedrich v. Wieser, Ludwig v. Mises, Richard v. Strigl? No? Noticed that Hayek, Machlup and Haberler were born around the turn of the century and began their academic careers in the 20s? No? Then don’t talk crap about stuff you haven’t got a clue about. I think we’ll know how seriously to take your other comments from now on. (For those wondering who’s right, just go and google those names, and discover what a plonker Paul is.)
And still I wait to learn which country it was that went bust from implementation of Austrian ideas (according to Simon) that have never been put into practice (according to Paul).
Just to anticipate anybody coming here from Bruno’s link from my site:
From Wikipedia:
“The Austrian School (also known as the Vienna School or the Psychological School) is a school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism. Austrians hold that the complexity of subjective human choices makes mathematical modelling of the evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. Austrian School economists advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of forces they consider to be coercive (in particular the smallest possible amount of government intervention).
The Austrian School derives its name from its predominantly Austrian founders and early supporters, including Carl Menger, Eugen von B??hm-Bawerk and Ludwig von Mises. Other prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century include Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek.[1] Though called ‘Austrian’, today supporters and proponents of the Austrian School can come from any part of the world. The Austrian School was influential in the early 20th century and was for a time considered by many to be part of mainstream economics. Austrian contributions to mainstream economic thought include being one of the main influences in the development of the neoclassical theory of value, including the subjective theory of value on which it is based, as well as contributions to the “economic calculation debate” which concerns the allocative properties of a centrally planned economy versus a decentralized free market economy.[2] From the middle of the 20th century onwards, it has been considered a heterodox school[3][4] and currently contributes relatively little to mainstream economic thought.[5][6] However, some assertions of Austrian School economists have been interpreted by some as warnings about the 2007-2009 financial crisis, which has in turn led to renewed interest in the School’s theories.[7][not in citation given]
Austrian School economists advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism, which they describe as analyzing human action from the perspective of individual agents.[8] Austrian School economists argue that the only means of arriving at a valid economic theory is to derive it logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. This method holds that it allows for the discovery of fundamental economic laws valid for all human action. Alongside praxeology, these theories traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history to address specific historical events.[9] Additionally, whereas mainstream economists often utilize natural experiments, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists believe that the methodology adopted by modern Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor;[5][10] critics have argued that the Austrian approach fails the test of falsifiability.[5][11]”
Now, I suppose I should qualify what I said above a little. In the interwar years the Austrian school had some mainstream traction in that it’s ideas were accepted by the economic neoclassical mainstream. (Post-war, its ideas largely fell from favour).
But that’s not the same as saying that the Austrian school was followed as a comprehensive macroeconomic policy, and certainly *not* in the sense that it came to be recognised as a fully worked-out macroeconomic position by e.g. Hayek and chums post WWII.
Even Libertarians like Bad Conscience’s own house-libertarian Dan will surely agree with me that their ideas – for good or ill – have never actually been put into practice in anything like a consistent way.
Lies and misinformation? Not from me.
(Richard, please just approve this comment and not the other one, which i messed up)
Although I should point out that my comment above at #7 was written before Bruno’s comment at #6 had passed through moderation.
Hence #7 is a reply to #4, not #6 (i’ve only just noticed the newer comment).
#8 should clarify that I thought Bruno’s position was the crude one expressed at #4. His position at #6 is more subtle, for sure…but I think it still leaves a lot to be desired for reasons given at #8
Bruno
a) Paul is one of the brightest young men I know.
b) To call him a plonker reveals your won inability to argue your case
c) Without an apology being offered you will be banned from this site
You can be an adherent of some extremely misguided economists if you so wish. But if, like the average libertarian you think that grants you licence to abuse you are seriously mistaken.
Richard
Richard,
I think it’s fair to say that in this instance i WAS a plonker.
Bruno has posted a number of comments on my blog, and i’ve had to admit my own ignorance and apologise for my rudeness to him.
I appreciate your standing up for me, but in this instance i have only myself to blame.
From what I can tell, Bruno is not our average forthing libertarian troll, but a highly intelligent person, albeit one with views incredibly different to ours. If you check out his blog, you will see that he engages in reasoned and sustained critique, and his rudeness to me was fair response to me calling him a “twit”.
It would be a shame to ban Bruno. There is potential for constructive debate between us – potential which in this case was scuppered by me being flippant and rude when I had no actual right to be, as it was me not Bruno who turned out to be guilty of ignorance.
So, let’s put it all behind us and concentrate on actually having reasoned engagement.
Richard,
No hard feelings between Paul and myself. But I don’t intend to apologise. I think calling him a plonker was fair exchange for him calling me a twit. Still require an apology?
The critical thing that I am still waiting for, which I genuinely would like to know, is which country Simon was referring to. It seems that Paul and I can agree that this country probably doesn’t exist, because we agree that a full Austrian programme (whatever that is) has never been implemented, so far as we know.
But I offer as another example of where Austrian economics had a positive influence on economic policy, the contribution of Wilhelm Roepke to the post-war German economic miracle, through his influence on Adenauer and Erhard.
Bruno
No apology is fine – it’s your choice
But I’ve read your blog
You may be clever
You’re also not welcome here – my assessment of the arrogance that you combine without knowledge to create a typically abusive right wing dialogue was correct
That’s not debate
But it is very, very typical of the attitude of the Austrian school
Richard
Ah Mr Murphy . . . not so much Austrian School as struggling in the remedial class.