25 Comments:

1. 

   ftorresgamez / March 22, 2009 7:05 am

   “where all of this goes wrong is by the government enabling greed[...]”
   Totally agree – now, greed IS important because it drives us, but TOO much greed sends us towards the path of perdition. What keeps GREED under CONTROL is RISK AVERSION. Government, however, by subsidizing, propping up, or enabling, breaks this defense mechanism and entices people to take TOO much risk -enables GREED. Lose the State, and you control greed towards doing good.
2. 

   ftorresgamez / March 22, 2009 7:13 am

   Why are cartels a bad thing? I believe you just believe that without even a modicum of reasoning.
   Let’s say that a cartel is formed between widget manufacturers – and all swear on the holy Cross to keep prices at X. And then, one of them UNDERCUTS price X and gets all the other suckers’ market! This HAS happened before and it is why Roosevelt’s government through the NRA had to threaten with JAIL those businesses that did NOT sell at the set prices. Cartels NEED government to exist.
3. 

   ftorresgamez / March 22, 2009 7:16 am

   “Most big banks and corporations are closely associated with governments, while little businessmen have to struggle. ”
   You HIT the nail in the head. Big businesses could care LESS about the free market – they cozy up with GOVERNMENT and even write the VERY REGULATIONS used to “regulate” them because that rises the COST OF ENTRY for their competition! Regulation of the markets is a BIG SCAM, and socialists fall for it lock, stock and barrel (!!!) We need LESS government, not more!
4. 

   CyberCilypudi / April 2, 2009 9:26 pm

   That’s correct, over regulation by governments permit monopolies to to be created, because the regulations keep the competition from being able to start up. The corporations bribe the politicians to pass expensive and ridiculous regulations for construction requirements, licenses, fees and taxes and all kinds of things that make the little man not able to afford to compete. That is what is happening right now to the little American farmers in the name of Monsanto and ADM.
5. 

   zsylvana / April 4, 2009 5:31 am

   Paul Samuelson (2009)”A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization “The Hayek I met on various occasions University of Chicago,Stockholm,Lake Constance Lindau Nobel summer conferences definitely bemoaned progressive income taxation,state-provided medical care and retirement pensions,fiat currencies remote from gold and subject to discretionary policy decisions by central bank and treasury agents.Not only is this what constitutes his predicted serfdoms”
6. 

   zsylvana / April 5, 2009 2:11 am

   Paul Samuelson(2009), A few remembrances of Friedrich von Hayek .”Road to Serfdom:2007,Sweden and other Scandivanian places have somewhat lowered the fraction of GDP they use to devote through government.But still are the most socialistic by Hayeks crude definition.Where are their horror camps? Have the vilest elements risen there to absolute power?When reports are compiled on measurable unhappiness, do places like Sweden,Denmark, Finland and Norway best epitomize serfdoms? Of course not!”
7. 

   Mickmars90 / May 7, 2009 1:02 pm

   Exactly. I am sick of people confusing capitalism with corporatism. Big business loves big government because big business can protect their vested interests through institutions like the CBI. A true capitalist Chancellor would ignore every suggestion made by the CBI because the CBI represent vested interests. Free markets represent the interests of all. And contrary to what lefties say, free market capitalism is not responsible for the mess we are in. It was socialist corporatism.
8. 

   ftorresgamez / May 7, 2009 4:01 pm

   “Marginalism, [...] confirmed that all value is SUBJECTIVE. Hence, Labor Theory of Value has no merit, [hence] does Das Kapital.”

   EXACTLY. Also, don’t forget Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, who TOTALLY debunked Marx’s Exploitation Theory on Profits, in his wonderful book Capital and Interest, where he shows that (contrary to what Marxians think), businesses accommodate workers by paying them RIGHT NOW for the work, instead of LATER, when (and IF) the goods are sold. WHAT exploitation, then? Elegant.
9. 

   supressorgrid / May 31, 2009 8:57 pm

   And Con-Agra
10. 

    bigboss686 / June 11, 2009 9:00 pm

    ftorresgamez you are absolutely right
11. 

    bigboss686 / June 17, 2009 6:21 am

    New proposed rules from the U S Customs will broaden the definitions of illegal knives to include all Knife’s that can be opened with one hand

    which will in effect ban ALL pocket knives nationwide that can be opened with one hand

    this goes before no elected officials, it is an edict from US customs

    please go to AKTI before June 18, to help prevent this
12. 

    ziglet2008 / June 22, 2009 9:44 pm

    The Road to Serfdom is an excellent book and should be read by every independent thinking American. If you’re a party idealogue, never mind because you’ve signed over your ability to reason to your party, no matter which party it is.
13. 

    dannidandannikins / July 8, 2009 4:01 pm

    The definitive criticism of socialist economics is ‘economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth’ by Ludwig von Mises. It’s the best economics text I’ve ever read.
14. 

    DrDribs / July 25, 2009 8:54 am

    I’ve looked over all the comments, what was the title of this here fine doco?
15. 

    Xtro2005 / September 9, 2009 3:41 pm

    You should get used to it. It’s a necessary polemic for them. It is, without any dispute, taught as such in schools.
16. 

    jerrysmith29 / November 3, 2009 5:03 pm

    The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill
    Now they call themself “progressive socialist” but they are a recycling of old socialism manipulated by Bureaucracy (Dictatorship , tyranny) =the BIG GOV have the control and profit from this lie.
    While the people are slaves of socialism the government living like kings in fascism
17. 

    zsylvana / November 5, 2009 6:33 am

    )Speak in the name of science “The road to serfdom”Russia and Germany prove to Hayek that socialism does not lead to freedom.The most important guaranty of freedom, he maintains,is a system of private property. Planning and freedom cannot go together.Without a labor market and an industrial reserve army,for example,discipline can be maintained only by corporal punishment,for which reason socialism implies slave-labor.This reduces the Economist,Hayek,to a mere propagandist for free enterprise
18. 

    zsylvana / November 5, 2009 6:34 am

    2.)Hayek thinks it better to have the means of production in many hands,But he does not say in how many. At what point should the concentration process of industry be brought to an end?In reality,in freemarket of course, it cannot be brought to an end unless capital accumulation is stopped, that is, unless capitalism itself is abolished; and Hayek is out to save it.But he cannot admit that in and of itself capitalism leads to state-capitalistic systems since the success of liberalism
19. 

    zsylvana / November 5, 2009 6:37 am

    3.)Contrary to what Hayek wants his readers to believe, the success of liberalism has fostered, not disturbed competition. Hayeks competitive society has always been monopolistic, viz.,the capitalist monopoly over the means of production and the monopolistic position of the state. And if the competitive society has had its monopolies, the monopolistic society has not ceased being competitive. There is no need to restore competition; it has never left us.
20. 

    zsylvana / November 5, 2009 6:38 am

    4.)Because of the process of accumulation, Hayeks competition has become monopolistic competition, and monopolistic competition has led to competition between totalitarian states. In the totalitarian state all layers are engaged in it to the point of death. Thus capital has finally triumphed over all of humanity. The ideal capitalism is always the present one, and whether Hayek likes it or not, the principle of capitalist competition is fully realized only in total war.
21. 

    zsylvana / November 5, 2009 6:40 am

    5.)Hayeks attack upon those who refer to totalitarian serfdom as a new freedom is fully justified.But when he speaked on behalf of the old freedom of liberal capitalism,he only matches mere words with mere words.He should known,and probably did know,that his proposals in both national and international fields,for arresting the capitalist tendency toward totalitarianism cannot be realized,and, even if they could be realized,would bring forth only once more what they intended to destroy.
22. 

    mctarmac10 / November 6, 2009 6:25 am

    “Because of the process of accumulation, Hayeks competition has become monopolistic competition”

    Amazing isn’t it how one sentence can distinguish between an education in social science and an education in economics.
23. 

    zsylvana / November 6, 2009 7:23 am

    Milton Friedman wrote -”The Austrian methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. ? If you’re always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another’s shoulders?” in “Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Paperback) by Alan Ebenstein
24. 

    zsylvana / November 6, 2009 7:25 am

    Milton Friedman wrote further: “.The Method also tends to make people intolerant. If you and I we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We go out and observe the facts. That’s how science progresses. … the fact is that fifty, sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory … so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn’t? been any progress ” in F.A Hayek .a Biography Alan Eberstein
25. 

    zsylvana / November 6, 2009 7:33 am

    In 1969,Milton Friedman,after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that: “The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false.” He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions. (M.Friedman “The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261-284. ” and M.Friedman “The ‘Plucking Model’? of Business Fluctuations Revisited”