Moral: Wherein having mentioned, several times, the Vienna School (also, known as the Austrian School) which is continental, how could we avoid specific reference to Ludwig (and John and Friedrich)?
---
As in Ludwig Von Mises and his prolific writings. Reading 'The Elite Under Capitalism' would be a good start (we looked at his money work earlier).
I like how he calls the elite to task; yet, one has to look at several things. For instance, what would be 'elite' (as in, best-and-brightest? -- they offer the masses a preferred moral code?). What are these ideals to which the elite would lead us (greed? massive accumulations -- $1B house (as in Mumbai) looming over a vast expanse of slums -- or, gigantic yacht of immense proportions that is for anything but show?)?
Wait! do I smell big T-issues looming? Perhaps not, as we can be reasonable for a little while, can we not?
---
When we brought in the Vienna School, there was one main factor. They do know what lies behind the mathematical facade. Why facade? What we see now is a large system, built upon the quaking basis of computation (we'll get to Church-Turing, in a bit).
Then, upon this shaky framework, we want to built an automated economy (virtual money, to boot, printable ad infinitum) that is wide-spread in many, and disparate, directions using colonialistic mindsets without regard to the neighbors in ones' own locale?
---
As an aside, Ron Paul is featured in The Atlantic as saying that he was epiphany'd by the writings of Hayek who was a disciple of von Mises. That epiphany was a while ago. Now, the tea party, and other perturbers, have taken ahold of the guy's ideas thanks to Glenn Beck's reference to Friedrich (see 'The Road to Serfdom', for one).
No one wants a top-down power structure to be there for all aspects of life. The military life is top-down, yet those who rise come through the ranks. And, no one at the top tries to run things in a micro-managed sense, as if driving robots. That was tried in the past a few time enough for us to know its failings.
Yet, how do you keep free agency from devolving into anarchy? That is, what is there that would keep things under civil limits? The big question for libertarians.
A parallel in project/program management has been mentioned in this blog, and in related blogs, namely middle-out. Business is top-down, as we see the King CEO. Too, though, what CEO actually does any real work?
Not!! Good companies try to elicit good work from happy employees. How many succeed?
Yes, these are not easy issues, folks, but we'll continue in our own vein and time to discuss the underlying factors with the idea to eventually fruit results.
---
As you see, what is the middle-out for the economy? Not Adam's 'hand' and not Stalin's 'fist' and not Big Ben's chimera and ...
Do you think that the Tea Party really has resolved the issues in their pullback in abhorrence from anything Keynesian? Of course, John Maynard came from the Neville line; nice of him to think so fondly of the little people. At least, he wasn't greed'd out as we see with the modern capitalists (in name only).
---
So, we'll look at Ludwig's thinking as we go along. And, we'll look at him with a kind eye, probably kinder than he would has cast'd at the viewpoint being developed here.
- von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand (emphasis mine): You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.
- You want to know the irony? Listen up, CEOs, et al. This is how your working class, especially those of highly advanced education, think of you and your infantilish idiocies.
Gosh, was that fun or what?
Remarks:
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging from the decimation of proper economic thinking through appeal to the higher-order thinking of the elites.
Modified: 03/23/2012
Pre-election thoughts.
ReplyDeleteBeing right here in the midst of the mania has been fun. What mania? That of those who are led around by 'red' (at one time, this had a whole different connotation) ideologues. You all know who you are, including the Weagle.
One irony? That the 'von's rule the message, as in Hayek and Mises (just how far is M-I-S-E-S from M-I-S-E-R?). It is not that Friedrich and Ludwig ought not be given due consideration.
But, there is always more to the story, such as this from a letter from Ludwig to Ayn (do you need to know? Rand, of course): You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.
Gosh, some advanced-degreed, technical people think this of those in the structures called management who seem to always muck up the works.
But, back to the elections and economics. Have we not seen that the 'market' ideology can lead to extreme unbalances in the commonweal? Adam (as in Smith) knew this. The ca-pital-sino is allowed due to its ability to expand greatly the sucking of economic life from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (and, has private equity shown itself to be exemplary in what may be the important ways?).
From whence can we expect the necessary control (Adam knew that it was not his 'invisible hand' given his groundings in moral philosophy)? I agree with the 'vons' in their abhorrence of top-down (but, we do know that CEOs are the new kings). Yet, are not the money'd of higher stature from certain views? Do they not impose their opinions?
And, is not the jobless situation directly related to the out-housing that is both colonialistic in spirit and exploitative in practice (to wit, even Spirit - sacrilegious name?)?
Those aforementioned hapless were steered, earlier, by the 'reds' into an unfathomable bucket of red ink (personal). Too, the 'reds' started the massive inflow of red ink into our national bucket despite what the past couple of years may look like.
von Mises was fairly dismal personality-wise, some say, no doubt to his main area of interest being so full of interminable issues. One wonders whether politics, in its currently evolved (?) state, suffers from the same syndrome.
We must vote anyway, despite that the choices do not offer the satisfaction that one might have expected by this time, the 21st century. Devolution?