Status Updates From The Road to Serfdom

Note n/n:

Have we not seen enough empirical studies that show systemic discrimination against certain groups in the free market? I am all for liberty, but I do not once believe that I could be a professional actor or football player if I just took a paycut and then put in the effort.

Note 3/n:
themselves up by the bootstraps.

Hayek also seems to live in a fantasy world in other domains. He says that under the free market, no one is truly excluded from their dreams - the plain girl who dreams to be a saleswoman can do so were she to take a paycut and then put in the effort over time, etc; whereas under a central planner, everyone would be directed to occupations that they are deemed suited for.

Note 2/n:
greatest device of liberty in human history, under free markets, a poor man could lift himself out of poverty by earning more money.

...

Huh?
So ... solve homelessness by buying a house? Solve world hunger by ... feeding people? Solve poverty by ... earning money?

This is ridiculous. Obviously, Hayek's naive claim rests on the assumption that sufficient economic mobility exists for people to pull ...

Note 1/n:
I get what Hayek is saying. Firstly, I broadly agree with Friedman's famous maxim that economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom. Thus, to surrender our economic freedom to a central planner would be to surrender our political freedom as well.

That being said, I must say that I think some of Hayek's views concerning the liberty of money to be naive. Hayek says that money is the ...

Note n/n:

My point is that Hayek himself has views on the nature of the good life (which probably aligns with mine), but knows that a planned society to achieve any one person's opinion of 'the good life' is economically impossible and politically illiberal.

Note 7/n:
to a liberal market economy - the point of a classical liberal society is to 'lower the sights of politics', to not aim at a good life as defined by any religion or doctrine, but just to aim to preserve LIFE ITSELF, to let people decide for themselves what the good life is.

Note 6/n:
ends - money should be a means for us to enjoy the finer pleasures of life (imo, those of the mind). I hope my descendants can get to experience the fruits of a post-scarce world. But now I must think: although Hayek does not say it directly, he does imply that he envisions an 'ultimate end' for society - to enjoy the 'higher pleasures' of life as Mill would put it. But this is directly contradictory ...

Note 5/n:
individual's own *eudaimonia*, and all common ends that we create are just devices to help us strive for our ultimate end. This reminds me of Hume's argument that justice (which is the origin of government) is an artificial virtue - it is but a virtue that we create post-hoc, to allow us to pursue virtues-in-themselves so to speak.

Finally, a powerful quote on how economic ends should NOT be ultimate ...

Note 4/n:
theory days that I choose to not have a position in this debate, although I will comment that Bowles embarrassingly implies that econ has ignored that marginal utility is concave.

Hayek claims that the 'common ends' that people band up for to form a government are not their 'ultimate ends' - another strong call to Aristotle that I cannot ignore. It is self-evident that the ultimate good can only be an ...

Note 3/n:
cannot rank-order all the preferences and values of an entire society. I interpret Hayek as saying that interpersonal utility comparison on a large societal scale is impossible.

I now recall the infamous recent interview of Samuel Bowles at UChicago's Stone Center, where he amateurly strawmans economics for not allowing for interpersonal utility comparison. I am now so far removed from my microeconomic ...

Note 2/n:
gives me much to think about - why are the world's largest firms all tech firms? And they are indeed basically monopolies today.

I did not know that Hayek's critique of a planned society draws influence from Aristotlelian and modern microeconomic theory (I would even go as far as to conjecture that he anticipated modern micro theory): his main argument in this regard is basically that a central mind ...

Note 1/n:
It is interesting that in Hayek's time, the prevailing debate was that technological progress causes monopoly: the thinking went that, as firms got bigger via their advanced technology, they eat up small firms. I find this to be a curious take - I always conceived of the microeconomics of the firm as a secular economic force, which is what makes it interesting. But this debate from a century ago still ...