Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Hayek addresses redistribution of wealth as well as central style planning. He even specifically notes that while they may differ at (sometimes important) points, the general cycles have very similar results. So while not many people still believe in central planning, they seem to have grasped the new theory du jour of "spread it around", and in the end that is just as dangerous. Even so, to ignore the lessons in the book simply because of a superficial difference in ideologies probably isn't wise.

I think you're rather over simplifying things. I'm no economist, but I make it my business to be at the least knowledgable about such things, and I feel recovery from the Great Depression was more of a combination of New Deal infrastructure, WWII profiteering and the resultant increase of wealth in US that was then transferred to Europe to aid in the rebuilding. But then again, that's probably one of the most complex economic time periods in modern history so I don't pretend to know everything.

To address the gold standard, there are indicators that removing the gold standard may have benefitted in the short term, but will hurt us in the long term.



You have very strang opinions. One the one hand you speak well of hayke on the other point you use the exact opposit of what hayek belived to explain the recovery from the great depression.

I dont want to go into the hold Great Depression discussion, I just wanted to point out that hayek would have made the argument that the New Deal made the GD much longer, same with the WW2. The idea that a war can help the economy would made hayek cry.

Watch this modern Rap-Video of Hayek vs. Keynes and listen closly when the talk about the war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc


You're equating progressive taxes to centrally planned economies and he's over simplifying?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: