Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shaka





Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 11
Reputation: 6.4Reputation: 6.4Reputation: 6.4Reputation: 6.4Reputation: 6.4Reputation: 6.4

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:17 pm    Post subject: The Naïveté of Austrian Economists Reply with quote

In my Critique of Austrian Economics I write:

Quote:
Another reason why Austrians seem naïve is their relentless call for deregulation, which often ignores fundamental inequities.


Burczak (Socialism after Hayek, p. 122) writes:

Theodore Burczak wrote:
Private ownership of capital is not prohibited, but capital ownership conveys no possibility – through right or contract – of control rights over workers.

Those rights would be reserved and shared exclusively – under the procedure of one person, one vote – for the worker-members of the firm, regardless of the amount of capital any particular worker owned.


Steve Horwitz writes:

Steve Horwitz wrote:
Burczak wants to supplement the markets with redistributive policies—he would stake all citizens to a rather large hunk of tax-funded wealth upon reaching adulthood—and would mandate worker ownership and management of firms. These changes will, he argues, promote broader access to the marketplace and enhance the chances that people will live “choiceworthy” lives. Because Burczak's socialist vision gives great play to the market, and does so for the same reasons that Hayekians do, his critique must be taken seriously.


Horwitz applauds the fact that Burczak “gives great play to the market,” yet he ignores the fundamental inequity of labor-managed firms seizing existing corporations from the capitalists and ruining the shareholders, under the procedure of one person, one vote.

This is an example of what I meant when I said, “Another reason why Austrians seem naïve is their relentless call for deregulation, which often ignores fundamental inequities.”

Horwitz is a well-known Austrian and Burczak is the winner of the 2007 Smith Center Annual Prize in Austrian Economics, so I take both men as canonical of the Austrian position.

Do you agree with Horwitz that the abrogation of property rights entailed in seizing firms from the shareholders and giving them to a democratically-elected labor leader can be ignored as long as the new owner does not ask for any regulation, but is willing to operate (with his stolen property) in an unregulated market?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to be clear - you're using the recent US government violation of property rights and contract law in the GM & Chrysler restructurings as an argument against Austrian economics?

The presence and current strength of labour unions is hardly indicative of an Austrian impulse to avoid regulations.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


The Naïveté of Austrian Economists

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB