[ExI] Hayek

[Dennis May]

Hayek is not wrong because the time frame involved depends on both degree of
socialism and local circumstances.

Sweden and Norway were one nation until 1905.  Norway was harmed in both WWI and WWII, Sweden was largely untouched so like the USA it industry had an advantage locally and worldwide following WWII.

Both Sweden and Norway have relatively free markets compared to most nations on the Earth and more freedom than most in Europe.  Norway is also afloat in oil revenues.

Norway was under a dictatorship when the Nazi's ran things, Sweden cooperated with the Nazi's and thus did not have an invasion.

Right before the collapse of the Soviet Union the Swedes nearly fell into dictatorship as the Soviets plan to take over Sweden became public.  I was in the Air Force at the time and the Soviets had all of the personnel files of every Swedish pilot and their families ready to take out their Air Force on the ground.  Since they were not in NATO they had no expectation of help for what would have been a takeover in a matter of days.  Then the Soviets would have had ports and air bases in close reach of all of Europe's
NATO members.

No dictatorship for Sweden yet or recently, two close calls in recent history and one in my lifetime just from external events.  I view both Norway and Sweden as free-riders on US defense spending.  Neither can withstand real external military aggression.  Sweden as a freer market than many competitors so they remain tall among people who are shorter than they should be.

Dennis

 

________________________________
 From: William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:02 PM
Subject: [ExI] Hayek
  


I was challenged to read a book by Hayek and show where he was wrong, and so I read The Road to Serfdom (well, until I got the ideas).


Hayek outlined two forms of socialism:  those with central planning and those without (which I will refer to as social services governments).


For both of these he predicted an eventual decline into totalitarianism, and certainly those governments with central planning have all failed and became, or were from the beginning, dictatorships, unless I am mistaken.  You know them all.  


However, he seems to be wrong about the social services governments, like Sweden.  Hayek did say that it would take longer:  "In the latter type of socialism the effects I discuss in this book are brought about more slowly indirectly, and imperfectly.  I believe that the ultimate outcome tends to be very much the same, although the process by which it is brought about is not quite the same as that described in this book."  (from the preface page XX of the 1976 edition)


I did not find the processes that he referred to in this book that he said affect the social services types.


There are several social services types, like Sweden, that have not failed, have not drifted into totalitarianism by anyone's measure.

These governments have their troubles, as do we, with increasing free riders and accumulating debt, but dictators they and we have none.


Thus Hayek is wrong - so far.  


bill w

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140613/884913dd/attachment.html>