Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (11936)	7/18/2001 6:46:46 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 59480

Well, as far as I can tell from Postrel's exposition, I am not, in fact, a Crolyist.....

To: Father Terrence who wrote (11936)	7/18/2001 9:02:08 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Now, one of the main things that Hayek pointed out is that the price system is, in fact, the best "calculator" that we have for the efficient allocation of resources. Out of innumerable individual negotiations and transactions, the price system works up a rough estimate of consumer preferences and how they match with current resources. It signals which things might be in short supply, and represent opportunities for profit- seekers, and which things might be in a glut, and worth disinvesting in. Similarly, capital instruments, such as shares and bonds, contain important information in their prices. Anyway, distortions in the pricing system lead to ever greater inefficiency in the economy, and thus the waste of resources. Even granting that the government makes legitimate spending decisions, for example, in providing for defense, the more it uses instruments like subsidy, the tax code, and regulation to control elements of the economy, the more it distorts the pricing system and leads to inefficiency, such as recession and inflation.

To: Father Terrence who wrote (11936)	7/18/2001 9:03:37 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Worth repeating: An easy way of explaining the knowledge aspect of Hayek is to refer to the phenomena of specialization and delegation. As knowledge and technical expertise increase, no one is able to encompass the whole. Even in areas like law, medicine, and engineering, it is necessary for specialists to give their attention to the body of knowledge and technique that will arise under the general rubric, but constitute enormous areas of discrete study. Although it is possible for specialists to communicate with "generalists" to some extent, for the most part their relation to others not expert in their specialty is little better than their relationship with laymen, who can only understand in the most general terms. Similarly, as organizations become larger and more sprawling, it is increasing necessary to delegate authority to individuals, teams, or committees who are in a position to study, analyze, and decide the specific problems that arise in the course of operating a large enterprise. For example, in a legislative body, the accumulation of documentary evidence and testimony is handled by sub- committee, with ample staff support, and reviewed with the objective of reporting out recommendations which, in the ordinary course of things, will be accepted with few amendments by the larger committee, which will then pass on the recommendations to the body as a whole. In the total scheme of things, it is standard that those delegated to actually study the question will have their recommendations followed. Similarly, management theory increasingly deplores attempts at top- down management, and recommends the general setting of policy, including coordinating sectors and setting goals, while leaving individuals and teams alone, for the most part, supporting them in devising the best ways to get things done. In both of these ways, one can see that the limitations of knowledge and requirements of parceling out responsibilities lead to decentralization of decision- making as a more efficient means of conducting business than the highly centralized model............

To: Father Terrence who wrote (11936)	7/18/2001 9:06:25 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

The discussion of the limits of knowledge has, in fact, a great deal to do with the two candidates. Al Gore is someone who wants to pretend to be on top of everything relevant to his job. Bush makes no such pretense, he is clear that he will depend on good advisors. In the end, Bush is closer to understanding the way things actually work than Gore. Similarly, Bush is right not only to question our ability to impose our views on other nations, but to show a certain hesitation in assuming that our knowledge of the facts on the ground will supercede those of the local actors. Gore is much more eager to involve us in "nation building" and aggressive diplomacy. Gore thinks that Washington ought to be imposing all sorts of initiatives on the states and localities of the country, and Bush thinks that Washington has a modest role, and should largely depend upon states and localities to figure out how to best mind their own business. Washington can set some goals and standards, act as a clearinghouse of information, and supply some money to help promote desirable goals, but implementation is mostly made in the states and municipalities.