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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7039)	4/5/2002 1:26:11 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Sure, just a sec......

To: Lane3 who wrote (7039)	4/5/2002 1:29:53 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

First, I want to set this up with some more general observations, then get to economics, then to the tie in with conservatism: 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: Lane3 who wrote (7039)	4/5/2002 1:31:14 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

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: Lane3 who wrote (7039)	4/5/2002 1:38:29 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

First, if economic progress is best made through free markets, then one must be very cautious about tampering with their efficient operation. Second, if decision making is best made through decentralization and specialization, then we should be leery of concentrating power and decision- making authority in too small a pool of people, but allow for greater dispersal of power and authority. Third, we ought to put more trust in responsible parties, who are informed and on the line, rather than think we can continually second guess them. This is the biggest argument for respect for authority, but also respect for underlings who have their jobs to do.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (7039)	4/8/2002 7:23:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Do you have anything to say on my marketplace-centric view of conservatism? I would say that centering it just on the market place is too narrow to define most of those who would generally be called conservatives. What is seen as needing conserving goes beyond the marketplace and the economy. Of course there is the market place of ideas but any idea may compete there and both conservatives and liberals (and people who's views don't fit either term) can be relativly for or against a very free market in ideas. I do think that free markets are a very important part of the conservatism because they are an important part of the western tradition that conservatives wish to keep alive. I would also say that I would be for them even if they where not part of the western tradition, for practical reasons and because I support freedom in general, but would this pragmatism and libertarianism be called conservatism? I don't know. I think they are compatable with each other but probably not the same thing. Tim