Comments (19)

• Enjoy Every Sandwich

  I can't imagine that Kristol is much of a Hayekian on economic matters, given that he is a leading light of the Wargasm Party. A warfare state of the sort that he likes wouldn't exist without a centrally planned economy.

  If, for example, the armies in the field were to experience shortages of food or fuel he would be the first to demand rationing at home. Likewise he would insist on priority being given to production of warmaking machines if the current industry could not produce enough. And, of course, he would support whatever skulduggery is needed to provide funding.

  Published: October 28, 2008 1:44 PM

• Pat

  Yeah. The next thing we know, he is going to say that McCain doesn't have any randian streak in him? I am impressed he even bothered putting Hayekian and Obama in the same paragraph. I suspect he was trying to scare his readers rather than making an insightful comment.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:09 PM

• Dennis

  I would venture a guess that Mr. Obama has never even heard of Friedrich August von Hayek, much less his economic theories. Even worse, the same is probably true for the vast majority of Obama's economic advisors.
  
  As bad as Bush's economic policies are, and they are terrible, I believe that Obama's will be just as bad, more likely worse. Obama is a thorough-going interventionist, if not a moderate socialist.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:09 PM

• Dick Fox

  Dennis,

  Obama a "moderate socialist?" I would say closer to a radical socialist.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:19 PM

• English Bob

  Kristol then goes on to say this:

  "So it's taken a while for the markets to regain some faith that the Treasury and the Administration knew what they were doing."

  Unbelievable.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:29 PM

• Steve Hogan

  Dennis,

  A moderate socialist? The guy has openly suggested that he would like to forcibly take nearly $900B we earned and hand it over to Third World countries. This is in addition to the tax hikes we can expect on "the rich," with Obama conveniently deciding on how the term is defined and how much he'll let us keep for ourselves. Moderate?

  Or how about his notion that young people ought to serve the nation for a period - against their will if necessary. Sort of like the Peace Corps on steroids. This is more of a fascist idea, I suppose, and maybe it's merely a campaign ploy to pander to the Christian right and the xenophobes prior to the election.

  Still, it provides a glimpse into the twisted thinking of a man that believes he has the right and the duty to dictate how 300M people will live. It's very scary stuff, and there's nothing moderate about any of it.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:33 PM

• tad

  pot, meet kettle.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:45 PM

• scineram

  Yes, a moderate socialist.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:56 PM

• Felix

  Steve,
  Obama never suggested that peace corps volunteers would have to serve "against their will": he only said that those who do engage in civic service would be given financial aid for college, graduate school, etc. This may not be entirely consistent with libertarian ideas, but it is far from fascist.

  Published: October 28, 2008 2:57 PM

• Brock

  Felix, how will all those giveaways be paid for? Who pays the stipend? If you don't perform civil service, you don't get paid, but you still have to pay regardless of your will.

  Obama did state that he supported the civil service bill currently in the House which includes mandatory participation. Any "voluntary" language is a canard; it's only voluntary to the extent that you volunteer for the program you participate in. Participation itself, though, is mandatory.

  Published: October 28, 2008 3:09 PM

• Dennis

  Dick and Steve,

  I do not think that Obama has called for outright government ownership of most or all of the non-labor factors of production, the classic definition of socialism. As a result, I think the phrase "moderate socialist" is a more accurate description of his economics. His election would move the U.S. further down the spectrum toward the Western/Central European entitlement state, and while I find this result disgusting, I cannot label it "radical" socialism.
  

  Published: October 28, 2008 3:21 PM

• Kevin

  I think that to put Hayek and Obama in the same sentence and relating them to like mindedness in any form is rather interesting. I think once more it shows there are many ignorant intellectuals assuming Mr. Kristol considers himself an intellectual of any kind. I have to question Mr. Kristol's ability to comprehend what he reads, assuming he has read anything by Hayek or perhaps he just heard about him. I still maintain that most who try to justify their erroneous economic thought should take a moment and read Henry Hazlitt's, Economics in One Lesson. It would do them a world of good especially if they would put aside their arrogance and pride.

  Published: October 28, 2008 3:41 PM

• josh m

  "I don't think he has that fundamental, I would call it a Hayekian belief--after Friedrich Hayek, the great Austrian economist--in the limits of central planning..."

  I could be wrong, but it looks to me like Kristol even misrepresents Hayek, mistakenly implying that he believed in "limits" to central planning (as opposed to the absence of economic central planning).

  Published: October 28, 2008 5:01 PM

• Lester Hunt

  Jeffrey,

  Pithy and devastating. This is blogging as it should be done.

  Published: October 28, 2008 5:13 PM

• Caleb

  I don't believe that Lenin shares that sort of Rothbardian, named for Murray Rothbard, the Austrian economist, that Rothbardian view that, you know, maybe there are some things the government shouldn't own.

  Seriously, it seems pointless to choose two people on absolutely opposite sides of the spectrum. Really, Obama doesn't even share the "free market" philosophy of Bush and McCain, who are obviously quite far from Hayekian free market philosophy.

  Published: October 28, 2008 10:40 PM

• Paul Wolfstien

  I would just like to know how all of you all live with yourselves openly supporting a system of economics so repressive as free-market Capitalism?

  Yes, FMC will lead to a more materially-wealthy society than a Socialist one. However a Socialist society can be so much more equal and harmonious than its Capitalist counterpart. Now more than ever I think it is easily clear for people to see the fault in using FMC as an economic system. The current financial crises is just an indicator for change; if it does not happen soon enough then there will be genuine Social Revolution in the major Capitalist countries!

  Published: October 29, 2008 1:27 PM

• A Capitalist

  To Paul Wolfstien,

  Huh? Socialist society can be so much more equal and harmonious than its capitalist counterpart?

  Yeah, equal in misery. We'll all be harmoniously singing of how we detest our gov't, that is unless they start throwing us in prison for not participating in the equal harmonious vision being shoved down our throats.

  The current financial crisis is a result of socialist intervention, not capitalism. Capitalism produced the greatest increase in wealth creation in 1 century and moved the vast majority off of subsistence living.

  Socialism is only putting the brakes on further economic progress. Its true, we have enough capitalism left in our present society to continue some economic progress, but it is at a reduced rate. If unrestrained, laissez-faire capitalism would've completely eliminated poverty without gov't intervention. The middle class instead of generally having 1 home and 2 cars, may have had 2 homes (a separate vaction home) and 4 or 5 cars. Now the most productive wealth producers would be even wealthier than today, but so what, we would all be better off.

  Published: October 30, 2008 5:00 PM

• Due Stradi

  In case anyone misses it, Paul Wolfstien's link is to the Communist Party website.

  Troll much?

  Published: October 31, 2008 9:40 AM

• kurmudjin

  I believe Thomas Sowell summed it up best, when explaining why he would vote for McCain over Obama:

  "I prefer disaster to catastrophe."

  http://www2.nationalreview.com/hoover/20081027.mov

  Published: November 2, 2008 9:19 AM