Thursday, August 30, 2012

Bruce Bartlett — Why Hayek Isn’t Paul Ryan’s Guru

I suspect that in his heart, Representative Ryan is more attracted to the dogmatism of Rand than the complex, nuanced philosophy of Hayek, who told the Cornell political scientist Theodore Lowi that Rand angrily called him “a compromiser” on the only occasion they met.
The New York Times | Economix
Why Hayek Isn’t Paul Ryan’s Guru
Bruce Bartlett


David said...

“Privatization” became a worldwide phenomenon, and the number of state-owned enterprises fell. Communism collapsed in 1989, and the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Thus postwar history is exactly the opposite of what Hayek predicted. Liberalism did not beget socialism, which did not beget totalitarianism.

Liberalism begat neo-liberalism. The returns have come in on that con and it is another stinking failure. So, what now, Mr. Bartlett?

Matt Franko said...

She sounded like a 'divider and not a unite-er'....

Tom Hickey said...

She sounded like a 'divider and not a unite-er'....

British conservatism has always been about class. The haute bourgeoisie are the new aristocracy and gentry class. They are pitted against the petite (petty) bourgeoisie and laborers. This is taken as simply factual in the UK. In the US the haute bourgeoisie is not compared to the aristocracy, in the US never had an aristocracy and it pretends, when convenient, to be "the same as everyone else" even though that is patent nonsense. McCain was called out on his wife's house, the number o which he was not sure of. Romney is trying to position himself as an ordinary guy, and even claimed his residence as a basement, even though he owns an estimated 12 homes.

BTW, seen this yet?

Bachmann: “Obama too Rich,” Vote for Romney

 According to American Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama can’t relate to “the common man” because of his extreme wealth. Apparently, Obama falls into the “Valley of Death by Wealth.” Fortunately for her favorite,  GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is suitable for election, presumably because he is worth hundreds of millions more. This was reported by Paige Lavender, an Associate Politics Editor in the Washington DC bureau of the Huffington Post.  It must be that if your vast wealth is a few million, you can’t handle it. But by the time you have 50 to 100 times more, the arrogance, haughtiness, and aloofness goes away. This is a case of of too much is bad, but way too much is better.
“President Obama is extremely wealthy,” Bachmann said when USA Today asked how someone with “vast wealth” could connect to the American public. “He and his wife have been wealthy for a number of years, and so I think that’s really the issue. President Obama is wealthy — what does he understand about the common man right now?”
Financial disclosure reports released by the White House in May, list the total worth of the Obamas’ assets at between  $2.6 million and  $8.3 million That’s what makes him unfit. On the other hand,.Romney’s net worth is up to $255 million, according to financial disclosure reports.That’s how he got his warm connection to the everyman and his obvious common man’s commonsense.

Matt Franko said...


Hey you played the "Bachmann Card" here.... that's cheatin' my friend! ;)

Tom Hickey said...

Bachmann's quote shows the difference in attitude to "old money" and "new money." "Old money" is thought to embody the traditions of the country. Yes, Mitt made a pile but he comes from "old money."

The Obamas are "nouveau riche" in comparison. You know, upstarts.