"After all, the really existing socialist economies were, to a kremlin, authoritarian: they, theoretically, at least, had no difficulty in suppressing consumption to promote investment. And the world as of 1990 was still a very capital-scarce one, with a high marginal return on investment.—at least in potential."
I would like to note here that the US has been in a universe of high-capital availability and a decade+ of reduced consumption (aggregate demand falling short) and that this has NOT resulted in massive economic growth in the United States. If the schema (lots of investment, drastically reduced demand) doesn't work well in a capitalist economy, why in God's name would it work in a economy with nothing but state-controlled companies?
Rana Faroohar's piece from the FT is paywalled, so I can't see the argument. But I do wonder what the US is "reacting" to in this view, and if that (whatever it is) is not itself a reaction to the actions of the US over the last several years (such as the previous blocking of advanced tech sales to China).
If you look at Keynes' review of The Road to Serfdom, I accept all of it. There was no valid reason for Hayek to say Keynes had strayed from classical liberalism, other than he thought Keynes was allowing his ideas to be corrupted by big government types, and believed he was offering a reasonable assessment of the road to serfdom, whereas his fear of the welfare state was simply over the top. However, over the next few years after WW II a lot of people over the entire political spectrum offered over the top assessments of the political situation. I think it stems from the fact that lots of people underestimated Hitler, and that was a mind altering mistake.
My family didn't have many academic friends, but the one it did have was Carlo Cipolla. Let me offer him as the greatest economic historian Cal ever had.
The Soviet Union was about as much a planned economy as your average welfare state. It had a black market economy and a graft/exchange economy that was enormous. Let me recommend an author you might not have read named Gregory Grossman.
Central bank inflation targeting: I don't think we can reject 2% as the optimal target IF they were willing to "do what it takes" to prevent falling below it Still, It does look as if the size and frequency of demand and supply side shocks have increased and so then the optimal target.
Who knows what the text and readings were for a undergraduate "Comparative Economics" class taught by before he was Labor Secretary for LBJ, Ray Marshall. But it was great (greater in retrospect as I learned years later what I had learned). It contained the (I suspect) fable of the nail factory that was alternatively chargesdwith maximizing the number of nails and the then Kg of nails with and how Soviet engineers building hydroelectric dams approximately re-invented discounted present value.
"After all, the really existing socialist economies were, to a kremlin, authoritarian: they, theoretically, at least, had no difficulty in suppressing consumption to promote investment. And the world as of 1990 was still a very capital-scarce one, with a high marginal return on investment.—at least in potential."
I would like to note here that the US has been in a universe of high-capital availability and a decade+ of reduced consumption (aggregate demand falling short) and that this has NOT resulted in massive economic growth in the United States. If the schema (lots of investment, drastically reduced demand) doesn't work well in a capitalist economy, why in God's name would it work in a economy with nothing but state-controlled companies?
elm
efficiency paradox
Rana Faroohar's piece from the FT is paywalled, so I can't see the argument. But I do wonder what the US is "reacting" to in this view, and if that (whatever it is) is not itself a reaction to the actions of the US over the last several years (such as the previous blocking of advanced tech sales to China).
If you look at Keynes' review of The Road to Serfdom, I accept all of it. There was no valid reason for Hayek to say Keynes had strayed from classical liberalism, other than he thought Keynes was allowing his ideas to be corrupted by big government types, and believed he was offering a reasonable assessment of the road to serfdom, whereas his fear of the welfare state was simply over the top. However, over the next few years after WW II a lot of people over the entire political spectrum offered over the top assessments of the political situation. I think it stems from the fact that lots of people underestimated Hitler, and that was a mind altering mistake.
My family didn't have many academic friends, but the one it did have was Carlo Cipolla. Let me offer him as the greatest economic historian Cal ever had.
The Soviet Union was about as much a planned economy as your average welfare state. It had a black market economy and a graft/exchange economy that was enormous. Let me recommend an author you might not have read named Gregory Grossman.
Central bank inflation targeting: I don't think we can reject 2% as the optimal target IF they were willing to "do what it takes" to prevent falling below it Still, It does look as if the size and frequency of demand and supply side shocks have increased and so then the optimal target.
What fun thinking about Cnut's empire having lasted. :) Or the Sicilian Normans having actually succeeded at Demetritzes.
Who knows what the text and readings were for a undergraduate "Comparative Economics" class taught by before he was Labor Secretary for LBJ, Ray Marshall. But it was great (greater in retrospect as I learned years later what I had learned). It contained the (I suspect) fable of the nail factory that was alternatively chargesdwith maximizing the number of nails and the then Kg of nails with and how Soviet engineers building hydroelectric dams approximately re-invented discounted present value.