I’ve been thinking about the Road to Serfdom. This debacle makes me realize that Hayek’s move on the intellectual chessboard was to position government planning as an atypical “extra set of options” for distribution of goods and services beyond the “default” of market distribution on a price basis.
In fact, we can see that what constitutes the “default” is an empirical political matter. In our country, at least when it comes to medicines, government planning is the “default,” and if we did distribute on a price basis, that would be a government plan to distribute on the basis of price.
Allowing and defining the scope of a market economy is fundamentally a government plan. And it too is subject to the maddening contests of planners and all the other nonsense that Hayek described. Each plan, including price-based distribution, has its partisans, planners, theorists, and activists, and each is an ox in the run of the bulls.
Although I still think that partial or even full price-based allocation could be a very good thing; as well as permitting, now, an additional price-based infrastructure alongside our current political allocation; I also think that this is yet another plan, rather than an alternative to planning.
Where the concept of “default” steps in is in how any particular form of good is typically regulated and allocated in a specific country. In our country, we have a “default” of heavy regulation and a government-led approach to crisis. We don’t respond to crime waves by letting neighborhoods hire mercenaries; we don’t respond to hurricanes by letting the market sort things out; we don’t respond to pandemics by letting the market self-regulate and self-allocate.
The government directs emergencies. That’s our default. With all the heat of advocates for this and that alternative plan, we stick to that very simple 4-word rule.
How might Hayek interpret our response to COVID, in terms of the cartoon on pg 37 of the PDF?
Pandemic forces national planning: we gladly surrender many freedoms and know that regimentation was forced by the virus.
Many want planning to stay: arguments for a “vaccine distribution plan” are heard before the vaccine is approved. Pandemic planners who want to stay in power encourage the idea.
The planners promise utopias: a rosy plan for equitable distribution goes over well in leftwing areas; a plan for price-based allocation is popular among economists—and so on. (I guess the planners are already in office, so they don’t need to be elected).
But they can’t agree on ONE utopia: with vaccines, a new set of policymakers become relevant, but “get through the pandemic safely” unity is gone. The planners nearly come to blows. Each has his own pet plan, and won’t budge.
And citizens can’t agree either: When the planners finally patch up a temporary plan months later, citizens in turn disagree. What the leftwinger likes, the economist doesn’t like.
Planners hate to force agreement: most national planners are well-meaning idealists, balk at any use of force. They hope for some miracle of public (or expert) agreement as to their patchwork plan.
They try to sell the plan to all: In an unsuccessful effort to educate people to uniform views, planners establish a giant social media machine—which the coming dictator will find handy.
The gullible do find agreement: Meanwhile, growing national confusion leads to social media griping. The least educated—thrilled and convinced by fiery oratory, storm the capitol.
Confidence in planners fades: the more that the planners improvise, the greater the disturbance to normal business. Everybody suffers. People now feel—rightly—that planners can’t get things done!
Andrew Cuomo is given power: In desperation, New York State bureaucrats support Andrew Cuomo to hammer out a plan and threatens million-dollar fines and reputational savaging to force its obedience. Later, they’ll dispense with him—or so they think.
Very Serious People take over the country: by now, confusion is so great that obedience to Andrew Cuomo must be obtained at all costs. Maybe you post a “In this house, we believe...” sign on the lawn yourself to aid national unity.
A negative aim welds party unity: Early step of the Very Serious People is to inflame the majority in common cause against some scapegoat minority. In America, the negative aim is anti-”human garbage”?
No one opposes Andrew Cuomo’s plan: It would be career suicide; new social media influencers are ruthless. Ability to force obedience always becomes the no. 1 virtue in the Very Serious State. Now all freedom is gone.
Your vaccine is delayed: the efficient distribution promised by now defunct planners turns out to be a tragic farce. Planners never have delivered, never will be able to.
Your return to work is delayed: opening of institutions must be arbitrary and rigid. Running a planned state from central headquarters is clumsy, unfair, inefficient.
Your thinking is planned: In the dictatorship, unintentionally created by the planners, there is no room for difference of opinion. Billboards, press, social media—all tell you the same lies!
Your recreation is planned: It is no coincidence that parks and playgrounds have been carefully restricted in all regimented states. Once started, planners can’t stop.
Your disciplining is planned: If your medical license is cancelled, you’re apt to get cancelled as well. What used to be an error has now become a crime against the state. Thus ends the road to serfdom!
I’ve been thinking about the Road to Serfdom. This debacle makes me realize that Hayek’s move on the intellectual chessboard was to position government planning as an atypical “extra set of options” for distribution of goods and services beyond the “default” of market distribution on a price basis.
In fact, we can see that what constitutes the “default” is an empirical political matter. In our country, at least when it comes to medicines, government planning is the “default,” and if we did distribute on a price basis, that would be a government plan to distribute on the basis of price.
Allowing and defining the scope of a market economy is fundamentally a government plan. And it too is subject to the maddening contests of planners and all the other nonsense that Hayek described. Each plan, including price-based distribution, has its partisans, planners, theorists, and activists, and each is an ox in the run of the bulls.
Although I still think that partial or even full price-based allocation could be a very good thing; as well as permitting, now, an additional price-based infrastructure alongside our current political allocation; I also think that this is yet another plan, rather than an alternative to planning.
Where the concept of “default” steps in is in how any particular form of good is typically regulated and allocated in a specific country. In our country, we have a “default” of heavy regulation and a government-led approach to crisis. We don’t respond to crime waves by letting neighborhoods hire mercenaries; we don’t respond to hurricanes by letting the market sort things out; we don’t respond to pandemics by letting the market self-regulate and self-allocate.
The government directs emergencies. That’s our default. With all the heat of advocates for this and that alternative plan, we stick to that very simple 4-word rule.
How might Hayek interpret our response to COVID, in terms of the cartoon on pg 37 of the PDF?
Pandemic forces national planning: we gladly surrender many freedoms and know that regimentation was forced by the virus.
Many want planning to stay: arguments for a “vaccine distribution plan” are heard before the vaccine is approved. Pandemic planners who want to stay in power encourage the idea.
The planners promise utopias: a rosy plan for equitable distribution goes over well in leftwing areas; a plan for price-based allocation is popular among economists—and so on. (I guess the planners are already in office, so they don’t need to be elected).
But they can’t agree on ONE utopia: with vaccines, a new set of policymakers become relevant, but “get through the pandemic safely” unity is gone. The planners nearly come to blows. Each has his own pet plan, and won’t budge.
And citizens can’t agree either: When the planners finally patch up a temporary plan months later, citizens in turn disagree. What the leftwinger likes, the economist doesn’t like.
Planners hate to force agreement: most national planners are well-meaning idealists, balk at any use of force. They hope for some miracle of public (or expert) agreement as to their patchwork plan.
They try to sell the plan to all: In an unsuccessful effort to educate people to uniform views, planners establish a giant social media machine—which the coming dictator will find handy.
The gullible do find agreement: Meanwhile, growing national confusion leads to social media griping. The least educated—thrilled and convinced by fiery oratory, storm the capitol.
Confidence in planners fades: the more that the planners improvise, the greater the disturbance to normal business. Everybody suffers. People now feel—rightly—that planners can’t get things done!
Andrew Cuomo is given power: In desperation, New York State bureaucrats support Andrew Cuomo to hammer out a plan and threatens million-dollar fines and reputational savaging to force its obedience. Later, they’ll dispense with him—or so they think.
Very Serious People take over the country: by now, confusion is so great that obedience to Andrew Cuomo must be obtained at all costs. Maybe you post a “In this house, we believe...” sign on the lawn yourself to aid national unity.
A negative aim welds party unity: Early step of the Very Serious People is to inflame the majority in common cause against some scapegoat minority. In America, the negative aim is anti-”human garbage”?
No one opposes Andrew Cuomo’s plan: It would be career suicide; new social media influencers are ruthless. Ability to force obedience always becomes the no. 1 virtue in the Very Serious State. Now all freedom is gone.
Your vaccine is delayed: the efficient distribution promised by now defunct planners turns out to be a tragic farce. Planners never have delivered, never will be able to.
Your return to work is delayed: opening of institutions must be arbitrary and rigid. Running a planned state from central headquarters is clumsy, unfair, inefficient.
Your thinking is planned: In the dictatorship, unintentionally created by the planners, there is no room for difference of opinion. Billboards, press, social media—all tell you the same lies!
Your recreation is planned: It is no coincidence that parks and playgrounds have been carefully restricted in all regimented states. Once started, planners can’t stop.
Your disciplining is planned: If your medical license is cancelled, you’re apt to get cancelled as well. What used to be an error has now become a crime against the state. Thus ends the road to serfdom!