Reddit reviews The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Volume 1) (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)
We found 12 Reddit comments about The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Volume 1) (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I'd recommend reading many sides/perspectives so that you can formulate an independent mind and not just be a mouthpiece of some economist's ideology. For instance, I disagree with a lot of Marx, but I think his materialist critique of history and his critique of capitalism are very useful and a lot of it is correct. His solutions/recommendations are shit, but that doesn't discount his contributions. My recommendations:
Generally Considered Right-Leaning Economics:
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson: https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274539&sr=8-1
F. A. Hayek, Road to Serfdom: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-1
F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-3
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553585975/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275227&sr=1-3
Frederic Bastiat, The Law: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1612930123/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=31TE91RXV0Q2XPPWE81K
Also read: Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises
Generally Considered Left-Leaning Economics:
J. M. Keynes, The General Theory: https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/0156347113/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510274943&sr=1-3
Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital: https://www.amazon.com/Accumulation-Capital-Rosa-Luxemburg/dp/1614277885/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-2
Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution: https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Writings-History-Political-Science/dp/0486447766/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-1
Also read: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Modern day Left/Keynesian economist is Paul Krugman.
Anarchism:
Emma Goldman: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Other-Essays-Emma-Goldman/dp/1484116577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510275717&sr=8-1
Please read The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism and get back to us.
>Deficit spending is not the same thing as spending on the credit card in your pocket.
Deficit spending is future taxation. I don't know what your comment has to do with this fact.
This Guy
should read
some books
Other replies give overviews, so when you're ready for the full analysis, see What Has Government Done To Our Money? by Dr. Murray Rothbard -- also available as an audio book.
You may also be interested in Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek's The Fatal Conceit wherein the author demonstrates that central banks cannot accomplish their stated aims.
For everyone else: This is a pretty good example of the Hayekian Fatal Conceit: That is, that individual men have the knowledge and capacity to "solve" social problems.
To neuromonkey: You ought to beware of this line of thinking. Claiming the market is "wrong" (whatever that may mean) is rather meaningless if you understand what markets are and do, but to claim that you have the "solution" to the market problem is pretty wacky. You can probably find lots of people who will agree that the market was "wrong" in providing this, that, or the other good or service. You might even find people who can agree that something ought to be done about it. But you shouldn't claim to know what to do to fix it. That's crazy at best and irresponsible at worst.
Just ask yourself: How is it that Little Ol' You knows that this or that policy change will produce the desired effect, whether approximately or precisely?
I submit that you simply cannot know because of the complexity and unpredictability of individual human behavior.
Thoughts?
Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement
Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective
IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!
There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States
The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative
Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.
Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book
The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669
Sorry that was a typo, I meant the 1940s. Probably the best scholarly case against Socialism was made by F. A. Hayek, in "Road to Serfdom", and again in the more recent book:
https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669
The point remains however, that all the innovative thinking in the last 100 years has not been in leftist ideologies, but in market-based economics, which is currently supported ONLY by conservatives and conservative-leaning libertarians
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Mises
Human Actiom, by Mises
The Theory of Money and Credit, by Mises
The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, by Mises
The Road to Serfdom, by F.A Hayek
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, by F.A Hayek
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner
If anything, you should read this because it is on topic with transportation.
I was skimming these, and most of what I would say has been covered here, but I think three things may have been overlooked.
First, it's important to understand that most libertarians strongly favor local charities and community initiatives to give people a hand up who have fallen on hard times. I think the government has no business giving money to the poor for pretty much anything (also not a universal libertarian position), but I recognize that sometimes people are poor or in some other kind of long-term danger because of things they can't fix themselves. For example, I think that addiction is a problem that most people can't solve on their own because of lack of resources or lack of information. It seems to me that the most "progressive" response to this would be to demand that the government set up treatment centers and offer free healthcare (including mental healthcare). As a libertarian, I volunteer at and give money to independent, non-profit treatment centers. You could do the same thing with a number of issues (environment, food deserts, etc.) without government intervention. Because I am on the spot, instead of in Washington, I can address the needs of individuals more precisely. I can tell that James is a basically good guy who got mixed up with heroin at a young age but is genuinely working to improve his lot, so that when I buy him lunch, he can use the money he saves to buy some clothes for an interview or save up for an eventual security deposit. On the other hand, Rob is just out to scrimp together cash for another crack rock, so buying him lunch will just let him hoard the money he might have spent on a sandwich to get more rock.
If I'm wrong about the direction of my charity, it only hurts me. You can spend your resources more wisely if you choose. I can learn from my mistakes more quickly because they have direct and real consequences for me that I can measure and react to efficiently.
On paper, these two people might look exactly the same. The government has no particular interest in the individual here. As long as aggregate results are good exploitative individuals are irrelevant.
Another example that I don't directly deal with is people who are out of work due to disability. Maybe one person is genuinely disabled and won't be able to hold down a steady job for the rest of their lives. I can help them by giving them money directly for the rest of their lives or organize a group of people to help support them from within the community. Maybe someone else is just taking advantage of a particularly unscrupulous doctor, and they're essentially just lazy. The government has to choose between expensive oversight and mistreatment of the one (by forcing the genuinely disabled person to search for a job they can never get or by giving unneeded aid to a person who should be contributing to the economy).
Second, not all libertarians are the same. There's a wide swath of opinion within libertarianism. While we share similar first principals (economic and personal liberty should be radically and thoroughly defended from government encroachment), our expression of those principals will be different. For example, some libertarians support a limited welfare state while others feel it is wrong and/or inefficient. Another example, many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds that a fetus is a living person whose right to life must be protected; others disagree and support abortion rights on the grounds that a woman should be free to choose her own family and reproductive destiny. These people can all be libertarians.
Third, for an excellent critique of the moral basis of progressive liberal economic thought, I'd recommend Hayek's The Fatal Conceit. It's addressing Marxism, but many of the arguments also apply to how most libertarians view the left in general.
>Oh, I think you're just trolling now.
You got me there, I went into the land of unreasonable with that.
But really, if you'd rather debate with someone more noteworthy than I,
please read this. I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts on it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320669/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
Go make the same snide remarks after actually considering some of the information contained within. Prediction: You will entirely ignore that, assume your economic/political opinions are superior and feel a sense of moral righteousness. Theennn continue making snide remarks. Prove me wrong.