There's no third way?

By -
Mises famously contended that there is no third way between socialism and laissez faire. This was an odd contention on his part, since we'd also have to say that according to him we've always been on a third way: pure socialism is not possible (I think Mises was right about this) and we have never had a pure market economy (also, I think, not possible).

Now, Mises was terribly wrong about some things, but he certainly wasn't stupid, so: how did he reconcile these two seemingly disparate ideas?

(I am thinking about this as I begin my research on distributism.)

Comments

  1. Peter Cresswell7:49 PM

    I'd guess he might say that what we presently 'enjoy' is a hampered market. That is, the choice is between market and socialism. We have a particular kind of the former the former: so, genus = market; differentia = hampered.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:01 PM

    Perhaps this depends on what mises meant when he said "way". We can follow the deer paths of " natural" laissez faire capitalism, or the " rational " straight lines of socialism, but betwpieen them lis only a trackless waste defined only by the footpaths we make in traversing them.

    To say it again, "way" may refer to a delineated path, in english, as in "bridleway" or " public way". Perhaps mises expression in german has a similar meaning if carefully translated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell12:19 AM

    Politics can't be placed on a spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt4:02 AM

    Perhaps the "way" is a direction rather than an end state?

    I could see it as a one-dimensional spectrum in which "capitalism" is very close to one end, "socialism" is some range on the other end, and the third way of "interventionism" is a vector pointing in the direction of socialism. You're either holding the line on capitalism or allowing a descent into socialism.

    I don't know if Mises had a specific idea of how pure a market economy must be to be considered "capitalism", or if he just meant reasonably free of intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell8:20 PM

      Well, he's totally wrong on that, then. One third way would be pure chaos.

      Delete
  5. steve rose2:01 PM

    Perhaps he mean that all economic systems can be classified as combinations of freedom and planning, with no other variables giving addition options.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Daniel McCarthy7:30 AM

    I suspect Mises means that over a long enough time the economic system logically or praxeologically has to resolve itself into one form or another. From a theoretical perspective this might sound clear-cut and powerful, but from a practical perspective it turns out to be like talking about a perfect equilibrium. The logically unstable form -- a mixed economy -- is unstable based on economic principle, but exigencies keep "temporarily" keeping it around, like an external energy inputs screwing up what would otherwise be a nice, predictable path of entropy. As evidence that this is how Misesians see it, consider how the Soviet Union's foreign trade gets cited as the backdoor through which some price logic was reintroduced into the otherwise truly socialist system, thus keeping it going for decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell10:41 PM

      Methinks the Misesians are spouting nonsense on that/

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more