While deleting 40% of my friends list on Facebook (it was
delightful; you should try it some time), I saw one of my friends, a pal of
mine from my good ol’ days in government, and he’s now making waves as a Malacañang
official.
Anyway, he posted a link of the Keynes-Hayek rap saga. I just found
it surprising because while the video itself is considered ‘viral,’ it’s
primarily circulated around people steeped in the tradition of the Austrian
school of economics.
What I found especially weird was, here was Keynes being
spread on the table, dissected of his fatal errors, yet apparently, my friend
and his other circle of friends did not take this away from the video. They
interpreted it as a matter of ‘he said, he said.’ As if deciding who’s right between
Keynes and Hayek is the same as choosing between brands of soup. There’s no
wrong choice!*
HOW DID I END UP RIGHT?
 |
| Irony of ironies: learning of the dangers of inflation from the bringer of the greatest depression yet. |
Perhaps my friend, admitting his insufficient education
on the topic, is being cautious before expressing his opinion on the subject. But
my point is that the truth can be right in your face, and you can still not see
it, the truth here being Hayek’s complete pwnage of all that is Keynes.
Indeed, my quick embracing of Hayekian/Misesian/Austrian
business cycle theory has less to do with my being incisive and discerning and
rational, and more to do with the fact that I was predisposed to it, what with
my having read Ayn Rand, especially ‘Capitalism: The unknown ideal.’ But then,
why was I predisposed to Ayn Rand in the first place?
I can’t just keep going back in time looking for an
understanding of my political positions; ultimately, I just have to be thankful
that I found the way to my present understanding of the business cycle, however
‘illogical’ a process it may have been to get there.
My friend himself witnessed my ‘going off the deep end’ in 2008 as I
read first Hazlitt, then Ron Paul, then the other Austrian economists. But he
was quick to catalogue Ron Paul as a Nader-type, without even comparing the
actual political philosophies espoused!
DEFINE YOUR TERMS FIRST
 |
Capitalism this and capitalism that.
What is capitalism anyway?
Will you not shut the fuck up then?
|
My friend on the other hand, would consider himself socialist-leaning
from his college days. It’s from him that I discovered the fucking idiot, i.e.
pop philosopher, Slavoj Zizek. Just reading a book and several articles of
Zizek’s criticizing ‘capitalism,’ it is obvious that he has no clear idea of
what he is criticizing.
The term ‘capitalism’ is a dumping ground for all that is
shallow, shrewd, crude, etc.; but such criticisms do not take into account the
actual system or types of actions involved. As a result, Zizek’s diagnosis of
what is wrong with the world is confused, targeting the good (freedom) while advocating more of
what’s bad (state interference).
FINAL THOUGHTS
It’s hard to make sense of all this, but I try to take it
in, in order to further understand the enemy that is the government-as-solution
mentality. But it’s clear that presenting better theories, better philosophies,
etc. is not more important than
recognizing the warped or backwards psychologies of the many.
* One Facebook commenter lamented how neither Keynes nor
Hayek factored in the issue of corruption that very often plagues governments.
As if the size of government has no bearing on the amount of corruption! The
fact that Hayek advocated a much smaller role for government should make clear that Keynes’ system
was more prone to capture by the politically privileged.
No comments:
Post a Comment