printDick Armey took on a Clinton lackey named, deceptively, David Goodfriend on the CNBC program Kudlow Reports. Armey, whom I think has a PhD in economics—as is its wont, Wikipedia won’t say—mentioned von Mises winning the great calculation debate. I believe he mumbled about von Mises whipping Lange or Lerner, but I can’t be sure. In any event, it made my day to hear someone mention von Mises, the greatest economist to live. Small pleasures.
Dick Armey Not Such a Tool
Classical Liberalism,Economy,Free Markets,Regulation,Republicans,Socialism
Armey holds a PhD in economics from the University of Oklahoma.
He taught for years at what is now known as the University of North Texas. A friend of mine had Armey for a class. Said he was very intelligent.
The allure of socialism (and Marxism) was (and is) the elimination of the middleman: the successful (read: rich) entrepreneur.
If one assumes that the ultimate goal of both capitalism and socialism is consumer satisfaction, then why substitute the arcane and inefficient socialist economic apparatus for the pure efficiency of the capitalist marketplace? To wring out the nasty demon of profit which accrues to capitalist entrepreneurs making them richer than any other individuals in society?
The “calculation” debate was an argument over means. Mises proved that public ownership of the means of production could not possibly satisfy consumer demand as efficiently as private ownership of the means of production, not despite the rich entrepreneur but BECAUSE of him. Mises, as Rothbard demonstrates, settled the economic question but socialists were (and remain) unimpressed. Any solution that leaves in place the pesky, rich, entrepreneur is unacceptable to them by definition.
The mistake is believing that the ends of socialists and capitalists are identical. In free market capitalism, rightly understood, the consumer is sovereign. In any variety of socialism imaginable socialist officials are sovereign. For evidence one only has to examine the government takeover of General Motors and the proposed cap-and-trade law which recently passed the House of Representatives.
Is anyone among us foolish enough to believe that the goal of the new GM is to produce cars that consumers want? Obama’s stated goal is to produce cars consumers need. That need, of course, is to be determined by Obama and his socialist planners.
Is the goal of the whole cap-and-trade energy fiasco to satisfy consumer demand for energy? No, its goal is to funnel power and position to political hacks and cronies. (Obama: “Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill.”)
No, Obama and his pals do not seek to satisfy the consumer. Their only goal is to destroy profit and the entrepreneurs who earn it–consumers be damned.
And the Obama socialist planners proceed apace, cheered on by their greedy, envious leftist minions.
Professor Armey is a bright man with good instincts who had to face a choice whether to go “mainstream” with ambitious hacks like Gingrich or to go “kooky” by adhering to principles like Dr. Paul. He chose the former path and moved into the # 2 House spot for a time.
One wonders if his political career would have gone further had he been a hottie Governess. See the piece by Steve Chapman:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/134677.html – also at
http://www.townhall.com/…/SteveChapman/…/the_secret_of_palins_staying_power
He also wrote an article for the WSJ a little while back where he spoke favorably of Hayek. [Link please.]
Here it is
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371237124446245.html