Friedrich Hayek

not popular with some sections I imagine

Oh yes, the one Thatcher used to quote, says it all really.

Neither would this then

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Oh dear

Funnily enough the Swedish socialist economist Gunnar Myrdal won it with him.

Irn Bru wrote:Neither would this then

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Oh dear

You notice it when you are debating them lol

Irn Bru wrote:Neither would this then

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Oh dear

did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Neither would this then

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Oh dear

You notice it when you are debating them lol

debating  ://?roflmao?/: 

Hayek, I'm a big fan! At least, of one of his ideas:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, page 125

Still prefer this Hayek, though:



... saw her once in person and she's even prettier in real life than on screen!

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Neither would this then

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

Oh dear

did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

You didn't read it did ya

  

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

You notice it when you are debating them lol

debating   ://?roflmao?/: 

....There has been some debating on here, can't say the same for Flap....It's just Didge against the far right!  ::lightsab::    

Ben_Reilly wrote:Hayek, I'm a big fan! At least, of one of his ideas:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, page 125

Still prefer this Hayek, though:



... saw her once in person and she's even prettier in real life than on screen!

well you wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crisps   

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

You didn't read it did ya

  

Hayek had British citizenship.
so he didn't say it, in which case what does it have to do with this thread.

Catman wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
debating   ://?roflmao?/: 

....There has been some debating on here, can't say the same for Flap....It's just Didge against the far right!  ::lightsab::    

you seem a little obsessed with this Flap. did he take your dummy away, boo hoo

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You didn't read it did ya

  

Hayek had British citizenship.
so he didn't say it, in which case what does it have to do with this thread.

I never said he did say it. It was you that thought he did.

Cantankerous wrote:

Catman wrote:


....There has been some debating on here, can't say the same for Flap....It's just Didge against the far right!  ::lightsab::    

you seem a little obsessed with this Flap. did he take your dummy away, boo hoo

...Well he's been accusing me of posting messages that i never sent...Big Andy sent me a PM...I couldn't read what it was because i'm not a member.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
Hayek had British citizenship.
so he didn't say it, in which case what does it have to do with this thread.

I never said he did say it. It was you that thought he did.

I wondered what it had to do with the thread that is all. People appear to be doing their utmost to ignore what the thread is about, almost as if they do not have an answer to it.

Catman wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
you seem a little obsessed with this Flap. did he take your dummy away, boo hoo

...Well he's been accusing me of posting messages that i never sent...Big Andy sent me a PM...I couldn't read what it was because i'm not a member.

so what has that got to do with this forum?

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I never said he did say it. It was you that thought he did.

I wondered what it had to do with the thread that is all. People appear to be doing their utmost to ignore what the thread is about, almost as if they do not have an answer to it.

No, you thought that it was Hayek that said it. And what it has to do with this thread is that it was a counter to your OP.

What's your problem with that?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
I wondered what it had to do with the thread that is all. People appear to be doing their utmost to ignore what the thread is about, almost as if they do not have an answer to it.

No, you thought that it was Hayek that said it. And what it has to do with this thread is that it was a counter to your OP.

What's your problem with that?

read what I said again and you may understand

how was it a counter to the post. It was totally unrelated to anything about the post.

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No, you thought that it was Hayek that said it. And what it has to do with this thread is that it was a counter to your OP.

What's your problem with that?

read what I said again and you may understand

how was it a counter to the post. It was totally unrelated to anything about the post.

You said...

did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

It's a counter in so far as it presents an alternative view to what you posted.

What's your problem with that? Are you trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable around here?

If it's off the mark then I'm sure that admin will say so.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
read what I said again and you may understand

how was it a counter to the post. It was totally unrelated to anything about the post.

You said...

did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

It's a counter in so far as it presents an alternative view to what you posted.

What's your problem with that? Are you trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable around here?

If it's off the mark then I'm sure that admin will say so.

how is it a counter to what he said?
it is a totally unrelated comment about a totally different subject

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You said...

did he say that as well.
What an interesting man

It's a counter in so far as it presents an alternative view to what you posted.

What's your problem with that? Are you trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable around here?

If it's off the mark then I'm sure that admin will say so.

how is it a counter to what he said?
it is a totally unrelated comment about a totally different subject

Your post...

(1) If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists

My post...

(2) Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers

(2) is the counter. Surely that's easy to understand - even for you.

Fredrich Hayek was born Austrian.  I particularly love his essay, Why I am Not a Conservative.  His thesis is that there is no there, there.

Apropos of the general comment, it was John Stuart Mill who said, I'm not saying that all Conservatives are stupid; what I am saying is that all stupid people are Conservative.

And it's not true anyway.

It is about vested interests. Socialism is the best, Communism and Capitalism are too extreme. But if you are already wealthy then obviously you will prefer the system that keeps your privileged position.

I still think it's hilarious that Hayek wrote that passage above in one of his most celebrated books. It's nothing short of a full-throated endorsement of socialized medicine and the welfare state. Just to reiterate:

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."

Cantankerous didn't know that, he will be well upset   

I had a read at it and this bit jumped out...

But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

Sums David Cameron up completely and what made me think of UKIP?

Wow, that is totally accurate!

Sassy wrote:Wow, that is totally accurate!

Isn't it just. And it appears some of them are just a bunch of 'cap doffers' lol

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

    

Yes sir, no sir, three bags full Sir!!!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
how is it a counter to what he said?
it is a totally unrelated comment about a totally different subject

Your post...

(1) If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists

My post...

(2) Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers

(2) is the counter. Surely that's easy to understand - even for you.

how is that a counter to the statement made by Heyek?


surely a counter would be you attempting to explain how socialists can remain socialists IF they understood economics.

But I suppose that is an impossible statement to counter. Well certainly from those here anyway.

veya_victaous wrote:And it's not true anyway.

It is about vested interests. Socialism is the best, Communism and Capitalism are too extreme.  But if you are already wealthy then obviously you will prefer the system that keeps your privileged position.

then why do socialist countries always end up imprisoning their peoples.

Sassy wrote:Cantankerous didn't know that, he will be well upset   

yes dear, of course.
However I am talking about the statement in the OP. which you are all studiously ignoring for some strange reason.

We are not ignoring it, we are showing you how he said a lot of other stuff that counteracted it, which you obviously didn't know about.

Irn Bru wrote:I had a read at it and this bit jumped out...

But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

Sums David Cameron up completely and what made me think of UKIP?

indeed it is probably why the current tories are doing so poorly in the polls. Although the economy is doing somewhat better than the socialist have been claiming since 2010 rather enforcing the op that socialists do not understand economics.
Balls does seem to get rather red in the face when being shown up with monotonous regularity.

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:Wow, that is totally accurate!

Isn't it just.  And it appears some of them are just a bunch of 'cap doffers' lol

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

ain't wiki great

Hum, you obviously haven't read the thread that shows they are not doing as well as they thought.

Sassy wrote:We are not ignoring it, we are showing you how he said a lot of other stuff that counteracted it, which you obviously didn't know about.

he was writing books for 60 odd years or so, he said a lot of stuff.
however what he said about socialists and economics seems to have you all stumped. Hence the reason you all seem intent on moving the discussion away from it.

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Isn't it just.  And it appears some of them are just a bunch of 'cap doffers' lol

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

ain't wiki great

That explains a lot, that is obviously where you got your quote and didn't know about the rest of the things he said.

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:We are not ignoring it, we are showing you how he said a lot of other stuff that counteracted it, which you obviously didn't know about.

he was writing books for 60 odd years or so, he said a lot of stuff.
however what he said about socialists and economics seems to have you all stumped. Hence the reason you all seem intent on moving the discussion away from it.

Oh bless you, he moved the discussion away from it and counteracted himself.

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
ain't wiki great

That explains a lot, that is obviously where you got your quote and didn't know about the rest of the things he said.

I was pointing out the quotes used have come from wiki as well as other sources.

Have I stumbled on an enclave of Heyek students. How marvellous.

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
he was writing books for 60 odd years or so, he said a lot of stuff.
however what he said about socialists and economics seems to have you all stumped. Hence the reason you all seem intent on moving the discussion away from it.

Oh bless you, he moved the discussion away from it and counteracted himself.

you seem to be making circular references. try and talk in english

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh bless you, he moved the discussion away from it and counteracted himself.

you seem to be making circular references. try and talk in english

Oh dear, having trouble keeping up. Never mind.

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Your post...

(1) If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists

My post...

(2) Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers

(2) is the counter. Surely that's easy to understand - even for you.

how is that a counter to the statement made by Heyek?


surely a counter would be you attempting to explain how socialists can remain socialists IF they understood economics.

But I suppose that is an impossible statement to counter. Well certainly from those here anyway.

Oh dear, you are an angry laddie aren't you just.

The first one suggests that Socialists (LW) aren't intelligent and the second one suggests that Socialists (LW) are more intelligent than RW.

You see, that explains why you as a RW doesn't get it.

Cantankerous wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Isn't it just.  And it appears some of them are just a bunch of 'cap doffers' lol

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

ain't wiki great

It is but that's not where I got it.

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That explains a lot, that is obviously where you got your quote and didn't know about the rest of the things he said.

I was pointing out the quotes used have come from wiki as well as other sources.

Have I stumbled on an enclave of Heyek students. How marvellous.  

You have stumbled right enough,,,,,,,,,,,spectacularly‎ and it's been a lot of fun watching it.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:
I was pointing out the quotes used have come from wiki as well as other sources.

Have I stumbled on an enclave of Heyek students. How marvellous.  

You have stumbled right enough,,,,,,,,,,,spectacularly‎ and it's been a lot of fun watching it.

That made be giggle! It has been fun watching bless, he was trying to be so clever and failed miserably.

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You have stumbled right enough,,,,,,,,,,,spectacularly‎ and it's been a lot of fun watching it.

That made be giggle!   It has been fun watching bless, he was trying to be so clever and failed miserably.

Endorses Hayek's theory about conservatives down to a tee right enough.

Cap doffers

  

Cantankerous wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:And it's not true anyway.

It is about vested interests. Socialism is the best, Communism and Capitalism are too extreme.  But if you are already wealthy then obviously you will prefer the system that keeps your privileged position.

then why do socialist countries always end up imprisoning their peoples.

USA one of the most Capitalist Countries on Earth and have the HIGHEST incarceration rate.
Sorry your propaganda statement is simply not true.

And Australia and France are two of the socialist countries, I think you may be mistaking Socialist for Communist, the terms are not interchangeable. And even with Communist countries the USA, bastion of capitalism, still imprisons more of its citizens.