Please note, this is my first post. I may get tired of seeing that word "economics" up there so then I will just change it. I am not real good at that kind of stuff. Just to introduce myself to the police and so forth, who monitor these things to make sure no one rescinds their right to torture people, I am an original economic theorist. You may get to know my ideas little by little but I am not going to give it away right off the top. This is not I do not think the place for that. My name is Jack Silverman and I am from the Midwest. Another Midwestern musician said that too, once...
...listening to a bad version (probably Bob Dylan himself or rather Zimmerman) of "Maggie's Farm" - thinking if they played it too while Margaret Thatcher was in office (as P.M. of G. B'tain. Cap'n of the ship. "Maggie.")
...thinking too of the kind of social theorist someone like Hayek was. Now Thatcher would invoke people of that school, which is to say someone like Hayek. I believe that Reagan too would invoke Hayek this way.
They may say that this makes a difference but I honestly don't see one. There is an ongoing cultural conflict. There are two sides to this cultural conflict. Now one of these may be represented by workers, unemployed, peasants in third-World countries, refugees and for example socialist persons, and on the other side of that dialectic is "successful" persons. You know - people with good jobs, creative careers, owners of money and real estate, etc. There are always those who are unfriendly to the economic system - who feel it is a pile of crap.
So, Hayek was not one of those of course. But my point is: what is the difference whether we invoke Hayek's type or not? Things still go along on more or less the same path, anyways. This is the salient point...(t.b.c.)
[p.s. thanks for reading. Now pay me! See? I too am hip.]