“[Economic] planning does not accidentally deteriorate into the militarization of the economy; it is the militarization of the economy.… When the story of the Left is seen in this light, the idea of economic planning begins to appear not only accidentally but inherently reactionary. The theory of planning was, from its inception, modeled after feudal and militaristic organizations. Elements of the Left tried to transform it into a radical program, to fit into a progressive revolutionary vision. But it doesn’t fit. Attempts to implement this theory invariably reveal its true nature. The practice of planning is nothing but the militarization of the economy.”
In fact, socialists are intellectually unable to conceive of something that can be useful to man and that, unlike a hammer or an organization, has not been intentionally designed by someone. In other words, they are intellectually unable to conceive of a spontaneous order. This is the social order brought about by the interplay of human action though not by human design.
We now understand why Napoleon is still relevant in contemporary Europe. Numerous political leaders do believe in the government as the engine for growth and do nurture protectionist temptations: these beliefs enhance the importance of the political class and undermine the spontaneous dynamism of civil society.
The Nordic countries have undergone significant demographic changes and have struggled to assimilate new immigrants.
The implications of this one technology seem to me to be very large. So large that they’re going to change how we do think about, and plan public policy for, the macroeconomy.
So if we want to help the poor, we shouldn’t attack the rich. Instead, we should pursue policies that will allow faster growth.
Pope Francis mixes heartfelt concern for ecology with an often limited or confused understanding of the problem of pollution and meaning of markets. Humanity’s obligation for the environment is complex and the Pope discusses ecological values in the context of economic development and care for the poor.
In the many celebrations that the anniversary of that battle has yielded, the historical significance of the fight itself has been a touch overstated. The importance of the changeover that it marked, however, has not. In hindsight, Waterloo served as the key moment of the nineteenth century, recording for posterity the precise day on which the French claim to be the world’s “top nation” came crashing ignominiously down, and the promise of renewed British power, which had been fermenting quietly since the Battle of Yorktown, came finally to fruition.
French philosophy, which taught the world to reason with sweeping and bold systems such as rationalism, republicanism, feminism, positivism, existentialism and structuralism, has had conspicuously little to offer in recent decades.
But today, according to Hazareesingh, because of the end of Communism, which was deeply rooted among French intellectuals, the fading of structuralism, and anxiety about France’s identity in a globalised world, the French have come to doubt themselves and their intellectual destiny. This can be seen in the decline of France’s intellectual life and in its fading intellectual influence in the world.