Economics 101

[Rshermr]

I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.

View attachment 86194

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!

 

[Rshermr]

You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal.

He has not missed that fact. What you missed is that business to business demand goes away if consumer demand decreases to a point that the businesses goods are no longer purchased in sufficient quantity. You see, B2B demand is totally dependent on consumer demand. And is WAY smaller always.

Bwahahahahaha! The fact that your dumb-ass believes my quote about businesses "shopping for the best deal" is in regards to "business to business" is not only an illustration of your astounding ignorance but also a real indictment on your reading comprehension.
Not at all, me poor ignorant con troll. I know that as any consumer, businesses shop for the best deal. Difference between businesses and laborers is that businesses have monopoly power. Laborers and consumers do not.

Sweetie...we have been talking about government regulations on business for like 10 pages now. When I said business were shopping for the best deal - it was not in the context of goods and services from other businesses. It was in the context of governments. Which ever nations would provide them with the best deal of the lowest taxes, the least costly regulations, the least costly labor demands, all of which have the biggest impact on costs to the business which in turn have the biggest impact on profits. Sure you were,

Rshermr - I'm sorry. I really am. But you simply don't have the intellect to be in these discussion. You want so badly to be American and be bright enough to be involved but you need to accept who and what you are. Come to grips with it. Nobody was even hinting at "B2B" and yet that's what you got out of the discussion because you can't follow along. Now please - set down the mouse, pick up your 12 foot spear and your didgeridoo, and leave discussions about the U.S. to Americans.

So once again here for the infinitely ignorant - businesses shop for the best deal (from nations/governments). The idiot ideology of liberalism has driven millions of U.S. jobs overseas because liberal taxes, liberal labor laws, and liberal regulations have made it nearly impossible to conduct business in America. When and if liberals wake up to this indisputable reality and cultivate a competitive business environment in the U.S. - jobs will come rushing back. We need to have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world, the least amount of regulations, and the least costly labor laws. When that happens, we will have a flourishing economy. Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. to not experience at least one year of 3% GDP growth or more. After 8 years, that is a clear indication that the liberal ideology is a failed ideology - especially when it comes to economics.
What you just proved, again, is that you are a simpleton janitor, with no idea of what you are talking about. So, got your opinion. And you know how much I value the opinion of a mere janitor who can never provide an impartial source. And acts like a child.

 

[Rshermr]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

No. And I did not say it did.

Then why mention them together as if one caused the other?

It makes you sound dumber than usual.

 

[P@triot]

So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents COMBINED. He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods.

Seriously - no matter how many times you lie, it doesn't change reality. Reagan cut taxes. Gutted them. Then he raised them a little a couple of years later but the net result was still a drastic cut. You're either ignorant or blatantly lying. Either way - your credibility is completely shot.

 

[P@triot]

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

Folks...you can't make this stuff up. You can tell Rshermr here didn't finish high school. Definitely more suited for the aborigines and his didgeridoo...

 

[Rshermr]

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

No. And I did not say it did.

Then why mention them together as if one caused the other?

It makes you sound dumber than usual.

Or are you simply confused, more than usual.
Does truth make you crazy, me boy.

 

[P@triot]

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

No. And I did not say it did.

Then why mention them together as if one caused the other?

It makes you sound dumber than usual.
Are you saying one or the other did not occur?

Geezus...still struggling to use this website. Unbelievable.

 

[Rshermr]

So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents COMBINED. He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods\ So, there you are, me boy. As I stated, he greatly increased the size of the federal government. So, two truths for me, zero for Patriot.
Seriously - no matter how many times you lie, it doesn't change reality. Reagan cut taxes. Gutted them. Then he raised them a little a couple of years later but the net result was still a drastic cut. You're either ignorant or blatantly lying. Either way - your credibility is completely shot.

Seriously - no matter how many times you lie,
I never ever lie. You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981. Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times. And the amount was not a "little", Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts. Because, me boy, he spent like crazy and did not raise taxes enough to pay for his spending. So, that is why he borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. And why the national debt was tripled under his policies. And why the federal Government was MUCH larger after he was out of office.
Really, me boy, all truths. And you have the lack of integrity to say they are lies. And no capability to show why you say it. Tacky, me boy, tacky.

So, lets see some evidence of the truth, me boy

"But following his party's losses in the 1982 election, Reagan largely backed off his efforts at spending cuts even as he continued to offer the small-government rhetoric that helped get him elected. In fact, he went in the opposite direction: His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency. So, Patriot, as I said, he greatly increased the size of the federal government. One for me, zero for Patriot.
And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office.So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefit s - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon. So, there you are, me boy. As I stated, he greatly increased the size of the federal government. So, two truths for me, zero for Patriot. Oh, and as I said, he tripled the national debt. Three for me, zero for Patriot.
Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
So, there you go, raised taxes ll times. As I said. Thats 4 for me, zero for you.
So, in one paragraph you lied four times, then called me a liar. But as I proved here, it was just you lying and me telling the truth. As usual.
As I said, I never lie. and trying to say I do never ends well for you.

 

[P@triot]

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

The funny thing about our little inbred, outback boy here is that he had no idea who Friedrich Hayak was. He had to Google him real quick and after reading that the man held three doctorate degrees he had to add at the end "except he was smart".

Dude...the argument is over. Friedrich Hayak taught us. Milton Friedman taught us. History taught us. Liberalism ends in collapse. From Cuba, to the former U.S.S.R. to Detroit. Centralized economic planning and control is impossible, unsustainable, and detrimental. Only little leeches like Rshermr here desire government control of an economy.

True liberty generates the greatest wealth, the greatest innovation, and the greatest prosperity man has ever seen or ever will see. History has proven it and trying to argue differently is just stupid and juvenile. It's the act of the desperate that are either afraid to lose their free handouts or desire to impose their will over others.

 

[P@triot]

I never ever lie. You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981. Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times. And the amount was not a "little", Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts.

Boom! The first time you were honest. Your narrative was how Reagan "raised" taxes. There was a net decrease in taxes during his administration. Who the fuck cares that he had to raise it up from his initial deep cuts to rebuild a military decimated by the Dumbocrat leadership that preceded him? The fact is - taxes went down and the economy went from the second worst in U.S. history to one of the most powerful in U.S. history.

See - unlike you - I was here. I lived it. So your uneducated opinions and and your libtard propaganda mean nothing.

 

[Picaro]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

Yes, the ideologues always conveniently leave out all the other stuff Friedman or any other economist for that matter say, and just babble the stuff they think is great. I agree with Buffet's opinions about economists is general, that they're worthless and worse than useless, pretty much like ideologies are.

I actually laughed out loud at the thread title; it implies that 'economics' is a real science and actually means something. It isn't, except for a very few narrow areas.

 

[Picaro]

I never ever lie. You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981. Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times. And the amount was not a "little", Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts.

Boom! The first time you were honest. Your narrative was how Reagan "raised" taxes. There was a net decrease in taxes during his administration. Who the fuck cares that he had to raise it up from his initial deep cuts to rebuild a military decimated by the Dumbocrat leadership that preceded him? The fact is - taxes went down and the economy went from the second worst in U.S. history to one of the most powerful in U.S. history.

See - unlike you - I was here. I lived it. So your uneducated opinions and and your libtard propaganda mean nothing.

Yeah I was there, too; you must have been drunk all those years or something and missed most of it.

 

[Rshermr]

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

Folks...you can't make this stuff up. You can tell Rshermr here didn't finish high school. Definitely more suited for the aborigines and his didgeridoo...

Let me help you. Being an economic idiot does not make you stupid. Being a janitor makes you stupid. Being an economic idiot means you are ignorant. Some are ignorant, as they do not understand all things related to the issue. Some are ignorant, and also stupid, like yourself.

 

[Picaro]

Conservatives stop at Econ 101 when the real complex world requires you to go through Econ 201 through Econ 505 to fully understand it..

A few useful statistical analysis tools, the rest ivory tower fantasy and nonsense.

 

[Picaro]

I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.

View attachment 86194

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

I don't buy many of his economic analyses either, or more accurately his solutions, but I do find a lot of his cultural and social observations and commentary interesting and worth reading.

 

[Rshermr]

I never ever lie. You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981. Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times. And the amount was not a "little", Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts.

Boom! The first time you were honest. Your narrative was how Reagan "raised" taxes. There was a net decrease in taxes during his administration. Who the fuck cares that he had to raise it up from his initial deep cuts to rebuild a military decimated by the Dumbocrat leadership that preceded him? The fact is - taxes went down and the economy went from the second worst in U.S. history to one of the most powerful in U.S. history.

See - unlike you - I was here. I lived it. So your uneducated opinions and and your libtard propaganda mean nothing.

Yeah I was there, too; you must have been drunk all those years or something and missed most of it.

Poor patriot is a con troll janitor who believes, having read all the conservative talking points, that he is quite smart. But he always ends up looking stupid, relying on those talking points he loves.
Ever notice how well cons are able to believe whatever they want to? Most would be ashamed, cons are proud. Odd.

 

[Rshermr]

Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion. Just like you, except he is smart.

The funny thing about our little inbred, outback boy here is that he had no idea who Friedrich Hayak was. He had to Google him real quick and after reading that the man held three doctorate degrees he had to add at the end "except he was smart".

Dude...the argument is over. Friedrich Hayak taught us. Milton Friedman taught us. History taught us. Liberalism ends in collapse. From Cuba, to the former U.S.S.R. to Detroit. Centralized economic planning and control is impossible, unsustainable, and detrimental. Only little leeches like Rshermr here desire government control of an economy.

True liberty generates the greatest wealth, the greatest innovation, and the greatest prosperity man has ever seen or ever will see. History has proven it and trying to argue differently is just stupid and juvenile. It's the act of the desperate that are either afraid to lose their free handouts or desire to impose their will over others.

Wow. An opinion piece from a janitor. Really, me boy. did you think anyone cares what your opinion is?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.

View attachment 86194

I think you don't quite understand "social liberals". For starters all those public works and the safety network require taxes. Paying taxes is a responsibility, so you can't arguie that "it absolves them of any responsibility"... as far as I know infants don't pay taxes to their parents.

I do like some of Hayek's ideas, although I am not sure if some of them are still relevant. For example: central planners not having enough information to take the right decision. I don't think that argument holds the same weight in the information age.

And yet, Hayek himself wrote :

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

F. A. Hayek on social insurance - PNHP's Official Blog

... not quite what one would expect from an Austrian , but... there it is.