About this episode
Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/48OKdeA
Ask David “What is the best argument for why the distributed independent decisions of individuals, families, and businesses create more beneficial outcomes for most people than the top-down, centralized decisions of government, especially the federal government?” ~ David K.
My argument is one of incentives and one of knowledge. These are two different arguments, even if they do overlap at points. Fundamentally, I believe better outcomes take place when the decision-makers reap benefits from their decisions and when decision-makers feel pain from bad decisions. I do not believe “disinterested third parties” (Thomas Sowell’s term) have the incentives to allocate and adjudicate risk and reward the way those with “skin in the game” do.
But beyond the classical incentive argument, I am very much a believer in what Friedrich Hayek referred to as the “knowledge problem.” Knowledge is widely dispersed throughout a society and no central entity possesses the knowledge needed to properly steward the affairs of a diverse economy. I read the masterful essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, by Friedrich Hayek while in high school. It was the beginning of a lifetime journey for me through Hayekian thought, particularly around Hayek’s thesis of the “fatal conceit” of central planners.
Links mentioned in this episode: TheDCToday.com DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com
Get every episode summarized
Each time The Dividend Cafe publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
