The topic I was referring to was calculation. The only way government intervention could improve the market economy is by accident. My assertion is that this is a generally accepted argument, and a shared view amongst many modern Austrians. That this position implies a lengthy understanding of several key foundational austrian topics.
flic, this was your big reveal? talk about a let down. yes, i’ve heard this argument before (in fact this reminds me of a conversation i had with esuric here). but i don’t think that notion is excluded by statement AT ALL. nor do I think it is the only way an austrian can interpret can interpret the implications of the calculation debate (as indicated earlier with the hayek example).
let’s revisit the question i asked.
the question then becomes whether moderate government interventions could improve on market outcomes in select cases.
i only said that the question then becomes whether the government could improve market outcomes. how does what you said contradict this question? you seem to believe that the “austrian” follow up is “yes it is possible, but only by accident so not likely”. in no way does my question preclude this potential response.
i just don’t believe this is the only or even the primary follow up an austrian would have to my question. like I said, i think they would be more upset by the notion that market failure can be meaningfully defined in the first place, let alone that they can be corrected once they are defined.