Original site The opposite of austrian subjective value, but I don’t know if he is an austrian.
Hayek and scientism
This is why I don’t understand why many Mises.org people are so down on Hayek’s social theories. The more I read him, the more I think he is one of the greatest critics of scientism, which is one of the great banes on the mind of even the average person anymore. It creates diseased minds.
This is why I don’t understand why many Mises.org people are so down on Hayek’s social theories.
Late in life, he hated scientism, but he loved socialism. Like Einstein.
Um…have you read The Fatal Conceit? (I’m assuming here that it was written and/or approved by Hayek himself)
FTFY
Jargon, have you read The Fatal Conceit?
Have you read The Constitution of Liberty?
Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman & Capitalism?
The Constitution of Liberty was published in 1960. Law, Legislation and Liberty was published from 1973-1979, and is more libertarian than CoL. Hayek also wrote The Denationalization of Money during this period. Now skip forward to 1988 and Hayek publishes a full-blown anarchist work, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. And we’re supposed to believe that he was a socialist late in life? Compared to deathbed Hayek, Rothbard was a socialist (fractional reserve banking as fraud, law that strictly enforces NAP).
What a lunatic response to try and discredit Hayek’s criticism of scientism (and all of the wonderful things it has brought us) on the grounds that he was basically an Austrian conservative…who cares?
The point of the OP is to point out how a real world company (Valve) is taking the next steps in advancing a quasi-Austrian framework, not just on empirical grounds with their company, but with an academic who can bring to the table all of the theoretical implications of what they are doing.
It is awesome. Although they are going to use subjective pricing as a virtual weapon against people who do not confrom to the community standards.
Um…have you read The Fatal Conceit?
I admit that I haven’t, but…
-
I’ve seen this: http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_6.pdf. Basically it’s Walter Block going on for 27 pages showing how Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is chock full of socialism.
-
If Hayek did an about face when he later wrote The Fatal Conceit, more power to him. My reply to vive would then be that folks here don’t like Hayek’s Road to Serfdom stage of thinking.
@ SD. Sure, that’s all correct. My main point of contention was the “late in life” comment. He was less than halfway through his life when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.
I admit that I haven’t. Should I? I had heard of certain policy recommendations Hayek purportedly made that amounted to social democracy. I’m reading “Prices and Production and Other Works”, just so you don’t think I don’t tolerate Hayek.
My main point of contention was the “late in life” comment.
Glad we are all in agreement now.
What a lunatic response to try and discredit Hayek’s criticism of scientism…
I don’t see anyone who did that here; certainly it was not my intention. I was responding to vive’s q.
BTW, my impression of Yanis is that he is like an idol worshiper who has woken up to the fact that his idols [=econometrics] are but useless wood and stones, but has not yet found an alternative [=AE]. Will watch his career with interest.
Jargon - Yeah, I really recommend The Fatal Conceit. It’s relatively short but really strikes at the core problems of the state and comes out completely against it. I’d say it’s my favourite work on free market anarchy.
The point of the OP is to point out how a real world company (Valve) is taking the next steps in advancing a quasi-Austrian framework
The economist they hired is run-of-the-mill new Keynesian, from what I understand: The Global Minotaur: America, The True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy (Economic Controversies)
Did you read what he said? He may be a Coase or a Keynes…
All that matters is Hayek the thinker’s analytical framework and what can be drawn from it,conclusions which the orignators themselves may not have seen (this is a common thing in science,and would also be a very Hayekian way to look at things). His personal politics and ideology at best should be tertiary concern.
I am becoming convinced that most of the critiques written by Rothbardian types on the Misesmain site are ideologically / politically driven.
Furthermore, at the time Road to Serfodom was written for a very specific audience. It’s a book built to help bridgea dialgoue. It’s not a book directed at libertarians (though it was a book that helped make libertarians, and was around before libertarianism was an actual movement).
Also from this Horowitz article http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/12/the-false-dichotomy-of-rothbardian-anarchism-and-hayekian-classical-liberalism.html :
- There is a story about Hayek from the 1970s that may or may not be apocryphal, and I suspect some of our more senior commenters can verify this, that is relevant here. Supposedly when he was engaged in a conversation about anarchism with a bunch of young libertarian academics(presumably at Menlo Park) in the 1970s, Hayek said something like the following “Look, I’m an old man now and I came to my classical liberalism in a different era, so I can’t accept where you all are now. But, if I were a young man today, I suspect I might well be this type of anarchist.”
And if you check the site a bit, you will find it is verified to a degree.