How come he isn’t mentioned much around here? I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read.
Not radical enough is my initial assumption
He is. Been on these forums for a few years now, there are plenty of Hayek discussions.
I think it’s a number of factors. First of all, Hayek isn’t pushed as much as Mises and Rothbard are by the Mises Institute fellows and by the folks at LRC. Secondly, none of Hayek’s works are available for free online. Thirdly, did Hayek ever write a end-all be-all treatise on the subject of economics, like Mises and Rothbard? I don’t think so…
I mean, I know that I’ve never read Hayek (okay, maybe a little), so I don’t discuss his ideas simply because I don’t have great familiarity with them. I wouldn’t be surprised if many others here would be the same. For the most part, I think that reading, rereading, and studying MES and HA is all that most people need in order to gain an adequate knowledge of economics. Obviously, if you plan on becoming an economist, you should probably broaden your view to Hayek, Schumpeter, Keynes, Friedman, Selgin, White, and a few others, but the vast majority of people have no need to do this.
The Mises Institute has a whole lecture on Hayek and his works every year…
there are plenty of Hayek’s writings online.
Do you think that’s even true with regard to business cycle theory? I know MES and HA cover it, but my recollection of Hernando de Soto’s treatise is that ABCT is spelled out more thoroughly there, largely because he draws on Hayek’s unique contributions so much (although I don’t agree with all of it, like for example the adoption of the Ricardo effect).
I think it’s a number of factors. First of all, Hayek isn’t pushed as much as Mises and Rothbard are by the Mises Institute fellows and by the folks at LRC. Secondly, none of Hayek’s works are available for free online. Thirdly, did Hayek ever write a end-all be-all treatise on the subject of economics, like Mises and Rothbard? I don’t think so…
As much as Human Action is my favorite economic text, Hayek was MORE seminal to the struggle between socialism/Keynesianism and liberty than Mises or Rothbard.
The problem is that too many people here are Rothbardians, which is a cultish movement in much the way Rothbard said Objectivism is. They were told by Rothbard that he was basing his premises on Mises (although he usually got those wrong), so they love Mises…but it’s easier to see, with Hayek’s much more accessible writing style, that Hayek disagrees with Rothbard. So he’s dubious, what with all his blasphemy.
Of course Mises tended to agree more with Hayek than Rothbard, but as I implied, Mises is a very dry read, so they just tend to assume he did agree with Rothbard, the way Rothbard claimed.
Obviously, if you plan on becoming an economist, you should probably broaden your view to Hayek, Schumpeter, Keynes, Friedman, Selgin, White, and a few others, but the vast majority of people have no need to do this.
Wrong. Blindly accepting Rothbard’s economic claims without examining the alternatives is a foolish move on anyone’s part. It’s like the people who only read Rand or her Objectivist followers.
Rothbard is wrong on monetary theory…a lot. Even reading Mises extensively makes this obvious. Reading the guys you list above makes it even clearer.
Hayek, I reiterate, did FAR more to hold back Keynes than Mises ever did. If you bothered to read more, you’d know this.
I can haz evidence?
Can you elaborate?
(I haven’t read enough of Hayek to actually disagree with you on this, but from my first impression I would say that Mises was much easier to understand.)
Can you give some examples?
Can you give a few significant examples of him getting them wrong?
Kaz, rather than littering every single thread (which usually have nothing with Rothbard in the first place) with anti-Rothbard rhetoric, why don’t you make a new thread devoted to refuting Rothbard? This way we can avoid the very real possibility of you derailing every single thread.
As far as I am concerned, in economics if nothing else, Mises was Rothbardian as much as Rothbard was Misesian
“But disagreement with his opinions concerning these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying Rothbard’s work as an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and, up to now, best-elaborated part, economics. Henceforth all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard.”
If this was a game of poker, I would call Kaz’ bluff right this second without any hesitation.
What exposes him the most is his attempt to [radically] contrast Mises and Rothbard. This proves he is familiar with neither.
Mises: "In every chapter of his treatise, Dr. Rothbard, adopting the best of the teachings of his predecessors, "
What? He had nothing to say about Rothbard’s quackery monetary theory? or worse, banking theory?
Yeah I not only thought his adoption was an error, but his interpretation of it’s meaning as well (Ricardo effect). In fact, I’m very fond of the Ricardo effect, and as I understand it, it’s essential content is really nothing different from the fundamental arguments that Hayek put forth in P&P. I remember reading Mises’ supposed refutation of it, and it was one of the few places where I thought Mises had severely mis-interpreted a concept; in this case the Ricardo effect. I know it was always puzzling to Hayek why suddenly every one thought he had proposed something so controversial - when in fact the RE was just a slightly different way of presenting the same arguemnt. That was one of Hayek’s weaknesses - he wasn’t particularly skilled at conveying some of his ideas.
Should I then try to prove to an Objectivist that THEY are cultish?
Yawn. Thanks for implying that I am Rothbardian. Anyway, if you would like, go ahead and try to prove to an Objectivist that they cultish. But, please, do after answering my question to you in the free banking thread. Here is the question for you convenience: Do you have any examples of free banking that are not examples of lending?
Just read his own masterwork, The Road to Serfdom, and contrast it with Human Action, which I am hoping you’ve read from cover to cover already.
Or, really, any other Hayek book you please. The most striking difference between them, other than that Hayek developed a more advanced grasp of monetary theory because he worked on it long after Human Action came out, is how much more readable he is. Mises was never an easy read, coming across extremely dry and hyperintellectual.
This is probably part of why Hayek dominated the debate on the pro-liberty side, from the Great Depression on until Milton Friedman really gained momentum in the sixties and seventies.
Hayek, like all (real) Austrians, was in effect a supporter of free banking. They did/do not want to ban fractional reserve banking. This is a great example of the dichotomy…but it holds true on monetary theory in general; Hayek took the Austrian position, and Rothbard disagreed in application.
I am working on an actual paper on the topic, having had some encouragement by Selgin and Horwitz (who, surely you know, have commented on the fallacy in their own writings) on the idea of doing so.
I’ll certainly be posting the results here, but as an appeal to authority in the meantime, here are Selgin and Timberlake, each mentioning the massive disparity between Mises and Rothbard in the same pdf:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj19n2/cj19n2-4.pdf
Just do a text search for “rothbard” to find at least a few of the key mentions.
I’d have several other examples of such analysis, but as usual I’m working behind a firewall that won’t let me get to them, and (therefore) not at home where I have my own notes, either.
I’m puzzled as to why I’m even able to reach mises.org, from here…
I posted a response to this, a few minutes ago, and now it’s gone…did you move it to the correct thread, and if so, what’s the URL?
And if not, then there’s been some sort of data crisis…do you guys know about it? I tried to post on-topic about Hayek here, as well, and first the web server came back with a data config error, then when I refreshed the post it claimed the group is moderated, and my post awaits approval…yet this post did not encounter that same warning.
I moved it to here: Kaz on Free Banking
I moved it to here: Kaz on Free Banking
Did you see my additional question about another of my posts in this thread (one actually addressing Hayek) erroring out, then vanishing?