It most likely occurred while I was splitting the thread. Me splitting the thread prevented you from prevented you from posting.
The Road to Serfdom was considered the SOLE effective rebuttal against Keynes’ effective dominance of economic thought. Until Friedman, Hayek was the only free market economist taken seriously by mainstream academia. He advanced the only real set of monetary theory or argument to challenge that trend, in those years. Mises was largely ignored, however wrongfully. Fisher was discredited by his failure to recognize the impact the Fed’s switch to the Real Bills doctrine would have (it triggered the Great Depression, while he predicted continued economic stability).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
One isn’t really an economically or historically literate libertarian, if they haven’t at least read this book.
It served as the placemark for libertarian economic thought, until the backlash against Keynesianism finally occurred.
Here are links to Hazlitt, Woods, Murphy, DiLorenzo, and Friedman talking about how absolutely seminal The Road to Serfdom was.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=36119
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods160.html
http://reason.com/archives/1992/07/01/the-road-from-serfdom
http://hayekcenter.org/?p=3126
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=967
And that’s all just about his seminal work. As with Mises and Human Action, that’s only scratching the surface of Hayek’s contributions and thought.
Let’s not forget that the entire Free Banking movement originates with his 1977 work, The Denationalization of Money.
I just tried to re-post it, and got the “moderation” error again, perhaps because I was including many links as support for my assertions…since it’s actually on-topic, please check and see if it’s there, pending…
I didn’t know you were making a post with many links. That would be why you got that message.
Well, Hayek was far less present during the American rebirth of the Austrian School and this is probably it.
Yet that a shame, because he had some very interesting and unique concepts. I myself am currently ‘discovering’ him.
Well, the reason Hayek isn’t as pushed as much here is that Hayek definately had some “Neoclassical” tendencies (his approval of the use of mathematics, indifference curves, empiricism, more moderate free market positions, etc). From what I can see the Mises institute tends to support the Mises-Rothbard economic strand, which is “anti-calculus” (for a lack of a better term) and utilizes the deductive method of economics instead of the scientific method. This isn’t to say that Mises institute doesn’t support Hayek’s works ,but just not as much as Mises/Rothbard.
At least this is how I see it.
Where does Hayek use mathematics, indifference curve and empiricism in the neo classical sense?
Well, Hayek was far less present during the American rebirth of the Austrian School and this is probably it.
I don’t know if this is true. Hayek was very influential on the entrepreneurial economics of Kirzner, et. al., and a lot of “Rothbardians” (not to suggest Rothbard himself), such as Hoppe, have attacked economists like Kirzner for placing predominance on Hayek’s contributions to the socialist calculation debate. Also, Hayek was influential in the free banking strand, and I think that if you read books like Time and Ignorance Hayek is generally referenced more than Mises.
Overall, I think Hayek was just as influential as Mises and Rothbard in the rebirth of the Austrian School, and in fact I might argue that Hayek was more influential at first. It should be considered that at the time of the rebirth, in 1974 Hayek received the Nobel memorial prize in economics and he had just published Choice in Currency and Denationalisation of Money, which were two brief but very influential monographs. It’s also interesting to note that Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is generally more well known than Mises’ Omnipotent Government, even though some people hold that latter to be the better book.
It should also be mentioned that Rothbard’s capital theory integrated contributions by both Mises and Hayek, and I think that Huerta de Soto’s exposition is mostly ‘Rothbardian’, only in the sense that it follows that integration from Man, Economy, and State. I don’t know, though, what differences there are between Huerta de Soto and Rothbard regarding capital theory, if there are any.
According to Hayek, it was he that highlighted to Hicks the importance of incorporating indifference curve analysis. He mentions it at the end of the clip titled “Seminar at the London School of Economics” and also in “Indifference Curves” in the table of contents of the following interview:
http://www.hayek.ufm.edu/index.php/Armen_A._Alchian
I think in another interview or clip I’ve seen, but am not sure where to find, when asked about Hicks’ Value and Capital, he says he considers it first rate and definitely considered it one of the finest statements on that narrow subject of utility analysis.
In light of the above, the assertion that he somewhat confused Mises’ praxeology with Walrasian “pure logic of choice,” is perhaps not as far fetched.
I didn’t know who Hayek was (except in passing reference) before I came to this site so…