Laughing Man:This is going to piss off a lot of people but it needs to be said, and its not like others haven't said it. Hayek is only acknowledge because of his compromises and as Dr. Raico said about him 'he liked too many people.' Always chalking up their faulty arguments as being honest mistakes.
It might be fair to say that the acknowledgment of Hayek's work was aided by his compromises, but what you are saying is tantamount to asserting that without his compromises, his work wouldn't have been deemed worthy of any acknowledgment. Such a sweeping judgment is unfounded, and rather cheeky coming from someone who has within the past few months professed to be not that into economics, and has only recently started considering it more earnestly with David Gordon's introductory book.
First of all, Mises liked a lot of people too. As you can read in Hulsmann's magnificent biography, Mises was on friendly terms with people who ranged from old school Manchesterism to outright socialism. Although Professor Raico did study under Mises in America, he didn't see how Mises conducted himself among the socialists who predominated in Europe. So judging from Hulsmann's characterization, which was drawn from careful study of Mises' life in Europe, I think Raico (who I greatly admire) was exaggerating or was mistaken in the lecture series you seem to be quoting when he said, "Mises hated these people" in regard to socialists. As Hulsmann characterized it, the only kind of people Mises shunned were people he saw as lacking in character. And he did not look on the extent of error as evidence for lack of character. In fact, while he remained on good terms with many outright socialists, he broke off contact with a former student of his simply for him becoming a monetary interventionist, since Mises knew his student knew better, and was consciously making the shift for career reasons.
Furthermore, many of the differences between Hayek and Mises stem from methodological differences that stem from the fact that Hayek cut his eye-teeth under Wieser. He was not a full-on Misesian who simply later diverged as a compromise. He was ALWAYS considerably different as an economist.
Also, while Hayek was something of a "neo-liberal", he, perhaps out of all the economists influenced by Mises adhered most faithfully to laissez-fair liberalism. Liberal economist after liberal economist in Europe were swept up by Keynesianism and other interventionist academic trends. But Hayek never joined them. Even after Lionel Robbins fell away, Hayek remained as liberalism's chief bulwark in Britain. He even ardently led the fight against the Mont Pelerin Society's shift toward a more-interventionist brand of neoliberalism. And by the way, everyone talks about Milton Friedman's tale of Mises storming out of the Society's first meeting declaring the other members to be socialists. But he CAME BACK. And worked ardently for years to convince the interventionist members of the society through civil discussion.
Finally, Hayek was a great economist. His crucial work extending and filling in Mises' trade cycle theory is, in and of itself, reason enough for him to be widely acknowledged. So to say that he "is only acknowledged because of his compromises" is a rather unfair, unfounded, and harsh denigration.
J. Grayson Lilburne:It might be fair to say that the acknowledgment of Hayek's work was aided by his compromises, but what you are saying is tantamount to asserting that without his compromises, his work wouldn't have been deemed worthy of any acknowledgment
Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.' Honestly, why should it be different with Hayek? Granted they are not the same person, I understand that. However, what is it about Hayek that made the mainstream acknowledge him above someone like Mises? I say because he compromised.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Such a sweeping judgment is unfounded, and rather cheeky coming from someone who has within the past few months professed to be not that into economics, and has only recently started considering it more earnestly with David Gordon's introductory book.
It is simply an exercise about understanding the theory behind Austrian economics, not the history of it. I know the economic history of the school pretty well but I never took a traditional econ class which discusses theories such as regression theorems, value, capital theory etc.
J. Grayson Lilburne:First of all, Mises liked a lot of people too. As you can read in Hulsmann's magnificent biography, Mises was on friendly terms with people who ranged from old school Manchesterism to outright socialism. Although Professor Raico did study under Mises in America, he didn't see how Mises conducted himself among the socialists who predominated in Europe. So judging from Hulsmann's characterization, which was drawn from careful study of Mises' life in Europe, I think Raico (who I greatly admire) was exaggerating or was mistaken in the lecture series you seem to be quoting when he said, "Mises hated these people" in regard to socialists. As Hulsmann characterized it, the only kind of people Mises shunned were people he saw as lacking in character. And he did not look on the extent of error as evidence for lack of character. In fact, while he remained on good terms with many outright socialists, he broke off contact with a former student of his simply for him becoming a monetary interventionist, since Mises knew his student knew better, and was consciously making the shift for career reasons.
I didn't say Raico said 'Mises hate these people', I said he said 'Hayek was too nice to some people' inferring that Hayek was too accepting of individuals whom he equated no more harm then simple intellectual error in their theories.This is a question of personal preference, some people have the same mentality that I think GMU has which is to flirt with anyone who will listen. Some don't.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Furthermore, many of the differences between Hayek and Mises stem from methodological differences that stem from the fact that Hayek cut his eye-teeth under Wieser. He was not a full-on Misesian who simply later diverged as a compromise. He was ALWAYS considerably different as an economist
I understand this.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Also, while Hayek was something of a "neo-liberal", he, perhaps out of all the economists influenced by Mises adhered most faithfully to laissez-fair liberalism. Liberal economist after liberal economist in Europe were swept up by Keynesianism and other interventionist academic trends. But Hayek never joined them. Even after Lionel Robbins fell away, Hayek remained as liberalism's chief bulwark in Britain. He even ardently led the fight against the Mont Pelerin Society's shift toward a more-interventionist brand of neoliberalism. And by the way, everyone talks about Milton Friedman's tale of Mises storming out of the Society's first meeting declaring the other members to be socialists. But he CAME BACK. And worked ardently for years to convince the interventionist members of the society through civil discussion.
He didn't flirt with Keynesianism but he did flirt with Popperianism.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Finally, Hayek was a great economist. His crucial work extending and filling in Mises' trade cycle theory is, in and of itself, reason enough for him to be widely acknowledged. So to say that he "is only acknowledged because of his compromises" is a rather unfair, unfounded, and harsh denigration
Never said he was stupid or a horrible economist. Merely that he is acknowledged by the mainstream more then someone like Mises or Rothbard because he wasn't as 'dogmatic, according to the mainstream,' as them.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.' Honestly, why should it be different with Hayek? Granted they are not the same person, I understand that. However, what is it about Hayek that made the mainstream acknowledge him above someone like Mises? I say because he compromised.
"relegated"
You didn't say his compromises caused him to be "acknowledged above Mises". You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD.
Laughing Man: It is simply an exercise about understanding the theory behind Austrian economics, not the history of it. I know the economic history of the school pretty well but I never took a traditional econ class which discusses theories such as regression theorems, value, capital theory etc.
Economic histories alone can't equip somebody to judge to what extent Hayek's acknowledgment was based on merit and to what extent it was based on compromise. Before one makes such a sweeping judgment that concerns the merit of Hayek's work, one needs to understand the CONTENT of Hayek's work.
Laughing Man:He didn't flirt with Keynesianism but he did flirt with Popperianism.
What's your point?
Laughing Man:Never said he was stupid or a horrible economist. Merely that he is acknowledged by the mainstream more then someone like Mises or Rothbard because he wasn't as 'dogmatic, according to the mainstream,' as them.
Again, you didn't say "more than Mises or Rothbard", you said:
Laughing Man:Hayek is only acknowledge(d) because of his compromises
J. Grayson Lilburne: Laughing Man: Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.' Honestly, why should it be different with Hayek? Granted they are not the same person, I understand that. However, what is it about Hayek that made the mainstream acknowledge him above someone like Mises? I say because he compromised. You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD.
You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD.
This isn't what I understood LM to be saying. I think LM was referring to the mainstream acceptance of Hayek.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
J. Grayson Lilburne:You didn't say his compromises caused him to be "acknowledged above Mises". You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD.
In terms to others in the Austrian school. Like I said, this was an IPE class which was discussing the 'liberal school' of thought. It was Keynes, Friedman and Hayek. Keynesianism, Chicago and Austrian. Why pick Hayek? Why not Mises? Many in the Austrian school acknowledge in some fashion that Human Action is the definitive economic book of the 20th century.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Economic histories alone can't equip somebody to judge to what extent Hayek's acknowledgment was based on merit and to what extent it was based on compromise. Before one makes such a sweeping judgment that concerns the merit of Hayek's work, one needs to understand the CONTENT of Hayek's work.
And I do have some of Hayek's works. And why isn't someone who knows the history of the effect of a certain economists theories not equip to judge?
J. Grayson Lilburne:What's your point?
Well you were saying all of these theorists dropped out to go to Keynesianism. I don't think it honest to say that Hayek stuck to Misesian theory completely [ if that was what you were implying ], he became intrigued by Popperianism.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Again, you didn't say "more than Mises or Rothbard", you said: Laughing Man:Hayek is only acknowledge(d) because of his compromises
Read my above statement.
i thought it was self-evident that that is what LM was talking about too, but at times dialogue is appropriate to hash it out and actually understand what other people are saying.
Daniel Muffinburg: J. Grayson Lilburne: Laughing Man: Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.' Honestly, why should it be different with Hayek? Granted they are not the same person, I understand that. However, what is it about Hayek that made the mainstream acknowledge him above someone like Mises? I say because he compromised. You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD. This isn't what I understood LM to be saying.
This isn't what I understood LM to be saying.
That is what he literally said. If he was implying something more nuanced than what he literally said, then he might want to say so.
Daniel Muffinburg:This isn't what I understood LM to be saying. I think LM was referring to the mainstream acceptance of Hayek.
Exactly.
I think this is a valuable portion of my quote which puts exactly what you are saying into context:
'They [ the Mainstream ] pull this shit for a reason. In my IPE class there were three schools of thought in the Liberal school: Keynes [ yes, Keynes ], Friedman, and Hayek. No Mises, no Rothbard, just Hayek. So you were either a Keynesian, a Friedmanite or a Hayekian.'
J. Grayson Lilburne: Daniel Muffinburg: J. Grayson Lilburne: Laughing Man: Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.' Honestly, why should it be different with Hayek? Granted they are not the same person, I understand that. However, what is it about Hayek that made the mainstream acknowledge him above someone like Mises? I say because he compromised. You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD. This isn't what I understood LM to be saying. That is what he literally said. If he was implying something more nuanced than what he literally said, then he might want to say so.
Yes, but I understood that as following from this statement about his IPE class. I think this is simply a misunderstanding between you and LM.
Hayek was in a good position in the late 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and his correspondance with the likes of Keynes and Sraffa, I think, allowed him to maintain contacts within the economic profession with those who were more popular. Of all Austrians, his critiques were probably the most highly regarded, since he was in such a position at the time. Neither Ludwig von Mises nor Rothbard enjoyed this fortune.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Hayek was in a good position in the late 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and his correspondance with the likes of Keynes and Sraffa, I think, allowed him to maintain contacts within the economic profession with those who were more popular. Of all Austrians, his critiques were probably the most highly regarded, since he was in such a position at the time. Neither Ludwig von Mises nor Rothbard enjoyed this fortune.
So you think he was highly regarded because of his connections in England? I could see that as an additional possibility.
Laughing Man: J. Grayson Lilburne:It might be fair to say that the acknowledgment of Hayek's work was aided by his compromises, but what you are saying is tantamount to asserting that without his compromises, his work wouldn't have been deemed worthy of any acknowledgment Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.'
Mises and Rothbard were regulated to the class of academic pariahs because they were uncompromising and 'dogmatic.'
Hayek was never accepted into an American economics department due to his economics. While at the University of Chicago he was merely a professor on the Committee of Social Thought. If this is not being rejected, I do not know what is.
Laughing Man: J. Grayson Lilburne:Such a sweeping judgment is unfounded, and rather cheeky coming from someone who has within the past few months professed to be not that into economics, and has only recently started considering it more earnestly with David Gordon's introductory book. It is simply an exercise about understanding the theory behind Austrian economics, not the history of it. I know the economic history of the school pretty well
It is simply an exercise about understanding the theory behind Austrian economics, not the history of it. I know the economic history of the school pretty well
Obviously you overestimate your knowledge, based on your knowledge of Hayek.
"Popperianism"? What is that supposed to mean?
I for one find K. Popper to be one of the most intelligent philosophers of the previous century.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Okay, I recognize that my interpretation did not fit exactly LM's meaning. But even with the IPE class context, the remark was still disparaging and unfair regarding Hayek. To say that the class "only acknowledged Hayek for his compromises" directly implies that his actual merits were not a factor, or were a minor one in comparison to his compromises.
Laughing Man: J. Grayson Lilburne:You didn't say his compromises caused him to be "acknowledged above Mises". You said his compromises were the only reason he was acknowledged PERIOD. In terms to others in the Austrian school. Like I said, this was an IPE class which was discussing the 'liberal school' of thought. It was Keynes, Friedman and Hayek. Keynesianism, Chicago and Austrian. Why pick Hayek? Why not Mises? Many in the Austrian school acknowledge in some fashion that Human Action is the definitive economic book of the 20th century.
I for one believe that Hayek is the soundest proponents of Liberalism that the Austrian school has to offer, and he was in the position to best make the case for it that will be remembered.
laminustacitus:Hayek was never accepted into an American economics department due to his economics. While at the University of Chicago he was merely a professor on the Committee of Social Thought. If this is not being rejected, I do not know what is.
The 1950's during the Bretton Woods Agreement years. I don't find that surprising.
laminustacitus:Popperianism"? What is that supposed to mean?
The school of thought concerning Karl Popper.
laminustacitus:I for one find K. Popper to be one of the most intelligent philosophers of the previous century.
Aren't you a Hayekian?
laminustacitus:I for one believe that Hayek is the soundest proponents of Liberalism that the Austrian school has to offer, and he was in the position to best make the case for it that will be remembered.
Well that is your opinion. I am of the opinion that it was Rothbard and I'm sure someone else here is of the opinion that it was Mises.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Okay, I recognize that my interpretation did not fit exactly LM's meaning. But even with the IPE class context, the remark was still disparaging and unfair regarding Hayek. To say that the class "only acknowledged Hayek for his compromises" directly implies that his actual merits were not a factor, or were a minor one in comparison to his compromises.
Well, I'm not going to speculate as to what else LM implied. I'll let you and LM work it out.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:I for one believe that Hayek is the soundest proponents of Liberalism that the Austrian school has to offer, and he was in the position to best make the case for it that will be remembered. Well that is your opinion. I am of the opinion that it was Rothbard and I'm sure someone else here is of the opinion that it was Mises.
Yeah, that would be me.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Laughing Man: laminustacitus:I for one believe that Hayek is the soundest proponents of Liberalism that the Austrian school has to offer, and he was in the position to best make the case for it that will be remembered. Well that is your opinion. I am of the opinion that it was Rothbard and I'm sure someone else here is of the opinion that it was Mises. Yeah, that would be me.
Yea I made that sentence with you in mind. I'm not saying Hayek is a bad or stupid economist. I would be a moron to say such a thing. I just think he was acknowledged because of the style of his presentation and perhaps not the full realization of some of his ideas. It is like Mises and his reluctance to anarchism. I'm not going to say that 'Man Mises is horrible because he didn't advocate anarchism.' I like the radicalism of Rothbard. Perhaps I need to be tempered a bit from time to time.
I always thought one of the reasons was that Hayek went to England at the end of the 20s before the Nazis took over while Mises stayed around for a bit longer, where he then went to Switzerland and fled that to go to New York fearing a Nazi takeover. He then had to go New York speaking no english, which certainly had a negative effect on his influence (Both of them were jewish). Could be wrong though.
BlackNumero: I always thought one of the reasons was that Hayek went to England at the end of the 20s before the Nazis took over while Mises stayed around for a bit longer, where he then went to Switzerland and fled that to go to New York fearing a Nazi takeover. He then had to go New York speaking no english, which certainly had a negative effect on his influence (Both of them were jewish). Could be wrong though.
That might have played into it. But Lionel Robbins had big plans for Hayek at LSE, and it was a big opportunity in and of itself.
I consider myself a Hayekian and I'm proud of it!
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
It might be worth noting as well that Mises was in fact offered a post several times in the late 1930s at UCLA Berkeley, which he ultimately paid the price in dithering over. Arguably, his long term intellectual impact could have been much smaller as a result, it is perhaps uncertain if he would ever write Human Action or met Rothbard. The course of history could have been very different.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
abskebabs: It might be worth noting as well that Mises was in fact offered a post several times in the late 1930s at UCLA Berkeley, which he ultimately paid the price in dithering over. Arguably, his long term intellectual impact could have been much smaller as a result, it is perhaps uncertain if he would ever write Human Action or met Rothbard. The course of history could have been very different.
Yea, but then maybe we wouldn't have to deal with Bradford deLong.
EDIT: Oh, nvm. I confused UCLA Berkeley (UC Berkely) with UCLA (UC Los Angeles).
BlackNumero: He then had to go New York speaking no english, which certainly had a negative effect on his influence (Both of them were jewish). Could be wrong though.
He then had to go New York speaking no english, which certainly had a negative effect on his influence (Both of them were jewish). Could be wrong though.
I don't believe Hayek was Jewish. I could be wrong.
What is "UCLA Berkeley"?
liberty student: BlackNumero: He then had to go New York speaking no english, which certainly had a negative effect on his influence (Both of them were jewish). Could be wrong though. I don't believe Hayek was Jewish. I could be wrong.
The quote was speaking about Mises, not Hayek.
laminustacitus:The quote was speaking about Mises, not Hayek.
Was Mises a "both of them"?
Daniel Muffinburg: What is "UCLA Berkeley"?
My mistake....
I should have put UCLA, for some reason thought they were the same thing...(cries and hangs head in shame)
"Even Hayek believed X" or "Even Milton Friedman believed X" do a good deal of damage and provide ammo for the opposing side.
Especially if you are intereseted in scoring political points rather than correctness.