Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Hayek

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 29 Replies | 11 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
43 Posts
Points 1,610
LibertarianCowboy posted on Mon, Jan 10 2011 10:00 PM

How come he isn't mentioned much around here? I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read.

Enemy of the state
  • | Post Points: 80

All Replies

Not Ranked
5 Posts
Points 115

Not radical enough is my initial assumption

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
3,415 Posts
Points 56,650
Answered (Not Verified) filc replied on Mon, Jan 10 2011 10:24 PM
Suggested by Michelangelo

He is. Been on these forums for a few years now, there are plenty of Hayek discussions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,651 Posts
Points 51,325
Moderator

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.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,008 Posts
Points 16,185

The Mises Institute has a whole lecture on Hayek and his works every year...

My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/

Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
141 Posts
Points 2,220
vaduka replied on Tue, Jan 11 2011 4:14 AM

there are plenty of Hayek's writings online.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,260 Posts
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

krazy kaju:
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.

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).

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
166 Posts
Points 3,300
Kaz replied on Thu, Jan 13 2011 4:14 PM

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.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Kaz:
The problem is that too many people here are Rothbardians, which is a cultish movement

I can haz evidence?

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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,162 Posts
Points 36,965
Moderator

Kaz:

Hayek [had a] much more accessible writing style

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.)

Kaz:

Hayek disagrees with Rothbard

Can you give some examples?

Kaz:

They were told by Rothbard that he was basing his premises on Mises (although he usually got those wrong)

Can you give a few significant examples of him getting them wrong?

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,113 Posts
Points 60,515
Answered (Not Verified) Esuric replied on Thu, Jan 13 2011 4:34 PM

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.

"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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
7,105 Posts
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

As far as I am concerned, in economics if nothing else, Mises was Rothbardian as much as Rothbard was Misesian

http://mises.org/daily/3380

"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."

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
2,966 Posts
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Thu, Jan 13 2011 5:09 PM

 

nirgrahamUK:

As far as I am concerned, in economics if nothing else, Mises was Rothbardian as much as Rothbard was Misesian

http://mises.org/daily/3380

 

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?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
194 Posts
Points 4,500

Danny Sanchez:
(although I don't agree with all of it, like for example the adoption of the Ricardo effect)

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. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
166 Posts
Points 3,300
Kaz replied on Fri, Jan 14 2011 1:15 PM

I can haz evidence?

Should I then try to prove to an Objectivist that THEY are cultish?

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (30 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS