Alot of times in debates people say that Hayek and Austrianism were defeated by Sraffa.
Here is a post from another site,
Eric:Beyond Menger, the Austrian school has little to contribute. What is especially irritating is the inability to recognize differences between commodity markets and labor markets."
Exactly what differences are there?
Murphy has a piece on Sraffa on mises.org. There's also interesting conversation on the topic on a unrelated post at "The Austrian Economists" blog, in the comment section.
I guess the majority of the Hayek v Sraffa argument is due to them misinterpreting each other - first Sraffa of Hayek's argument, and the Hayek of Sraffa's critique. That's the first impression I've got on the topic. I haven't really looked that deeply into it, but I guess I should. Heh.
Labor is a commodity... You sell it on the market...
lol.
I think whoever is making this criticism doesn't really know what he's talking about. Fair enough lets concede that Sraffa defeated Hayek, he must have also defeated the entirety of neoclassical economics. If he really wishes to concede that point, he's free to do so, but he's got a hell of a lot to prove if he think that. As for Hayek, he wasn't really an a priori theorist, in fact, in his later years he was explicitely Popperian.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Roger Garrison has a piece on the Hayek/Sraffa debate, as does Lachmann. The latter is hard to find online, the former easy - just google it. It's a clueless assertion, and from what I've read from Lachmann, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Roger Garrison has a piece on the Hayek/Sraffa debate, as does Lachmann. The latter is hard to find online, the former easy - just google it. It's a clueless assertion, and from what I've read from Lachmann, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
The Lachmann piece is available here for anybody that is interested.
GilesStratton:The Lachmann piece is available here for anybody that is interested.
Thanks. I never read Lachmann before. Im gunna give this a read.
Hmm that is a different one I think, more of a synopsis. I didn't know about this one.
Perhaps, I've not read either so I'm not sure. I've got it saved on my harddrive and plan on reading it soon, but if you're interested there's a whole load of other books available on PDF there. I think the one you may be referring to is available on the internet, but I'm not sure.
From what I've seen he is well worth reading.
From what I understand of the debate, Sraffa was probably right in some of his critiques of Hayek on the complexity of monetary relations. However, this was probably a positive development, since it forced Hayek to reformulate some of his ideas (which later ended up in the Pure Theory of Capital). Anyway, not many economists today take Sraffa seriously, especially since Blaug attacked his interpretation of Ricardo a few years ago.
Ask the poster exactly where, when, and how Sraffa "intellectually defeated" Hayek. I don't remember Sraffa ever getting a Nobel prize; the man is largely a joke as his economic ideas have been long refuted even before he was born.
Political Atheists Blog
Conza88: Labor is a commodity... You sell it on the market... lol.
But labour is people!!!
krazy kaju: Ask the poster exactly where, when, and how Sraffa "intellectually defeated" Hayek. I don't remember Sraffa ever getting a Nobel prize; the man is largely a joke as his economic ideas have been long refuted even before he was born.
Watch your reasoning there. A nobel prize doesn't necessarily make one's arguments valid *cough*krugman*cough*.
krazy kaju:I don't remember Sraffa ever getting a Nobel prize
Our Lord, His Holiness Sir Paul Krugman, Knight of the Broken Window, Champion of Our Lord the Bubble has received a Nobel prize. Therefore, a Nobel prize must not mean anything, even when received by economists we agree with.