Is it not strange that those who like Hayek the most, are more positivistic? [ No this is not an insult Iam ]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
laminustacitus:Take it as personal opinion, I don't think that there truly is a purely objective method for determining what method is "better", which you seem to hint at by calling it a "myth". Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Mises' approach is weaker than Hayek's because of the fact that Mises' is weak against the Walrasian equilbrium approach, which is then disproved by introducing knowledge into the matter qua Hayek did.
Hayek is weaker against walrasian equilib approach than mises in my opinion.
Hoppe:In a series of recent articles in The Review of Austrian Eco-nomics, Joseph Salerno began to de-homogenize the oftenconflated economic and social theories of Ludwig von Misesand Friedrich A. Hayek. In particular, he has shown that theirviews on socialism are distinctly different, and he has argued ineffect that Mises's original argument in the so-called socialistcalculation debate was correct all along and was also the finalword, whereas Hayek's distinct contribution to the debate wasfallacious from the outset, and merely added confusion. Thefollowing note will provide additional support to Salerno's thesis.
Salerno:Postscript: Why a Socialist Economy is "Impossible" by Joseph T. Salerno Mises's Thesis In "Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth," Ludwig von Mises demonstrates, once and forever, that, under socialist central planning, there are no means of economic calculation and that, therefore, socialist economy itself is "impossible" ("unm?glich")--not just inefficient or less innovative or conducted without benefit of decentralized knowledge, but really and truly and literally impossible. ..... extract > (1) It is of utmost importance to recognize that, in his original article as well as all later writings on the subject, Mises unswervingly identified the unique and insoluble problem of socialism as the impossibility of calculation--not, as in the case of F.A. Hayek, as an absence of an efficient mechanism for conveying knowledge to the planners. This difference between Mises and Hayek is reflected in their respective conceptions of the social function of competition as well as in their responses to the claims of the later market and mathematical socialists. Actually, Mises anticipated and refuted both groups in his original article. Nonetheless, Mises's position on these issues is today generally ignored or conflated with Hayek's.
Mises's Thesis
In "Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth," Ludwig von Mises demonstrates, once and forever, that, under socialist central planning, there are no means of economic calculation and that, therefore, socialist economy itself is "impossible" ("unm?glich")--not just inefficient or less innovative or conducted without benefit of decentralized knowledge, but really and truly and literally impossible.
..... extract >
(1) It is of utmost importance to recognize that, in his original article as well as all later writings on the subject, Mises unswervingly identified the unique and insoluble problem of socialism as the impossibility of calculation--not, as in the case of F.A. Hayek, as an absence of an efficient mechanism for conveying knowledge to the planners. This difference between Mises and Hayek is reflected in their respective conceptions of the social function of competition as well as in their responses to the claims of the later market and mathematical socialists. Actually, Mises anticipated and refuted both groups in his original article. Nonetheless, Mises's position on these issues is today generally ignored or conflated with Hayek's.
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
Anarchist Cain: Is it not strange that those who like Hayek the most, are more positivistic? [ No this is not an insult Iam ]
No, not really. Hayek had an extremely extended intellectual journey, by the end of his career he was endorsing Popperian falsificationism. So no, it's not really suprising that you would call those followers of Hayek positivists. But to say that all those who are more Hayekian than Misesian are positivists is absurd, look at Lachmann and his followers. They're more akin to Hayek but they're certainly not positivists.
I suspect that you simply lack a nuanced view of the world, for you everything can be divided into two categories "Austrians" and "non-Austrians". With you providing the definitions for those categories.
liberty student: His attitude online is a big turnoff, and he comes off as one of these "economic science"-statist Austrians.
Because, we all know that academic work should be judged by the "attitude" of its author. That's certainly a sensible way to go about science, although, I wonder where Rothbard would fit into this? He most certainly had a self-righteous tone in all of his writings and took a condescending tone towards anybody that remotely disagreed with him. Not to mention his repeated calls for what can only be described as purges.
As for Horwitz, he's been giving numerous speeches about his take on the recent financial crisis, which of course contains Austrian analysis of the current situation. He's done work on Austrian theory amongst other areas that should be of interest to Austrians and even libertarians. He's affiliated with FEE, GMU and perhaps some other libertarian think tanks that I'm not aware of. He's associated with the SDAE (treasurer, I believe). So I can speculate: what you mean is that he doesn't toe the Rothbardian, anarcho-capitalist party line and is therefore "impure".
Get off it, this sort of attitude is ridiculous.
nirgrahamUK:Hayek is weaker against walrasian equilib approach than mises in my opinion.
Yeah, and clearly Hoppe didn't read Salerno's piece. In which he says that both the Misesian and Hayekian lines of Austrian thought are interesting, illuminating and insightful. I don't think he once referred to Hayek's thought as fallacious, nor does Hoppe's own piece provide any substantial arguments against Hayek's contributions (in fact, I'm not sure if Hoppe even understands them).
But of course, Hoppe will be Hoppe. But Hoppefully he'll never win a nobel prize (hahaha!).
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:No, not really. Hayek had an extremely extended intellectual journey, by the end of his career he was endorsing Popperian falsificationism. So no, it's not really suprising that you would call those followers of Hayek positivists. But to say that all those who are more Hayekian than Misesian are positivists is absurd, look at Lachmann and his followers. They're more akin to Hayek but they're certainly not positivists.
Karl Popper was a positivist and as you said near the end of Hayek's career he was being swayed by Popperianism. If one takes up the premises of Hayekian logic then they naturally take up his Popperianism unless they specifically denounce it. I believe you have taken up his Popperianism by you strutting around claiming economics is akin to natural science.
GilesStratton:I suspect that you simply lack a nuanced view of the world, for you everything can be divided into two categories "Austrians" and "non-Austrians". With you providing the definitions for those categories.
First you self-victimize yourself, then you claim others are idiots. You just must be a tortured philosopher surrounded by those who can't understand you. No doubt only Hegel complained more then you about people not understanding him.
Anarchist Cain:Karl Popper was a positivist and as you said near the end of Hayek's career he was being swayed by Popperianism. If one takes up the premises of Hayekian logic then they naturally take up his Popperianism unless they specifically denounce it. I believe you have taken up his Popperianism by you strutting around claiming economics is akin to natural science.
I've stated that economics is science, not once have I claimed that economics is a natural science. Simply put, I don't believe it is. Now, since Mises entitled one of his works The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science it's quite clear that he too saw economics as science. As for historical work, empirical evidence is most certainly necessary. This isn't to say that historical incidents can refute theory, just that, America's Great Depression wasn't deduced from the action axiom. Sorry, but I'm strictly Misesian so far.
Anarchist Cain:First you self-victimize yourself,
Good thing too, I wouldn't know how to self-victimize somebody else.
Anarchist Cain:then you claim others are idiots. You just must be a tortured philosopher surrounded by those who can't understand you. No doubt only Hegel complained more then you about people not understanding him.
Well that's great and all, but that doesn't really have much to do with anything I've said. There are many intelligent minds who lack a nuanced mind, so I'm not sure I've claimed anybody is an idiot. Rothbard didn't exactly have the most sophisticated world view, but I would hesitate before calling him an idiot.
GilesStratton:I've stated that economics is science, not once have I claimed that economics is a natural science. Simply put, I don't believe it is. Now, since Mises entitled one of his works The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science it's quite clear that he too saw economics as science.
So you are now admitting here that Austrianism is an apriori social science whose basic structure does not require empirical data in order to make predicitions/ provide explainations?
Anarchist Cain: GilesStratton:I've stated that economics is science, not once have I claimed that economics is a natural science. Simply put, I don't believe it is. Now, since Mises entitled one of his works The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science it's quite clear that he too saw economics as science. So you are now admitting here that Austrianism is an apriori social science whose basic structure does not require empirical data in order to make predicitions/ provide explainations?
Ermm, I've never denied that. What are you stupid or something?
GilesStratton:Yeah, and clearly Hoppe didn't read Salerno's piece. In which he says that both the Misesian and Hayekian lines of Austrian thought are interesting, illuminating and insightful. I don't think he once referred to Hayek's thought as fallacious, nor does Hoppe's own piece provide any substantial arguments against Hayek's contributions (in fact, I'm not sure if Hoppe even understands them).
Its pretty clear to me that Salerno favours the Misesian arguments over the Hayekian, in his replies to Yeager, he defends the Salerno, Rothbard, and Herbener positions against Yeagers arguments, which are Hayekian.
If you read The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited by Murray N. Rothbard there is a section entitled Fallacies of Hayek and Kirzner
With regards to Adam Smith - there's a reference in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash Jr. "revises" Smiths' "invisble hand" with his "game theory" (something that actually did not happen -
but my question to this is: What economic school did John Nash Jr. belong to?
GilesStratton: Yeah, and clearly Hoppe didn't read Salerno's piece. In which he says that both the Misesian and Hayekian lines of Austrian thought are interesting, illuminating and insightful. I don't think he once referred to Hayek's thought as fallacious, nor does Hoppe's own piece provide any substantial arguments against Hayek's contributions (in fact, I'm not sure if Hoppe even understands them). But of course, Hoppe will be Hoppe. But Hoppefully he'll never win a nobel prize (hahaha!).
Just curious Giles, what caused you to turn almost a complete 180 on Hoppe, exactly?
Not that there is anything wrong with this or anything, just curious is all.
I still enjoy and appreciate some of his writings, I've just come to realize that he might not be the most professional of scholars. His work on certain subject contains precious few references and quite a few unsupported assertions. Besides that there are far too many incidents of italics, exclamation marks!!! and ad hominems. Simply put, I don't think he's on the same level as economists like Mises, Hayek, Garrison, Yeager, Selgin, White and I don't think he's on the same level as many philosopers. Now, his work on sociology has some value, but that's about it.
I think it would be more accurate to say they are less rationalistic or have a greater appreciation of non-rationalist thinkers. Putting it this way covers Lachmann as well as Hayek and fellow travellers.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
GilesStratton: I still enjoy and appreciate some of his writings, I've just come to realize that he might not be the most professional of scholars. His work on certain subject contains precious few references and quite a few unsupported assertions. Besides that there are far too many incidents of italics, exclamation marks!!! and ad hominems. Simply put, I don't think he's on the same level as economists like Mises, Hayek, Garrison, Yeager, Selgin, White and I don't think he's on the same level as many philosopers. Now, his work on sociology has some value, but that's about it.
Fair enough.
I really enjoy his stuff, though I doubt I am well versed enough to critically examine it like you are.
I'm an electrical engineer afterall, not an economist.
I was wondering what you think about Bob Sugden?
My favorite would probably be Hayek as well, for the already mentioned reasons.
GilesStratton: liberty student: His attitude online is a big turnoff, and he comes off as one of these "economic science"-statist Austrians. Because, we all know that academic work should be judged by the "attitude" of its author.
Because, we all know that academic work should be judged by the "attitude" of its author.
Not at all. Which is why I asked Nir to give me his review. Look, people who have poor socialization skills, or are annoying (such as present company) suffer when they have to compete. Reputation is not just consistency and honesty, it's about being able to communicate those values, and establish a relationship. Some people say dumb crap, and it costs them book sales. Some people say something ignorant, and lose their talk radio show. It doesn't matter if they were right or wrong (although in this case, I feel fairly confident the comments were wrong-headed).
So I don't recall ever judging Horowtiz's work, which is the crux of your latest temper tantrum. Although, IIRC he is a free banker, and I think the free bankers are nuts he's not even the 3rd free banking economist that comes to mind when I think about that dark art.
GilesStratton:So I can speculate: what you mean is that he doesn't toe the Rothbardian, anarcho-capitalist party line and is therefore "impure".
Which would be just pure speculation.
GilesStratton:Get off it, this sort of attitude is ridiculous.
Indeed. I'm done indulging you on this topic.
GilesStratton:But Hoppefully he'll never win a nobel prize (hahaha!).
He'll be in good company with Mises and Rothbard then.
The economics Nobel is like the sound of one hand clapping. It is not a genuine Nobel. It is a banking industry award.
Hoppe is still better than a great many philosophers, (political) economists and sociologists. However, for reasons I mentioned earlier, he doesn't factor in as a "favorite" economist for me, as he isn't one primarily but only secondarily. His lack of scholarliness here and there matter little to me. It is merely form and not substance, but it really can hamper his ability to communicate Austrian ideas which he otherwise does very eloquently.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon, I'm not going to argue philosophy with you, for reasons that I hope are obvious. I don't know much philosophy so I can't really make a very good comparison. From what I've seen of his argumentation ethics I'm not convinced, I simply don't think it proves what it intends to. Now, whether it's beyond the point where it can be salvaged I don't know and I've not got much interest in finding out anytime soon.
As for his economics, I find them to be very flawed. His work in public goods isn't bad (the strawman attacks on the Virginia School ignored), but I don't think it proves what Hoppe hopes it does. Whilst there may be no distinct class of goods that may be called "public goods" there clearly are some goods which do have certain characteristics which make there provision by "arm length exchanges" more difficult if not impossible. If you look at D:TGTF (which is a good book, although, I'd be interested in Leeson's critique) he explains mechanisms whereby goods may be provided that are different from the traditional "firm". I don't like his work on FRB at all, as you can probably tell. I find some of his statements to be nothing other than assertions (e.g. that people want base money, what he doesn't say is why).
His sociology remains good the same. To put my position concisely, I think Hoppe is a far better libertarian than he is an Austrian.
GilesStratton:(e.g. that people want base money, what he doesn't say is why).
regression theorem might be a hint. did people want fiat money right off the bat? i put this here more as something to reflect on, than to debate back and forth on this thread. If you want to go into Hoppes writings on FRB we could start up a new post....
Heh, reminds me of Selgin's and White's remark that Hoppe redefines fiat by fiat. FRB is not a fiat currency, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, I don't see how regression theorem comes in here. All that states is that money must arise from the market and not be decree (actually, Selgin has a fascinating paper on this).
not here.
Giles,
Not wishing argue about FRB here but a matter of clarification- Hoppe has never to my mind argued that people prefer base money. In fact he repudiates such a term, used by FRB proponents, in Against fiducuiary media.
Btw I agree 100% with Jon on Hoppe- he's a political economist/ philosopher first, economist second.
I'm unfavourable to the idea of obsessing over individuals. It isn't about the people to me. It's about the work and keeping it in check.
I am referring to his methodological work which is cutting edge. He is way ahead of most epistemologists. And argumentation ethics remains a better attempt than what most philosophers have made on the topic of ethics.
As for his economics, I find them to be very flawed. His work in public goods isn't bad (the strawman attacks on the Virginia School ignored), but I don't think it proves what Hoppe hopes it does. Whilst there may be no distinct class of goods that may be called "public goods" there clearly are some goods which do have certain characteristics which make there provision by "arm length exchanges" more difficult if not impossible. If you look at D:TGTF (which is a good book, although, I'd be interested in Leeson's critique) he explains mechanisms whereby goods may be provided that are different from the traditional "firm".
Right, I think he is more interested in whether they can be provided without the state than whether firms can.
His sociology remains good the same
I still want to read his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism which I hear is one of his best works.
Jon since you are very well read in philosophy, who would you say are some of your favorite philosphers?
Aristotle mainly. Other than him, David Gordon, Roderick Long Laurence BonJour, Daniel Dennett, Anton de Jasay, John Searle, Philippa Foot, Julia Annas, Laurence BonJour, Hoppe, Mises (yes, I do count him as one), David Kelley and Douglas Rasmussen. I like Kant but don't count him as a favourite. I loathe Wittgenstein, regardless of how much many philosophers adore him - his writings are ineffable. And I like Hume, but disagree with a lot of what he says, though I think he has many affinities with Aristotle that are often unnoticed.
Jon Irenicus: I still want to read his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism which I hear is one of his best works.
It's great. A fantastic work of political economy and contains his most detailed exposition of argumentational ethics.
Don't forget about Bob Murphy!
Actually, it would be interesting to hear who your favorite Mises.org contributor economists are (the ones who are still living)
macedonia74: With regards to Adam Smith - there's a reference in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash Jr. "revises" Smiths' "invisble hand" with his "game theory" (something that actually did not happen - but my question to this is: What economic school did John Nash Jr. belong to?
Nash wasn't really an economic theorist, per se. He made great contributions to the field, but he would probably consider himself more of an econometric guy than an "economic theorist" following a certain school.
That said, Nash would likely fit in more of a New Keynesian framework.
existence is elsewhere
Jon Irenicus:Right, I think he is more interested in whether they can be provided without the state than whether firms can.
But my point was that he's arguing like a lawyer. On the one hand he states something along the lines of "we don't need the state because public goods don't exist" on the other hand he says "we don't need the state because voluntary associations of individuals can handle public goods". I agree with the latter of the two arguments, but not the former
Jon Irenicus:I still want to read his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism which I hear is one of his best works.
It's OK, there's nothing groundbreaking in there. The tone of the book is considerably different to the tone he takes in later works. That said, the first few chapters are quite a nice extension of Rothbard's Power & Market. I still prefer D:TGTF, which is quite a good book even if flawed at times.
Physiocrat: Giles, Not wishing argue about FRB here but a matter of clarification- Hoppe has never to my mind argued that people prefer base money. In fact he repudiates such a term, used by FRB proponents, in Against fiducuiary media. Btw I agree 100% with Jon on Hoppe- he's a political economist/ philosopher first, economist second.
Physiocrat, here's what I was talking about, from this paper:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe:Indeed, historically this has been the case: Traditionally, notes have always been widely distrusted, and their acceptability-as compared to that of genuine money such as gold or silver coins-was severely limited.
Now, I have trouble believing this for reasons outlined by Selgin & White, much more so because there's not so much as a quotation, let alone a study, to support this assertion. Now, giving Hoppe the benefit of the doubt I'd say that he simply considered it obvious to the extent that he needn't support such a claim. But, I'm more inclined to believe that he simply doesn't have any studies to prove such a thing. With a secondary market in bank notes it'd be fairly obvious if a bank was not solvent, since the notes would trade below par and consequently a run on the bank would follow. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for the notes to be suspect, and I can see why they'd be accepted over money because they pay interest.
As for Hoppe the philosophy, I don't consider myself well read enough in philosophy to make any definitive judgements. But what I will say is that his argumentation ethics is seriously weak. Loren Lomasky hit home in his criticisms if you ask me (and Kinsella admits as much). By the way, I heard GAP was working on a critique of Hoppe's ethics, does anybody know what's going on with this?
GilesStratton:By the way, I heard GAP was working on a critique of Hoppe's ethics, does anybody know what's going on with this?
I don't know about that, but Robert Murphy and Gene Callahan co-wrote a critique.
GilesStratton:With a secondary market in bank notes it'd be fairly obvious if a bank was not solvent, since the notes would trade below par and consequently a run on the bank would follow. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for the notes to be suspect, and I can see why they'd be accepted over money because they pay interest.
this is walrasian equilibrium theory at its best(worst). there cant be money on the floor or someone would have picked it up. the bank cant be insolvent or it would have gone bust.
nirgrahamUK:this is walrasian equilibrium theory at its best(worst). there cant be money on the floor or someone would have picked it up. the bank cant be insolvent or it would have gone bust.
No, it's not. All I'm assuming is that markets work efficiently and that entrepreneurs respond to incentives and economize on the available knowledge. Now, if you wish to deny this, go ahead, but you're going to reject a lot of Austrianism in the process.
Lilburne, I've read the critique, thanks for link thought. Callahan & Murphy are both great.
strawman. it seems you didnt understand that you made a fallacy. 'if its not bust, it wont be busting'
nirgrahamUK: strawman. it seems you didnt understand that you made a fallacy. 'if its not bust, it wont be busting'
There was no fallacy. Perhaps you just didn't understand, but I doubt you have much of an interest in doing so anyway (funny, you berated me for the same thing). My point was that if there are doubts about the solvency of the bank these will be reflected in secondary markets, it will manifest itself as notes trading below par. If this is the case it would be "rational" for depositors to perform a run on the bank.
yes, i am not disagreeing with you that insolvent banks wont go bust in short order. i am just disagreeing with you that fiduciary media is viable banking, and your position that the possibility and actuality of runs on banks will lead to better fiduciary banks and fewer possibility and actuality of runs on fiduciary banks, rather, i suspect the market would weed out fiduciary banks in favour of sound ones.
nirgrahamUK:i am just disagreeing with you that fiduciary media is viable banking, and your position that the possibility and actuality of runs on banks will lead to better fiduciary banks and fewer possibility and actuality of runs on fiduciary banks, rather, i suspect the market would weed out fiduciary banks in favour of sound ones.
Do you have anything to support this suspicion of yours. Because it seems to me that depositors would find it beneficial to receive interest on their deposits as opposed to paying for them.
My favorite is Hoppe because he's always starting new debates instead of rehashing the old ones.
I didn't give a thought about bankruptcy laws until he pointed out how it interfered with credit.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
depositors whose banks go bust dont get interest on their deposits. they dont even get their deposits.
Historically banks that practise FRB didn't go bust (see White on Scotland). In any case, competition would ensure that banks practise responsible lending, by and large eliminating the danger of bankruptcy.