This is FriedrichHayek's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following FriedrichHayek's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The volume is truly outstanding. It contains lectures from the 1960s which confirm my own take on Hayek's explanatory strategy and his account of the logical status of the various elements if economic explanation and theorizing. More evidence also from Bruce Caldwell in the introduction that James Buchanan never had any idea what Hayek was up to. This is the one volume of Hayek any scholar or intellectual should own.
Toggle Commented Jan 28, 2014 on The Market and Other Orders at Coordination Problem
Paul Samuelson straight up explained why his textbook economics took the form it did -- he constructed his textbook to fit the skills and interests of math-centric MIT engineers. Think about that just a little bit. The textbook was no designed to capture and convey an understanding of the way the world works, it was designed to fit the math interests and math skill of undergraduate engineers. I don't no were he explained that, but he was very up front about the genesis of his textbook economics.
I should point out that Robert Solow is still using this strategy of misreporting Hayek's work as a technique in intentional marginalization of rival scientific work.
John K. Galbraith was intentionally mis-reporting the content of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and other aspects of Hayek's work in official AEA publications, for no reason but partisan advantage against a "political opponent" -- left economists did this *routinely* to Hayek. What Samuelson did was common practice among left economists -- intentionally misreport Hayek's perspective in order to marginalize Hayek as an economists. Arrow did it also. As did Keynes. It was accepted academic practice in the day.
"Hayek never went out of his way to discourgage doggerel versions of RtS" -- Rosser Note that Hayek's permission was never asked nor granted before the Reader's Digest "version" was printed. That was the decision of Hayek's publisher, and Hayek wasn't involved in the decision.
"Fruitful" in what sense? Economics is driven by self-interest & the bureaucratic structure of academia. "Fruitful" must be understood from the methodological individualist point of view of incentives facing the academic. "Fruitful" = having a simple & univocal formal metric of "good" which makes teaching simple, Ph.D dissertation evaluation simple, peer review, advancing ones career simple, picking Clark winners & Nobel Prize winners simple, etc. "Fuitful" = having formal puzzles with "objective", fixed solutions. "Fruitful" = having endless statistical projects to crank through and publish. "Fruitful" = having endless statistical problems to teach from a textbook. etc.
Did anyone notice that Krugman diagnosed Latvia as a country going through an unsustainable artificial boom and inevitable bust with productivity price effects -- and recommended austerity as the policy cure? This would seem a prime opportunity to bang the drums for ABCT and do a bit of public education and embarrassing of the ignorant enemies of Mises / Hayek macro. But all I've heard from Austrians is crickets, Anyone know how to play this game? Is the effort to keep Hayek / Mises macro a secret? Krugman confesses that conceptually he can't make sense of an economy producing beyond capacity -- exactly what Hayek explains -- and proof that Krugman doesn't know squat about Hayek's explanatory mechanism. No one is more famous that Krugman -- here's a chance to raise the profile of what appears to be secret knowledge.
I largely agree with Barkley about fact the agent modeling and econometrics, properly done and understood, have valid roles. Are there any Austrians who disagree? I think the Hayek / Austrian conversation on math and data is widely misunderstood.
Boulding is more than misleading here in the language he uses to capture what math can do and what it cannot do, and what language can do that math cannot do. Language can capture a causal mechanism involving learning, changes in judgment, and open-ended categories and open-ended conceptual change -- math cannot do that. The issue here is not precision and vagueness, or elegance vs the literary -- distinctions which takes us away from the actual issues at hand. Literature has nothing to do with with -- just as the hermeneutic/literary metaphor does not help us understand Wittgenstein, logic and language, is does not help,us understand Hayek's explanation of the causal mechanism producing economic order, nor Darwin's explanation of the causal mechanisms of biological order -- both of which are communicated in words.
Who knows, maybe the comments section is just down.
I pointed out this difference between Mises and Hayek that Calvo flags in his paper over 15 years ago in the Q & A portions of a Tyler Cowen paper on the ABCT, a paper in which Tyler took a version of the Mises theory to _be_ the Austrian Business Cycle theory. It looks like Tyler has just now banned me from Marginal Revolution for recounting this fact.
Hayek advocated pre-announced total income stream targeting by the central bank if the bust phase of the trade cycle involves a vicious crashing cycle in the shadow money and banking system, in which recalculation takes the economy every further away from a wealth producing coordination equilibrium. Money and credit are a loose going in the coordination and recalculation system, and when they are carooming every further out of joint, in a central banking system the job of the central bank is to set expectation leading to greater coordination rather than less.
Kevin Vallier on Corey Robin's disgraceful intellectual & academic practices, standards, and behavior
I'm merely pointing out that you've set the table for a falsely premised conversation, Roger. And I'm asking you change your ways and work toward a productive conversation. If you've don't want to have a conversation, fine.
"You just gotta face all of Darwin's errors and infirmities to be an effective advocate for him." The statement is false. Darwin's errors are trivialities of history which people ignore when exploiting what Darwin contributed to human thought and science. Keynesians ignore Keynes eugenics & his attempt to ingratiate himself with the Nation Socialists in Germany, etc. Similar examples could be repeated endlessly. The seminal issue here is that discussion of Hayek, democracy, civil war, oligarchic rule, the struggle with the Marxists, etc is totally miscast is you accept the terms of debate and moral of the story as cast by Corey Robin. Roger needs to tells us if he accepts the dubious and essential contested casting of the issues at hand as presented by Robin.
"The Hayek mafia vilified Corey Robin for outing Hayek's Nazi-sympathizing Nietzschean agenda, absurdly suggesting that Robin was trying defame Hayek for being a Nietzsche-inspired National Socialist sympathizer! I don't think they did Hayek any favors in that episode. Harry Dexter White supporters should not make the same mistake." I don't see any other possible parallel that Roger could be drawing in this case.
So what is the logic of this? Do we condemn the CATO Institute for holding conferences in tyrannical Red China which in part were celebrations of Chinese liberalization and market reform? Corey Robin, we have no reason not to presume, would condemn CATO, not for so much for holding conferences in China, but for celebrating the Chinese liberalization. Corey Robin wants us to condemn Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society for celebrating Chilean liberalization and market reform, via guild by association with Pinochet's non-liberal murders and brutality and his war with the armed Marxist opposition. The reforms are evil because Pinochet was evil, and the Mont Pelerin Society is evil because it celebrates these evil by association measures. Also, here is just a bit on armed Marxist revolutionaries for a time headed by Andrés Pascal Allende, the nephew of Salvador Allende:
Mike Rappaport lays out a typical example of Corey Robin's dishonest & academically deplorable deception here:
I should recommend Steve Pinker's The Blank Slate for and excellent account of the difference between an explanation and a moral judgment, for Austrians who have completely forgotten the distinction, and its application to explanatory work outside of baby economics.
Roger -- Corey Robin is being called out for blatant deception, and rank smears based on blatant deception. This has nothing to do with Wittgenstein and Bartley. And the problem of escalating threats of total loss by one side in a contest between rival camps via cohesion and violence is a constant of what Communist/Marxist factions have meant in nation after nation -- see Steve Pinker in The Blank Slate on the basic game theory of the problem. People need to stop being dishonest and stone ignorant when discussing Marxism and the Marxists and parties seeking total economic control and cohesion. The new biography of Carl Marx points out that the one consistent inspiration for his Marxist brand of communism/socialism was the French terror. Elements of that inspiration are built into the his recommendations for Marxist social and political revolution. Any political party seeking to confront Marxists seeking total control has to deal with that reality. It's easy for people who haven't dealt with this to pretend it doesn't exit -- people in Russia, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Eastern Europe and elsewhere didn't have this luxury. Stone ignorance of history and the realities of 20th century history eliminates every sense of perspective. This is an explanation. An explanation as every Austrian should understand, is NOT a moral evaluation or moral judgment. It's doubly dishonest for Austrian's who know this distinction to pretend that they don't know it.
Corey Robin linked Hayek to Hitler and the Luftwaffe via Nietzsche for God's sake. Innuendo and guilt by association "gotcha" are his business. Robin did his graduate work under a far left labor historian. He's the equivalent of a party apparatchik -- he's not a conscientious scholar or careful student of history and ideas. The point is to bring ideological victories for the partisan Team Left. And that is what he believes he is achieving his his relentless crusade to chain Hayek to Adolf Hitler's leg. Peter writes, "Identifying tensions and offer attempted reconciliations is the way forward; innuendo and guilt by association "gotcha' arguments are not."
"ending Glass-Steagall was not a major cause of what happened" For an educated man to claim that it was *the* cause and the *only* cause is DISHONEST. " Stiglitz is totally putting across the idea that we had deregulation of financial markets that led to the crisis. That's simply not true." Exactly. An educated man trying to hoodwink the public with claims which are simply not true and which are self-evidently titanically misleading is DISHONEST. We can talk about dishonest car salesmen, and dishonest politicians, and dishonest husbands, and dishonest lawyers, and dishonest doctors, etc -- we need to be able to talk just as readily about dishonest professors and dishonest economists. Stop is with the guild mentality of defending the bad actors in one's own profession. I hate it when guild members in the professions of medicine or the law protects and fail to discipline the bad actors in their own guild, and the same pathology is too common among professors and academia generally.
Is this an honest man? Let's look reality in the face. He's not even trying to be honest. This is a very serious problem in economic science, a strong contingent of leftists steeped in an ethic of cultural dominance which sanctions imposing a bullshit narrative on everyone that everyone knows is essentially a lie -- a great twisting and suppressing of the unavoidable, widely known actual facts of the matter. It's a disgrace. And like the emperor with no clothes, no one says a word. It's remarkable in itself that anyone has spoken the truth about Krugman, but only because the man has made his lies directly personal against working peers at top 5 universities, If he had only lied about ideas and facts and history and politicians and policy wonks and the economy and the work of dead men, most everyone would have pretended no ethical disgrace had occurred.
This is a crucial point -- *varied* reiteration is crucial to productive discussion across rival paradigms, understandings and explanatory visions -- a point made in various ways by the philosopher of argument and explanation Larry Wright. So the question is -- why *don't* 'Austrian economists' take this point to heart? Why do they almost never use alternative words and expressions for the 5 or 6 different senses of "subjectivist" or "subjectivism"? And this statement could apply to a large cluster of fixed language ticks in the Austrian literature, eg "methology", "value", "apriori", "equilibrium", etc. You can go chapter and verse through all of the rubber stamped and stereo-typed dead metaphors that Austrian's cling to -- as if it is impossible for them to use fresh language or even alternative words for arguments cast in linguistic stone by Mises or Rothbard. The other side of this is that when people use the same stagnant, rubber stamped and ossified language, they stop thinking, they don't look at the full range of issues involves or different distinctions hidden by fixed, pat and thoughtless word repetition. If you want people to get the significance of Austrian economics explain the 5 or 6 conceptually different explanatory roles Austrians us the single word "subjective" to explicate.