>
> I thought I made it clear what I found repellent:
> the dual claim "originality" and
> "obviousness,"
> coupled with the condemnation of all
> non-believers as "superstitious."
Where did Mises or Hayek claim that there work (it seems you are refering to their work generally) was ALL original and ALL so obvious, and that their opponnents are superstitious? Mises made some harsh remarks against his opponents, but Hayek was very polite. Also, the idea that their stuff is obvious is not true and not the way they saw most of their work. There is much subtlety in their work, at least as I have read it.
> This I will grant tentatively, mainly because I
> am woefully ignorant of monetary theory. I
> distrust the gold bugs and am suspicious of the
> monetarists, and indeed of most that I read on
> the subject. Hence, this doesn't leave me much
> room to run or space to criticize.
Fair enough
> >2. expanding the domain of economics to human action.
>
> This is the strangest claim of the Miseans, and
> it is difficult to say what it even means. I
> can't think of an economist who didn't write on
> human action, and only a few who wrote on it as
> Mises did. Mises's theories in this regard are
> completely occult, unconnected with any of the
> higher sciences that deal with human action. I
> don't think he can find much in the way of
> confirmation from the psychologists or the
> sociologists. Doesn't that scientific isolation strike
> you as suspicious?
Who did economic analysis of the family before Becker, other than Mises? Mises got into this in his 1922 book, and there are other 'wordly philosophers' who had things to say about the family but not in terms of an economic allocation problem. The classical economists saw their subject as the study of wealth, the nature and causes of wealth, or the production and distribution of wealth, or the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, but always wealth. The move from wealth to allocation or action did broaden the subject. I would have expected anyone on this list to know that.
>
> The trouble is that it comes down to a claim that
> if equilibrium isn't perfect, then we can't speak
> of equilibrium.
You are dead wrong. Mises used the concept of 'the plain state of rest' to discuss real world market equilibrium. Plain states of rest are the equality of actual supply and demand, based on imperfect foresight and strictly limited information of market conditions.
Its a great half-truth, but in
> fact we can't speak of anything else in
> economics. A successful economy achieves,
> roughly, equilibrium. When it doesn't have it, we
> have a boom, a bust, or an outright collapse. No
> one invests without some reasonable expectation
> of equilibrium. The ERE is a strawman, and the
> Misean "all-or-nothing" approach is not helpful.
Well, Austrians have said a few things about market process as opposed to the hypothetical ERE, and the plain state of rest. So this is not an all or nothing proposition. Also, the ERE was used by Mises to illustrate the role of the entreprenuer. Once again you have criticized Mises without understanding his work.
> A price system is indeed a very good tool, but
> not a perfect one, since it can do nothing about
> externalities (by definition). To refuse to
> recognize the limitations of any system, no
> matter how good the system is, is to make even good systems
> ridiculous.
Yes, and Mises and and Hayek recogized externalities as a limit to markets. They even advocated provision of a few public goods. More and more I am getting the sense that you have not really read them.
> And he was right; socialism does lead to
> bureaucratic rigidity and gross errors in capital
> investment. The problem is that Hayek's ideas
> have been regnant since Reagan in the United
> States and Thatcher in Britain.
Are you serious? Government regulation and spending have grown significantly during and after Reagan. See Dawson's article in Kyklos last year, for example. The idea that Reagan and Thatcher ushered in a new Hayekian era of minimal government is factually incorrect. I can see that by simply looking at the Federal withholdings on my pay stub, not to metion a mountain of research.
And they have led
> to bureaucratic rigidity and gross errors in
> capital investment, along with massive and
> unsustainable levels of debt. When Reagan took
> office, the total debt of the United States Gov't
> was $700 million. When Bush Sr. left office, it
> had tripled to $2.1 Trillion. Then it doubled
> again and then doubled again, and now stands at
> $9.4 Trillion, with no end in sight, and no way
> to bring it down.
Which is proof that a Hayek was ignored by most politicians and voters. If Reagan had actually implemented Hayekian reforms, Federal spending would be a small fraction of its current level. You are contradicting yourself.
Further, since the "Washington
> Consensus," these ideas have been forced on every
> developing economy within the World Bank's care,
> and the results are all the same: bureaucratic
> rigidity and gross errors in capital investment.
I wrote a book review of 'Globalization and its Discontents' (by Stiglitz) that settles this. All of this talk of a Washington conssensus forcing Hayekian or Froedmanite ideas on the rest of the world it total nonsense. The IMF and such institutions have pursued agressive intervetion, contra Hayek's views. My review is easy to find online.
> The ideas of Marx and Hayek have both been
> thoroughly tested--with about the same results.
Try Comparing postwar economic growth in Hong Kong with the Soviet record.
>
> Very true, but you need to add at least one more
> name to that list: George W. Bush.
OK, add in that Son of a Bush. Bush has opposed the free market BTW. Bush signed on to Pill Socialism, Sarbanes-Oxley, tariff and min wage increases, huge domestic program increases... Bush has done more to expand government than any president since LBJ. Bush fits Milton Friedman's definition of a socialist (see his interview on CSPAN Booknotes)
I would never
> have thought, even a dozen years ago, that secret
> renditions and torture would be, not an
> aberration, but the standard operating procedure
> for my country. I would not have thought that the
> president could get away with thousands of
> "signing statements" disavowing the laws he was
> sworn to uphold. I never thought that we would
> see such a reach for an imperial presidency
> fighting distant wars for no discernable reason.
> True, Bush is not as far along the road to
> serfdom as is Mugabe, but he has past the toll booth on
> that same highway.
> And Hayek himself had no qualms about working
> with Pinochet.
When? Some of the Chicago economists gave advice to Pinochet. You might be thinking of Friedman. For that matter it would be grossly unfair to blame Friedman for the torture of some dissidents by Pinochet on Friedman, simply because he told Pinochet not to depreciate his currency.
> >6. Entrepreneurship exists only in dynamic conditions,
>
> Are there "non-dynamic" conditions in human life?
no, and Mises pointed out the inreal characeter of static models of final equilibrium.
>
> Or in physical life in general, as far as that
> goes. In any case, it seems to me that the
> Miseans claim originality for what most people take for
> granted.
Mises explained some issues on this topic concerning the role of entreprenerial profit and loss calcualtions in improving (not perfecting) consumer welfare, by redirecting capital investment away from areas of declinging consumer demand, and towards areas of expanding consumer demand. This is his main contribution on entrepreneurship. You might disagree with this, but this is not something that most people are even aware of. Not only do people not take this for granted, many people assume the opposite- that entreprenerial profits just result in making the rich richer and the poor poorer, without providing any broader benefits to society. OF course, Mises is not the first invisible hand thinker, but he and Hayek developed invisible hand thinking further by rooting it in subjective marginal value theory, and by lining it in with a marginalist theory of money and of human action generally.
Overall, I would say that you are a very long way from understanding the Austrian paradigm. This is not an easy task. I have gone through my Audiobooks of Human Action and SOcialism a dozen times each, and each time I pick up something new (to me) and important. Mises wrote very complicated and subtle books. Strictly speaking, the only one who understood Mises (fully) was Mises. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the money and caclulation-entrepreneurship issues. From what I have read of your post you are not in a good position to critique Mises or Hayek.
> I don't know what they have contributed;
Because you have not understood them
I don't
> follow Austrian literature that closely.
Obviously.
But of
> the things you have cited, with the exception of
> monetary theory which I know nothing about, they
> are all of either questionable value, denied by
> the facts of history, or merely things that
> everybody has always taken for granted.
Once again, you are not in a position to make this judgement. I have come across this sort of thing many times. People attack Mises and/or Hayek because they dislike the general idea of free market capitalism, but don't take the time to really undertand Mises or Hayek. Ill grant that reading and rereading Mises and Hayek for good comprehension is a huge investment in time, so it would be asking alot for you to undertake the effort. However, I am not asking that. I ask only that you refrain from attacking Mises and Hayek unless you take the time to really understand their explnation of economic systems.
Doug MacKenzie
|
