"In his response to my previous urging, he responded cavalierly to my question, who buys something just because its price has increase? with "conspicuous consumption, Veblen goods."  This in the context of wage rates?  Is labor a conspicuous consumption good?" 

In some academic and think tank labour markets, isn't a Hayekian designer label a Veblen, or positional good? 

RL

----- Original Message -----
From: "James C.W. Ahiakpor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, 15 November, 2013 1:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Hayek and trade unions

I think Robert misunderstands my point, judging by the question he 
raises below.  Besides, I don't know whether, from his question, he 
thinks I'm an Austrian.  Anyhow, I know that there are ex-Marxists and 
ex-Keynesians.  But there definitely are still Marxists and Keynesians.  
So it doesn't make a difference to my comment about "some historians of 
economic thought who can't seem to shed their Keynesian beliefs" whether 
we find an ex-Austrian or not.

In fact, if Robert had thought carefully about it, he might have been 
surprised at F.A. Hayek's employing a Ricardian analysis on the 
distribution of "capital" (funds) in the employment of labor and 
machinery with which he started this thread.  Hayek in the 1930s engaged 
in vigorous debate with Frank Knight about capital theory, relying upon 
Bohm-Bawerk's "Austrian" definition of capital.  Knight countered 
Hayek's arguments, employing the classical funds conception of 
"capital".  To have adopted the classical analysis in the 1978 quote 
that Robert cites (related to a 1942 previous statement) must thus be 
considered as Hayek's distancing himself from the previous, 
"traditional" Austrian analysis.  (Of course, it is well known that 
there are Misesians, Hayekians, etc. in the Austrian camp.)  Similarly, 
T.W. Hutchison (1977, p. 6) quotes Hayek in 1975 acknowledging his error 
in insisting upon deflation in the 1930s as a means of breaking "the 
rigidity of money wages" to solve the problem of unemployment.  I also 
recently encountered a comment by George Selgin pointing out that he is 
not an Austrian; he may have been associated with that school of thought 
because of his advocacy of "free banking" that some Austrian economists 
consider an ideal monetary system.

I am also aware that Keynes himself declared in 1946, "I am not a 
Keynesian"!  Earlier, in 1944, after he had dinned with Washington, D.C. 
Keynesian economists, Keynes the following morning at breakfast told 
Austin Robinson and Lydia, Keynes's wife, that he was "the only 
non-Keynesian there"; see T.W. Hutchison, 1977, p. 58.  That is partly 
why it amuses me sometimes to encounter the non-repentant Keynesians.

Once again, let me urge Robert to think more seriously or carefully 
about the issue he is pursuing -- the consequences of forced wage 
increases.  In his response to my previous urging, he responded 
cavalierly to my question, who buys something just because its price has 
increase? with "conspicuous consumption, Veblen goods."  This in the 
context of wage rates?  Is labor a conspicuous consumption good?  He 
went on about the higher cost of (fast) food because of higher minimum 
wage rates promoting less fatty food consumption, and presumably better 
health for the population.  He completely neglected the greater 
unemployment among low skill workers.  Now he is asking to know about 
ex-Austrians.  To what purpose?

James Ahiakpor

Robert Leeson wrote:
> "It was with much amusement that I read Michael Ambrosi's comments.  Amusement because I remain puzzled as to why some historians of economic thought can't seem to shed their Keynesian beliefs in the face of analysis clearly contradicting them ... I'm getting to the point of accepting that some people just can't be helped with arguments or clarifications.  It's just a waste of time.  Would that I did not encounter them in the academic refereeing process ..."
>
> There are ex-Marxists and ex-Keynesians: where are the ex-Austrians?
>
> RL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan G Isaac" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, 15 November, 2013 5:32:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Hayek and trade unions
>
> On 11/14/2013 4:13 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> I remain puzzled as to why some historians of economic thought
>   > can't seem to shed their Keynesian beliefs in the face of analysis clearly
>> contradicting them.
>
> Perhaps because they care about the empirical evidence:
> http://equitablegrowth.org/2013/11/12/622/oh-dear-megan-mcardle-relies-on-john-cochrane-and-so-goes-badly-astray
>
> hth,
> Alan Isaac


-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 Work
(510) 885-7175 Fax (Not Private)