On the evidence I have seen, it is an exaggeration to say that Hayek was an apologist for apartheid. He had been declassed by the overthrow of the Hapsburg Empire: his illegal and repeated use of the Hapsburg "von" indicates his attachment to that general class structure. His disciples appear to have little or no understanding of his "thoughts" - which are in a separate category to the impressive and elaborate constructions contained in his writings. 

RL

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Donald A Coffin" <[log in to unmask]>
A: [log in to unmask]
Inviato: Domenica, 20 novembre 2011 23:18:36
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Hayek and Keynes

I have read, initially with some interest, but increasingly with exasperation, the exchanges about the meaning of Keynes’s introduction to the German edition of The General Theory and of Hayek’s responses to and opinion of the existence of apartheid in South Africa. At this point, it seems clear to me that neither side is going to convince the other, and it may be that there is no evidence on either side that could convince the other. 

I do want to add one note, not from the history of economics, but from economic history. In the United States, following the Civil War, one strand of argument (culminating in work by U.B. Phillips, especially in American Negro Slavery; a Survey of the Supply, Employment, and Control of Negro Labor, as Determined by the Plantation Regime ) was that slavery was bound to die out, because the profitability of slavery was declining. According to Phillips, this decline in profitability was a consequence of the steadily rising price of slaves coupled with the steadily falling price of cotton. As a consequence, according to this argument, the Civil War, as a means to ending slavery, was unnecessary. The parallels between this and the arguments against (and for) sanctions against South Africa are, I think, obvious. 

In 1958, Alfred Conrad and John Meyer (both in journal articles and in The Economics of Slavery in the Antebellum South ) demonstrated that the declining profitability of slavery was an erroneous conclusion (I nearly typed that it was a myth), based on incomplete and inadequate data. In particular, earlier work had neglected, ignored, or not had access to data on the rising productivity of plantation agriculture in the American South, which, in fact, indicated that slavery had become more, not less, profitable, by 1860. 

My conclusion from this is that one may think that Phillips and his followers were merely apologists for slavery, arguing that slavery was doomed and knowing full well that it was not, or that they were simply wrong in their analysis. Similarly, one may think that Hayek was merely an apologist for apartheid, arguing that it was doomed, or that he was simply wrong in his analysis. 

But I’m not sure that continuing to beat this horse gets us any further forward. 

Donald A. Coffin 
School of Business and Economics 
Indiana University Northwest 
3400 Broadway 
Gary, IN 46408 
[log in to unmask] 


________________________________________ 
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of James C.W. Ahiakpor [[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 3:29 PM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers" 

michael perelman wrote: 
> Keynes' German introduction bears some similarity with 
> Arrow'simpossibility theorem, which was written to show how much 
> moreeffective Soviet mobilization was relative to that of the US. 
> Arrowwas not writing in support of the Soviet system, but just explain 
> afact. 
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Alan G Isaac<[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
>> For I confess that much of the following book is 
>> illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the 
>> conditions existing in the Anglo-Saxon countries. 
>> Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is 
>> what the following book purports to provide, is much 
>> more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian 
>> state, than is the theory of the production and 
>> distribution of a given output produced under conditions 
>> of free competition and a large measure of 
>> laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons which justify 
>> my calling my theory a *General* theory. Since it is 
>> based on less narrow assumptions than the orthodox 
>> theory, it is also more easily adapted to a large area 
>> of different circumstances. Although I have thus worked 
>> it out having the conditions in the Anglo-Saxon 
>> countries in view -- where a great deal of laissez-faire 
>> still prevails -- it yet remains applicable to 
>> situations in which national leadership is more 
>> pronounced. For the theory of psychological laws 
>> relating consumption and saving, the influence of loan 
>> expenditure of prices and real wages, the part played by 
>> the rate of interest -- these remain as necessary 
>> ingredients in our scheme of thought under such 
>> conditions, too. 
>> 
>> So I repeat, you appear to grossly misinterpret Keynes. 
>> 
>> Alan Isaac 
>> 
>> 
>> 
Just for the record, my version of the 1936 Preface to the German 
edition of the /General Theory/ (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 
1973, xxv-xxvii) does not have the words "This is one of the reasons 
which justify my calling my theory a *General* theory. Since it is 
based on less narrow assumptions than the orthodox theory, it is also 
more easily adapted to a large area of different circumstances. Although 
I have thus worked it out having the conditions in the Anglo-Saxon 
countries in view -- where a great deal of laissez-faire still prevails 
-- it yet remains applicable to situations in which national leadership 
is more pronounced" after "laissez-faire." Rather, the paragraph 
continues with: "The theory of the psychological laws relating 
consumption and saving, the influence of loan expenditure on prices and 
real wages, the part played by the rate of interest--these remain as 
necessary ingredients in our scheme of thought" (pp. xxvi-xxvii). BTW, 
this edition is also listed as Volume VII of the /Collected Writings of 
John Maynard Keynes/. Thus, Alan's charge of "gross 
misinterpre[tation]" by me can not stand. It lacks a valid basis. 

I am well aware that Keynes was capable of saying different things to 
different people on the same issue, but I'm surprised that the preface 
to the German edition is different in English from the one in German! 

James Ahiakpor 

-- 
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)