Gossip?

Two declassed aristocrats enlist "Ludendorff and Hitler" plus other "fascists" to defend "civilisation" and "property"; defend the "civilisation" of apartheid from the "fashion" of "human rights"; and recruit "inferior" and "mediocre" "secondhand dealers in ideas" to reconstruct the unstable neo-feudal equilibrium that - with a less-persuasive "spontaneous" order - had ended-up criminalised them for asserting their inherited entitlements?

Good framing?

Austrians have framed Friedman ("fascist"), Pigou ("communist spy"), Phillips ("underground communist") and Keynes (a “Godhating, principle-hating, State-loving homosexual pervert”; Keynesians have “pushed the world into evil, and therefore toward God’s righteous judgment”).

Shouldn't we correct the historical record?

RL 

"Few human acts are so difficult as to say mea culpa, to face facts when they conflict with long-held philosophical views". Milton Friedman  
    
----- Original Message -----
From: "EA FH" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, 19 May, 2014 10:49:58 PM
Subject: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] The Hayek question

Dear all,
I hesitated to comment on this thread but I find the statements below a bit too much. Indeed, I disagree: as framed, there is no need to respond to any of these claims.
Economists are not special: if you prod deep and enough, were are bound to find statements and thoughts which are politically incorrect as framed by our own vantage points. To assume that there is a need to respond to each and every one of these claims is not the labor of a historian of economic thought, but of an armchair psychologist, a hagiographer... or of TMZ. Personally, I believe that a historian of economic thought should without a doubt try to explain and frame the context of an economist's ideas, but do so with sobriety. Anything beyond that empties our own prejudices in the work and life of people who cannot defend themselves. 
For instance, in the case of Marx, which I know a bit better, many generations of scholars tried to defend the man because they thought that in doing so, they would defend his ideas. Doing so left them in a muddle in trying to justify personal failings. Without a doubt, the man and his ideas are inextricably linked - as José Martí said of him, " he saw in everyone [and I dare to add, everything] what he carried in himself: rebellion... struggle." I believe such a temper affected his drive and where to look for inspiration, but personality is not responsible of where these ideas led in hands of third-parties... or if whether the carbuncles and boils in Marx's skin did have the intended consequences. Indeed, there was no need to defend the man, who like many of us, had his personal failings. Marx's ideas, right or wrong, have withstood the test of time, despite our best efforts. The same can be said of Hayek and Mises.
Recently there has been a lot of questionable scholarship around these "six degrees of separation" arguments (especially directed against Austrian scholars), we do not need more. For this reason, as historians of economic thought, instead of becoming inquisitors or engaging in hagiography, we are called for the scholarly pursuit of putting these ideas in context. Good framing is of the essence, and what appears below I believe needs to be improved upon. As they stand, the questions below are better left to gossip.  
Best,EF
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 04:04:04 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> A volume of *Archival Insights into the Evolution of Economics* will be open to Austrians (and others) to respond to the eight-volume *Hayek: a Collaborative Biography* and the one-volume *Hayek and Behavioural Economics*
> 
> Including, inter alia:
> 
> 1. The links between four co-habitants of the declassed capital of the former Holy Roman Empire: Hayek, Hitler, Mises and Freud;
> 2. The Hayekian origins of Hitler's anti-Semitism; 
> 3. The consequences for public policy of von Hayek's psychiatric illness (apparently schizophrenia);
> 4. The similarity between the motive for writing *Road to Serfdom* (as explained, for posthumous purposes, in a taped conversation) and the interpretation provided by Herman Finer in *Road to Reaction*; 
> 5. Austrian School attitudes about "republics" elected by "peasants and workers" (von Hayek 1978);    
> 6. The connection between ascribed status and post-Habsburg "consumer sovereignty" (“the Lord of Production is the Consumer”, von Mises 1922, 435) - "You [Ayn Rand] have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you" (von Mises (2007 [1958], 11).
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Horwitz" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, 16 May, 2014 10:07:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] The Hayek question
> 
> This is a blatant misreading of Hayek and, frankly, an offensive reply to Mario, who is a fine scholar.
> 
> Hayek says nothing of "inherited wealth."  The "administration of property" is a reference to one's place within the economic system - he's referring to entrepreneurs here, not necessarily to those who have inherited wealth.   It is used interchangeably with "men of practical affairs."
> 
> The words "inherit" or "inherited" appear nowhere in the text of "The Intellectuals and Socialism."  Check for yourself:  https://mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf 
> 
> I would hope that a scholarly listserv would engage in better arguments than ones that attack the backgrounds and motives of other scholars.  It's particularly ironic in a discussion of an article of Hayek's in which he argues: "A proper understanding of the reasons which tend to incline so many of the intellectuals toward socialism is thus most important. The first point here which those who do not share this bias ought to face frankly is that it is neither selfish interests nor evil intentions but mostly honest convictions and good intentions which determine the intellectual's views."
> 
> Hayek meant it about those he disagreed with.  Others could learn from him.
> 
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Leeson
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 6:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [SHOE] The Hayek question
> 
> Friedman's probing of the Cowles Commission econometricians ("the Friedman critique") led Koopmans to ask: "But what if the investigator is honest?". 
> 
> The "Friedman question" is: "under what circumstances would you abandon your pet theory?"
> 
> The Hayek question is: is your inherited wealthy sufficient to allow you to understand the "merit" in "Hayek's published ideas"?
> 
> Hayek (1949, 420-1) distinguished between “the real scholar or expert and the practical man of affairs”, and non-propertied intellectuals, who were “a fairly new phenomenon of history”, and who’s low ascribed status deprived them of what Hayek regarded as a central qualification: “experience of the working of the economic system which the administration of property gives.” 
> 
> Is Mario from the upper class?   
> 
> If not, he falls into Hayek's (1978) lower category: “So, again, what I always come back to is that the whole thing turns on the activities of those intellectuals whom I call the ‘secondhand dealers in opinion,’ who determine what people think in the long run. If you can persuade them, you ultimately reach the masses of the people.” 
> 
> According to Hayek (1949, 428), non-propertied intellectuals, “unencumbered by much knowledge of the facts of present-day life”, had to be recruited through visions: “socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character; the very courage to indulge in Utopian thought is in this respect a source of strength to the socialists which traditional liberalism sadly lacks ... The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions, the specious comprehension of the social order as a whole which a planned system promises.” 
> 
> To recruit non-propertied intellectuals, Hayek (1949, 432-3) needed “to offer a new liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia ... The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote.”  
> 
> Do you administer property - or have you been recruited through specious visions?  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mario Rizzo" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 11:58:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] A "very careful scholar"
> 
> Why are we here in terms of this discussion ? Is the claim that Hayek did not trust (South Asian) Indian scholars. Initially, I thought Leeson was trying to say/intimate that Hayek was a racist. Now Leeson brings us some evidence that Hayek was right not to trust (if he did not trust in his
> lifetime) one particular Indian scholar.
> 
> So is the upshot that Hayek was a racist, but he would have been (or was) right not to trust Sudha Shenoy? ...In an article she published after his death?
> 
> So is Professor Leeson justifying Hayek's alleged racism.
> 
> Forgive my confusion. I prefer simply to study Hayek's published ideas for their own merit. I guess I am not a proper historian of thought.
> 
> Mario Rizzo.
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
> > Sudha Shenoy reported an empirical discovery, allegedly provided to 
> > her by John Burrows, Director of the Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing:
> > "The results showed a definite divergence, i.e. some other hand 
> > definitely played a clear part in the published text of FC [Hayek's 
> > *Fatal Conceit The Errors of Socialism*].”
> >
> > Burrows confirms: "We conducted no tests for her and reached no 
> > findings, tentative or otherwise."
> >
> > Leeson, R. 2013. Archival Insights into the Evolution of Economics 
> > Volume
> > 5: Hayek: a Collaborative Biography Part 1 Influences, From Mises to 
> > Bartley. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mario Rizzo" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 10:43:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SHOE] History of Indian Economy?
> >
> > What does the quotation from Hayek (I did not see this. Is this a 
> > transcript, published work of Hayek or someone's memory of what he said????
> > I am not sure what.) have to do directly with Shenoy's history? Hayek 
> > could not have disagreed with something Sudha wrote after his own 
> > death. And with Sudha herself gone, we cannot ascertain what she 
> > believes Hayek thought of her more generally.
> >
> > I knew Sudha Shenoy and I remember her as a very careful scholar.
> >
> > I guess this is more fun than grading exams or term papers at this 
> > time of the year.
> >
> > Mario Rizzo.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sudha Shenoy (2003), an LSE student and Hayek's first official 
> > > biographer ('The Order of Liberty'), recommended a return to the 
> > > unstable neo-feudal equilibrium (1815-1914) as the road to the Austrian future:
> > >
> > > "In the nineteenth century, you had for the first time a worldwide 
> > > economic order. You had free trade, free movement of people, free
> > movement
> > > of capital, a gold standard, falling prices in the latter part of 
> > > the century, peaceful development, and no major wars between 1815 and 1914.
> > The
> > > world’s armies and navies did not know what to do. Yes, there were 
> > > aberrations like the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War, 
> > > but mostly it was a period of peace. Forty million people moved 
> > > peacefully because they wanted a better life. There were no 
> > > expulsions, no wars, no genocides, nothing."
> > >
> > > Hayek was contemptuous of the intellectual quality and integrity of 
> > > his disciples.
> > >
> > > Specifically: Shenoy “could not be trusted since she was only an Indian”
> > > (cited by Cubitt 2006, 344).
> > >
> > > Generally: "I don't have many strong dislikes. I admit that as a 
> > > teacher--I have no racial prejudices in general--but there were 
> > > certain types, and conspicuous among them the Near Eastern 
> > > populations, which I still dislike because they are fundamentally 
> > > dishonest. And I must say dishonesty is a thing I intensely dislike. 
> > > It was a type which, in my childhood in Austria, was described as 
> > > Levantine, typical of the people
> > of
> > > the eastern Mediterranean. But I encountered it later, and I have a 
> > > profound dislike for the typical Indian students at the London 
> > > School of Economics, which I admit are all one type--Bengali 
> > > moneylender sons. They are to me a detestable type, I admit, but not 
> > > with any racial feeling. I have found a little of the same amongst 
> > > the Egyptians--basically a lack
> > of
> > > honesty in them" (Hayek 1978).
> > >
> > > "Levantine, typical of the people of the eastern Mediterranean"? Was
> > Hayek
> > > referring to Jewish people?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Per L. Bylund" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 10:02:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [SHOE] History of Indian Economy?
> > >
> > > Sudha Shenoy was an Indian economic historian who wrote on, among 
> > > other things, economic development and the British empire. She 
> > > unfortunately passed away in 2008, but she wrote some very 
> > > interesting stuff, and she
> > of
> > > course covered the economic history of India.
> > >
> > > For more recent (20th century) Indian economic history, I know GP 
> > > Manish (currently at Troy University) has published articles on the 
> > > regulation/deregulation of markets as India gained independence.
> > >
> > >
> > > PLB
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Per L. Bylund, Ph.D.
> > > Baylor University
> > >
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > (573) 268-3235
> > >
> > > Sent from my Microsoft Surface
> > >
> > > From: Justin Elardo<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎May‎ ‎12‎, ‎2014 ‎8‎:‎02‎ ‎PM
> > > To: Societies for the History of Economics<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > Dear Shoe Colleagues,
> > >
> > > At the conclusion of my political economy class today one of my 
> > > students asked me about the history of the Indian economy and 
> > > inquired as to
> > whether
> > > I could reference any specific economists whose area of 
> > > specialization pertained to the history of the Indian economy.  As 
> > > India and the Indian economy are not my area of specialization, I 
> > > was hard pressed to provide
> > my
> > > student with a substantive answer, but I promised to ask.
> > >
> > > As such, are there any SHOE listserv followers that have knowledge 
> > > about or are familiar with economists whose research pertains to the 
> > > history of the Indian economy?  Thank you in advance for your 
> > > assistance in
> > furthering
> > > the education of one of my students as well as myself.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Justin A. Elardo, PhD
> > > Portland Community College
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mario J. Rizzo
> > NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
> > Department of Economics
> > 19 West 4th Street,
> > Seventh Floor (725)
> > New York, NY 10012
> > 212-998-8932 (telephone, e-mail preferred)
> > 212-995-4186 (fax)
> >
> > Personal website: http://works.bepress.com/mario_rizzo
> >
> > Colloquium: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/object/econ.event.colloquium
> >
> > Blog:  http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com
> >
> > Book Series:
> >
> > http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Foundations_of_the_Mar
> > ket_Economy/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mario J. Rizzo
> NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
> Department of Economics
> 19 West 4th Street,
> Seventh Floor (725)
> New York, NY 10012
> 212-998-8932 (telephone, e-mail preferred)
> 212-995-4186 (fax)
> 
> Personal website: http://works.bepress.com/mario_rizzo
> 
> Colloquium: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/object/econ.event.colloquium
> 
> Blog:  http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com
> 
> Book Series:
> http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Foundations_of_the_Market_Economy/