I'm not sure the book blurb for Walter Block's book should be taken as
showing he agreed with the book. I suggest that you look at the
correspondence folder in the archives. Block wrote to him no less than 5
times asking him for a testimonial. I think he wore Hayek down. This is
not to say that Hayek disagreed with everything in the book. Just that
if it took 5 tries to get the blurb, it shows that Hayek was not
inclined initially to do Block the favor.
Bruce
On 8/29/2013 10:06 AM, Doug Mackenzie wrote:
> Hayek endorsed the Anarcho-Capitalist book Defending the Undefendable (1976)
>
> "Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."
>
> Hayek also wrote Denationalizing Money after winning the Nobel. This was a movement towards laissez faire.
>
> Hayek wrote some remark on how society would continue on without any government (though he did not recommend such a move)- not sure when or in which book offhand, but it might have been post-Nobel.
>
>
> D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
> Carroll College, Helena MT
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/29/13, Bruce Caldwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] policy view changes of Nobel Prize winners
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 7:52 AM
>
> Regarding Hayek, in the intro to the
> 1976 reprint of Serfdom he says
> "Where I now feel I was wrong in this book is... that I had
> not wholly
> freed myself from all the current interventionist
> superstitions, and in
> consequence still made various concessions which I now think
>
> unwarranted." Being Hayek, he did not elaborate what those
> concessions
> were, so I am less confident than is Barkley in being able
> to identify
> them. But it does seem that he moved away from the rampant
> interventionism so evident in his radically interventionist
> Road to
> Serfdom! (I am channeling Mises here...) So I would say he
> could be
> included in at least the "little" or "notably" changed camp.
> I suppose
> if one goes back to his socialist student days, he might be
> in the
> "quite significantly" camp, but that seems like a stretch to
> me.
> Friedman was certainly more interventionist in the 1930s
> than he was
> later, at least concerning constraining corporations.
> Bruce
>
>
> On 8/26/2013 1:18 PM, Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb
> wrote:
> > My quick reply is that some of those labeled as having
> grown much more classically liberal after their trips to
> Stockholm were already very classically liberal and I am
> unaware of much specifically further movement in that
> direction afterwards. Several of those in that
> category of much more may fit, but the one that really
> sticks out is Hayek. About the only way I can think of
> that he might have become more classically liberal was in
> his view of health care policy, where he may have become
> more anti-national health insurance after 1974.
> Otherwise, if anything it could be argued he moved in the
> opposite direction, particularly if one takes a Misesian
> hard line that his open turn against a priorism and more
> strongly towards an evolutionary perspective (which he had
> been already moving towards for some time) made him "less
> classically liberal," although obviously that is a highly
> debatable matter.
> >
> > Barkley Rosser
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on
> behalf of Pedro Teixeira [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:30 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [SHOE] policy view changes of Nobel Prize
> winners
> >
> > Dear David,
> >
> > I wonder if you could be more explicit about the
> criteria used to classify one scholar as notably or only a
> little or significantly.
> > Although I understand that there is an inevitable
> degree of subjectivity involved in these assessments, I
> think our reply to your questions is largely conditioned by
> those criteria.
> > I also wonder what was the reason to exclude authors
> such as Gary Becker, Joseph Stiglitz, or Gunnar Myrdal.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pedro
> >
> > Pedro Nuno Teixeira
> > Director - CIPES, Centre for Research in Higher
> Education Policies - www.cipes.up.pt
> > Associate Professor - Faculty of Economics, University
> of Porto - www.fep.up.pt
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Colander, David C.
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> > I playing the role of overseer of a project organized
> by Dan Klein to consider the intellectual migration of Nobel
> Prize winning economist’s policy views. The project
> will be published in the journal, Econ Journal Watch, in
> September. What “overseer” means is that I am a
> type of referee before publication, and my job is to keep
> him honest, and see that his analysis is not overly
> influenced by his political views. His goal with the
> project, is to see which Nobel Prize winning economists can
> be classified as having become more or less classical
> liberal. Classical liberal is, of course, a difficult term
> to define, but what he means by classical liberal is a
> presumption in policy judgment away from government
> involvement and toward letting the market handle
> it. Given this definition, he has
> tentatively come up with the following readings for 16
> laureates:
> >
> >
> > Laureates Who Grew
> > Either More or Less
> > Classical Liberal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Grew
> > More Classical Liberal
> >
> >
> >
> > Quite significantly
> >
> >
> > James Buchanan
> > Ronald Coase
> > Robert Fogel
> > Friedrich Hayek
> > Franco Modigliani
> > Douglass North
> > Vernon Smith
> >
> >
> >
> > Notably
> >
> >
> >
> > Theodore Schultz
> >
> >
> >
> > Only a little
> >
> >
> >
> > Kenneth Arrow
> > Milton Friedman
> > Eric Maskin
> > (Edmund Phelps?)
> > George Stigler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Grew
> > Less
> > Classical
> > Liberal
> >
> >
> > Quite significantly
> >
> >
> >
> > Ragnar Frisch
> > Bertil Ohlin
> >
> >
> > Notably
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Diamond
> >
> >
> > Only a little
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Krugman
> >
> >
> > Please note that Dan's placements are still tentative.
> He and I fully recognize that there are many different
> definitions of classical liberal that one could use, and I
> am not asking people to comment on those definitions here.
> (I will comment on it at length in my contribution to his
> project.) But I would be interested in the list’s views
> about the movements he has found. Specifically, I have
> two questions:
> > 1. Do any of his classifications
> stand out as not fitting your expectations?
> > 2. Are there other Nobel Prize
> winners who you would see as having moved in their policy
> views that should be included in the list?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > David Colander
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > 802-443-5302<tel:802-443-5302>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/
>
>
> --
> Bruce Caldwell
> Research Professor of Economics
> Director, Center for the History of Political Economy
>
> "To discover a reference has often taken hours of labour, to
> fail to discover one has often taken days." Edwin Cannan, on
> editing Smith's Wealth of Nations
>
> Address:
> Department of Economics
> Duke University
> Box 90097
> Durham, N.C. 27708
>
> Office: Room 07G Social Sciences Building
> Phone: 919-660-6896
> Center website: http://hope.econ.duke.edu
> Personal Website: http://econ.duke.edu/~bjc18/
>
--
Bruce Caldwell
Research Professor of Economics
Director, Center for the History of Political Economy
"To discover a reference has often taken hours of labour, to fail to discover one has often taken days." Edwin Cannan, on editing Smith's Wealth of Nations
Address:
Department of Economics
Duke University
Box 90097
Durham, N.C. 27708
Office: Room 07G Social Sciences Building
Phone: 919-660-6896
Center website: http://hope.econ.duke.edu
Personal Website: http://econ.duke.edu/~bjc18/
|
