"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)
|
