Richard Ebeling's review of "Hayek: A Collaborative Biography, Part I: Influences, from Mises to Bartley

1. Regarding the early business cycle material that Ebeling complains is lacking: One of the chapters that Ebeling failed to deliver was on Hayek's early business cycle work. 

When it became clear - after the nth unanswered email - that a crucial chapter would not be delivered, the editor was obliged to began writing it himself - until defeated by the production deadline. That chapter will appear in a subsequent volume.

2. Ebeling also complained that the seven pages (196-202) devoted to the authorship of the *Fatal Conceit* did not constitute "the attention and detail that one would expect." The only evidence that Ebeling provided was that both Ebenstein (212-215) and Caldwell (316-119 [sic]) had devoted three pages to this topic. 

One of Ebeling’s colleagues provided an alleged empirical regularity: systematic analysis, it was asserted, revealed “a definite divergence, i.e. some other hand definitely played a clear part in the published text of FC”. 
   
Since the evidence decisively reveals that no analysis – systematic or otherwise – had been undertaken, how would Ebeling care to describe this episode?

RL    

----- Original Message -----
From: "richard ebeling" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March, 2014 10:11:09 AM
Subject: [SHOE] A Reply to Robert Leeson's Comments on My Review

Third, the extent to which William W. Bartley revised or even may have rewritten part of the manuscript that was published as Hayek's last work, "The Fatal Conceit" (1990), has been highly controversial, and discussed in both Alan Ebenstein's "Hayek's Journey" (2003), pp. 212-215 and Bruce Caldwell's "Hayek's Challenge" (2004), pp. 316-119. Yet, a careful look at the section to which Dr. Leeson refers in the chapter he wrote on Bartley (especially pp. 202) offers a bit of additional information but is far from the "decisive" evidence that he seems to suggest, and certainly warrants, as I suggested in my review, a far more detailed discussion than he offers.

Finally, one of the missing elements to the volume is sufficient attention to several of the important episodes in Hayek's professional life. One of the most intriguing, certainly, was when in the early 1930s he wrote a highly critical review of a recent book on monetary theory by a prominent British economist, and that British economist chose in his reply to Hayek's criticisms to criticize the reviewer, instead.

Most Cordially,

Dr. Richard Ebeling

Professor of Economics

Northwood University

Midland, Michigan 48640

Five corrections to Ebeling's review of *Hayek: A Collaborative Biography, Part I: Influences, from Mises to Bartley*

1. The volume does not "conclude with a further brief discussion of Hayek, Bartley and Karl Popper on "justificationism" and the abuse of reason, also written by Leeson". 

There are two further chapters: Chapter 11, an 'Interview with Stephen Kresge', and Chapter 12, written by Werner Erhard, the founder of Erhard Seminar Training.

2. The chapter on justificationism and the abuse of reason was written by Rafe Champion.

3. Decisive evidence about false assertions made by one of Ebeling's colleagues on the authorship of the *The Fatal Conceit* is provided on page 202.

4. Ebeling's assertion regarding "the origin of Hayek's fear" about central planning is contradicted by the archival evidence. 

5. With respect to Ebeling's "strange construction and content" and "unsystematic journey" description: the Introduction had to be hastily rewritten when - without any explanation or advance notice - Ebeling failed to deliver the two chapters that he had been commission to write. 

RL