Aristocratic power rests on
a. acceptance of the "spontaneous order" of titles;
b. wealth;
c. bayonets.
When the Habsburgs surrendered their monopoly of coercive power to a "republic of peasants and workers" (von Hayek 1978), Hitler provided the white terror bayonets, and Hayek provided a new "spontaneous" order plus religious prophecy: predicting the Great Depression.
Did von Hayek (1978) get away with what appears to be academic fraud - in this instance for almost eight decades - because he was an aristocrat?
"The robber baron was a very honored and honorable person, but he was certainly not an honest person in the ordinary sense. The whole traditional concept of aristocracy, of which I have a certain conception-- I have moved, to some extent, in aristocratic circles, and I like their style of life. But I know that in the strict commercial sense, they are not necessarily honest. They, like the officers, will make debts they know they cannot pay ... Well, of course, that's [intellectual dishonesty] the thing I particularly dislike, but it's not so easy to draw the line. Strictly speaking, of course, every moral prejudice which enters into your intellectual argument is a dishonesty. But none of us can wholly avoid it. Where to draw the line, where you blame a person for letting non-intellectual arguments enter into his intellectual conclusions, is a very difficult thing to decide. One has to pardon a great deal in this field to the human and unavoidable".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan G Isaac" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May, 2014 10:57:36 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] The "very well-deserved" 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences
It seems you (intentionally?) mistook my reference to John Nash.
I have no ability to debate Hayek's business cycle theory,
although it regains interest in light of 2008. As for the
prediction cited by the committee, it has been discussed and
undermined (e.g., Klausinger 2010). My view of macro prediction is
like my view of stock market prediction: there is a great
diversity of views, so when a tail event happens, somebody
lucky happens to look "right". But I am again puzzled by
the rhetorical move: is it your intent to imply that if the
committee's "perhaps" proved ill-founded then their judgments
about his work are undermined and the prize was not justified?
Alan
PS Klausinger, Hansjörg (2010). "Hayek on Practical Business
Cycle Research: A Note," in H. Hagemann, T. Nishizawa, Y.
Ikeda (eds.), Austrian Economics in Transition: From Carl
Menger to Friedrich Hayek, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
218–234.
On 5/21/2014 7:10 AM, Robert Leeson wrote:
> "von Hayek's contributions in the field of economic theory
> are both profound and original ... He tried to penetrate
> more deeply into the business cycle mechanism than was
> usual at that time. Perhaps, partly due to this more
> profound analysis, he was one of the few economists who
> gave warning of the possibility of a major economic crisis
> before the great crash came in the autumn of 1929."
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/press.html
> Could Alan provide the evidence?
|
