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?