Why is F A Hayek unknown?

F A Hayek was a serious opponent to John Maynard Keynes many years ago yet most people have never heard of him because Keynes' ideas won out and his ideas are in opposition to the modem Western state so schools and colleges do not teach his ideas.

Hayek said that equality in the sense of democracy was a good thing but that in his time, the state was trying to take freedom to another level by trying to ensure equality of outcomes namely money. He argues that this not only distorts the economic system making it operate sub-optimally, but restricts the liberty and freedom that people came to expect.

With modern political correctness, it is very evident that freedoms have been eroded. We live in times where bias in state media or laws can't is difficult to even challenge because this idea of state enforced equality is taken for granted. The rights of individuals are substituted by the rights of a principle. I can challenge the principle in soft theoretical terms but if I challenge its rules head on, I will be called labels.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

The_Mighty_Bush

I wouldn't say he was that unknown but obviously those who like extensive government intervention in the economy (academics, public sector workers, politicians and those who finance them to erect barriers to competition) prefer treat Keynes as more credible.

Reply 2

Rakas21

Heyek's not unknown in political and economic circles, it's just that people have become less cultured and aware of this type of thing over the last 50 years.

Reply 3

Jemner01

Hayek's the first name I came across when I got interested in free market economics. Anyone who wants to dive into economics/economic politics will know who he is and what his viewpoints were. It's just that his ideas have been overshadowed by other ecomonists' ideas like Keynes, although that's not to say that Keynsian economics is more effective. Libertarianism/classic liberalism isn't really discussed either, although that's just from what I've seen.

Reply 4

Rakas21

Original post by Jemner01

Personally i think a lot of economists have bits right.

Reply 5

Observatory

Hayek is well-known, just less so than a lot of writers who had worse ideas on similar subjects, like Marx. One reason for this is that liberalism doesn't tend to build self-propagating power structures; by definition, it prefers to destroy them.

Reply 6

MKultra101

Original post by Jemner01

That's because Hayek was an economist and social philosopher. Most economists don't bring these 2 dimensions together at least in such depth.

What concerns me is that his warning seams to have been ignored.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

hamix.forllz

Because Austrian economics may never see the light of day...

And it will take a major shift for any libertarian-economics to be implemented. I doubt many libertarians alive today will see a libertarian economy or society, and i reckon capitalism will not exist as we know it today in 100 years or so. We may still have profit, but then caps on earning or spending.

Reply 8

Rakas21

Original post by hamix.forllz

I don't see such a 'lefty' future but i do think the economic system has a problem if rampant robotics and space mining actually occur.

Reply 9

Sandtrooper

Volunteer Team

Because of Keynes.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 10

MKultra101

Original post by hamix.forllz

It's a form of communism. Every form of communism has an elite class and this one is no exception. The big concern to me is that these elites are manufacturing a shadow society with their intervention. The are also manufacturing consent into an ideology that if you question this shadow society it is unkind and "inhuman". This intervention spans from intentionally exaggerated multiculturalism to 50 years of welfare encouragement to a whole redefining of social values.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

MKultra101

Original post by Edminzodo

Because of Keynes.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I notice that more and more bankers I know are losing faith in the Keynesian ideas and there is a lot of doubletalk going on. The paradigm is carried through in the meeting room but criticised at lunch. There is no such things as money alchemy in the long run at the end of the day and we all know it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

mojojojo101

Original post by Rakas21

Heyek's not unknown in political and economic circles, it's just that people have become less cultured and aware of this type of thing over the last 50 years.

Is there any point in history where normal voters/citizens/subjects have had an intimate and confident knowledge of economic theorists / social philosophers??

Reply 13

Rakas21

Original post by mojojojo101

Is there any point in history where normal voters/citizens/subjects have had an intimate and confident knowledge of economic theorists / social philosophers??

Back before the TV i'd say that because reading was the more popular pastime, even the poor were of the late 1800's and early 1900's were probably more cultured.

Today of course people watch Big Brother on the TV learning about x's bowel movement at 8.52 rather than reading the classics.

Reply 14

MKultra101

Original post by mojojojo101

Is there any point in history where normal voters/citizens/subjects have had an intimate and confident knowledge of economic theorists / social philosophers??

The bourgeoisie used to be much more informed. Nowadays they tend to be like people like Joanna Lumley and their scope expands to fashionable ideas and shopping.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 15

Cornelius

Original post by hamix.forllz

Although Hayek may be thought of as an Austrian economist, Austrian economics as such are quite diverse.

Hayek had no problems with empirical observations being used as evidence to falsify empirical theories. Austrian economics however follow the a-priori Misesian-Rothbardian methodology which is quite anti-empiricist. They claim that statements like "the minimum wage raises unemployment" can not be disconfirmed empirically for they are necessarily true (like the statement "triangles have 3 angles"). Economics is a deductive science (like say geometry) not an inductive science (like all natural sciences)

And that is mainly why Austrian economics are so scorned by mainstream economists - they reject empirical observations as a test of economic theory. But Hayek was not that kind of Austrian and I think the reason why his views were ultimately rejected even by, as far as I know, all of his students (Kaldor, Hicks, Lerner, etc - all used to be Hayek's students and very sympathetic to his views...until they read Keynes) is for a very simple reason: he was wrong.

Reply 16

MKultra101

Original post by Rakas21

And there's the fact that many people from second world or former second world countries are relatively educated and the wealthy in first world countries talk about business, golf, holidays or shopping. Much of the society then tries to mirror the wealthy as this seams to have become all important.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

MKultra101

Original post by Cornelius

I'm afraid that you have lost me. Can you rephrase for a simple mind.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

Cornelius

Original post by MKultra101

I'm afraid that you have lost me. Can you rephrase for a simple mind.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What do you mean? the methodology which has won the Austrians over is not the one used by mainstream economics.

So for instance, if you want to assess the statement "raising the minimum wage causes unemployment", what do you do? how do you know whether that statement is true or false?

Mainstream economics answer: go out and do studies, measure the effect of the minimum wage on employment.

Austrian economics answer: we know the minimum wage will cause unemployment because we know that setting a price above its market clearing price will cause lower demand for the product (than it would have been if the minimum wage didnt exist). The product in this case being labour. The employers therefore will demand less labour which means higher unemployment ofc.

But you can't know whether the answer to this question is true by going out and observing what happens. If your observations are that a minimum wage does not affect employment or even that it raises employment then it's your observations that are wrong not the economic theory (which again is necessarily true on account of true premises and correct deduction from the premises to the conclusions)

Is that better? I am not gonna go into more detail about praxeology 'cos it's boring and somewhat inane but the main thing I was responding to was that somehow Hayek is ignored 'cos he's an Austrian economist and Austrian economics are unpopular. My response was that Austrian economics are unpopular because of their methodology which Hayek did not accept at all so that can't be the reason why he has been marginalised.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 19

gladders

Original post by Rakas21

Sorry, exactly who was cultured in the late 1800s/early 1900s in economics? I'd wager it was a more elite subject than now. We have fairly widespread education now. Back then, we'd got about as far as accepting primary education as mandatory, but no further.

We honestly have never had it so good.