I'm seeing people in the blogosphere react to this "Hayek didn't really influence macroeconomics" thing by citing modern macroeconomists' appreciation for the complexity of the economy and the importance of the price system and of essentially microeconomic insights for macroeconomics.
OK... so? Look, this has been a standard insight for economists since Adam Smith if you follow the canon, and since well before Smith if you want to go farther back. You can't attribute every Smithian bone in the modern economists' body to Hayek.
Keynes presented a system that ran completely differently than the previous orthodox system. It was, almost necessarily, general. He was introducing a new framework after all. And over time, complexities were added and caveats are made. That's natural and it's hardly a turn from the insights of the General Theory, unless you're seriously arguing in favor of putting Smith in a boxing match with Keynes now just like you put Hayek in a boxing match with Keynes.
The question is this: if Hayek had never been around after 1933 or so - or if he had just never been around at all - would modern macroeonomics look much different than what it is today? It seems to me the obvious answer is "no". If Keynes had never been around macroeconomics would look so different one has trouble even speculating what we'd be talking about today.
And to repeat - this is nothing against Hayek. It's just a read of the history of what actually happened. As I said in the last post, I think the caricatures of Hayek that you see today really limit him.
Anarchism Discussed and Debated
4 hours ago