tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post465363213590355487..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Some Defunct Economist - Hayek and Veblen - 8/19/2010Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-40497938481327005592010-08-20T08:42:38.192-04:002010-08-20T08:42:38.192-04:00The meaning of the statement by Hayek in the 70s o...The meaning of the statement by Hayek in the 70s or 80s or whenever that was is completely unambiguous, Xenophon. It's clear what he was thinking then. The question at hand is whether that was what he was thinking in the 1930s.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50318824728262453352010-08-20T07:22:40.658-04:002010-08-20T07:22:40.658-04:00I think Hayek was thinking along the lines of &quo...I think Hayek was thinking along the lines of "burn me once your fault, burn me twice, my fault."Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-68737300112413540852010-08-20T07:09:47.202-04:002010-08-20T07:09:47.202-04:00*And when I say "said it in jest" I mean...*And when I say "said it in jest" I mean the flippancy. Clearly Keynes's ideas <i>did</i> develop between 1930 and 1936. But don't everybody's ideas develop when they're pushing the frontiers of theory in the context of a depressed global economy?dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17903149340561098702010-08-20T07:08:19.821-04:002010-08-20T07:08:19.821-04:00Right - I'm not blaming Hayek for not reviewin...Right - I'm not blaming Hayek for not reviewing it - I'm shedding a little light on this meme that Keynes was some flake and that <i>that</i> was why he didn't review it. I'd believe Keynes said that in jest... it's a pretty weak reason not to review a book, particularly when you only think to mention it decades after the fact.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-69530644317429904152010-08-20T07:00:02.409-04:002010-08-20T07:00:02.409-04:00On Bastiat ... you'd just have to look at it.
...On Bastiat ... you'd just have to look at it.<br /><br />"I suppose it was a little embarassing to keep repeating that reason after it became probably the most important work of economics written in the 20th century."<br /><br />Well, by that point, what would be the point exactly? Hayek had moved on to other things by that point. Hayek's interests were just to varied (and his intellectual behavior just to broad) for him to want to revisit something like that.Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60919188821967370602010-08-20T06:53:37.224-04:002010-08-20T06:53:37.224-04:00Anyway, sounds like you might want to read stuff o...Anyway, sounds like you might want to read stuff on the "Progressive Era" generally. I'd suggest McGerr's (or McGarr?) "A Fierce Discontent" to start with.Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-23699283515501922912010-08-20T06:52:48.286-04:002010-08-20T06:52:48.286-04:00- Ya - funny story on that. That was the last of ...- Ya - funny story on that. That was the last of many reasons Hayek gave for not reviewing the general theory. Earlier reasons included his doubts that the General Theory would end up being all that important of a book.<br /><br />I suppose it was a little embarassing to keep repeating that reason after it became probably the most important work of economics written in the 20th century.<br /><br />- I'll look into the negative railroad but does it address empirical evidence for economic ideas? I'm thinking pretty narrowly here. I'll take a look.<br /><br />- Well Lovecraft <i>definitely</i> plugged into the latter. What I'm not sure of is the extent to which Veblen did. Clearly he did to a certain extent, but I'm guessing not as extensively as the guys at Columbia who were working on it. I'm guessing Veblen had more "scientific management" and general managed development sympathies than full-blown "technocracy" sympathies. "Technocracy" meant a very specific thing in the 1920s and 1930s that is quite different from the "rule by elites" definition it has acquired today.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-82277480907757856452010-08-20T06:42:12.299-04:002010-08-20T06:42:12.299-04:00"I have Reflections on the Pure Theory of Mon..."I have Reflections on the Pure Theory of Money of Mr. J. M. Keynes (1931), which I take to be pretty important and an early engagement with Keynes, which is nice too."<br /><br />That's the work which Keynes told Hayek that he had totally changed his mind about. Which is part of the reason why Hayek never reviewed "The General Theory..." - he simply assumed it would be a wasted effort.<br /><br />The most important work by Bastiat is that on the negative railroad. It is the best distillation of his ideas.<br /><br />Given Veblen's disdain for the working class, for consumption as a means to confer status, etc. it isn't surprising that Lovecraft would find something profitable in his work. Since Veblen's ideas are in some ways analogous with the Technocracy movement that was so popular in the 1920s and 1930s I'd wonder how much Lovecraft plugged into the latter.Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.com