Please read Hayek (well worth while), not in the same boat, probably not even on the same planet, at Friedman. No maths. No equilibrium. Despite some table poundung, no opposition to social democracy or planning where it would work -- just generaly thought it wouldn't. Question came up at a seminar I'm participating in whether Hayek would really draw the line, or could, given his premises, at objecting to anything short of total central planning. It's not evident that he could.
A real libertarian, Richard Epstein, annoyed me by stealing my title and idea for a piece, "Hayekian Socialism," arguing that not only is Hayek no libertarian, he's not even inconsistent with socialism -- something I've argued for years. Market socialism. Not heavily market socialism, market socialism with lots of planning.
Friedman, despite an occasional good idea (guaranteed annual income) is an enemy. Methodologically, a disaster. Hayek, malgre lui, is not. We can coopt him. Impress him. He wouldn't like it; he was happier at the U of C or chatting with Mises, but he's really one of ours, intellectually if not spiritually.
Not that he didn't have his share of silly ideas (who, except me, does not?) -- in Hayek's case, outside some highly technical points about finance that aren't that important, it was worship of common law lawmaking and contempt for legislation and constitutionalism. But I think we should claim him. Also Schumpeter, a relation. (All those Austrians were related.) Smith too, btw, Chomsky has made an effective case for that. Let the other hide have the math-mad loonies. We'll take the guys with good ideas and a moral sense.
Mises, on the other hand, despite some good ideas, was a creep.
--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fitch and Brenner
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 9:28 PM
> > Hayek and Friedman were in many ways repulsive
> characters, but their
> > critiques of socialism - like coordination and
> knowledge problems - aren't
> > completely bonkers. You could - and I do - point to
> things like Wal-Mart's
> > logistical innovations as suggesting a path for
> socialization of the
> > economy, but if you think there aren't
> "hardwired" problems in socialism,
> > you're just not taking your enemies seriously
> enough.
> >
> >
>
> Although I think I'm risking a crisis of
> "over-posting" I want to put this
> forward...
>
> Looking at building some sort of socialism, I absolutely
> agree. It seems
> that, no matter how I look at it, many of these
> constructions about
> free-market competition and equilibrium are completely
> cogent. The problem
> is what they're aimed at. Imagine if they were aimed at
> reducing working
> hours rather than wages, for example. Then surely the same
> maths/notions of
> efficiency could be applied to realising something very
> different.
>
> There's an awful lot more ideological problems with
> socialist conceptions of
> economics at the moment than people would like to
> realise... Cut the ego;
> look at the aims!
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk